First precept

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17190
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: Sun Jul 24, 2022 4:38 pm The teacher(Buddha) is within, in a man like sayaghi u bha khin and SN Goenka they were highly evolved and as such the dhamma spread across the globe. Vipassana centres sprung up like blades of grass with strong roots.
Goenka was your teacher, correct? At least indirectly though the courses you took?

Here are some quotes from Goenka-ji:
Why is vegetarian food helpful for meditation?
Mr. S. N. Goenka: When you eat meat or something, then this being - animal or fish or whatever it is - for its whole life was generating nothing but craving, aversion, craving, aversion. After all, human beings can find some time when they can come out of craving and aversion. These beings cannot come out of it. So every fibre of their body is vibrating with craving and aversion. And you yourself want to come out of craving, aversion and you are giving an input to all of that. So what sort of vibrations you will have. That is why it is not good.
Why is vegetarian food helpful for meditation?
Can a non-vegetarian succeed in Vipassana?
Mr. S. N. Goenka: When you come to a Vipassana course, only vegetarian food is served. But we don't say that if you take non-vegetarian food, you will go to hell. It is not like that. Slowly, you will come out of eating meat, like thousands of Vipassana students have. You will naturally find there is no more need for you to have non-vegetarian food. Your progress in Vipassana will certainly be better if you are vegetarian.
As a nonviolent vegetarian, who even praised the vegetarian diet, he obviously would not condone fishing and hunting. And his tradition was not a monastic one, so he certainly wouldn't say the precepts only apply to monks or those "on retreat."
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: Sun Jul 24, 2022 5:11 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 4:56 pm
thepea wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 4:38 pm

Ok, this is where you and I differ.
The teacher(Buddha) is within, in a man like sayaghi u bha khin and SN Goenka they were highly evolved and as such the dhamma spread across the globe. Vipassana centres sprung up like blades of grass with strong roots.
But now Goenka is dead and there was nobody within this tradition who had reached the higher nobility to pass the torch so it’s “being” is gone. Like the sunflower reaching to the sky to feed from the sun it grew and grew but then it’s being was removed it was pulled from the earth and it will die. This is why the centres globally are such a mess and will die out.
Whatever Goenka was, no matter how much being and sunflowery grassy essence was floating around him (I met him, and he seemed a nice man...) his idea that the Buddha established "meditation centres" is, until proven through texts, naught but supposition. Was he there? Did his vision extend into the past as if it were still there?
But you will only accept the scripture as evidence or proof
Again, that's pure speculation on your part. You have no idea what I will accept as evidence or proof. You know that I won't accept your view of scripture where it is contradicted by other scriptures, but that's about all...
This is annicca of buddhas teachings. Within certain beings these teachings will rise up again when the plant matured, eventually it will give fruit to others.
You mean that some people will teach the Buddha's Dhamma to others? I don't doubt that at all. Trouble is, there are also people who will claim that a lot of old nonsense and speculation is the Buddha's teaching, and you need more than a botanical metaphor to back that up...
I’m saying I witnessed and experienced the Buddha teaching within these centres to both monastics and layman. Why would it be different 2500 years ago when S Gotama taught to the masses and Vipassana flourished across the globe?
That's fine. I wouldn't dispute your experiences at all.

But did Gotama teach to the masses and did Vipassana flourish across the globe in 500 BC? Which countries were missed out? There appears to be no record of it in Iron Age Britain.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

DNS wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 5:13 pm
thepea wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 4:38 pm The teacher(Buddha) is within, in a man like sayaghi u bha khin and SN Goenka they were highly evolved and as such the dhamma spread across the globe. Vipassana centres sprung up like blades of grass with strong roots.
Goenka was your teacher, correct? At least indirectly though the courses you took?

Here are some quotes from Goenka-ji:
Why is vegetarian food helpful for meditation?
Mr. S. N. Goenka: When you eat meat or something, then this being - animal or fish or whatever it is - for its whole life was generating nothing but craving, aversion, craving, aversion. After all, human beings can find some time when they can come out of craving and aversion. These beings cannot come out of it. So every fibre of their body is vibrating with craving and aversion. And you yourself want to come out of craving, aversion and you are giving an input to all of that. So what sort of vibrations you will have. That is why it is not good.
Why is vegetarian food helpful for meditation?
Can a non-vegetarian succeed in Vipassana?
Mr. S. N. Goenka: When you come to a Vipassana course, only vegetarian food is served. But we don't say that if you take non-vegetarian food, you will go to hell. It is not like that. Slowly, you will come out of eating meat, like thousands of Vipassana students have. You will naturally find there is no more need for you to have non-vegetarian food. Your progress in Vipassana will certainly be better if you are vegetarian.
As a nonviolent vegetarian, who even praised the vegetarian diet, he obviously would not condone fishing and hunting. And his tradition was not a monastic one, so he certainly wouldn't say the precepts only apply to monks or those "on retreat."
Buddha(god, Father, conscious awareness) is the teacher, the dhamma(Christ, son, body) is the teachings, the sangha(the Holy Ghost, mind) are the support.
Goenka would contain all three and would most likely fall into catagory of sangha in relationship to thepea.

I am inclined more towards the beggars bowl, while doing jhana practice in retreat setting. I use to be vegetarian/vegan in past(8/4 years) but it did not ultimately agree with me in laylife as an absolute. It’s never sat well with me to feel that those living in northern climates without access to grocery stores and global shipping could not practice dhamma due to animal flesh in ones diet and the harvesting of this flesh at opportune times. At current I simply will hold out my bowl and make do with that which is offered and generate gratitude for my daily bread(meat, which contains flesh of animal, fruit and vegetables nuts, etc...)

I’ve never heard Goenka speak against hunters or fishermen. He most definitely speaks against these activities while cultivating jhana and allowing Vipassana to arise. But the term “you are your own master” is spoken when referring to students after a course is completed and one returns to lay life.
As I speculate Goenka being a non-returner he had a highly developed awareness and single pointed concentration it seems logical he would remain within the protection of Vipassana centres and travel with entourage to assist in mundane day to day activities.
Precepts have nothing to do with vegetarianism, you are adding this to the teachings. The Buddha was a beggar he had a bowl and ate what was offered.
Goenka was an IMO non-returner layman who was setting up global meditation centres, under these unique circumstances.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 5:38 pm
thepea wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 5:11 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 4:56 pm

Whatever Goenka was, no matter how much being and sunflowery grassy essence was floating around him (I met him, and he seemed a nice man...) his idea that the Buddha established "meditation centres" is, until proven through texts, naught but supposition. Was he there? Did his vision extend into the past as if it were still there?



Again, that's pure speculation on your part. You have no idea what I will accept as evidence or proof. You know that I won't accept your view of scripture where it is contradicted by other scriptures, but that's about all...



You mean that some people will teach the Buddha's Dhamma to others? I don't doubt that at all. Trouble is, there are also people who will claim that a lot of old nonsense and speculation is the Buddha's teaching, and you need more than a botanical metaphor to back that up...
I’m saying I witnessed and experienced the Buddha teaching within these centres to both monastics and layman. Why would it be different 2500 years ago when S Gotama taught to the masses and Vipassana flourished across the globe?
That's fine. I wouldn't dispute your experiences at all.

But did Gotama teach to the masses and did Vipassana flourish across the globe in 500 BC? Which countries were missed out? There appears to be no record of it in Iron Age Britain.
Was this Gotama fellow even on this earth?
Nobody can answer this question absolutely.
None of us witnessed this, it’s all religion(belief/faith).
The Buddha “I know” is not of this dimension, it’s paradoxical.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17190
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: Sun Jul 24, 2022 6:12 pm
DNS wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 5:13 pm As a nonviolent vegetarian, who even praised the vegetarian diet, he obviously would not condone fishing and hunting. And his tradition was not a monastic one, so he certainly wouldn't say the precepts only apply to monks or those "on retreat."

Precepts have nothing to do with vegetarianism, you are adding this to the teachings. The Buddha was a beggar he had a bowl and ate what was offered.
No, I was referring to your many statements that you hunt and fish and think it's okay while "not on retreat" as if precepts are only meant for monks or those on retreat when they are clearly meant to be followed all the 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: Sun Jul 24, 2022 6:16 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 5:38 pm
thepea wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 5:11 pm

I’m saying I witnessed and experienced the Buddha teaching within these centres to both monastics and layman. Why would it be different 2500 years ago when S Gotama taught to the masses and Vipassana flourished across the globe?
That's fine. I wouldn't dispute your experiences at all.

But did Gotama teach to the masses and did Vipassana flourish across the globe in 500 BC? Which countries were missed out? There appears to be no record of it in Iron Age Britain.
Was this Gotama fellow even on this earth?
Nobody can answer this question absolutely.
None of us witnessed this, it’s all religion(belief/faith).
Of course, absolute knowledge of historical events is impossible. But I think that Gotama's existence on the earth is very much more likely than Vipassana "flourishing across the globe" in 500BC. That's just unsupported hyperbole.
The Buddha “I know” is not of this dimension, it’s paradoxical.
Again, if that's your experience, so be it. I'm restricting myself here to the meaning of the first precept, the scope of those to whom it applies, and the correct use of the term danda. They appear to be of this dimension, and not paradoxical.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

DNS wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 6:30 pm
thepea wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 6:12 pm
DNS wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 5:13 pm As a nonviolent vegetarian, who even praised the vegetarian diet, he obviously would not condone fishing and hunting. And his tradition was not a monastic one, so he certainly wouldn't say the precepts only apply to monks or those "on retreat."

Precepts have nothing to do with vegetarianism, you are adding this to the teachings. The Buddha was a beggar he had a bowl and ate what was offered.
No, I was referring to your many statements that you hunt and fish and think it's okay while "not on retreat" as if precepts are only meant for monks or those on retreat when they are clearly meant to be followed all the time.
Precepts(sila) is for developing samadhi(jhana) so Vipassana can arise. For layman they are fluid for retreats or monastics they are rigid.
Buddha did not ever say DO NOT to layman, he said observe or avoid.
A layman can observe fishing and processing fish into food. A layman can observe killing a fox who was trying to kill the flock of chickens. Is there peace of mind or aversion? is their an opportunity to set these responsibilities aside and observe stricter precepts on a retreat from laylife?
Are these activities preventing the activation of annicca to be experienced in daily life?
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 6:30 pm
thepea wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 6:16 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 5:38 pm

That's fine. I wouldn't dispute your experiences at all.

But did Gotama teach to the masses and did Vipassana flourish across the globe in 500 BC? Which countries were missed out? There appears to be no record of it in Iron Age Britain.
Was this Gotama fellow even on this earth?
Nobody can answer this question absolutely.
None of us witnessed this, it’s all religion(belief/faith).
Of course, absolute knowledge of historical events is impossible. But I think that Gotama's existence on the earth is very much more likely than Vipassana "flourishing across the globe" in 500BC. That's just unsupported hyperbole.
The Buddha “I know” is not of this dimension, it’s paradoxical.
Again, if that's your experience, so be it. I'm restricting myself here to the meaning of the first precept, the scope of those to whom it applies, and the correct use of the term danda. They appear to be of this dimension, and not paradoxical.
Agree, a rod is of this dimension. I see a rod as a tool in relation to the kevatta sutta.

Neither of us know if Gotama was real or imaginary it’s belief(faith) and belief must according to dhamma become bhavana maya panna for liberation.
I saw Vipassana flourish under Mr Goenkas fruit ladened limbs, but now this old tree is dead, and I’m sure a few of those fruits fell upon fertile soil and are in process of maturing but it also seems obvious to me that Mr G had no student that he could pass the torch to as Sayagi had with a few of his students.
It would not surprise me if dhamma centres began to close globally as the beingness of these centres is gone.
I’m simply saying that I witnessed the spread of dhamma and I can relate this wisdom of experience to what I think buddhas time would have been like. But this relation will never be wisdom because I was not there to experience any of that. This is why I find it strange that you expect an “authority” with regards to our dhamma conversations.
If it’s not in a sutta you seem to give it very little merit. I simply only use suttas to overlay upon personal experience.
There are many ways to interpret these.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17190
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: Sun Jul 24, 2022 6:46 pm Precepts(sila) is for developing samadhi(jhana) so Vipassana can arise. For layman they are fluid for retreats or monastics they are rigid.
Buddha did not ever say DO NOT to layman, he said observe or avoid.
A layman can observe fishing and processing fish into food. A layman can observe killing a fox who was trying to kill the flock of chickens.
Of course some buddhists (Dhammists, if you prefer) will violate one or more of the 5 precepts from time to time. But at least others who do violate them, will admit it and not try to rationalize it as being completely acceptable to the Dhamma.
Precepts for lay Buddhists
Observance of the five precepts constitutes the minimum moral obligation of a practicing lay Buddhist. These five precepts enjoin against killing living beings, taking what is not given (or stealing), sexual misconduct, false speech, and use of intoxicating drink or drugs.
https://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/5precepts.html
Note: the author in this quote refers to them as "the minimum moral obligation" for a lay Buddhist, not some esoteric teaching only meant for retreats.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

DNS wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 7:18 pm
thepea wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 6:46 pm Precepts(sila) is for developing samadhi(jhana) so Vipassana can arise. For layman they are fluid for retreats or monastics they are rigid.
Buddha did not ever say DO NOT to layman, he said observe or avoid.
A layman can observe fishing and processing fish into food. A layman can observe killing a fox who was trying to kill the flock of chickens.
Of course some buddhists (Dhammists, if you prefer) will violate one or more of the 5 precepts from time to time. But at least others who do violate them, will admit it and not try to rationalize it as being completely acceptable to the Dhamma.
Precepts for lay Buddhists
Observance of the five precepts constitutes the minimum moral obligation of a practicing lay Buddhist. These five precepts enjoin against killing living beings, taking what is not given (or stealing), sexual misconduct, false speech, and use of intoxicating drink or drugs.
https://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/5precepts.html
Note: the author in this quote refers to them as "the minimum moral obligation" for a lay Buddhist, not some esoteric teaching only meant for retreats.
First.... thank you for respecting that I am not Buddhist.

As I stated before there has always been a part of me that did not resonate completely with the translation of first precept as killing. As I brought up I feel it’s better translated as destruction, which speaks more to extincting a species through greed, cruelty towards a species through experimentation, neglect, etc... and mutilation of a species which could refer to GMO’s in seeds.
Coming to dhamma through a Christian background god gives man all the bounty of the earth for sustenance. The commandment thou shall not kill is IMO another mistranslation of destroy as many christians see this as only including the killing of man(murder). But if we look at murder and it’s meaning and origin we see that it does not include animals and for a long time did not include man of colour. It was specific to those who were subjects of the crown. You could not kill a subject of the crown as this was murder. When colonists came to North America they killed the Indians and this was not murder. Only once they were subject to the crown did this term murder come to include human(man of colour).
So I feel destruction is a much better fit for first precept over killing.
Now I believe we are on the same page when it comes to monastics and those practicing jhana for the arising of Vipassana, these practicing(doing the serious work) must observe very strict sila and gathering food is not permitted in any form. One must be as the beggar and make do with that which is offered generating gratitude.
I would say there is no such thing as a vegetarian monastic and if one identified as such they would be cultivating aversion or preference.
So if we see the first precept as avoiding destructive qualities, killing can have its place in layman’s life. The precepts have depth as does samadhi and panna.
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: Sun Jul 24, 2022 7:04 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 6:30 pm
thepea wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 6:16 pm

Was this Gotama fellow even on this earth?
Nobody can answer this question absolutely.
None of us witnessed this, it’s all religion(belief/faith).
Of course, absolute knowledge of historical events is impossible. But I think that Gotama's existence on the earth is very much more likely than Vipassana "flourishing across the globe" in 500BC. That's just unsupported hyperbole.
The Buddha “I know” is not of this dimension, it’s paradoxical.
Again, if that's your experience, so be it. I'm restricting myself here to the meaning of the first precept, the scope of those to whom it applies, and the correct use of the term danda. They appear to be of this dimension, and not paradoxical.
Agree, a rod is of this dimension. I see a rod as a tool in relation to the kevatta sutta.
As I've said repeatedly, it seems - in the Kevatta and many other suttas - to be a metaphor for violence and punishment.
I’m simply saying that I witnessed the spread of dhamma and I can relate this wisdom of experience to what I think buddhas time would have been like. But this relation will never be wisdom because I was not there to experience any of that. This is why I find it strange that you expect an “authority” with regards to our dhamma conversations.
If it’s not in a sutta you seem to give it very little merit.
It's not a matter of an authority, or relying on suttas. It's a matter more of common sense. How could Vipassana have flourished across the globe in 500BC? Did merchants in super-fast ships set up meditation centres across the Pacific, and West into Africa? Or did they have the internet then?
I simply only use suttas to overlay upon personal experience.
There are many ways to interpret these.
Sure, and some are more valid interpretations than others.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 8:30 pm
thepea wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 7:04 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 6:30 pm

Of course, absolute knowledge of historical events is impossible. But I think that Gotama's existence on the earth is very much more likely than Vipassana "flourishing across the globe" in 500BC. That's just unsupported hyperbole.



Again, if that's your experience, so be it. I'm restricting myself here to the meaning of the first precept, the scope of those to whom it applies, and the correct use of the term danda. They appear to be of this dimension, and not paradoxical.
Agree, a rod is of this dimension. I see a rod as a tool in relation to the kevatta sutta.
As I've said repeatedly, it seems - in the Kevatta and many other suttas - to be a metaphor for violence and punishment.
I’m simply saying that I witnessed the spread of dhamma and I can relate this wisdom of experience to what I think buddhas time would have been like. But this relation will never be wisdom because I was not there to experience any of that. This is why I find it strange that you expect an “authority” with regards to our dhamma conversations.
If it’s not in a sutta you seem to give it very little merit.
It's not a matter of an authority, or relying on suttas. It's a matter more of common sense. How could Vipassana have flourished across the globe in 500BC? Did merchants in super-fast ships set up meditation centres across the Pacific, and West into Africa? Or did they have the internet then?
I simply only use suttas to overlay upon personal experience.
There are many ways to interpret these.
Sure, and some are more valid interpretations than others.
We seem to be going off tangent.
Originally the discrepancy was Buddha teaching to layman and not only monastics.
Obviously the dhamma spread outward from wherever the Buddha originated teaching. Whether on this planet or partially in norther Africa or Southern Asia I don’t really care. My point was Goenka mentions Buddha gaining support and popularity and meditation centres with large capacity began to flourish. Is this true? IDK, but witnessing Goenkas impact and the dhamma flourish in this timeline I can see this having happened in buddhas time similarly. The centres may have been much simpler due to timespan difference and development but it would not be a stretch for me to believe that near larger villages these centres would crop up.
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: Sun Jul 24, 2022 6:46 pm
DNS wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 6:30 pm
thepea wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 6:12 pm
Precepts have nothing to do with vegetarianism, you are adding this to the teachings. The Buddha was a beggar he had a bowl and ate what was offered.
No, I was referring to your many statements that you hunt and fish and think it's okay while "not on retreat" as if precepts are only meant for monks or those on retreat when they are clearly meant to be followed all the time.
Precepts(sila) is for developing samadhi(jhana) so Vipassana can arise. For layman they are fluid for retreats or monastics they are rigid.
Buddha did not ever say DO NOT to layman, he said observe or avoid.
Sīla doesn't seem restricted to the development of samadhi. The Buddha urged people not to kill or harm other creatures because doing so led to their own suffering in the future. The Buddha emphatically does say "do not" to laymen:
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Sāvatthī at Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery. And on that occasion, a large number of boys on the road between Sāvatthī & Jeta's Grove were catching fish. Then early in the morning the Blessed One adjusted his under robe and — carrying his bowl & robes — went into Sāvatthī for alms. He saw the large number of boys on the road between Sāvatthī & Jeta's Grove catching little fish. Seeing them, he went up to them and, on arrival, said to them, "Boys, do you fear pain? Do you dislike pain?"

"Yes, lord, we fear pain. We dislike pain."

Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:


If you fear pain,
if you dislike pain,
don't anywhere do an evil deed
in open or in secret.
If you're doing or will do
an evil deed,
you won't escape pain
catching up
as you run away.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

"Don't anywhere do an evil deed." They are not exterminating a species, or destroying life in its entirety. They are just catching fish. Note that the Buddha's advice was completely unsolicited. These boys were not asking to be instructed in how to attain samādhi. The Buddha intervened to stop them killing. It's not a categorical imperative on his part - they should only refrain if they themselves dislike and fear pain. But they do dislike and fear pain. So that seems to deal with fishing.

And again:
One who violently attacks
Yo daṇḍena adaṇḍesu,
the peaceful and the innocent
appaduṭṭhesu dussati;
swiftly falls
Dasannamaññataraṁ ṭhānaṁ,
to one of ten bad states:
khippameva nigacchati.
https://suttacentral.net/dhp129-145/en/ ... ript=latin

There's nothing here about special dispensation for those who are not attending a retreat or striving for samādhi. It just the Buddha saying how he thinks it is. Of course, lots of people think they know better.

Again, seemingly universal advice:
Creatures love happiness,
Sukhakāmāni bhūtāni,
so if you harm them with a stick
yo daṇḍena vihiṁsati;
in search of your own happiness,
Attano sukhamesāno,
after death you won’t find happiness.
pecca so na labhate sukhaṁ.
https://suttacentral.net/dhp129-145/en/ ... ript=latin

There are, you may remember, dozens more where these came from.
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: Sun Jul 24, 2022 8:48 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 8:30 pm
thepea wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 7:04 pm
Agree, a rod is of this dimension. I see a rod as a tool in relation to the kevatta sutta.
As I've said repeatedly, it seems - in the Kevatta and many other suttas - to be a metaphor for violence and punishment.
I’m simply saying that I witnessed the spread of dhamma and I can relate this wisdom of experience to what I think buddhas time would have been like. But this relation will never be wisdom because I was not there to experience any of that. This is why I find it strange that you expect an “authority” with regards to our dhamma conversations.
If it’s not in a sutta you seem to give it very little merit.
It's not a matter of an authority, or relying on suttas. It's a matter more of common sense. How could Vipassana have flourished across the globe in 500BC? Did merchants in super-fast ships set up meditation centres across the Pacific, and West into Africa? Or did they have the internet then?
I simply only use suttas to overlay upon personal experience.
There are many ways to interpret these.
Sure, and some are more valid interpretations than others.
We seem to be going off tangent.
Originally the discrepancy was Buddha teaching to layman and not only monastics.
You're right. I deal with the issue of laymen, monastics, and those striving for samādhi in my previous post.
My point was Goenka mentions Buddha gaining support and popularity and meditation centres with large capacity began to flourish. Is this true? IDK, but witnessing Goenkas impact and the dhamma flourish in this timeline I can see this having happened in buddhas time similarly. The centres may have been much simpler due to timespan difference and development but it would not be a stretch for me to believe that near larger villages these centres would crop up.
It would be a stretch for me to believe that they were flourishing across the globe, though. That's not just feasible.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

thepea wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 8:48 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 8:30 pm
thepea wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 7:04 pm
Agree, a rod is of this dimension. I see a rod as a tool in relation to the kevatta sutta.
As I've said repeatedly, it seems - in the Kevatta and many other suttas - to be a metaphor for violence and punishment.
I’m simply saying that I witnessed the spread of dhamma and I can relate this wisdom of experience to what I think buddhas time would have been like. But this relation will never be wisdom because I was not there to experience any of that. This is why I find it strange that you expect an “authority” with regards to our dhamma conversations.
If it’s not in a sutta you seem to give it very little merit.
It's not a matter of an authority, or relying on suttas. It's a matter more of common sense. How could Vipassana have flourished across the globe in 500BC? Did merchants in super-fast ships set up meditation centres across the Pacific, and West into Africa? Or did they have the internet then?
I simply only use suttas to overlay upon personal experience.
There are many ways to interpret these.
Sure, and some are more valid interpretations than others.
We seem to be going off tangent.
Originally the discrepancy was Buddha teaching to layman and not only monastics.
Obviously the dhamma spread outward from wherever the Buddha originated teaching. Whether on this planet or partially in norther Africa or Southern Asia I don’t really care. My point was Goenka mentions Buddha gaining support and popularity and meditation centres with large capacity began to flourish. Is this true? IDK, but witnessing Goenkas impact and the dhamma flourish in this timeline I can see this having happened in buddhas time similarly. The centres may have been much simpler due to timespan difference and development but it would not be a stretch for me to believe that near larger villages these centres would crop up.
The quote is catching “small” fish. This seems to fall into the portion of destruction relating to cruelty. It doesn’t seem likely these “small” fish were for food but more likely a bunch of kids were catching and being cruel for no reason to “small” fish. Cruelty is impurity of mind leading to lower destinations.
Catching fish for food can be free from cruelty even if it involves killing them. It’s in the mind one carries.
Post Reply