About creatures other than humans, such as insects

Mr. L.M.

This is Kawaguchi Hidetoshi. This is my humble answer to the question.

In Tibetan Buddhism, there is a way of thinking about cherishing an insect, assuming that it may be a mother who has been greatly blessed to nurture oneself in a past life somewhere in a past life, even if it is an insect and is reincarnated over and over again.

Well, it's not limited to my mother, and maybe it's someone I had an important relationship with, such as family, relatives, friends, etc., a long time ago, so it's a matter of concern and consideration for treating them with that kind of feeling.

If it's a suffering bug and it seems like it can be helped by being a little careful (although it can't be helped during the food chain process...), for example, if you can help them gently, such as a butterfly drowning in a cup filled with water, it can also be an advantage.

Also, in one of the next lives, this time it may be a relationship where you can be saved by someone who was a bug at that time.

“Mercy is not for people.” I'm sure that mercy will come back as a thankful reward for myself. Ah, “mercy is not for bugs” here...

Kawaguchi Hidetoshi Gassho

I read your question.
Yes, that's right. I think there are many ways to explain it, but first I would like to introduce the Buddhist worldview.
In Buddhism, it is thought that this world is a ruthless world where everything happens and then perishes due to the causal relationship between cause and effect.
Of course, all living things, including humans, are also incorporated into it, so only humans are not considered special.
Put simply, “all living things are siblings!” That's it.
how is it? You've become a little familiar with pests, haven't you?

Also, in India, where Buddhism was born, there is a view of life and death called reincarnation. People are reincarnated and repeatedly changed by death.
From our Japanese point of view, it's suddenly hard to believe, but even now, countries such as India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Thailand take it as a fact.
Another point is that once a person dies, they don't necessarily have to be reborn as a human being. There is also a possibility that they will be reborn as a cockroach.
If you think so, you can't kill cockroaches in a daze, right? There is also a possibility that I will be reincarnated as a cockroach, and I cannot dismiss the possibility of my dead grandpa being reincarnated.
(Incidentally, I grab it with my bare hands and let it go outside, so I'm respected by my family only for that.)
If this happens, I don't think like anyone else anymore.

As for vegetarian cuisine, they are actually only served in Japan, China, and Korea. There is a record that Buddha also ate meat, and today's monks in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Thailand eat it normally.
What is done is the spirit of receiving.
However, since it takes the life of another creature, “I'm sorry.” I also have a sense of shame, and after reciting a sutra with the content that I will make use of in Buddhist training, I will receive it.

I think it's quite difficult. It's not easy for me to get to that point myself.
The state of enlightenment in Buddhism is called the equality of one's self and others.
I feel that myself and others are the same, that I and others are the same, and that humans, animals, insects, and plants are the same.
That's why I feel that the lives of other creatures are as important as my own.
It is also called abandoning “me.”
It is also called “mercy.”
Once you reach this point, you can be freed from all kinds of suffering and hesitation.
It's written in the sutras, but it's quite difficult to put it into practice.
Let's work hard together.

Let's be strangely convinced, I don't think you have to try to be convinced.

Do not kill living creatures (do no harm to others). This is called the commandment of immortality (fusesshokai), and it's determined by the commandment of the precepts.

So what are the commandments? In other words, it's different from laws or rules. It's just an ascetic practice aimed at enlightenment.
Speaking of what that means, the results of killing and not killing are not important, and in practice, “Let's hurt you! It's important to realize, “It's easier not to wake up that feeling.”

The moment you see a bug and feel annoyed, that annoyance is uncomfortable, isn't it?
When I'm frustrated, that harm is directed towards insects, but at the same time, I'm also harming my own heart. When I hit the wall with my hand, the wall gets dented, but my hand hurts at the same time. It's the same as that. Harm also hurts your partner and yourself at the same time. Nobody benefits. So it's better not to be harmful. Life is easier and smarter that way.

It's a simple causal relationship story. If you cause harm, no one will do well. If no harm is caused, there is no cause for discomfort.

After all, I'm saying be convinced is a fluent sentence, but it doesn't mean “please stop non-lethal after being convinced.” It was triggered by being exposed to a different way of thinking than before, “I want you to try it even if you have half faith and half doubt, and value what you naturally feel as you try it.”

There's quite a bit of hypocrisy in the genre of immortal life, but if you think about it in terms of the consequences theory of kill don't kill, no matter what, “the one who kills despises it and says bad things! That's because going around a circle called “(harm)” tends to end up being murderous hypocrisy.

I've been thinking about this question for a long time since I saw it and was confused. I lost it late, but I'd like to finally pick up the brush...

My thoughts on this issue, the so-called precepts of immortality, haven't changed much from when I asked the following past questions. Anyway, I would appreciate it if you read it.

“There are a lot of small bugs in the room. What should I do?”
https://hasunoha.jp/questions/23111

well,

Do we have lives we can kill and lives we can't kill
That's not the case, are there times when it's OK to kill and when it's not
Is it better to have someone else kill you, not yourself
Is it OK to acquiesce to killing beyond one's own awareness

The lives we eat (animals and plants)
Jobs that catch lives for us (fishermen, hunters, farmers, etc.)
Life being tested for our health (drug experiments, etc.)

The more you think about it, the more you enter the labyrinth. After all, this is probably a matter of practice.

Speaking of me, they killed me out of shame. No, there are many cases where people “dispose” without even being aware of “murder,” and they “dispose of” life without even looking at it as life.

My temple is in the countryside, and a large number of stink bugs have occurred during this period for the past few years. Every time I find one, I roll it up with packing tape and poke it up.
So, should we stop doing that? Or if I feel guilty, can I just repent?
Can we live without taking lives where we stopped? Are the various social issues/structures and real-life problems described above good?

By the way, I am a member of the Jodo Shinshu sect, but I don't take the precepts in the Jodo Shinshu sect. Buddhism is basically called the three teachings of martial arts, and the precepts cannot be removed because they help meditate by keeping the commandments and correcting life, emanate wisdom through meditation, and aim to complete Buddhism by taking truth through wisdom.

However, in the Jodo Shinshu sect, it is a Buddhist practice that begins with wisdom called Namu Amida Buddha, so the precepts are not a necessary condition, but are questioned as individual religious attitudes because they have come into contact with wisdom.

Being able to keep or not keep the commandments doesn't mean that my heart can be protected from good, nor can it be protected from bad. The way I behave if I don't get along well is what kind of behavior I look like.

There is probably no choice but to question this person without holding on to any answers, and confirm it in the actual course of life.