Again, you keep bringing up monastics in a discussion regarding laity.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:34 pmActually, you may have a point there. If someone as scholarly and eminent as Ajahn Thanissaro translates pānātipāta as "destroy", then it's perfectly possible that there is an ambiguity there; that the Buddha meant "destroy" living creatures rather than "kill" them. After all, Thanissaro is a real Pali expert, and he's probably seen something that I and other people didn't spot in the precepts. I might have to revise my position on this...
But wait! What's this??! Here's that same Thanissaro on destroyi...er, I mean, killing:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... ssage.htmlKilling is never skillful. Stealing, lying, and everything else in the first list are never skillful. When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone. If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill...When formulating lay precepts based on his distinction between skillful and unskillful, the Buddha never made any allowances for ifs, ands, or buts. When you promise yourself to abstain from killing or stealing, the power of the promise lies in its universality. You won't break your promise to yourself under any conditions at all...So the Buddha's position on the precepts was uncompromising and clear. If you want to follow his teachings, there's absolutely no room for killing, stealing, or lying, period.
Oh dear. Never mind. Back to the drawing board.
There are three bubbles, the innermost is the bubble of strict practice, the next bubble supports the strict practitioners(cooking, maintenance) the next bubble takes care of the middle bubble. This is where the blood and killing goes on. Buddha had no say in this as he was a monastic and bound to the inner two for protections.
So his teachings are for those two bubbles.
A lay sotapanna can live in all three bubbles, while in the inner two bubbles absolutely must follow monastic rules and additional ones in the innermost bubble.
Once laity leave the inner two bubbles they are free to do as they please but must accept kamma of course.
Destroy and its differentiation from kill is IMO diverse to reach out to the outer bubble for conditions of sustainability.
And again as a sota can live in this outer bubble I see no logical reason why they would be bound to the inner bubble rules, given they have only removed three fetters which clearly define that which they cannot kill, mother father, etc...