Survival and Cannibalism

[DNS]

Even at the end of buddhas discourse it says “the fisherman” attained sotapatti. So fishermen can be ariya. Otherwise he would have ceased to be a fisherman and the story would end mr ariya attained sotapatti.

Yes, he attained sotapatti because he abandoned killing. Read the whole story:

Verse 270: He who harms living beings is, for that reason, not an ariya (a Noble One); he who does not harm any living being is called an ariya1.

1. ariya: one who has realized one of the four maggas.

The Story of a Fisherman Named Ariya

While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse (270) of this book, with reference to a fisherman named Ariya.

Once, there was a fisherman who lived near the north gate of Savatthi. One day through his supernormal power, the Buddha found that time was ripe for the fisherman to attain Sotapatti Fruition. So on his return from the alms-round, the Buddha, followed by the bhikkhus, stopped near the place where Ariya was fishing. When the fisherman saw the Buddha, he threw away his fishing gear and came and stood near the Buddha. The Buddha then proceeded to ask the names of his bhikkhus in the presence of the fisherman, and finally, he asked the name of the fisherman. When the fisher man replied that his name was Ariya, the Buddha said that the Noble Ones (ariyas) do not harm any living being, but since the fisherman was taking the lives of fish he was not worthy of his name.

Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:

Verse 270: He who harms living beings is, for that reason, not an ariya (a Noble One); he who does not harm any living being is called an ariya.
At the end of the discourse the fisherman attained Sotapatti Fruition.

Especially:

Verse 270: He who harms living beings is, for that reason, not an ariya (a Noble One); he who does not harm any living being is called an ariya1.

You claim to be a sotapanna, but have not abandoned killing (fish). See Bhante D's posts in the other thread. A sotapanna does not kill, if he did previously, then he has abandoned it. Killing living beings is not Buddhist nor Dhammist.

See Bhante D's post here:
viewtopic.php?p=661622#p661622

[Sam Vara]

I think it’s great kamma, wonderful day out in nature, casting my line, asking only fish that wish to feed me take the bait all others should avoid.
Catching a beauty, preparing it for supper, feeing my family good fresh food that is locally harvested.
A full belly sitting by an outdoor fire.
Good, good, good or it’s all dukkha so what’s the difference.

You think it's great kamma, the Buddha says it's dark kamma.

Hmmm...what a dilemma!

Wonderful days, spent outdoors, wonderful meal with family. Sounds pretty bright fella.
Maybe you misunderstood the Buddha?

It's possible, of course!

My understanding is that the pleasant circumstances (wonderful days, spent outdoors, etc.) are not kamma, whereas the intention to kill is. The intention to provide for your family and make them happy is wholesome, whereas the actual killing is irremediably unwholesome.

But as we are not fish, this has wandered away from the OP for long enough, so having given my opinion I will bow out in a waft of frying tofu.

[thepea]

Even at the end of buddhas discourse it says “the fisherman” attained sotapatti. So fishermen can be ariya. Otherwise he would have ceased to be a fisherman and the story would end mr ariya attained sotapatti.

Yes, he attained sotapatti because he abandoned killing. Read the whole story:

Verse 270: He who harms living beings is, for that reason, not an ariya (a Noble One); he who does not harm any living being is called an ariya1.

1. ariya: one who has realized one of the four maggas.

The Story of a Fisherman Named Ariya

While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse (270) of this book, with reference to a fisherman named Ariya.

Once, there was a fisherman who lived near the north gate of Savatthi. One day through his supernormal power, the Buddha found that time was ripe for the fisherman to attain Sotapatti Fruition. So on his return from the alms-round, the Buddha, followed by the bhikkhus, stopped near the place where Ariya was fishing. When the fisherman saw the Buddha, he threw away his fishing gear and came and stood near the Buddha. The Buddha then proceeded to ask the names of his bhikkhus in the presence of the fisherman, and finally, he asked the name of the fisherman. When the fisher man replied that his name was Ariya, the Buddha said that the Noble Ones (ariyas) do not harm any living being, but since the fisherman was taking the lives of fish he was not worthy of his name.

Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:

Verse 270: He who harms living beings is, for that reason, not an ariya (a Noble One); he who does not harm any living being is called an ariya.
At the end of the discourse the fisherman attained Sotapatti Fruition.

Especially:

Verse 270: He who harms living beings is, for that reason, not an ariya (a Noble One); he who does not harm any living being is called an ariya1.

You claim to be a sotapanna, but have not abandoned killing (fish). See Bhante D's posts in the other thread. A sotapanna does not kill, if he did previously, then he has abandoned it. Killing living beings is not Buddhist nor Dhammist.

See Bhante D's post here:
viewtopic.php?p=661622#p661622

If this were the case then the qualities of deeds a sotapanna could not do would mention no killing. Full stop
But... it merely says one cannot kill parent or Buddha etc... quite specific.
Now in my case there is realization of this frution as described by the Burmese traditions.
It’s not a claim, it’s a fact.
And I assure you, I can kill.
Do I go around looking for things to kill? No.
But I can kill fish, mosquitoes, mice, bugs, and preditors(in any form).
So it seems your sutta is translated incorrectly or you are misinterpreting it.

[thepea]

You think it's great kamma, the Buddha says it's dark kamma.

Hmmm...what a dilemma!

Wonderful days, spent outdoors, wonderful meal with family. Sounds pretty bright fella.
Maybe you misunderstood the Buddha?

It's possible, of course!

My understanding is that the pleasant circumstances (wonderful days, spent outdoors, etc.) are not kamma, whereas the intention to kill is. The intention to provide for your family and make them happy is wholesome, whereas the actual killing is irremediably unwholesome.

But as we are not fish, this has wandered away from the OP for long enough, so having given my opinion I will bow out in a waft of frying tofu.

Flesh is flesh, my point prior was the example of raising a pig to slaughter but naming it and getting attached to it emotionally(pet) then when time for slaughter you will have the most difficult time and to eat this meat may not even be possible without grief.
Now a cabbage is alive also but has less character. You are generally not attached to the cabbage when you cut it from its root.
And as a human and know how I value my life so previously, to kill another human for food consumption would come with great misery even worse than the pet pig.
A fish that you have very little attachment to, it’s existing in another universe(under water) altogether is not without some recognition as its own sentient being but I don’t find it difficult. The processing also makes a connection to ones food in a way that is not as disconnected from grocery store where meats are cut and do not resemble their former selves. This breaks the attachment too, and we call cows beef or t-bone or pigs bacon or pork chop.
If we were in a major war and bad soldiers were coming to kill me and there was no food for my family, you can rest assure I’ll put a 270 through their skull and butcher a hind quarter to satisfy my hunger. This will most likely come with some negativity more so fishing but..... it would get done.

[Ceisiwr]

...

Killing is always unwholesome, or grey, never wholesome. The Buddha did not approve of killing any living beings at all.

[Ceisiwr]

If we were in a major war and bad soldiers were coming to kill me and there was no food for my family, you can rest assure I’ll put a 270 through their skull and butcher a hind quarter to satisfy my hunger.

The Buddha taught the opposite

Even if low-down bandits were to sever you limb from limb, anyone who had a malevolent thought on that account would not be following my instructions. If that happens, you should train like this: ‘Our minds will remain unaffected. We will blurt out no bad words. We will remain full of compassion, with a heart of love and no secret hate. We will meditate spreading a heart of love to that person. And with them as a basis, we will meditate spreading a heart full of love to everyone in the world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.’ That’s how you should train.

https://suttacentral.net/mn21/en/sujato ... ript=latin

Of course, acting that way is incredibly hard for unawakened folk like you and I. Now, this doesn't mean we can't defend ourselves or others but it does mean not putting bullets into people's heads. Regarding starving, no doubt if we knew the consequence of killing the pig we would rather starve to death.

[thepea]

...

Killing is always unwholesome, or grey, never wholesome. The Buddha did not approve of killing any living beings at all.

I guarantee you the Buddha killed, where there is life there is death. His body ate.

[DNS]

So it seems your sutta is translated incorrectly or you are misinterpreting it.

What is there to interpret? The sutta is very clear-cut, very straight-forward. A noble one does not kill.

Verse 270: He who harms living beings is, for that reason, not an ariya (a Noble One)

“Monks, one possessed of three qualities is put into Purgatory according to his actions. What three? One is himself a taker of life, encourages another to do the same and approves thereof. Monks, one possessed of three qualities is put into heaven according to his actions. What three? He himself abstains from taking life, encourages another to so abstain, and approves of such abstention.” Anguttara Nikaya, 3.16

[DNS]

I guarantee you the Buddha killed,

What sutta reference do you have for that? I'll help you out; there is none.

[Ceisiwr]

...

Killing is always unwholesome, or grey, never wholesome. The Buddha did not approve of killing any living beings at all.

I guarantee you the Buddha killed, where there is life there is death. His body ate.

There is zero evidence for that claim. It is possible to live without intentionally killing anything.

[thepea]

If we were in a major war and bad soldiers were coming to kill me and there was no food for my family, you can rest assure I’ll put a 270 through their skull and butcher a hind quarter to satisfy my hunger.

The Buddha taught the opposite

Even if low-down bandits were to sever you limb from limb, anyone who had a malevolent thought on that account would not be following my instructions. If that happens, you should train like this: ‘Our minds will remain unaffected. We will blurt out no bad words. We will remain full of compassion, with a heart of love and no secret hate. We will meditate spreading a heart of love to that person. And with them as a basis, we will meditate spreading a heart full of love to everyone in the world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.’ That’s how you should train.

https://suttacentral.net/mn21/en/sujato ... ript=latin

Of course, acting that way is incredibly hard for unawakened folk like you and I. Now, this doesn't mean we can't defend ourselves or others but it does mean not putting bullets into people's heads. Regarding starving, no doubt if we knew the consequence of killing the pig we would rather starve to death.

Speak for your own unawakened self Ceisiwr.
There is attachment and greed, even in ariyas like myself.
If situations arise where ones offspring need protection or food, you will act accordingly to protect and feed them.
How would you protect yourself?
If someone means to take your life would you not defend your unawakened self(according to you)?
As an ariya, I would protect myself and family from bandits, but I’m not an arahant merely a sotapanna as I evaluate the remaining defilements within. If anything I would act in a more calm and fully aware manner while cannibalizing bandits.

[Sam Vara]

I guarantee you the Buddha killed,

What sutta reference do you have for that? I'll help you out; there is none.

Except, of course, this famous metaphorical exception:

Having killed what
do you sleep in ease?
Having killed what
do you not grieve?
Of the slaying
of what one thing
does Gotama approve?

[The Buddha:]
Having killed anger
you sleep in ease.
Having killed anger
you do not grieve.
The noble ones praise
the slaying of anger
— with its honeyed crest
& poison root —
for having killed it
you do not grieve.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[DNS]

Except, of course, this famous metaphorical exception:

Having killed what
do you sleep in ease?
Having killed what
do you not grieve?
Of the slaying
of what one thing
does Gotama approve?

[The Buddha:]
Having killed anger
you sleep in ease.
Having killed anger
you do not grieve.
The noble ones praise
the slaying of anger
— with its honeyed crest
& poison root —
for having killed it
you do not grieve.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Yes, the killing of anger, the only approved "killing."

[thepea]

Killing is always unwholesome, or grey, never wholesome. The Buddha did not approve of killing any living beings at all.

I guarantee you the Buddha killed, where there is life there is death. His body ate.

There is zero evidence for that claim. It is possible to live without intentionally killing anything.

You must ingest life in order to sustain the body.
If you could see with a microscope all the killing and destruction going on you would comprehend.
Just because it happens at the subtle level does not negate it.
Volition becomes important but killing I guarantee you the Buddha did. And a lot of it.

[thepea]

I guarantee you the Buddha killed,

What sutta reference do you have for that? I'll help you out; there is none.

I don’t need a sutta reference, if the Buddha had a living body then he killed to sustain it.