What is Killing? The First Precept

January 31, 2026

Summary:

In Buddhism, “Killing” is defined by the technical mechanics of the mind, not by social laws. The unwholesome Kamma is complete only if Five Factors are present:

Presence: A Living Being.
Perception: Knowing it is alive.
Intention: A mind bent on killing.
Effort: Making the attack.
Result: The being dies.

If all five are met, the precept killing (pāṇātipāta) is broken. This rule applies equally to Self-Defense, Euthanasia, and Abortion—Kamma judges the intention to destroy life, not the justification for doing so.

The Five Precepts

In Buddhism we have 5 precepts.

To abstain from taking life.
To abstain from taking what is not given.
To abstain from sexual misconduct.
To abstain from false speech.
To abstain from intoxicants that cause heedlessness.

What Is Killing?

Today we will talk about killing. In Buddhism, it is not just killing humans, but refers to killing any living being, even a fly or an ant. The topics related to human killing might be of interest. Today we will discuss Murder, Self Defence, Manslaughter, Mercy Killing (euthanasia) and Abortion.

Because these topics are controversial and with the exception of murder are allowed in the court systems of some countries, we need to look at things technically in order to be objective in the way we look at things.

The Sutta on Right View contains the famous list of 10 courses of wholesome actions. In addition to abstaining from breaking the five precepts, there are 5 more things that are listed.

Abstaining from slanderous speech (divisive speech).
Abstaining from harsh speech.
Abstaining from idle chatter (gossip).
Non-covetousness (absence of greed).
Non-ill will (absence of hatred).
Right View.

(Note: The 10 courses split the speech precept into 4 distinct types and adds the 3 mental actions).

The Five Factors of Killing

In the commentary to Sammādiṭṭhi Sutta, The Commentary To The Discourse on Right View, we can see 5 factors that make up the kamma act of killing.

Pañca sambhārā honti: pāṇo, pāṇasaññitā, vadhakacittaṃ, upakkamo, tena maraṇanti.

There are five factors:

A living being,
The perception of a living being,
A mind bent on killing (Intention),
Effort,
Death resulting from that.

Now, let us look at the controversial topics using this technical checklist to see if they constitute the Kamma of Killing (Pāṇātipātā).

1. Murder

This is the clearest baseline.

Living Being: Yes.
Perception: You know they are alive.
Mind bent on killing: Yes. The intention is deliberate and planned.
Effort: Yes (Shooting, poisoning, etc.).
Death: Yes.

Judgement: All 5 factors are present. This is a complete, heavy course of unwholesome kamma. If caught the person will go to jail for a long time. If this is done to an animal, fish or even an insect, the kamma of killing living beings will still persist even though one may not go to jail.

2. Self Defence

This is where the law and Kamma often disagree. If someone attacks you and you kill them to save your own life:

Living Being: Yes (The attacker).
Perception: You know they are alive.
Mind bent on killing: If, in the heat of the moment, your mind says “I must kill him to stop him,” or you strike with a lethal intent—even for a split second—this factor is fulfilled.
Effort: You strike back.
Death: Yes.

Judgement: If the intention to kill arose during the defense, all 5 factors are complete. It is technically killing.

If a person wished to fire a gun at another person’s hand holding a gun in order to disarm him but accidentally shot him in the head, it would not matter about witnesses, and courts decisions. We can look at the factors and know there was no intention to kill. The kamma of killing is not complete. Nevertheless, it is best to stay clear away from dangerous situations and not use a gun for any reason.

3. Manslaughter (Accidental Killing)

For example, you are driving a car, you look down at your phone, and you accidentally hit a pedestrian.

Living Being: Yes.
Perception: You knew people were around (or maybe not).
Mind bent on killing: NO. You did not intend to kill anyone. You were negligent, maybe reckless, but there was no Vadhacitta (mind bent on killing).
Effort: You were driving, but not with lethal effort directed at a being.
Death: Yes.

Result: Because Factor 3 (Intention) is missing and perhaps perception, this is not a completed kamma of Killing because all 5 factors were not present. Even if there was perception at a final moment, there would still not be the intention to kill. It is still not killing. It may be bad kamma of negligence, you might go to jail for this, but it is not Pāṇātipātā.

4. Mercy Killing (Euthanasia)

A doctor administers a drug to end the suffering of a terminal patient.

Living Being: Yes.
Perception: The doctor knows the patient is alive.
Mind bent on killing: Yes. The motivation might be compassion (to end the pain), but it is still intent to end the life faculty. The specific intent is: “May this life cease.”
Effort: Administering the injection.
Death: The patient dies.

Result: All 5 factors are present. The Law of Kamma does not have a “compassion exemption” for the act of killing. The intention to destroy the life faculty makes it a broken precept.

You might say “But he will die anyways because he is terminally ill. Why would that be killing?” Aren’t we all going to die…eventually? So even if one causes someone to die one minute or even one second before his natural death will occur, this still counts because all of the factors are there. Go ahead and check the factors above.

Veterinarians need to be careful when they “put dogs to sleep.” We usually have “nice” words for these actions, but they are not really nice if all factors are there. Why? Well, during the moment before, one might have compassion, but if one really looks at the mind during the act of killing. There is no longer a wholesome mind. There is an unwholesome mind. If you have ever killed an ant that you accidentally damaged, thinking “I will save him from suffering”, then you can replay the video tape in slow motion and see for yourself. Play it back and forth slowly until you hit the right frame. You will see there is not a wholesome frame of mind.

It should be noted that the Third Pārājika (offence entailing defeat) was created because of a massacre that was done with the intention of mercy killing. The Buddha gave instructions on the foulness of the body and then left for a two week retreat. During that time, the monks felt their bodies were so foul that they didn’t want to live anymore. Many killed themselves and some killed others by their own request. A person named Migalaṇḍika (who looked like a monk, but was not one), was asked to kill the monks out of compassion and to make merit. The result was a total blood bath while the Buddha was gone. Because of this the third training rule was laid down after the Buddha had returned.

5. Abortion

This is often debated on the grounds of “Is it a person?” or “I didn’t know or believe it was a human.” Here in Buddhism, we have a different take on this than the rest of the world. In order for the kamma to be complete, one only needs to believe that it is a living being, or simply recognize that there is “life”. The stages of development, or the perceived ability to feel pain does not matter. Only the five factors matter for the kamma to be complete.

Living Being: Yes. (Biologically, it is life, Pāṇo).
Perception: People argue, “I didn’t perceive it as a human.” However, the factor is Pāṇasaññitā—perceiving it as a living thing. If you acknowledge it is biologically alive (more than a plant), this factor is met.
The Vinaya Commentary gives a warning about ‘Mistaken Perception’ with the story of the ‘Fourfold Case of the Goat’ (Eḷakacatukka). A man sees a shape in the dark and marks it, thinking, ‘That is a goat. I will kill it tonight.’ He returns at night and strikes, perceiving it to be the goat. But he kills his own mother. He thought ‘Animal.’ He killed ‘Human.’ The intention was to kill a being, and the result was the death of a human. The Commentary further states that because he intended to kill a being, and he killed a human and even his mother, the Kamma follows the reality of who was actually killed. He bears the heavy kamma of killing a human, especially that of his mother.
Therefore, in abortion, the only requirement is to kill a being with life, perceiving it to have life. The actual reality is dealt with whether believed or not believed.
Mind bent on killing: Yes (Intention to terminate the pregnancy).
Effort: Taking a pill or surgical procedure.
Death: The being dies.

Result: Even if one believes it is just a living “something,” if it is a human life in reality, and the 5 factors are fulfilled, the Kamma is that of killing a human.

According to a 2018 study by the University of Chicago (Jacobs), 96% of 5,577 academic biologists surveyed affirmed that a human’s life begins at fertilization. This agreement exists regardless of their political or religious views. Therefore, one should check his mind as to whether or not one perceives life, rather than a developed human. When one understands this, then the factor is complete.

What About Cats Killing Birds?

People might ask, “What about cats that kill birds? Isn’t it their “nature” to kill and hunt?” Yes, it is their nature to kill and hunt. It is also their nature to accumulate unwholesome kamma and experience unwholesome results in the rounds of Saṃsāra. Saṃsāra is not fair and that is why the human birth is so rare. The Buddha told his monks this daily and that is why we chant these words everyday too.

Bhikkhave, appamādena sampādetha,
“Bhikkhus, strive on with diligence!
Dullabho buddhuppādo lokasmiṃ,
Rare is the arising of a Buddha in the world.
Dullabho manussattapaṭilābho,
Rare is the acquisition of human birth.
Dullabhā sampatti,
Rare is the opportune fortune.
Dullabhā pabbajjā,
Rare is the Going Forth (ordination).
Dullabhaṃ saddhammassavana”nti.
Rare is the hearing of the True Dhamma.”
(Sīlakkhandhavaggaṭṭhakathā)

Think of it like this. A person might be born into a family that commits lots of crimes and learns how to do crime from his parents. It is his bad kamma to be born in this family, he will suffer the consequences when he does unwholesome deeds. In another way, some cats are born into families that will keep them as “indoor cats” and feed them well with “already dead” food. The association with humans and abstaining from killing because there is no opportunity to kill, can cause a favorable birth in the next life.

But often, they are attached to being who they are. There is a famous story of a queen who was born as a dung beetle and was quickly attached to her new life even though she was able to remember her old life as a queen. This is found in the Assaka Jataka (No. 207) . In this story, King Assaka is mourning his wife, Queen Ubbari. An ascetic (the Bodhisatta) shows the King that she has been reborn as a dung beetle. When the King speaks to her, she tells him that while she loved him in her past life, she now prefers her dung beetle husband and the pile of dung! This illustrates how powerful attachment to one’s “nature” can be, regardless of how high or low the birth is.

Conclusion

In Buddhism, “Killing” is defined by the technical mechanics of the mind along with the 5 factors, and not by social laws. While the courts might forgive someone for something that counts as self defence, kamma does not forgive. While the courts might put someone in jail for manslaughter, kamma does not count this as killing while negligent behavior is kamma for something else. The unwholesome Kamma of killing is complete only if Five Factors are present as we repeatedly discussed.

This rule of five factors applies equally to murder, Self-Defense, Euthanasia, and Abortion, but not Manslaughter since there is no intention to kill. Kamma has no judges. It is based on a computational formula based on the intention to destroy life along with the other remaining four factors. If all five factors are met, the precept is broken and the kamma is achieved. The justification or emotion for doing so has no effect. Kamma is not always fair. For instance, in the case of the goat, the person knew he was killing a living being but didn’t know he was killing a human. He will suffer the consequences of the reality, even if it was his own mother. The discussion on killing is mostly discussed in reference to humans, but it is also true for killing animals, fish or even insects.