Survival and Cannibalism

[Ceisiwr]

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.

I think the key to my comment was "intentionally" killing.

[thepea]

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

So you feel 100% that a sotapanna cannot kill?
So how about suicide?
Killing oneself?
All of these depraved monks working a lifetime meditating to end up killing themselves.
Total waste I guess?
Or.....they made much progress and attained nobility but a noble can kill at these lower stages as they have not eradicated lust, anger, greed.
Or are you saying a sotapanna has eradicated these?

[thepea]

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.

I think the key to my comment was "intentionally" killing.

Volition as I said.
To feed oneself
To defend oneself
To feed ones children
An arahant would not do this, but a sotapanna most definitely can.

[DNS]

So you feel 100% that a sotapanna cannot kill?

A sotapanna does not intentionally break any of the 5 precepts. He/she might accidentally violate one of the precepts, but certainly not intentionally as in fishing or hunting. A sotapanna might accidentally step on an ant or run over a small animal while driving; but it's unintentional.

[seeker242]

Did he lump all fisherman together on this way?

Yes, undoubtedly so. It's a reason why monks were forbidden from killing, even just for food. A monk was even specifically forbidden to take food that was killed specifically for him.

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.

He did cease to be a fisherman since the Buddha declared him to become an ariya after giving him that discourse. He was a fisherman before the discourse and not after.

[thepea]

So you feel 100% that a sotapanna cannot kill?

A sotapanna does not intentionally break any of the 5 precepts. He/she might accidentally violate one of the precepts, but certainly not intentionally as in fishing or hunting. A sotapanna might accidentally step on an ant or run over a small animal while driving; but it's unintentional.

Hogwash!
I’m living proof.
I fish and eat the fish.
Y’all are not being realistic and a touch hypocritical.
You are declaring things that only a Buddha can know.
One sotapanna might kill another might not. A mosquito, a mouse, a chicken, a pig, a human, it matters not.

[thepea]

Did he lump all fisherman together on this way?

Yes, undoubtedly so. It's a reason why monks were forbidden from killing, even just for food. A monk was even specifically forbidden to take food that was killed specifically for him.

A monastic is to be training 24/7. They must follow the training rules. I must follow the training rules when on retreat also as I’m signed up as a renunciant.
You abstain from doing certain actions in order to train.
When you go back to laylife you are not under these same rules. You can by all means follow them if you choose or feel inclined towards but you are free to choose.

[Ceisiwr]

So you feel 100% that a sotapanna cannot kill?

A sotapanna does not intentionally break any of the 5 precepts. He/she might accidentally violate one of the precepts, but certainly not intentionally as in fishing or hunting. A sotapanna might accidentally step on an ant or run over a small animal while driving; but it's unintentional.

Hogwash!
I’m living proof.
I fish and eat the fish.
Y’all are not being realistic and a touch hypocritical.
You are declaring things that only a Buddha can know.
One sotapanna might kill another might not. A mosquito, a mouse, a chicken, a pig, a human, it matters not.

I'll be honest with you here. I don't think you are a sotāpanna. I think you have merely convinced yourself that you are one.

[seeker242]

Did he lump all fisherman together on this way?

Yes, undoubtedly so. It's a reason why monks were forbidden from killing, even just for food. A monk was even specifically forbidden to take food that was killed specifically for him.

A monastic is to be training 24/7. They must follow the training rules. I must follow the training rules when on retreat also as I’m signed up as a renunciant.
You abstain from doing certain actions in order to train.
When you go back to laylife you are not under these same rules. You can by all means follow them if you choose or feel inclined towards but you are free to choose.

Killing is bad karma for both monks and laypeople regardless. That is why fishing, even just for food, is against the 5 precepts for laypeople specifically. Not killing is not just a monks rule or a rule you just follow on retreat. But yes, you are free to choose whether or not you make bad karma. There can be no justification for intentional killing anywhere in Buddhism, regardless of the reason.

[thepea]

A sotapanna does not intentionally break any of the 5 precepts. He/she might accidentally violate one of the precepts, but certainly not intentionally as in fishing or hunting. A sotapanna might accidentally step on an ant or run over a small animal while driving; but it's unintentional.

Hogwash!
I’m living proof.
I fish and eat the fish.
Y’all are not being realistic and a touch hypocritical.
You are declaring things that only a Buddha can know.
One sotapanna might kill another might not. A mosquito, a mouse, a chicken, a pig, a human, it matters not.

I'll be honest with you here. I don't think you are a sotāpanna. I think you have merely convinced yourself that you are one.

That’s the difference, I know with zero doubt. I also know the mind I carry and what capacity for action I have.
Your suttas are incorrect, mistranslated or being misunderstood. All the reason to practice and know your own mind and it’s capacity. Belief is of little use.

[thepea]

Yes, undoubtedly so. It's a reason why monks were forbidden from killing, even just for food. A monk was even specifically forbidden to take food that was killed specifically for him.

A monastic is to be training 24/7. They must follow the training rules. I must follow the training rules when on retreat also as I’m signed up as a renunciant.
You abstain from doing certain actions in order to train.
When you go back to laylife you are not under these same rules. You can by all means follow them if you choose or feel inclined towards but you are free to choose.

Killing is bad karma for both monks and laypeople regardless. That is why fishing, even just for food, is against the 5 precepts for laypeople specifically. Not killing is not just a monks rule or a rule you just follow on retreat. But yes, you are free to choose whether or not you make bad karma. There can be no justification for intentional killing anywhere in Buddhism, regardless of the reason.

Umm, feeding the body is reason to kill.
Feeding ones family.
Protecting ones family.
All reasons to kill.
If one wants to make this bad kamma then they can. Or they can be in joy while fishing and harvesting meat.
I also heat some with wood. I kill living trees to harvest for firewood. I have to let it season before burning.
I also am carpenter and kill living trees for lumber.
Is this anti Buddhist too?
Again I’m not Buddhist, but what do buddhists build there homes from?

[Bundokji]

That’s the difference, I know with zero doubt. I also know the mind I carry and what capacity for action I have.
Your suttas are incorrect, mistranslated or being misunderstood. All the reason to practice and know your own mind and it’s capacity. Belief is of little use.

Don't you think that all claims of attainments have their meaning in a social context? Your belief is of little use. Same logic applies.

[seeker242]

A monastic is to be training 24/7. They must follow the training rules. I must follow the training rules when on retreat also as I’m signed up as a renunciant.
You abstain from doing certain actions in order to train.
When you go back to laylife you are not under these same rules. You can by all means follow them if you choose or feel inclined towards but you are free to choose.

Killing is bad karma for both monks and laypeople regardless. That is why fishing, even just for food, is against the 5 precepts for laypeople specifically. Not killing is not just a monks rule or a rule you just follow on retreat. But yes, you are free to choose whether or not you make bad karma. There can be no justification for intentional killing anywhere in Buddhism, regardless of the reason.

Umm, feeding the body is reason to kill.
Feeding ones family.
Protecting ones family.
All reasons to kill.
If one wants to make this bad kamma then they can. Or they can be in joy while fishing and harvesting meat.
I also heat some with wood. I kill living trees to harvest for firewood. I have to let it season before burning.
I also am carpenter and kill living trees for lumber.
Is this anti Buddhist too?
Again I’m not Buddhist, but what do buddhists build there homes from?

It's bad karma to kill to feed oneself, and to feed family. The reason does not matter. Finding joy in the killing does not change that either. One could argue it makes it even worse karma as there is no remorse in doing such a wrong act. Tree are not sentient beings. The prohibition on killing is regarding sentient beings, aka animals and other people.

[thepea]

That’s the difference, I know with zero doubt. I also know the mind I carry and what capacity for action I have.
Your suttas are incorrect, mistranslated or being misunderstood. All the reason to practice and know your own mind and it’s capacity. Belief is of little use.

Don't you think that all claims of attainments have their meaning in a social context? Your belief is of little use. Same logic applies.

I possess the wisdom of the sotapanna. It’s not belief.
I’m not comprehending what you mean about claims and social context?
My wisdom has answered these questions I used to have.
You all go ahead and abstain from doing things, I’ll just practice as I can and when the desire to do things is gone then I will naturally stop doing them.

[Ceisiwr]

Hogwash!
I’m living proof.
I fish and eat the fish.
Y’all are not being realistic and a touch hypocritical.
You are declaring things that only a Buddha can know.
One sotapanna might kill another might not. A mosquito, a mouse, a chicken, a pig, a human, it matters not.

I'll be honest with you here. I don't think you are a sotāpanna. I think you have merely convinced yourself that you are one.

That’s the difference, I know with zero doubt. I also know the mind I carry and what capacity for action I have.
Your suttas are incorrect, mistranslated or being misunderstood. All the reason to practice and know your own mind and it’s capacity. Belief is of little use.

Thing is you are using concepts found in the suttas.