Jerrod Lopes wrote:Cittasanto wrote:Jerrod Lopes wrote:I can't see how it violates the fifth precept, but it does violate the first precept.
and how does it violate either?
It depends on how the precept is translated. There are those that translate as to abstain from killing a living being, and there are those that translate to abstain from harming any living being. I go by the latter as it makes a lot more sense to me regarding the aim of the precepts on the whole and the practice in general as well. If one abstains from harming living beings for purposes of practice, then doing something which is known to cause harm to living beings is a violation of that precept.
Unfortunately that is an interpretive rendering not a literal translation of panatipata. the interpretive rendering relies on descriptions of the precepts in their eight precept form to come to this rendering as, I understand it, and although these two groups of precepts have the same worded precepts in them they can be taken as this precept is on about killing and gross forms of ill will, it os only later in the 10 wholesome actions that other forms of harm are included in abyāpannacitta "Mind subdued by benevolence".
Pāṇa - life; breath; a living being.
Atipātā - slayer; destroyer.
I have heard a number of stories about Ajahn Chah smoking. One actually continues the story that is within the article and I think is in the Biography?
When he quit, he wasn't actually addicted as he barely smoked, and as a result the villagers gradually stopped giving cigarets. this was no problem for Ajahn, but the other monks had some difficulties when their supply dried up.
When Ajahn Chah "quit" he didn't actually smoke because of addiction. it was so the other monks could have a supply. Ajahn Chah actually quit years before when he was still in the jungle wandering about (I think this is somewhere near his bleeding from his rectum account??). Although he is known to of had a fag on occasion after.