First precept

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

DNS wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 12:39 am
thepea wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 12:31 am The Buddha ate fish, did he not?
That’s approval.
He didn't kill.
He approved of it through his action of eating animal flesh.
There is the middle way which is not the extremism of vegetarianism.
And I wasn’t present to observe Siddsrth Gotama actions in the forest 2500 yrs ago. He may very well have swatted a skitter or two, rather than allow them to feast upon his flesh.
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 12:19 am
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 11:52 pm
thepea wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 10:58 pm
Then it’s inconclusive isn’t it?
It’s open to much interpretation.
You have yet to provide a sutta that clearly supports your claim and directly states that my interpretation of first precept being destruction is false.
One sutta you provided couldn’t even nail down difinitavely the fish size.
The size of the fish was an almost literal red herring :redherring: raised by you. It's not an issue for the Buddha. He advises the boys not to catch the fish. Size is of no more importance in this context than species, or the weather at the time.

My claim is that the Buddha wasn't talking about a fishing rod when he used the term danda; and that the laity are (if they want to avoid their own future suffering) advised by the Buddha to refrain from being punitive and violent to others on all occasions, not just when "on retreat" or attempting to gain samādhi. The suttas that I have provided in support of this are Ud. 5.4, above; and the Dandavagga of the Dhammapada. I do that here:
viewtopic.php?p=686482#p686482

Also AN 10.176, which I referred to here: viewtopic.php?p=686402#p686402

These passages are not about monastics; make no reference to retreats or people wishing for meditative attainments; do not specify the size of the creatures oppressed or killed; nor mention an exemption for those who think they kill out of economic necessity, or with a calm mind; nor mention the destruction of species as opposed to the killing or oppression of specific creatures. All of these you have tried out as possible exemptions, but all the evidence you have brought is all your own speculation. Nowhere have I seen that all-important passage where the Buddha specifies what the exemptions are.
But the details of each sutta do matter. There is a difference between killing head lice on you child’s head to ease their discomfort or fishing peacefully for food and burning an ant with a magnifying glass.
Killing is not simply killing with same kammic results.
You seem to be suggesting that all intentional killing is met with the same kammic fate. Some killing is like chizzling into rock, some like drawing line in sand and some like drawing line on water. This is to do with the quality of mind one carries while performing actions.
The surgeon operating on a stranger is different to operating on their own child.

I’m saying killing is part of sustaining ones life, it is occurring all the time in the body. To become aware of this cycle of death is the buddhas teaching. Observing death from moment to moment is the practice.

So you are telling me you don’t kill anything intentionally in your day to day life?
Never got lice,
or had a mouse infestation in your house?
Never went out in the bush in early June and got attacked by mosquitoes or black flies?
Never had a wasp sting you and you instinctively swat in reaction to the pain?
Your wife has never asked you to deal with a wasp nest on your home?
This seems to be another list of red herrings; issues which do not address the point I am making.

My point is this. Contrary to your view, the Buddha appears to offer advice to lay people to not kill other beings. That advice appears to be universal, in the sense that the only condition attached is "If you want to avoid suffering", or "If you want to purify yourself", etc, then you should not kill. If the details in the suttas matter, where are the details which function as exceptions to this advice? Under what circumstances does the Buddha specifically say that it is OK for lay people to kill other beings? I'm talking here about circumstances indicated by the Buddha, rather than those supplied by yourself or others. I'm perfectly OK with you or anyone else saying that they think it is OK to kill other beings; that they need to, or the size of the creature killed or the intention of the killer somehow excuses them. I'm merely interested in whether that view that it is sometimes OK to kill other beings is anywhere endorsed by the what the Buddha is reported to have said.
User avatar
Johann
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2022 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: First precept

Post by Johann »

Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 9:07 am ... interested in whether that view that it is sometimes OK to kill other beings is anywhere endorsed by the what the Buddha is reported to have said.
Householder,

Dhanañjani Sutta
..."What do you think Dhanañjani? There is the case where a certain person, for the sake of his mother & father..for the sake of his wife & children ... his slaves & workers ... his friends & companions ... his kinsmen & relatives ... his guests ... his departed ancestors ... the devatas ... the king... [forum-members... admins... moderators...own avatar] for the sake of refreshing & nourishing his body, does what is unrighteous, does what is discordant. Then, because of his unrighteous, discordant behavior, hell-wardens drag him off to hell. Would he gain anything by saying, 'I did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for the sake of my mother & father. Don't [throw] me into hell, hell-wardens!' Or would his mother & father gain anything for him by saying, 'He did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for our sake. Don't [throw] him into hell, hell-wardens!'?"

"No, master Sariputta. Even right while he was wailing, they'd cast him into hell."
And what is unrighteous:
"Bhikkhus, followed by those three things, one is headed and designated for hell.[1] Which three? One self takes life,[2] instigates others to take life (depriving from current existence), and approves taking of life. These, Bhikkhus, are the three things, of which one is headed and designated for hell."... Succession ot the ways of actions
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 »

Johann wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:43 am
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 9:07 am ... interested in whether that view that it is sometimes OK to kill other beings is anywhere endorsed by the what the Buddha is reported to have said.
Householder,

Dhanañjani Sutta
..."What do you think Dhanañjani? There is the case where a certain person, for the sake of his mother & father..for the sake of his wife & children ... his slaves & workers ... his friends & companions ... his kinsmen & relatives ... his guests ... his departed ancestors ... the devatas ... the king... [forum-members... admins... moderators...own avatar] for the sake of refreshing & nourishing his body, does what is unrighteous, does what is discordant. Then, because of his unrighteous, discordant behavior, hell-wardens drag him off to hell. Would he gain anything by saying, 'I did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for the sake of my mother & father. Don't [throw] me into hell, hell-wardens!' Or would his mother & father gain anything for him by saying, 'He did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for our sake. Don't [throw] him into hell, hell-wardens!'?"

"No, master Sariputta. Even right while he was wailing, they'd cast him into hell."
And what is unrighteous:
"Bhikkhus, followed by those three things, one is headed and designated for hell.[1] Which three? One self takes life,[2] instigates others to take life (depriving from current existence), and approves taking of life. These, Bhikkhus, are the three things, of which one is headed and designated for hell."... Succession ot the ways of actions
Thank you. This another example of the Buddha and Ven. Sariputta apparently saying that there are no mitigating circumstances by which killing other beings might be excused. :thumbsup: :anjali:
User avatar
Johann
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2022 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: First precept

Post by Johann »

Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 12:00 pm
Johann wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:43 am
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 9:07 am ... interested in whether that view that it is sometimes OK to kill other beings is anywhere endorsed by the what the Buddha is reported to have said.
Householder,

Dhanañjani Sutta
..."What do you think Dhanañjani? There is the case where a certain person, for the sake of his mother & father..for the sake of his wife & children ... his slaves & workers ... his friends & companions ... his kinsmen & relatives ... his guests ... his departed ancestors ... the devatas ... the king... [forum-members... admins... moderators...own avatar] for the sake of refreshing & nourishing his body, does what is unrighteous, does what is discordant. Then, because of his unrighteous, discordant behavior, hell-wardens drag him off to hell. Would he gain anything by saying, 'I did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for the sake of my mother & father. Don't [throw] me into hell, hell-wardens!' Or would his mother & father gain anything for him by saying, 'He did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for our sake. Don't [throw] him into hell, hell-wardens!'?"

"No, master Sariputta. Even right while he was wailing, they'd cast him into hell."
And what is unrighteous:
"Bhikkhus, followed by those three things, one is headed and designated for hell.[1] Which three? One self takes life,[2] instigates others to take life (depriving from current existence), and approves taking of life. These, Bhikkhus, are the three things, of which one is headed and designated for hell."... Succession ot the ways of actions
Thank you. This another example of the Buddha and Ven. Sariputta apparently saying that there are no mitigating circumstances by which killing other beings might be excused. :thumbsup: :anjali:
Rejoicing on virtue, rejoicing on the reflection of the Gems, are signs of gaining faith, toward ways to higher and beyond, possible soon near the release from doubt.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 9:07 am This seems to be another list of red herrings; issues which do not address the point I am making.

My point is this. Contrary to your view, the Buddha appears to offer advice to lay people to not kill other beings. That advice appears to be universal, in the sense that the only condition attached is "If you want to avoid suffering", or "If you want to purify yourself", etc, then you should not kill. If the details in the suttas matter, where are the details which function as exceptions to this advice? Under what circumstances does the Buddha specifically say that it is OK for lay people to kill other beings? I'm talking here about circumstances indicated by the Buddha, rather than those supplied by yourself or others. I'm perfectly OK with you or anyone else saying that they think it is OK to kill other beings; that they need to, or the size of the creature killed or the intention of the killer somehow excuses them. I'm merely interested in whether that view that it is sometimes OK to kill other beings is anywhere endorsed by the what the Buddha is reported to have said.
Sam these are common everyday things that’ man has to deal with, unless they have servants or staff to deal with this. Killing is required at Vipassana centres or they get shut down. If someone brings in bed bugs they must be dealt with they CANNOT stay.
Similarly mice are removed from food storage areas and cooking areas. The government will shut them down if health standards are not met.
Even the monastery I attended had an infestation in Neely constructed temple and they had to deal with it and creatures were killed.
My point is unless you ordain or are sitting a retreat you have to deal with the mundane tasks of life and this involves killing.
If you are supported by a staff or volunteer like a monastic or a retreatant you can “avoid” such mundane activities and mind can settle into jhana and insight can arise.
If you reach a stage of purification (non-returner or higher) then it’s most likely you will need protection from life’s mundane activities. The mind/body would not be able to perform certain basic tasks and maintain this level of purity. Others must do these for you, you must AVOID these. Most likely without support these individuals would perish. This is supported where an arahant must ordain within 10 days or perish.
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 1:43 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 9:07 am This seems to be another list of red herrings; issues which do not address the point I am making.

My point is this. Contrary to your view, the Buddha appears to offer advice to lay people to not kill other beings. That advice appears to be universal, in the sense that the only condition attached is "If you want to avoid suffering", or "If you want to purify yourself", etc, then you should not kill. If the details in the suttas matter, where are the details which function as exceptions to this advice? Under what circumstances does the Buddha specifically say that it is OK for lay people to kill other beings? I'm talking here about circumstances indicated by the Buddha, rather than those supplied by yourself or others. I'm perfectly OK with you or anyone else saying that they think it is OK to kill other beings; that they need to, or the size of the creature killed or the intention of the killer somehow excuses them. I'm merely interested in whether that view that it is sometimes OK to kill other beings is anywhere endorsed by the what the Buddha is reported to have said.
Sam these are common everyday things that’ man has to deal with, unless they have servants or staff to deal with this. Killing is required at Vipassana centres or they get shut down. If someone brings in bed bugs they must be dealt with they CANNOT stay.
Similarly mice are removed from food storage areas and cooking areas. The government will shut them down if health standards are not met.
Even the monastery I attended had an infestation in Neely constructed temple and they had to deal with it and creatures were killed.
My point is unless you ordain or are sitting a retreat you have to deal with the mundane tasks of life and this involves killing.
If you are supported by a staff or volunteer like a monastic or a retreatant you can “avoid” such mundane activities and mind can settle into jhana and insight can arise.
If you reach a stage of purification (non-returner or higher) then it’s most likely you will need protection from life’s mundane activities. The mind/body would not be able to perform certain basic tasks and maintain this level of purity. Others must do these for you, you must AVOID these. Most likely without support these individuals would perish. This is supported where an arahant must ordain within 10 days or perish.
My point above is that the Buddha's advice to lay people not to kill other beings seems to be unconditional. I would willingly relinquish this point if any such conditions could be located; if there was any evidence in the suttas that the Buddha said that it was OK for lay people to kill when those conditions were met.

You haven't provided any evidence of those conditions. What you have done instead is to claim that you personally have found that lay life requires killing. I respect that claim, but it doesn't address my point, which is about the Buddha's teachings, rather than your experiences and the inferences you draw from them. They are two different things.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:19 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 1:43 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 9:07 am This seems to be another list of red herrings; issues which do not address the point I am making.

My point is this. Contrary to your view, the Buddha appears to offer advice to lay people to not kill other beings. That advice appears to be universal, in the sense that the only condition attached is "If you want to avoid suffering", or "If you want to purify yourself", etc, then you should not kill. If the details in the suttas matter, where are the details which function as exceptions to this advice? Under what circumstances does the Buddha specifically say that it is OK for lay people to kill other beings? I'm talking here about circumstances indicated by the Buddha, rather than those supplied by yourself or others. I'm perfectly OK with you or anyone else saying that they think it is OK to kill other beings; that they need to, or the size of the creature killed or the intention of the killer somehow excuses them. I'm merely interested in whether that view that it is sometimes OK to kill other beings is anywhere endorsed by the what the Buddha is reported to have said.
Sam these are common everyday things that’ man has to deal with, unless they have servants or staff to deal with this. Killing is required at Vipassana centres or they get shut down. If someone brings in bed bugs they must be dealt with they CANNOT stay.
Similarly mice are removed from food storage areas and cooking areas. The government will shut them down if health standards are not met.
Even the monastery I attended had an infestation in Neely constructed temple and they had to deal with it and creatures were killed.
My point is unless you ordain or are sitting a retreat you have to deal with the mundane tasks of life and this involves killing.
If you are supported by a staff or volunteer like a monastic or a retreatant you can “avoid” such mundane activities and mind can settle into jhana and insight can arise.
If you reach a stage of purification (non-returner or higher) then it’s most likely you will need protection from life’s mundane activities. The mind/body would not be able to perform certain basic tasks and maintain this level of purity. Others must do these for you, you must AVOID these. Most likely without support these individuals would perish. This is supported where an arahant must ordain within 10 days or perish.
My point above is that the Buddha's advice to lay people not to kill other beings seems to be unconditional. I would willingly relinquish this point if any such conditions could be located; if there was any evidence in the suttas that the Buddha said that it was OK for lay people to kill when those conditions were met.

You haven't provided any evidence of those conditions. What you have done instead is to claim that you personally have found that lay life requires killing. I respect that claim, but it doesn't address my point, which is about the Buddha's teachings, rather than your experiences and the inferences you draw from them. They are two different things.
The Buddha is not going to openly permit and support killing, just as I do not encourage others to kill.
Similarly Goenka running grass roots meditation centres cannot operate using alms for students and staff so he chose a vegetarian diet for his own peace of mind.
These were highly evolved beings, they were both supported and did not carry out basic mundane tasks for basic survival.
As we progress on the path it will become necessary to avoid certain actions to observe subtler and subtler aspects of dhamma. We work with what presents as it is and not as we imagine it to be.

Your position is that of an arahants behaviour, this is not realistic for the householder and it becomes an imbalance or extremism to try to live this way suppressing natural relations as they arise.
Many old students at Vipassana centres are out of balance trying to live as a monastic but remaining a layman. I saw this quite a lot, they seemed uneasy and not at peace. I believe many monastics feel similarly after taking robes and the walls close in on them.
I’m suggesting a middle way, where ultimately one comes out of killing but apparently they are caught in the middle of this mess. Best not to beat oneself up and adopt a realistic gentle approach with balance.
You are looking for a sutta where Buddha(arahant) says it’s ok to kill and you won’t find this. But you won’t find a sutta where a monastic tells a fisherman he’s going to hell for providing them with their daily alms(fish stew).
It’s messy in the middle, and I’m suggesting when killing it’s the mind we carry that is of most importance. If there is peace in the mind then kamma is light and passes very quickly if the mind is heavy and miserable then the kamma is heavy and will last a long 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 4:02 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:19 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 1:43 pm

Sam these are common everyday things that’ man has to deal with, unless they have servants or staff to deal with this. Killing is required at Vipassana centres or they get shut down. If someone brings in bed bugs they must be dealt with they CANNOT stay.
Similarly mice are removed from food storage areas and cooking areas. The government will shut them down if health standards are not met.
Even the monastery I attended had an infestation in Neely constructed temple and they had to deal with it and creatures were killed.
My point is unless you ordain or are sitting a retreat you have to deal with the mundane tasks of life and this involves killing.
If you are supported by a staff or volunteer like a monastic or a retreatant you can “avoid” such mundane activities and mind can settle into jhana and insight can arise.
If you reach a stage of purification (non-returner or higher) then it’s most likely you will need protection from life’s mundane activities. The mind/body would not be able to perform certain basic tasks and maintain this level of purity. Others must do these for you, you must AVOID these. Most likely without support these individuals would perish. This is supported where an arahant must ordain within 10 days or perish.
My point above is that the Buddha's advice to lay people not to kill other beings seems to be unconditional. I would willingly relinquish this point if any such conditions could be located; if there was any evidence in the suttas that the Buddha said that it was OK for lay people to kill when those conditions were met.

You haven't provided any evidence of those conditions. What you have done instead is to claim that you personally have found that lay life requires killing. I respect that claim, but it doesn't address my point, which is about the Buddha's teachings, rather than your experiences and the inferences you draw from them. They are two different things.
The Buddha is not going to openly permit and support killing, just as I do not encourage others to kill.
Similarly Goenka running grass roots meditation centres cannot operate using alms for students and staff so he chose a vegetarian diet for his own peace of mind.
These were highly evolved beings, they were both supported and did not carry out basic mundane tasks for basic survival.
As we progress on the path it will become necessary to avoid certain actions to observe subtler and subtler aspects of dhamma. We work with what presents as it is and not as we imagine it to be.

Your position is that of an arahants behaviour, this is not realistic for the householder and it becomes an imbalance or extremism to try to live this way suppressing natural relations as they arise.
Many old students at Vipassana centres are out of balance trying to live as a monastic but remaining a layman. I saw this quite a lot, they seemed uneasy and not at peace. I believe many monastics feel similarly after taking robes and the walls close in on them.
I’m suggesting a middle way, where ultimately one comes out of killing but apparently they are caught in the middle of this mess. Best not to beat oneself up and adopt a realistic gentle approach with balance.
You are looking for a sutta where Buddha(arahant) says it’s ok to kill and you won’t find this. But you won’t find a sutta where a monastic tells a fisherman he’s going to hell for providing them with their daily alms(fish stew).
It’s messy in the middle, and I’m suggesting when killing it’s the mind we carry that is of most importance. If there is peace in the mind then kamma is light and passes very quickly if the mind is heavy and miserable then the kamma is heavy and will last a long time.
Again, you are not addressing the point I am making. My point is that the Buddha's attitude towards lay people killing other beings was one of blanket proscription. Whether you or anyone else finds that difficult or unrealistic is a different question entirely.

The question of whether the suttas give us exceptions to the general rule of no killing is a simple textual one. Either they do, or they don't. Apart from metaphors (e.g. killing hatred; "killing" repeatedly heedless monks) I can't remember any instances. This textual question has nothing to do with whether you think it realistic; how Vipassana centres operate; how you think an arahant behaves; what you think natural relations are; whether suttas exist which criticise alms-givers; or the state of mind of the killer. Even your opening phrase "The Buddha is not going to openly permit and support killing" is irrelevant to my question. It's whether he does or not. At the moment, it's looking like he does not.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Did Buddha eat the animal flesh placed in his alms bowl?
This is supporting the actions of killing.
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 4:47 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:41 pm
Again, you are not addressing the point I am making. My point is that the Buddha's attitude towards lay people killing other beings was one of blanket proscription. Whether you or anyone else finds that difficult or unrealistic is a different question entirely.

The question of whether the suttas give us exceptions to the general rule of no killing is a simple textual one. Either they do, or they don't. Apart from metaphors (e.g. killing hatred; "killing" repeatedly heedless monks) I can't remember any instances. This textual question has nothing to do with whether you think it realistic; how Vipassana centres operate; how you think an arahant behaves; what you think natural relations are; whether suttas exist which criticise alms-givers; or the state of mind of the killer. Even your opening phrase "The Buddha is not going to openly permit and support killing" is irrelevant to my question. It's whether he does or not. At the moment, it's looking like he does not.
Did Buddha eat the animal flesh placed in his alms bowl?
This is supporting the actions of killing.
My understanding is that there was no intention on his part that any animal should be killed for him. Eating meat from an animal killed for a different purpose means that he merely benefits from the killing. Benefiting falls short of supporting.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 5:08 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:47 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:41 pm
Again, you are not addressing the point I am making. My point is that the Buddha's attitude towards lay people killing other beings was one of blanket proscription. Whether you or anyone else finds that difficult or unrealistic is a different question entirely.

The question of whether the suttas give us exceptions to the general rule of no killing is a simple textual one. Either they do, or they don't. Apart from metaphors (e.g. killing hatred; "killing" repeatedly heedless monks) I can't remember any instances. This textual question has nothing to do with whether you think it realistic; how Vipassana centres operate; how you think an arahant behaves; what you think natural relations are; whether suttas exist which criticise alms-givers; or the state of mind of the killer. Even your opening phrase "The Buddha is not going to openly permit and support killing" is irrelevant to my question. It's whether he does or not. At the moment, it's looking like he does not.
Did Buddha eat the animal flesh placed in his alms bowl?
This is supporting the actions of killing.
My understanding is that there was no intention on his part that any animal should be killed for him. Eating meat from an animal killed for a different purpose means that he merely benefits from the killing. Benefiting falls short of supporting.
He ate the animal flesh, he didn’t tell the layman to stop farming/fishing.
This is similar to the layman purchasing meat from the grocery store. We support this industry and the killing.
Then there is the vegetarian/vegan who does not support the killing of animals and who may speak out against this killing. That is moral preference(aversion or craving). This can be considered extreme as a monastic simply has the beggars bowl.
It’s complex and messy this business of life and death.
I just cut the grass, 11 acres and a few rabbits were running and scattering, ran over a dozen ant hills. But if I don’t cut it the forest will consume us. Killing and death is everywhere for us to observe. Balance of mind is critical.
Buddha had this balance even while supporting the killing or observing others killing, he was realistic not extremist as he saw how extremism was not the answer in his earlier practices.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Johann wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 12:40 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 12:00 pm
Johann wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:43 am
Householder,

Dhanañjani Sutta



And what is unrighteous:

Thank you. This another example of the Buddha and Ven. Sariputta apparently saying that there are no mitigating circumstances by which killing other beings might be excused. :thumbsup: :anjali:
Rejoicing on virtue, rejoicing on the reflection of the Gems, are signs of gaining faith, toward ways to higher and beyond, possible soon near the release from doubt.
I’m sure the Buddha and sariputa spoke of this as they enjoyed their bowls of fish stew.
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 6:45 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 5:08 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:47 pm
Did Buddha eat the animal flesh placed in his alms bowl?
This is supporting the actions of killing.
My understanding is that there was no intention on his part that any animal should be killed for him. Eating meat from an animal killed for a different purpose means that he merely benefits from the killing. Benefiting falls short of supporting.
He ate the animal flesh, he didn’t tell the layman to stop farming/fishing.
How does eating the flesh of a dead animal imply that one supports the killing of that animal? One might support the killing, or one might not. There is no necessary relation between the eating and the support for the killing. If you think there is, please show your reasoning. You might like to start with what you think "support" means.
This is similar to the layman purchasing meat from the grocery store. We support this industry and the killing.
In the case of purchasing meat, it might be said that the industry is "supported" by the purchase price contributing to the grocer being able to buy more meat from the wholesaler. But it's still the grocer's choice to do so. And this certainly does not apply to one receiving alms. There is no purchase price and the alms-giver does not benefit in any way. So it's similar, but not in a relevant way.
Then there is the vegetarian/vegan who does not support the killing of animals and who may speak out against this killing. That is moral preference(aversion or craving). This can be considered extreme as a monastic simply has the beggars bowl.
This is irrelevant to the main point here, which is whether the Buddha supported killing by accepting meat.
It’s complex and messy this business of life and death.
Maybe, but my claim that the Buddha did not support killing by accepting meat is simple. Focus on that, if you would, rather than on your gardening tasks, which seem to be more red herrings.
Buddha had this balance even while supporting the killing or observing others killing
This is mere assertion or question-begging. Try to focus: what is "supporting killing", and how exactly does the Buddha's acceptance of meat make him a supporter of killing?
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 7:16 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 6:45 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 5:08 pm

My understanding is that there was no intention on his part that any animal should be killed for him. Eating meat from an animal killed for a different purpose means that he merely benefits from the killing. Benefiting falls short of supporting.
He ate the animal flesh, he didn’t tell the layman to stop farming/fishing.
How does eating the flesh of a dead animal imply that one supports the killing of that animal? One might support the killing, or one might not. There is no necessary relation between the eating and the support for the killing. If you think there is, please show your reasoning. You might like to start with what you think "support" means.
This is similar to the layman purchasing meat from the grocery store. We support this industry and the killing.
In the case of purchasing meat, it might be said that the industry is "supported" by the purchase price contributing to the grocer being able to buy more meat from the wholesaler. But it's still the grocer's choice to do so. And this certainly does not apply to one receiving alms. There is no purchase price and the alms-giver does not benefit in any way. So it's similar, but not in a relevant way.
Then there is the vegetarian/vegan who does not support the killing of animals and who may speak out against this killing. That is moral preference(aversion or craving). This can be considered extreme as a monastic simply has the beggars bowl.
This is irrelevant to the main point here, which is whether the Buddha supported killing by accepting meat.
It’s complex and messy this business of life and death.
Maybe, but my claim that the Buddha did not support killing by accepting meat is simple. Focus on that, if you would, rather than on your gardening tasks, which seem to be more red herrings.
Buddha had this balance even while supporting the killing or observing others killing
This is mere assertion or question-begging. Try to focus: what is "supporting killing", and how exactly does the Buddha's acceptance of meat make him a supporter of killing?
Support is enabling.
The layman purchasing animal flesh from the grocery store is enabling this industry to continue. If nobody ate animal flesh their would be no industry for it. It’s only a very minute partial support of a very large industry but by purchasing and eating the flesh one supports or enables this business to continue.

Sam, why don’t you tell me what is wrong with killing a chicken you have raised and having it as a meal, or going into the forest and snaring a rabbit for your stew. What exactly is the issue?
Who is telling you this is wrong?
Post Reply