Should Bugs Be Killed Purposely?

This is an abridged version of a few interesting ‘chats’ with many people, on whether it is alright to kill bugs on purpose. If you find it too long, I recommend reading only D‘s entries, which speak up for the practice of Metta (Loving-kindness), while the rest, unfortunately, mostly kind of try to rationalise killing in various ways.

M: … Believe me when I say, ‘I hate bed bugs’… Well, a fortnight ago I found a bed bug in my bed. I was not a happy monk. The next morning I thoroughly checked the mattress, sheets, pillows, the bed itself but found none of the tell-tale signs of their presence. A week later another bug crawled out of a book I was reading. Then a day later I found another one.

I realized it was time to take action. I took all the furniture outside and tipped boiling water over it – not just to kill the little blighters but also any of their eggs that might be there. Then I went out and bought some insect spray and sprayed every nook and cranny in the room. I soaked all my bed sheets, pillowslips and robes in boiling water and then put them through the washing machine twice. Then I put all my books in large plastic bags, sprinkled them with moth balls (naphthalene) and sealed the bags for a week…

I am also thinking. I know I deliberately and with full consciousness killed three living beings and probably killed at least a few more with my boiling water and insect spray. I’m a Buddhist monk, supposedly a model for how the devoted Buddhists should live. But are their circumstances when killing, at least killing insects, is justifiable, or perhaps understandable, or perhaps excusable?

D: There’s no need to kill. What’s worse is that the killing was from aversion. It is clearly breaking of the first precept. From experience with many bugs, you just need to radiate genuine Metta (Loving-kindness) and urge them to leave. There are many cases of this working all over the world. This works when there are many insects too. You can also donate your mattress to the bugs by discarding it where few people frequent.

On a related note, the Ahina Sutta at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.067.than.html tells of how a monk died after having been bitten by a snake. The Buddha remarked so: ‘Then it’s certain, monks, that that monk didn’t suffuse the four royal snake lineages with a mind of good will, he would not have died after having been bitten by a snake.’

And from a film review at http://tinyurl.com/hongyi : ‘Venerable Hongyi is renowned for his mindfulness of abiding by the precepts, and his advocating of compassion in the small details. For example, he authored the famous “护生画集” (Poem & Pictorial Series on Protection of Life). When I first heard of his inspiring conduct many years ago, the anecdote that impressed me the most was how he would always make it a point to inspect chairs for the possible presence of bugs before sitting on them. This touching practice has since made me sensitive to insects since – in the positive sense. In the film, he carefully scoops a bed bug from his head, before laying it down, chanting “Amituofo” (Amitabha Buddha) to bless it. I sincerely hope those who see this scene will learn to be similarly kind to animals.’ An additional piece from http://tinyurl.com/sadinsects :

Tit: Hey, why spray the insects?
Tot: Because they are pests. (Tot is four years old.)
Tit: Because Tot wants to kill them, Tot is a big pest to them!
Tot: But they sometimes dirty the place.
Tit: Because Tot sometimes dirty the place too, should we spray Tot too?
Tot: Oh no! Mummy and Daddy will be sad.
Tit: Hey, insects have Mummies and Daddies too!

J: Does donating the mattress also apply to one donating ones house to termites? Or perhaps good health to cockroach infestations?

D: You just need to let go of that part of your house infected by termites. E.g. a cupboard. As mentioned, ‘From experience with many bugs, you just need to radiate genuine Metta and urge them to leave…’ This applies to cockroaches too. Please try Metta and chanting before resorting to killing. The Buddha would agree too. Please study Ahina Sutta to learn about the importance of good will and Metta. What would the Buddha do? The Buddha would never kill a single insect out of disgust. If we feel compelled to kill out of disgust, it only means there is lack of Metta. Do practise Metta more – and make it truly immeasurable – for the welfare of all sentient beings. Thank you – on the behalf of all beings. From http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/vin/cv/cv.05.06.01x.olen.html is a Metta verse taught by the Buddha in the Vinaya:

For those without feet, I have love.
I have love for all with two feet.
For those with four feet, I have love.
I have love for all with many feet.

May those without feet do me no harm.
May none with two feet do me harm.
May those with four feet do me no harm.
May none with many feet do me harm.

May all beings, all living things,
All who’ve come to be — one and all —
May they see every blessing!
May no evil at all come to them!

Without limit is Buddha.
Without limit is Dhamma.
Without limit is Sangha.

G: On Venerable Hongyi, fine for him to bless the bug, but the bug doesn’t care. The reason is simple – the bug doesn’t have our problems, i.e. it doesn’t suffer in the way the Buddha spoke of (mentally).

D: If bugs don’t care because they don’t have our problems and if we don’t need to care for as many sentient beings as we can, why would the Buddha teach us the Metta Sutta at all? Why not just be honest and admit that one is lacking in Metta and train harder? From the Metta Sutta:

‘As a mother would risk her life to protect her child, her only child, even so should one cultivate a LIMITLESS heart with regard to ALL beings. With good will for the ENTIRE cosmos, cultivate a limitless heart: Above, below, & all around, unobstructed, without enmity or hate.’

G: My advice is: Do something for you – bow – than strike.

D: Very merciless indeed. Would you want someone to bow and strike you if you are a bug? Bow? As you said, ‘…but the bug doesn’t care.’ All sentient beings fear death and crave to live though. From Sutta Nipata 705:

‘As I am, so are others ; as others are, so am I.
Having thus identified self and others,
harm no one nor have them harmed.’

G: If the Venerable had done that all his life, he would never have finished any Buddhist curriculum.

D: Please do research on Venerable Hongyi. He is one of the most respected Mahayana Vinaya masters in recent Chinese history, and a prolific scholar too.

G: If he’d use a magnifier, what else would he see living?

D: The point is to do better in Metta – especially with sentient beings we can see. The Buddha did not teach us to be ‘extreme’ like Jain monks, who shield themselves from microbes with masks. Some Buddhists believe too, that microorganisms are not complex enough to be sentient life; and are more like plant life.

G: As a bug I wouldn’t care. It’s quite normal for a bug to be killed.

D: But you are not a bug. How would you know bugs don’t care or that if you become a bug, you wouldn’t care? If it’s a truth that all bugs don’t care whether they get killed or not, and think it is normal to be killed, why did the Buddha teach the below (which was mentioned above):

‘For those without feet, I have love.
I have love for all with two feet.
For those with four feet, I have love.
I have love for all with many feet….’

Sorry for sounding like a broken record but Metta is meant to be immeasurable – for all beings – including those with many feet. Try to squish an ant and it runs away. Sentient beings fear death and crave to live. Bugs care not to be killed. As a popular Buddhist wish goes, may all beings be well and happy. May all beings be free from fear and suffering.

C: In order for the plants in my garden to flower, I have to get rid of the many insects, especially caterpillars from feeding on them.

D: My personal choice of action would be to leave the garden to nature. If the flowers are important, perhaps repellents rather than insecticides should be used.

C: Nature’s law is that living beings may feed on each other.

D: Buddha-nature’s ‘law’ is that we can choose kinder diets too.

C: As for the first precept, if we didn’t kill the living being out of anger and hatred, I think we are pretty safe along that line.

D: Some Buddhists seriously believe it is impossible to kill without some element of hatred. I tend to believe so too. But as much as possible, let’s avoid experimenting to find out.

E: (Digressing) I believe we need to honor our own incarnation and we are unquestionably omnivores.

D: We are not unquestionably omnivores. The founder of Vegan Society Donald Watson proved this when he lived till 95. There are millions of vegetarians and vegans in the world too due to these indisputably good non-religious reasons, as we can see at http://viva.org.uk/goingvegan

E: So perhaps one next best thing a Buddhist can do is to direct some sort of loving-kindness towards the sentient beings that she/he is about to kill, during the killing, and after the killing, minimising the suffering where possible (i.e. quickly get the killing done and not delay the pain and fear suffered by the one being killed), and sincerely wishing a better rebirth for the victim(s).

D: Any Loving-kindness that still ends in killing isn’t really helpful to the killed. The best thing a Buddhist can do is to suffuse oneself with Loving-kindness such that he or she will not kill the animal but be kind enough to ponder on the best skilful means to create a win-win situation.

M: According to the Buddha, kamma is the intention (cetana) behind our physical, verbal and psychological actions (A.III,415).

D: In M’s original post, it was stated clearly that M hates bugs. If so, the intentional killing did was out of hatred, and the kamma created is surely negative. The means he used to kill was painful and horrific too.

M: However, the Vinaya makes one such distinction, considering murder an offence so serious as to require permanent expulsion from the Sangha (Parajika 3), while killing an animal is a far less serious offence (Pacittiya 62), on a par with insulting someone, idle chatter and having a non-regulation size sitting mat. This distinction is probably based on the idea that the intentions behind killing a fellow human would be markedly stronger and more intense than those behind killing an animal. Each of us has probably noticed that we differently about the death of a person, the death of a warm blooded animal and that of an insect. Likewise we probably notice a difference in how we felt if we were to kill a chicken and an ant. These feeling must be partly socially conditioned but whatever their cause they do affect our minds differently and therefore have different vipaka. I am not stating this as a fact but only as a possible explanation for the Vinaya’s (and most peoples’) distinction between killing a human and an animal.

D: The true measure of the intensity of negative kamma created from killing should not so much be due to the size or species of the being killed but due to the intensity of hatred generated in the killing. Other conditions on the quantity and quality of negative kamma created pivot on the number of beings killed and how they were killed… among other factors. Those intent on perfecting compassion like the Buddha would avoid killing as much as possible as part of spiritual practice. Recall too the Buddha’s numerous sacrifices, sometimes for single animals – as a Bodhisatta. May M and all of us work harder in perfecting our compassion – for the sake of all beings. If a fool like me had no need to kill a single insect for more than 15 years, I think all of us can too. May all beings be well and happy, free from fear and harm.

M: (Digressing) Earthquakes, storms, epidemics, accidents, etc, have nothing to do with kamma.

D: If so, does it mean that it is by sheer ‘luck’ (not that it exists), instead of good kamma, that no Buddhas ever perish in earthquakes, storms, epidemics and accidents?

M: Cancer may bring with it physical pain. This is the luck of the draw.

D: ‘Luck of the draw’? Which is more powerful – bad luck or good kamma (in terms of one’s blessings)? If there is such thing a random luck as a wild card, that flashes its face on and off with misfortune, did the Buddha teach how to ward off bad luck? No – because there is no such thing as luck. Illness can be an expression of past created kamma too.

M: So I reiterate my point – getting cancer, winning the lottery, tripping on the doorstep, being handsome, etc, have nothing to do with kamma. Kamma is how we react to what happens to us.

D: Tripping can be seen as the instant karmic rebound of being unmindful. On kamma affecting looks and health, this is stated in the Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.nymo.html :

‘But here some woman or man is not angry or much given to rage; even when much is said, he is not furious, angry, ill-disposed, resentful, nor does he show ill-temper, hate or surliness. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination… If instead he comes to the human state, he is BEAUTIFUL wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to beauty, that is to say, not to be angry or given to much rage; even when much is said, not to be furious, angry, ill-disposed or resentful, or to show ill-temper, hate or surliness.

‘So, student, the way that leads to short life makes people short-lived, the way that leads to long life makes people long-lived; the way that leads to sickness makes people sick, the way that leads to health makes people HEALTHY; the way that leads to ugliness makes people UGLY, the way that leads to beauty makes people beautiful; the way that leads to insignificance makes people insignificant, the way that leads to influence makes people influential; the way that leads to poverty makes people poor, the way that leads to riches makes people rich; the way that leads to low birth makes people low-born, the way that leads to high birth makes people high-born; the way that leads to stupidity makes people stupid, the way that leads to wisdom makes people wise. Beings are owners of kammas, student, heirs of kammas, they have kammas as their progenitor, kammas as their kin, kammas as their homing-place. It is kammas that differentiate beings according to inferiority and superiority.’

F: Imagine what the whole world would be like if all people living in it are dogmatic Buddhists fearing bad kamma and loving and not harming any living being — even black plague bacillae, cancer cells and swine-flu viruses. Why fear bad kamma and possible trip to hell — the hell would be all around… The answer?

D: Microscopic lifeforms that are very simple (not complex enough) might pertain more to plant life. Continuing… The question of how much negative kamma is created in killing insects does not make much sense in the light of striving to expand loving-kindness in a manner as universal and equanimous as possible. An ideal attitude is how some Vajrayana Buddhists strive to regard all beings as ‘mother sentient beings’ – beings who have had at one time been our own parents. This idea is reflected in the Mata Sutta too:

‘There the Blessed One said: “From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. A being who has not been your mother at one time in the past is not easy to find… A being who has not been your father… your brother… your sister… your son… your daughter at one time in the past is not easy to find…”’

H: Whether one is a monk or lay person, for as long as we are trapped in a physical body, we are subjected to everything. We know the first noble truth…that Life is the cause of suffering.

D: So it’s okay to kill any bug? Or better to kill less or even none?

H: This thread on killing bugs, I take it as just friends chatting and ponder for a while. No need to get overly analytical and split hair on how much of this or that. No need to bear so heavily in mind.

D: It’s a matter of life and death.

H: No need to imply and show one knows more than the other. You just have to know yourself…and observe are you happier as each day passes by.

D: Happier day by day is priority, at the expense of other beings?

H: I strive to be happy so that others can be happy with me.. and it works. In everyday life, sometimes I clown a little to make a laugh. To hear the laughter in turn makes me happy. With a positive mental and happy attitude…life goes on and the load is lighter.

D: This thread on killing bugs. How does joking make this issue lighter?

H: And yes, I kill bugs too.

D: From the Metta Sutta:

‘May all beings be happy at heart.
Whatever beings there may be,
weak or strong, without exception, [which includes bugs]
long, large,
middling, short,
subtle, blatant,
seen & unseen,
near & far,
born & seeking birth:
May all beings be happy at heart.’

Let’s not give ourselves any excuse not to further train our Metta as it’s intended for, as taught by the Buddha – for all beings.

M: Of course ‘removing them and putting them elsewhere’ is what I usually do to pesky insects. But in the case of bed bugs this would mean either inflicting them on someone else or arranging for them to starve to death, which I don’t see as much different from washing them down the sink.

D: But surely, it cannot be better to free them elsewhere to fend for themselves (yes, they are resilient) than to kill them directly – or it would be an endorsement of mercy-killing, which though controversial, is something the Buddha never encouraged – even when he encounters very sick lay people and monks.

K: … I [once] went and bought some insect spray and the rest is history. I nuked em [some wasps outside my house]. So you can see that I did this in a sense of self defense and was not especially averse to them,…

D: Why not try Metta (loving-kindness) meditation to protect yourself and them at the same time? Metta should be the first approach and killing the absolute last. It is said that no insects ever trouble the Buddha because of his strong Metta, which is gentle yet commanding of respect. When I was on a tropical island known for its huge mosquitoes for three months, I did not get bitten once, while most of others did. I did practise Metta then.

K: … I agree with M that all in all the small amount of bad vipaka (karmic result) I have generated is pretty much like the few grains of salt in the river of a fairly blameless life. I did have compassion for them before and after, and I can only surmise that they are seeking rebirth as fluorescent Pink and black hornets so they can even the score next summer!

D: Perfection of Metta and Karuna is about minimising even the few grains mentioned. Compassion to the bugs before and after is not useful to them if they get killed. On the idea of them possibly seeking vengeance, the Buddha did famously teach that hatred cannot be ceased by hatred; hatred can only be ceased by love. Since this is an eternal law, it’s wonderful for us to more diligently cultivate Metta to encompass all beings.

L: What about the killing of insects you participated in with the eating of vegetables (farming production), living in homes and buildings where foundations were poured. Apologies in advance if you live outside in the open air, never walk on sidewalks or ride in a car and only eat organic fruits.

D: The Bodhisattva path entails the minimization of harm as much as possible. Eating vegetables that involves insect kills less than eating meat animals who feed on more crops. Eating organic is better – though some killing might still happen accidentally.

G: They [insects at home] regularly make their rounds, than get hurt when touching my lamp, take a break at the wall, then again head towards the light which they probably confuse with the sun. There they die quickly from the burning heat. Some fall inside the lamp which has become a mass grave now…. I would feel more responsibility if it were bees – because they are a more endangered species.

D: I removed the cover of my lamp (and changed to a less warm one) – so that it cannot become a mass grave. All animals and insects are endangered individually when they face death.

N: Is breathing supposed to happen only with the lungs? Because some bacteria are what we call “aerob” here, they need oxygen.

D: Plants breathe too – CO2 though – but are considered non-sentient in Buddhism. Microscopic lifeforms that are very simple (not complex enough) might pertain more to plant life.

O: Kamma is just one’s own actions – if the intention is to eat vegetables, it does not matter whether the farmer sprayed insecticide on them – that is the farmer’s own kamma.

D: In the cycle of supply and demand, when we support organic food more, there will be less killing. When there is some link, there is some kamma involved surely – to some extent.

O: In regard to pests which enter the home and invade, what would you do? Or what would you suggest? For example, if termites and killer wasps entered the home and threatened you and your family? And let’s assume that there is NO way to displace them to another home? What can we do?

D: Metta meditation. You can send thoughts of loving-kindness to the insects and persuade them to leave. It does work. I have tried it for a few hundred insect ‘invaders’ myself. For termites, I suggest removal of the affected parts of the house or even the insects one by one. Let’s all practise Metta harder. Time for less rationalisation for killing and more practice to avoid killing. Not always convenient but almost always possible. May all be well and happy.

P: Interesting! I never thought it could work. What did you thoughts of loving-kindness to the insects consist of? And how long did you have to send Metta to them to ‘persuade’ them to leave? I’m sincerely interested to know these info, as if it does work then I can try it out.

D: Metta meditation is the systematic nurturing of Metta. Many Buddhists I’ve come across see it as nothing more than a visualization or feel good exercise. This is an unfortunate huge mistake indeed. When we truly suffuse ourselves with Metta as an immeasurable, it will also overflow and readily change how we relate to all beings. If we don’t really cultivate Metta well, we will not believe or experience the power of metta. The best case of Metta at work is as the basis or background of the Metta Sutta at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.08.piya.html The thoughts sent in Metta meditation can simply be according to the text in the sutta – by reciting and repeating them in your mind. The better practised one is, the more swiftly will its effects be felt by oneself and others around. Bearing in mind that insects and animals are sensitive to energies, when one has true Metta, they will be felt. We can recall the case of the enraged elephant Nalagiri stopping in his steps before the Buddha due to his strong Metta. For the case of a few hundred strange-looking insects that marched right into my house, I practised radiation of metta to them for about 20 minutes and chanted general chants, plus gentle talking to them. They all left by daybreak.

Q: Much have been argued over whether to kill or not to kill pests out of revulsion or for any reason, why don’t all Buddhists eliminate the flesh of all sentient beings in their diet?

D: This is a worthy ideal indeed, though not easy for many. Am glad to share that I’m a vegan who is taking the next step of striving to eat as organic as I can. The reasons for cutting down meat are many and they need not even be religious. E.g. see http://viva.org.uk/goingveggie There is no need to even argue on whether all Buddhists should eat less meat (or go vegetarian) or not according to this or that teaching – because all humans should go in the direction of eating less meat, given the present terrible condition of the planet (immense suffering of farm animals, environmental collapse, declining human health, needless human starvation…), as summarised by the website. I sincerely hope readers will take a look at the website – as part of the practice of Metta. May all beings great and small be well and happy.

P: Would you mind sharing what is the species of insect you managed to ‘persuade’ out of your house?

D: There were very strange-looking insects that I had never seen before and have never seen since – larger than conventional ants, black and had big heads.

P: And how are you certain that they did actually left, instead of hiding or taking camp somewhere in your house?

D: I know because not a single of them ever appeared again for 6 years so far.

P: I do not underestimate the power of Metta, but I feel that its powers is dependent on the cultivation level of the person suffusing the Metta, and the recipient’s emotional capacity. Even if one is highly cultivated in Metta, I doubt that ants/termites can understand or feel our wishes and intentions for them.

D: As the only variable we can control is our strength of our Metta, we need to practise well. The above is not the only case of Metta working for insects. Friends have similar experiences too. Hope all will try harder, using the Metta Sutta for inspiration. If a huge elephant like Nalagiri could feel Metta, surely, a small sensitive insect can too. May all beings be well and happy.

R: (Digressing) It is far more important what comes out of your mouth than what goes in..

D: Both are important. If what we eat is due to greed and constant complacence to animal suffering, it is a spiritual impediment too, to some extent.

R: … and if you are a truthful and even a little wise you will know that it is not possible to live without on occasion having to kill insects, even animals and even humans..

D: Which is why we need to be more mindful in how we relate by our actions – to minimise harm.

R: The Buddha taught the middle path for goodness’ sake.. don’t think like an insect.. and don’t sleep in a bed with bed ticks or risk your life and family’s over some vermin and pests… kill them mindfully if you have to.. if you have a good store of good kamma, your killing might even increase theirs..

D: Nowhere in the suttas is it taught that Middle Path means it’s okay to kill some intentionally. Killing is an extreme measure. Why sleep with ticks? Practise Metta to invite them to leave. Please read the last few comments to see what I mean. If being killed by someone with good kamma can increase the good kamma of another, all Buddhas would have killed all sentient beings once they became Buddhas.

R: Self-mortification is not the way and neither is indulgence

D: Killing without considering the Metta approach first is ‘other-mortification’ (destruction of others).

T: The living body is subjected to everything and it is natural to react.

D: Practice of the Dharma is to train ourselves to respond with as much kindness and wisdom as possible. Killing is seldom neither.

T: And the first precept…after abstaining from killings.. goes on with one affirming to act for the welfare and happiness of all beings… does that not also include killing to protect perhaps?

D: In the case of bugs, killing does not protect the killed. Why not try the Metta method first, as mentioned in the above few comments? The MORE we are unwilling to try it, the more we should – because it is a possible sign of our lack of loving-kindness and our confidence in the power of love. Again from the Metta Sutta:

‘As a mother would risk her life
to protect her child, her only child,
even so should one cultivate a limitless heart
with regard to ALL beings.
With good will for the ENTIRE cosmos,
cultivate a limitless heart:
Above, below, & all around,
unobstructed, without enmity or hate.’

U: A kind-hearted hedonist radiates more loving kindness than a piously miserable monk. ~ Anonymous

D: It is possible to be pious and kind-hearted too.

U: Metta sometimes as “pesticide” works for me at times, others not.

D: How does pesticide work for the bugs?

U: So in the rare occasional moments where I succumb to doing a mahasamadi on a cockroach, I do it conscously — apologizing to it as well as wish it well on its widening spiral journey of consciousness…

D: How do you do a ‘mahasamadhi’ on a cockroach? Is it a Buddhist practice?

U: … such as seeing it turn into a butterfly. A form of blessing, if you will.

D: Does that help turn it into a butterfly? Are cockroaches better off as butterflies? I just let a cockroach go last night – no need to kill at all.

U: Meaning that one can “blow [kill] it” yet still infuse as much Loving Kindness in the moment as one can.

D: Why not do this ‘mahasamadhi’ thing (if it works) for all insects then, since it can send them to better rebirths with loving-kindness? According to some Buddhist teachers, it is impossible to kill with absolutely no hatred, and with hatred, there is negative karma.

U: The spiritual path isn’t about attaining perfection, IMO, it’s about learning to live with paradoxes.

D: The Buddhist path is about attaining perfection of qualities like compassion and wisdom.

U: The core one being that we are here and yet we are not, that we are already all free and yet seemingly are not.

D: Does a bug who suffers from being killed understand that?

U: Therefore taking oneself, one’s actions (incl. misactions) or attachments to even pristine spiritual precepts too seriously can all be traps.

D: The precepts are rafts, guidelines. Abandon them too early and one will drown in the sea of Samsara. When one does not need the precepts as guidelines any more, it is when they already abide by them naturally in spirit.

U: In short, we do the best one can, and as others have pointed out here — it’s not about extremes. Because for those of you who consider yourselves Buddhists, it’s called “The Middle Path” for a reason, yes? 🙂

D: The Middle Path is not about killing in moderation, because killing itself is an extreme and destructive action – nothing Middle Path about it – especially since it doesn’t really help anyone except meet one’s selfish desires to rid bugs. Middle Path here is to cultivate compassion and wisdom best one can – till we perfect them like the Buddha did, who never needed to kill any bug.