First precept

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10176
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: First precept

Post by Spiny Norman »

User13866 wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:54 pm
NotMe wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:11 pm
User13866 wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 2:43 pm
Would you take the life of a human to eat him?
If yes, what about your mother/father?

A mans gotta eat or no? If no then why not?
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN12_63.html

Here the Buddha does not truly disparage the eating of human flesh - but rather says view all food as such. <grin while grimacing>

Metta

:anjali:
Wonder if i should watch my back if having run out of food i am ever stuck with thepea in some emergency situation.

Although knowing that nothing will be wasted is a meagre comfort.
With fava beans and a nice chianti? :stirthepot:
Buddha save me from new-agers!
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

DNS wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 4:15 pm
The beetle that was killed for the cucumber salad you eat or the plant that ingests all the nutrients that it’s given.
It's about intention, but anyway, this is not the great vegetarian debate. This is about the First Precept which is about not killing. Even buddhists who eat meat, do not kill the animal and then eat it.
thepea wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:58 pm Now I get it. This challenges the staunch conservative monastic religious view. And yes... this is what I’m claiming and challenging.
It's not just the "staunch conservative monastic religious view" that you are challenging. You are opposing Theravada Buddha-Dhamma, Mahayana Buddha-Dharma, and Vajrayana Buddha-Dharma; the entirety of Buddhism.
It’s about destruction, you keep going to the word killing. So Buddhist monks on alms in Buddhist villages is a thing correct?
The monastics do not per say go on alms in Muslim or other religious areas correct?
Monks eat fish, beef, chicken, etc.... eggs whatever is placed in the bowl, correct?
Where do these Buddhist lay supporters get these items, most specifically before the grocery store and global shipping was a thing?

Yes, and we have had this conversation before. I am not Buddhist, I am a dhamma practitioner. I am not religious. I don’t give importance to belief only wisdom.
User avatar
NotMe
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:41 pm

Re: First precept

Post by NotMe »

Spiny Norman wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 4:21 pm
With fava beans and a nice chianti? :stirthepot:
I am quite "toke"en by the offer of chianti, but that is another precept to be argued endlessly.

choke choke

Metta

:anjali:

edit to add: Dr prescription! Medicine! <wavy gravy grin>

edit to edit: " I am not Buddhist, I am a dhamma practitioner." broaches another precept, No?
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

NotMe wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 4:34 pm
Spiny Norman wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 4:21 pm
With fava beans and a nice chianti? :stirthepot:
I am quite "toke"en by the offer of chianti, but that is another precept to be argued endlessly.

choke choke

Metta

:anjali:

edit to add: Dr prescription! Medicine! <wavy gravy grin>

edit to edit: " I am not Buddhist, I am a dhamma practitioner." broaches another precept, No?
No.
User avatar
NotMe
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:41 pm

Re: First precept

Post by NotMe »

thepea wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:18 pm
NotMe wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 4:34 pm edit to edit: " I am not Buddhist, I am a dhamma practitioner." broaches another precept, No?
No.
Ok

Metta

:anjali:

edit to add: Wait - that quote - I didn't say that, thepea did, not my peabrain... Mara!!!
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: First precept

Post by Sam Vara »

thepea wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 4:30 pm
DNS wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 4:15 pm
The beetle that was killed for the cucumber salad you eat or the plant that ingests all the nutrients that it’s given.
It's about intention, but anyway, this is not the great vegetarian debate. This is about the First Precept which is about not killing. Even buddhists who eat meat, do not kill the animal and then eat it.
thepea wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:58 pm Now I get it. This challenges the staunch conservative monastic religious view. And yes... this is what I’m claiming and challenging.
It's not just the "staunch conservative monastic religious view" that you are challenging. You are opposing Theravada Buddha-Dhamma, Mahayana Buddha-Dharma, and Vajrayana Buddha-Dharma; the entirety of Buddhism.
It’s about destruction, you keep going to the word killing.
What word is closest to what we think the Buddha used (i.e. the word in the Pali suttas) and why do you think it is more suitably translated as "destruction" than "killing"?
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 6:24 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 4:30 pm
DNS wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 4:15 pm

It's about intention, but anyway, this is not the great vegetarian debate. This is about the First Precept which is about not killing. Even buddhists who eat meat, do not kill the animal and then eat it.



It's not just the "staunch conservative monastic religious view" that you are challenging. You are opposing Theravada Buddha-Dhamma, Mahayana Buddha-Dharma, and Vajrayana Buddha-Dharma; the entirety of Buddhism.
It’s about destruction, you keep going to the word killing.
What word is closest to what we think the Buddha used (i.e. the word in the Pali suttas) and why do you think it is more suitably translated as "destruction" than "killing"?
bhikku Bhodhi uses killing and Thanisarro uses destruction.
I find the use of killing to be towards the extreme side, like veganism not using animal products at all including manure to grow vegetables. To me, this seem extremist and off balance of middle.
Eating life, yet trying to avoid killing seems extreme and impossible, having others kill for your food. It just makes no sense.
Destruction(mutilation and waste) seems in alignment with nature and more harmonious to circle of life.
User avatar
NotMe
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:41 pm

Re: First precept

Post by NotMe »

thepea wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 7:29 pm ... Thanisarro uses destruction.
Quote please. He uses taking of life here:
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN9_63.html

I have never heard or read him refer to the precept as mere 'destruction', please prove me wrong. I know that is *not* the only way he describes it.

Metta

:anjali:
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17191
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: First precept

Post by DNS »

thepea wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 7:29 pm bhikku Bhodhi uses killing and Thanisarro uses destruction.
I find the use of killing to be towards the extreme side, like veganism not using animal products at all including manure to grow vegetables. To me, this seem extremist and off balance of middle.
Eating life, yet trying to avoid killing seems extreme and impossible, having others kill for your food. It just makes no sense.
Destruction(mutilation and waste) seems in alignment with nature and more harmonious to circle of life.
There are some translators who use the term destroying as in:
I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.


But I guarantee you they are referring to killing. They just chose to use the term destroying. You can even ask them. I guarantee you they will say (the ones still alive) it refers to no killing any living being (humans and yes, animals).

de·stroy
/dəˈstroi/
Learn to pronounce
verb
put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it.
"the room had been destroyed by fire"

Definition of destroy
transitive verb

1: to ruin the structure, organic existence, or condition of
destroyed the files
also : to ruin as if by tearing to shreds
their reputation was destroyed
a disease that destroys the body's ability to fight off illness
… destroyed any hope of a return to past crackdowns …
— George Brock
2a: to put out of existence : KILL
destroy an injured horse
User13866
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:50 am

Re: First precept

Post by User13866 »

thepea wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 7:29 pm Eating life, yet trying to avoid killing seems extreme and impossible, having others kill for your food. It just makes no sense.
Nobody is eating "life" here. When life ends the life-force is cut off, the heat is cut off, the body is like a tree log. The eating is of meat.
"In the case of the one who is dead, who has completed his time, his bodily fabrications have ceased & subsided, his verbal fabrications ... his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided, his vitality is exhausted, his heat subsided, & his faculties are scattered.
41. Ere long, alas! this body will lie upon the earth, unheeded and lifeless, like a useless log.
I can cut off a lump of flesh from my body and eat it.

Am i eating life or am i eating meat? I am eating meat.
Did i destroy life of a being? No i didn't.
Why not? Because the life force wasn't cut off.

Can a being deprive a being of life multiple times? No, it can only be deprived of life once. Having been deprived the body is like a useless log.

Suppose i find a carcass in the forest and eat it.

Am i eating life or am i eating meat? I am eating meat.

Did i kill a being? No i didn't.

Why not? Because the carcass was already deprived of life when i found it there, heedless, like a log.

Suppose a man deprives me of life such that my body is made like a useless log and feeds the body to his children.

Did his children eat life or did they eat meat? They ate meat.

Who destroyed life, the man or the children? The man.

Who will be blamed for killing? The man.

Will children be blamed for the destruction of life? No they won't.

Are children blameless in regards to the taking of life? Yes they are blameless.
User avatar
NotMe
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:41 pm

Re: First precept

Post by NotMe »

User13866 wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:31 pm Are children blameless in regards to the taking of life? Yes they are blameless.
A child can not intend to kill is what you are saying? You have never been a grade school Principal or teacher I surmise.

Metta

:anjali:
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

NotMe wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:15 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 7:29 pm ... Thanisarro uses destruction.
Quote please. He uses taking of life here:
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN9_63.html

I have never heard or read him refer to the precept as mere 'destruction', please prove me wrong. I know that is *not* the only way he describes it.

Metta

:anjali:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dha ... asila.html
User13866
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:50 am

Re: First precept

Post by User13866 »

NotMe wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:47 pm
User13866 wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:31 pm Are children blameless in regards to the taking of life? Yes they are blameless.
A child can not intend to kill is what you are saying? You have never been a grade school Principal or teacher I surmise.

Metta

:anjali:
I meant those particular children.

It's like if a person kills another and feeds the remains to the pigs.

Then he can't argue in court that pigs did the killing. That would be absurd. He did the killing and pigs ate the meat.
User avatar
NotMe
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:41 pm

Re: First precept

Post by NotMe »

User13866 wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:51 pm
I meant those particular children.

It's like if a person kills another and feeds the remains to the pigs.

Then he can't argue in court that pigs did the killing. That would be absurd. He did the killing and pigs ate the meat.
Thank you for clarifying. My bad! Gratitude.

Metta

:anjali:
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

DNS wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:29 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 7:29 pm bhikku Bhodhi uses killing and Thanisarro uses destruction.
I find the use of killing to be towards the extreme side, like veganism not using animal products at all including manure to grow vegetables. To me, this seem extremist and off balance of middle.
Eating life, yet trying to avoid killing seems extreme and impossible, having others kill for your food. It just makes no sense.
Destruction(mutilation and waste) seems in alignment with nature and more harmonious to circle of life.
There are some translators who use the term destroying as in:
I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.


But I guarantee you they are referring to killing. They just chose to use the term destroying. You can even ask them. I guarantee you they will say (the ones still alive) it refers to no killing any living being (humans and yes, animals).

de·stroy
/dəˈstroi/
Learn to pronounce
verb
put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it.
"the room had been destroyed by fire"

Definition of destroy
transitive verb

1: to ruin the structure, organic existence, or condition of
destroyed the files
also : to ruin as if by tearing to shreds
their reputation was destroyed
a disease that destroys the body's ability to fight off illness
… destroyed any hope of a return to past crackdowns …
— George Brock
2a: to put out of existence : KILL
destroy an injured horse
So for me it seems to fit more in the sense of not deleting or destroying the existence of day the Buffalo. All is provided fir us to use to sustain life. But if we destroy a species then it’s gone forever. No more Buffalo to harvest etc... so we should live with the earth in harmony like the native tribes did.
I do see the usage of both for formal training as monastic or retreatists seeking jhana. But... I find it extremist for the layman with social responsibilities.
Post Reply