First precept

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: First precept

Post by SDC »

thepea wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 2:26 am I’m not upending the suttas. I’m literally at the mercy of the Pali scholars translations.
Agreed, you aren’t upending the standard at all. The mere fact that it is available is enough to prevent your efforts from doing so. That was my point.

Like I said, acceptance of killing is the acceptance of a particular relationship with the world (as are the other four precepts). As long as such a relationship is acceptable, it is an insurmountable representation of the inverse order of self and not-self described in AN 4.49. Without abstaining from killing there is no opportunity to understand and remove what it signifies. That is the long-term investment of the precepts, pending that goal is what is valued.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

SDC wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 3:13 am
thepea wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 2:26 am I’m not upending the suttas. I’m literally at the mercy of the Pali scholars translations.
Agreed, you aren’t upending the standard at all. The mere fact that it is available is enough to prevent your efforts from doing so. That was my point.

Like I said, acceptance of killing is the acceptance of a particular relationship with the world (as are the other four precepts). As long as such a relationship is acceptable, it is an insurmountable representation of the inverse order of self and not-self described in AN 4.49. Without abstaining from killing there is no opportunity to understand and remove what it signifies. That is the long-term investment of the precepts, pending that goal is what is valued.
First, you should grasp what I’ve said in this thread. I’m not saying everybody go out and kill at will. Avoid destruction of living beings is accepting the need/tim/place for killing living beings and how this is best done.
One may develop to a degree where little to no intentional killing is done. But either way the mind will remain at ease and balance. The old Australian Aboriginal man is not running in guilt ridden thought over the grubs he had for life much that day. He certainly doesn’t dread the next days tasks ahead. Instead they are accepting of the bodily needs and what the earth had provided to sustain this body.
This also would not prevent the aboriginal man from refraining from hunting and gathering for 10/20/30 or so days to do some deep meditation and cleansing given others were willing to support him for this time.
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 Jul 25, 2022 11:19 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:10 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:46 pm

Yes, eating the alms is supporting the harvesting of the alms and the need for the alms.
How is this "support"? You said that support was "enabling", but I pointed out that the recipient of alms was not enabling anyone to kill. Would you like to address that?

The rest of your post is about what monks do or should do. According to the vinaya they should not be accepting meat if they know or suspect it has been killed for them. So let's return to the case of what is allowed. If a monk accepts meat which they believe to have been slaughtered for someone else, how is that supporting or approving of the slaughter?
My point using the Sri lanken monks is the consent through silence or ignorance.
If they are unaware or unsuspecting that the creature has been killed for them, they are consenting to eat it, not consenting to it being killed. If they are aware or suspect it has been killed for them, they are in breach if they accept.

I'm addressing your point about the Buddha eating meat and therefore approving of killing, the principle of it, not instances you know of where the principle had clearly been breached.

Could you return to that point, please, rather than introducing new themes? Or is that inconvenient for you?
User avatar
Johann
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2022 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: First precept

Post by Johann »

thepea wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:16 am
Johann wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 12:54 am
thepea wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 12:28 am
I disagree.
Yes, and that's simply the opposite of Saddha, and here he stucks, with on way for release. One can just leave good householder at hire of his action run on. Or as the Buddha similar draw a sample: let those not willing to go forth die off within relation.
I have faith in avoiding destruction of life.
If so, good householder, why then instead of abstaining and no more taking part, holding on house, defending stand and stay bond to cause suffering for both, onesf and others?

Sacca is something fundamental important. Lack of sacca and blind to suffering, one nothing but follows non-benefical rites and hypocritical views to defend one's not willing to let go, surrender, saddha.

Aside of faith in deeds have effects, and that one is heir of one's actions, it of course also requires firm faith that escape is possible.

Fools will ever on nourish on each other, hurt again and again, delight in sensuality, while those with faith, simply stopping are bond to arrive at deathless.

This Sasana does not serve with any deluded ideas of perfect worlds, but points out the way to gain debtlessness, to escape. "Heros" always just kill for their sake, others or themselves... for another same-same turn.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: First precept

Post by SDC »

thepea wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 6:32 am First, you should grasp what I’ve said in this thread. I’m not saying everybody go out and kill at will. Avoid destruction of living beings is accepting the need/tim/place for killing living beings and how this is best done.
One may develop to a degree where little to no intentional killing is done. But either way the mind will remain at ease and balance. The old Australian Aboriginal man is not running in guilt ridden thought over the grubs he had for life much that day. He certainly doesn’t dread the next days tasks ahead. Instead they are accepting of the bodily needs and what the earth had provided to sustain this body.
This also would not prevent the aboriginal man from refraining from hunting and gathering for 10/20/30 or so days to do some deep meditation and cleansing given others were willing to support him for this time.
While I appreciate your affection and veneration of indigenous lifestyles, they are not that of a renunciate. They developed out of necessity. Simplicity does not imply Dhamma.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 7:43 am
thepea wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:19 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:10 pm

How is this "support"? You said that support was "enabling", but I pointed out that the recipient of alms was not enabling anyone to kill. Would you like to address that?

The rest of your post is about what monks do or should do. According to the vinaya they should not be accepting meat if they know or suspect it has been killed for them. So let's return to the case of what is allowed. If a monk accepts meat which they believe to have been slaughtered for someone else, how is that supporting or approving of the slaughter?
My point using the Sri lanken monks is the consent through silence or ignorance.
If they are unaware or unsuspecting that the creature has been killed for them, they are consenting to eat it, not consenting to it being killed. If they are aware or suspect it has been killed for them, they are in breach if they accept.

I'm addressing your point about the Buddha eating meat and therefore approving of killing, the principle of it, not instances you know of where the principle had clearly been breached.

Could you return to that point, please, rather than introducing new themes? Or is that inconvenient for you?
I see this as a grey area, obviously these monks know that each week these families are scheduled to bring them their meals. And through discussions with the monks and laity they know the preferences these monks enjoy.
This I know from a non Sri lanken monk who was assigned this monastery as his residence for 6 months. Towards the end I asked him what he will miss/ look forward to moving to his next residence? He answered “ a change in food as these monks were given the same dishes day in and day out with same spices which this monk found very strong tasting and did not enjoy.”
One day a new fellow showed up to meditation and he worked at a drug store/grocery store and when he studied about monastics and their meal before noon he excitedly said I can bring them food I get lots of food for free. He brought boxes of granola bars and offered to the monks after meditation one Sunday morning and the monk told him do not bring these things as they do not eat them. Then I went for tea with that man and he was sad that his Dana was rejected and i never saw him again.

The point is the essence or spirit of the monks is (craving/aversion) or routine comforts. They know and expect a fish for their meals each day from tradition. They don’t seem concerned in the least that animals are killed to provide them their traditional Sri lanken meals only that this is what their diet consists of and this is what they prefer to eat. They prefer to eat animals as part of healthy diet. This is supporting the killing even if indirectly, not in a legal way(culpable) but in a kamma way yes.
Now buddhas way is much less, as he went on alms, but if routine was established with certain villagers and dietary preferences were established for Buddha and the monastics then this could be a stronger kammic connection to the supporting of killing animals for their meals.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

SDC wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 11:21 am
thepea wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 6:32 am First, you should grasp what I’ve said in this thread. I’m not saying everybody go out and kill at will. Avoid destruction of living beings is accepting the need/tim/place for killing living beings and how this is best done.
One may develop to a degree where little to no intentional killing is done. But either way the mind will remain at ease and balance. The old Australian Aboriginal man is not running in guilt ridden thought over the grubs he had for life much that day. He certainly doesn’t dread the next days tasks ahead. Instead they are accepting of the bodily needs and what the earth had provided to sustain this body.
This also would not prevent the aboriginal man from refraining from hunting and gathering for 10/20/30 or so days to do some deep meditation and cleansing given others were willing to support him for this time.
While I appreciate your affection and veneration of indigenous lifestyles, they are not that of a renunciate. They developed out of necessity. Simplicity does not imply Dhamma.
I’m not saying these ancient ways are living like a monastic, I’m simply saying that 2500 yrs ago it’s most likely the villagers hunted and gathered as well as farmed and utilized livestock for food.
A villager farmer/fisherman in buddhas time could take robes for the rains retreat and attain sotapanna. Then due to past kamma(wife and child) could return to his farming/fishing(food production) and kill.
This is not destruction of living beings, farming and responsible fishing ensures the propagation of living being for future generations. Without farmer, etc.... livestock numbers would diminish, without hunting regulations respecting seasonal mating times the population of wild animals would greatly diminish. Killing is not the issue, destruction is the issue.
This is at the core teachings of these tribes I mention. Living with the land in harmony and balance(the middle way) to say “do not kill” is extremism.
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: Tue Jul 26, 2022 12:07 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 7:43 am
thepea wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:19 pm

My point using the Sri lanken monks is the consent through silence or ignorance.
If they are unaware or unsuspecting that the creature has been killed for them, they are consenting to eat it, not consenting to it being killed. If they are aware or suspect it has been killed for them, they are in breach if they accept.

I'm addressing your point about the Buddha eating meat and therefore approving of killing, the principle of it, not instances you know of where the principle had clearly been breached.

Could you return to that point, please, rather than introducing new themes? Or is that inconvenient for you?
I see this as a grey area, obviously these monks know that each week these families are scheduled to bring them their meals. And through discussions with the monks and laity they know the preferences these monks enjoy.
This I know from a non Sri lanken monk who was assigned this monastery as his residence for 6 months. Towards the end I asked him what he will miss/ look forward to moving to his next residence? He answered “ a change in food as these monks were given the same dishes day in and day out with same spices which this monk found very strong tasting and did not enjoy.”
One day a new fellow showed up to meditation and he worked at a drug store/grocery store and when he studied about monastics and their meal before noon he excitedly said I can bring them food I get lots of food for free. He brought boxes of granola bars and offered to the monks after meditation one Sunday morning and the monk told him do not bring these things as they do not eat them. Then I went for tea with that man and he was sad that his Dana was rejected and i never saw him again.

The point is the essence or spirit of the monks is (craving/aversion) or routine comforts. They know and expect a fish for their meals each day from tradition. They don’t seem concerned in the least that animals are killed to provide them their traditional Sri lanken meals only that this is what their diet consists of and this is what they prefer to eat. They prefer to eat animals as part of healthy diet. This is supporting the killing even if indirectly, not in a legal way(culpable) but in a kamma way yes.
Now buddhas way is much less, as he went on alms, but if routine was established with certain villagers and dietary preferences were established for Buddha and the monastics then this could be a stronger kammic connection to the supporting of killing animals for their meals.
Do you think that if you repetitively raise other points I will forget what the issue was?

You said, clearly and repetitively, that the Buddha supported killing. When asked what this meant, you said that it meant enabling killing. I pointed out that the Buddha did not enable killing at all. Then you changed the subject, and we've had an account of what some monks do. That's nothing to do with the question, to which I invite you to return.

In what way was the Buddha's acceptance of meat in his alms bowl "supporting killing"? We'll assume of course that he practised as he preached, so please no fantasies about what he might have done. If he accepted meat without asking or hinting for it, and not knowing or believing that it had been killed for him, how is this supporting killing?
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:07 pm
thepea wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 12:07 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 7:43 am

If they are unaware or unsuspecting that the creature has been killed for them, they are consenting to eat it, not consenting to it being killed. If they are aware or suspect it has been killed for them, they are in breach if they accept.

I'm addressing your point about the Buddha eating meat and therefore approving of killing, the principle of it, not instances you know of where the principle had clearly been breached.

Could you return to that point, please, rather than introducing new themes? Or is that inconvenient for you?
I see this as a grey area, obviously these monks know that each week these families are scheduled to bring them their meals. And through discussions with the monks and laity they know the preferences these monks enjoy.
This I know from a non Sri lanken monk who was assigned this monastery as his residence for 6 months. Towards the end I asked him what he will miss/ look forward to moving to his next residence? He answered “ a change in food as these monks were given the same dishes day in and day out with same spices which this monk found very strong tasting and did not enjoy.”
One day a new fellow showed up to meditation and he worked at a drug store/grocery store and when he studied about monastics and their meal before noon he excitedly said I can bring them food I get lots of food for free. He brought boxes of granola bars and offered to the monks after meditation one Sunday morning and the monk told him do not bring these things as they do not eat them. Then I went for tea with that man and he was sad that his Dana was rejected and i never saw him again.

The point is the essence or spirit of the monks is (craving/aversion) or routine comforts. They know and expect a fish for their meals each day from tradition. They don’t seem concerned in the least that animals are killed to provide them their traditional Sri lanken meals only that this is what their diet consists of and this is what they prefer to eat. They prefer to eat animals as part of healthy diet. This is supporting the killing even if indirectly, not in a legal way(culpable) but in a kamma way yes.
Now buddhas way is much less, as he went on alms, but if routine was established with certain villagers and dietary preferences were established for Buddha and the monastics then this could be a stronger kammic connection to the supporting of killing animals for their meals.
Do you think that if you repetitively raise other points I will forget what the issue was?

You said, clearly and repetitively, that the Buddha supported killing. When asked what this meant, you said that it meant enabling killing. I pointed out that the Buddha did not enable killing at all. Then you changed the subject, and we've had an account of what some monks do. That's nothing to do with the question, to which I invite you to return.

In what way was the Buddha's acceptance of meat in his alms bowl "supporting killing"? We'll assume of course that he practised as he preached, so please no fantasies about what he might have done. If he accepted meat without asking or hinting for it, and not knowing or believing that it had been killed for him, how is this supporting killing?
The Buddha as in the living man siddarth Gotama killed. Every living creature kills and ingests life to sustain life. This is enabling killing but it is not destruction of life. This is the dhamma.
To observe the arising and passing of living breathing beings with equiminity. This is support or enabling this process to occur uninhibited.
The Buddha as in the awakened one within each of us is the essence for which we kill or take any action without this essence we cease to be.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: First precept

Post by SDC »

thepea wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 12:17 pm I’m not saying these ancient ways are living like a monastic, I’m simply saying that 2500 yrs ago it’s most likely the villagers hunted and gathered as well as farmed and utilized livestock for food.
A villager farmer/fisherman in buddhas time could take robes for the rains retreat and attain sotapanna. Then due to past kamma(wife and child) could return to his farming/fishing(food production) and kill.
This is not destruction of living beings, farming and responsible fishing ensures the propagation of living being for future generations. Without farmer, etc.... livestock numbers would diminish, without hunting regulations respecting seasonal mating times the population of wild animals would greatly diminish. Killing is not the issue, destruction is the issue.
This is at the core teachings of these tribes I mention. Living with the land in harmony and balance(the middle way) to say “do not kill” is extremism.
Sure, if a sotapanna were to disrobe they could absolutely return to the lay life and kill animals for food. No doubt about it. Unlikely, but not impossible. However, that is not whole picture of what you are describing. You’re trying to apply a very idiosyncratic scenario back on to the precepts, which are universal in their purpose. I cannot think of a more backwards way to describe the Dhamma. The precepts represent that first act of renunciation, and to whatever degree a sotapanna makes the choice not to maintain that in the lay setting after the establishment of right view, is certainly not cause for modifying the scope of that precept. The abstaining of killing holds the right order in terms of the view, always. If one chooses to ignore that order out of weakness, lack of faith or whatever, that is their cross to bear. You said it yourself, the sotapanna makes a choice to return to the lower life of lesser principles. It wouldn’t change what they know, but they have chosen to live a disorder, and at best they would always feel shameful for doing so.

Again, I’m not sure why you keep bringing up indigenous peoples as if their notions of harmony and balance bear any significant resemblance to the renunciation as described by the Buddha. Sure, there are similarities when it comes to generosity and a lack of greed in the lifestyle, but the reasons for doing so are completely unrelated.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

SDC wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 2:05 pm
thepea wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 12:17 pm I’m not saying these ancient ways are living like a monastic, I’m simply saying that 2500 yrs ago it’s most likely the villagers hunted and gathered as well as farmed and utilized livestock for food.
A villager farmer/fisherman in buddhas time could take robes for the rains retreat and attain sotapanna. Then due to past kamma(wife and child) could return to his farming/fishing(food production) and kill.
This is not destruction of living beings, farming and responsible fishing ensures the propagation of living being for future generations. Without farmer, etc.... livestock numbers would diminish, without hunting regulations respecting seasonal mating times the population of wild animals would greatly diminish. Killing is not the issue, destruction is the issue.
This is at the core teachings of these tribes I mention. Living with the land in harmony and balance(the middle way) to say “do not kill” is extremism.
Sure, if a sotapanna were to disrobe they could absolutely return to the lay life and kill animals for food. No doubt about it. Unlikely, but not impossible. However, that is not whole picture of what you are describing. You’re trying to apply a very idiosyncratic scenario back on to the precepts, which are universal in their purpose. I cannot think of a more backwards way to describe the Dhamma. The precepts represent that first act of renunciation, and to whatever degree a sotapanna makes the choice not to maintain that in the lay setting after the establishment of right view, is certainly not cause for modifying the scope of that precept. The abstaining of killing holds the right order in terms of the view, always. If one chooses to ignore that order out of weakness, lack of faith or whatever, that is their cross to bear. You said it yourself, the sotapanna makes a choice to return to the lower life of lesser principles. It wouldn’t change what they know, but they have chosen to live a disorder, and at best they would always feel shameful for doing so.

Again, I’m not sure why you keep bringing up indigenous peoples as if their notions of harmony and balance bear any significant resemblance to the renunciation as described by the Buddha. Sure, there are similarities when it comes to generosity and a lack of greed in the lifestyle, but the reasons for doing so are completely unrelated.
I do not share your view of returning to “lower life of lesser principals”. There is doing the noble work and there is being a productive member of society. It’s a symbiotic relation.
Paryatti and pattipatti must go hand in hand. Too much of one and there is no balance.
My roots are strong and nobody need care or tend to this tree. The fence is removed and to large for the cattle to eat. I’m seeing things differently, perhaps one day some will come visit to take shade or even eat up some fruits.
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: Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:38 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:07 pm
thepea wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 12:07 pm
I see this as a grey area, obviously these monks know that each week these families are scheduled to bring them their meals. And through discussions with the monks and laity they know the preferences these monks enjoy.
This I know from a non Sri lanken monk who was assigned this monastery as his residence for 6 months. Towards the end I asked him what he will miss/ look forward to moving to his next residence? He answered “ a change in food as these monks were given the same dishes day in and day out with same spices which this monk found very strong tasting and did not enjoy.”
One day a new fellow showed up to meditation and he worked at a drug store/grocery store and when he studied about monastics and their meal before noon he excitedly said I can bring them food I get lots of food for free. He brought boxes of granola bars and offered to the monks after meditation one Sunday morning and the monk told him do not bring these things as they do not eat them. Then I went for tea with that man and he was sad that his Dana was rejected and i never saw him again.

The point is the essence or spirit of the monks is (craving/aversion) or routine comforts. They know and expect a fish for their meals each day from tradition. They don’t seem concerned in the least that animals are killed to provide them their traditional Sri lanken meals only that this is what their diet consists of and this is what they prefer to eat. They prefer to eat animals as part of healthy diet. This is supporting the killing even if indirectly, not in a legal way(culpable) but in a kamma way yes.
Now buddhas way is much less, as he went on alms, but if routine was established with certain villagers and dietary preferences were established for Buddha and the monastics then this could be a stronger kammic connection to the supporting of killing animals for their meals.
Do you think that if you repetitively raise other points I will forget what the issue was?

You said, clearly and repetitively, that the Buddha supported killing. When asked what this meant, you said that it meant enabling killing. I pointed out that the Buddha did not enable killing at all. Then you changed the subject, and we've had an account of what some monks do. That's nothing to do with the question, to which I invite you to return.

In what way was the Buddha's acceptance of meat in his alms bowl "supporting killing"? We'll assume of course that he practised as he preached, so please no fantasies about what he might have done. If he accepted meat without asking or hinting for it, and not knowing or believing that it had been killed for him, how is this supporting killing?
The Buddha as in the living man siddarth Gotama killed. Every living creature kills and ingests life to sustain life.
You change your position every time you answer. You claimed that the Buddha supported killing or approved of killing, by virtue of accepting meat. Explain why his accepting meat is killing, supporting killing, or approving of killing. There's no need for the pop metaphysics. Just answer that bit.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: First precept

Post by SDC »

thepea wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 2:28 pm
I do not share your view of returning to “lower life of lesser principals”. There is doing the noble work and there is being a productive member of society. It’s a symbiotic relation.
Paryatti and pattipatti must go hand in hand. Too much of one and there is no balance.
I agree that a layperson, in general, should be diligent and responsible while keeping the precepts, but a sotapanna who chooses to kill has chosen lesser principles. Not only that, they are a beacon of weakness and are not doing what’s best for future generations. Unless, of course, they made sure not to speak in support of their choice to kill (for food or survival), let alone try to justify it on the internet for thousands to see. In the very least, they wouldn’t be contributing to a lack of clarity when it comes to the renunciation the precepts represent.

Once again…how fortunate we are to have the standard described in the suttas and vinaya, giving people opportunity to investigate claims they may find dubious.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 3:34 pm
thepea wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:38 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:07 pm

Do you think that if you repetitively raise other points I will forget what the issue was?

You said, clearly and repetitively, that the Buddha supported killing. When asked what this meant, you said that it meant enabling killing. I pointed out that the Buddha did not enable killing at all. Then you changed the subject, and we've had an account of what some monks do. That's nothing to do with the question, to which I invite you to return.

In what way was the Buddha's acceptance of meat in his alms bowl "supporting killing"? We'll assume of course that he practised as he preached, so please no fantasies about what he might have done. If he accepted meat without asking or hinting for it, and not knowing or believing that it had been killed for him, how is this supporting killing?
The Buddha as in the living man siddarth Gotama killed. Every living creature kills and ingests life to sustain life.
You change your position every time you answer. You claimed that the Buddha supported killing or approved of killing, by virtue of accepting meat. Explain why his accepting meat is killing, supporting killing, or approving of killing. There's no need for the pop metaphysics. Just answer that bit.
I have.... many times. You don’t seem interested in my answer. The topic is first precept and an investigation into this.
If the first precept is destruction and not killing then the acceptance of meat is not an issue. You seem to be of the position that we all must emulate the behaviours of the arahant when most are not at this level of purity.
This can be problematic for monastics and students of dhamma, trying so hard to emulate the qualities of an arahant when naturally they have grosser aspect to come out of first. It’s a gradual path with natural results. I’m stating that the word destruction is a much more accurate fit and a middle way vs killing which is extreme.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

SDC wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 3:57 pm
thepea wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 2:28 pm
I do not share your view of returning to “lower life of lesser principals”. There is doing the noble work and there is being a productive member of society. It’s a symbiotic relation.
Paryatti and pattipatti must go hand in hand. Too much of one and there is no balance.
I agree that a layperson, in general, should be diligent and responsible while keeping the precepts, but a sotapanna who chooses to kill has chosen lesser principles. Not only that, they are a beacon of weakness and are not doing what’s best for future generations. Unless, of course, they made sure not to speak in support of their choice to kill (for food or survival), let alone try to justify it on the internet for thousands to see. In the very least, they wouldn’t be contributing to a lack of clarity when it comes to the renunciation the precepts represent.

Once again…how fortunate we are to have the standard described in the suttas and vinaya, giving people opportunity to investigate claims they may find dubious.
I’m saying killing is not a breach of precepts. Destruction is the breach of precept.
But hunting as well as ping pong are activities a layman sotapanna can participate in but if one is pursuing jhana and the eradication of subtler elements than neither of these activities is suitable, strict training should be observed.
For monastics they live inside of the strict training, but a layman sotapanna does not when returning to mundane duties.
Post Reply