First precept

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: First precept

Post by Spiny Norman »

thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:50 am
Spiny Norman wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:42 am On the question of killing animals, I'm curious about what it was like in rural India during the Buddhas time. Did most people rear and kill their own livestock?
This is what I was curious also about given the sweeping statement that buddhists don’t kill and the monastics stick to their own culture. They do seem to eat fish and beef and chicken and eggs and all forms of breathing beasts. Who does the killing?
I assume that in the Buddhas time it was lay-Buddhists in the villages rearing and killing livestock, then offering food to the monks.
The 3-fold rule may have been a response to this, discouraging monks from asking the villagers to kill another chicken, or whatever.
This arrangement meant that the monks could keep the first precept, leaving the killing to the lay-Buddhists who supported them.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
NotMe
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:41 pm

Re: First precept

Post by NotMe »

Spiny Norman wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:11 am
thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:50 am
Spiny Norman wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:42 am On the question of killing animals, I'm curious about what it was like in rural India during the Buddhas time. Did most people rear and kill their own livestock?
This is what I was curious also about given the sweeping statement that buddhists don’t kill and the monastics stick to their own culture. They do seem to eat fish and beef and chicken and eggs and all forms of breathing beasts. Who does the killing?
I assume that in the Buddhas time it was lay-Buddhists in the villages rearing and killing livestock, then offering food to the monks.
The 3-fold rule may have been a response to this, discouraging monks from asking the villagers to kill another chicken, or whatever.
This arrangement meant that the monks could keep the first precept, leaving the killing to the lay-Buddhists who supported them.
I’m too tired tonight to fetch and carry suttas. Monks could not eat meat that was specifically killed for them. Everything else fair game for the alms bowl.

Most villagers could only afford a little gruel and/or rice.

Oh yes good all days!

Metta.

:anjali:

Edit to add: the monks word to perceive whether or not the family could really afford to donate. If a member of the family went off the deep end so to speak, the donation was not to be excepted accepted Siri thank you.

Edit to edit: from the vinaya, interesting read:

https://www.dhammatalks.org/vinaya/bmc/Section0019.html
Last edited by NotMe on Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
justindesilva
Posts: 2602
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: First precept

Post by justindesilva »

DNS wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:09 am
thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:06 am What is a Buddhist?
It's usually defined as someone who takes refuge in the Triple Gem (Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha) and takes the five precepts (lay people), but this doesn't necessarily mean they will be perfect at keeping the precepts or reaching advanced states of samadhi, etc., or reaching any noble levels, just that they will be practicing as best they can.
A buddhist is one who protects life energy as of the first precept and described as samma ajiva in 8FNP. Samma here means protect from lobha dosa moha or in harmony with alobha, adosa and amoha .
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 Jun 28, 2022 1:00 am
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:35 pm
Yes, that's the version found in the precepts. Pāṇātipātā is a tappurisa compound in the ablative. It means literally "killing/destruction" (that's the atipāta bit) of living beings (that's the pāṇa). If expanded (i.e. presented as two words, rather than the compound) it would be pāṇānam atipātā : "of life/living things - destruction". So even if translators want to use the word "destruction", it is obvious to those translators that the "destruction" doesn't just mean bashing things about; it means killing something that is alive, literally something that breathes.

In UK English we might say "The poor dog was suffering, so we took him to the vet to have him painlessly destroyed". It's this type of "destruction" that the term means. Destruction of life. I don't think it can mean anything else.
I will argue for beings living in cold climates and as someone who realizes how difficult it is to grow crops and preserve food for the down periods. Animals are basically the only way to survive.
So the word seems to have two meanings killing and destruction.
No, the compound word pāṇātipātā means "destruction of life". That can only mean killing. It's just the same as how the English hyphenated compound "life-threatening" does not mean merely "threatening", but is specifically about threat to life. And "life-affirming", etc. cannot just mean "affirming". The compound is there for a reason. If you can show us how the Pali term can merely mean destruction and not destruction of life, then please do so.

But what the heck, that's just what the Buddha said. What did he know?

As Upton Sinclair may have said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." You've gone and bought yourself a farm and moved your family there, that's no small undertaking. I understand that.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:19 am
thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:00 am
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:35 pm
Yes, that's the version found in the precepts. Pāṇātipātā is a tappurisa compound in the ablative. It means literally "killing/destruction" (that's the atipāta bit) of living beings (that's the pāṇa). If expanded (i.e. presented as two words, rather than the compound) it would be pāṇānam atipātā : "of life/living things - destruction". So even if translators want to use the word "destruction", it is obvious to those translators that the "destruction" doesn't just mean bashing things about; it means killing something that is alive, literally something that breathes.

In UK English we might say "The poor dog was suffering, so we took him to the vet to have him painlessly destroyed". It's this type of "destruction" that the term means. Destruction of life. I don't think it can mean anything else.
I will argue for beings living in cold climates and as someone who realizes how difficult it is to grow crops and preserve food for the down periods. Animals are basically the only way to survive.
So the word seems to have two meanings killing and destruction.
No, the compound word pāṇātipātā means "destruction of life". That can only mean killing. It's just the same as how the English hyphenated compound "life-threatening" does not mean merely "threatening", but is specifically about threat to life. And "life-affirming", etc. cannot just mean "affirming". The compound is there for a reason. If you can show us how the Pali term can merely mean destruction and not destruction of life, then please do so.

But what the heck, that's just what the Buddha said. What did he know?

As Upton Sinclair may have said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." You've gone and bought yourself a farm and moved your family there, that's no small undertaking. I understand that.
You can kill and eat a chicken, or a celery stalk, but you are not destroying the species. If we cultivate and multiply these resources offered to us in the bounty that samsara provides then I see this not as destruction of life, but the flourishing of life. Even while doing this and say hundreds of ones chicks are males, and to cultivate you only need one male the others can be ground up and used to make feed for the others. It’s all simply nature. In no way am I suggesting the monastics or those in the two inner training bubbles do this but it is sustainable and does not promote needless destruction or waste.
I’ve simply relocated to a rural area from the city. I don’t have to farm, I have means. I’m semi retired.
We can say that about any identity or view held to tightly. Ones has a great deal invested(reputation) it all comes down to sin(greed/fear of loss) remove sin and you are arahant.
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 Jun 28, 2022 12:02 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:19 am
thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:00 am
I will argue for beings living in cold climates and as someone who realizes how difficult it is to grow crops and preserve food for the down periods. Animals are basically the only way to survive.
So the word seems to have two meanings killing and destruction.
No, the compound word pāṇātipātā means "destruction of life". That can only mean killing. It's just the same as how the English hyphenated compound "life-threatening" does not mean merely "threatening", but is specifically about threat to life. And "life-affirming", etc. cannot just mean "affirming". The compound is there for a reason. If you can show us how the Pali term can merely mean destruction and not destruction of life, then please do so.

But what the heck, that's just what the Buddha said. What did he know?

As Upton Sinclair may have said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." You've gone and bought yourself a farm and moved your family there, that's no small undertaking. I understand that.
You can kill and eat a chicken, or a celery stalk, but you are not destroying the species.
Once again, the precept does not talk about a species. Pāṇa is a living being; literally "a breather". The precept proscribes the destruction of living, breathing beings. You can't kill the chicken, or the whole species of chickens, but celery is OK.
If we cultivate and multiply these resources offered to us in the bounty that samsara provides then I see this not as destruction of life, but the flourishing of life
If their cultivation and multiplication involves killing any of them, for whatever reason, then you part company with the Buddha. That's not me judging your lifestyle. Like you, I have retired to a rural area, and one of the main livelihoods here is the killing of creatures for fun. People will do what they want to do. I'm just pointing out where what they do is in breach of the first precept. That certainly wouldn't bother the pheasant-shooters and deer-hunters around here. As you have said, I believe, that you are not a Buddhist, then it shouldn't bother you either.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:26 pm
thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:02 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:19 am

No, the compound word pāṇātipātā means "destruction of life". That can only mean killing. It's just the same as how the English hyphenated compound "life-threatening" does not mean merely "threatening", but is specifically about threat to life. And "life-affirming", etc. cannot just mean "affirming". The compound is there for a reason. If you can show us how the Pali term can merely mean destruction and not destruction of life, then please do so.

But what the heck, that's just what the Buddha said. What did he know?

As Upton Sinclair may have said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." You've gone and bought yourself a farm and moved your family there, that's no small undertaking. I understand that.
You can kill and eat a chicken, or a celery stalk, but you are not destroying the species.
Once again, the precept does not talk about a species. Pāṇa is a living being; literally "a breather". The precept proscribes the destruction of living, breathing beings. You can't kill the chicken, or the whole species of chickens, but celery is OK.
If we cultivate and multiply these resources offered to us in the bounty that samsara provides then I see this not as destruction of life, but the flourishing of life
If their cultivation and multiplication involves killing any of them, for whatever reason, then you part company with the Buddha. That's not me judging your lifestyle. Like you, I have retired to a rural area, and one of the main livelihoods here is the killing of creatures for fun. People will do what they want to do. I'm just pointing out where what they do is in breach of the first precept. That certainly wouldn't bother the pheasant-shooters and deer-hunters around here. As you have said, I believe, that you are not a Buddhist, then it shouldn't bother you either.
Celery breathes, all life breathes. And if the word is destroy or a combination of the two which seems very plausible, then it’s the waste or mutilation that would be the sin.
Cut a rose and put it in a vase by your daughters piano is not a waste of the rose. Going into a rose garden and needlessly snapping the rose from the branch and leaving it hanging there is mutilation and a much deeper sin.
I feel you are conflating the inner bubbles of monastics with the outer bubble of laity.
User avatar
NotMe
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:41 pm

Re: First precept

Post by NotMe »

thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:02 pm ….
1) Animals are basically the only way to survive.
….
2) So the word seems to have two meanings killing and destruction.
……
3) You can kill and eat a chicken, or a celery stalk, but you are not destroying the species.
….
4) We can say that about any identity or view held to tightly. Ones has a great deal invested(reputation) it all comes down to sin(greed/fear of loss) remove sin and you are arahant.
1) I don’t think you’re going to find a quote of the Buddha saying “if you’re hungry it’s OK to kill.” If animals are the only way to survive, sorry but I would do everything I could to get out of Dodge and move someplace else not easy to do but doable.

2) The two words point at each other when talking about taking a life.

3) It is not about killing/destroying a species, it is about taking a single sentient life.

4) The awakening process is way more than simply removing greed/fear of loss.

Metta

:anjali:

Edit to add: plants have life, and they communicate. But are they sentient? I am still pondering that one, but they are good to eat.
Last edited by NotMe on Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User13866
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:50 am

Re: First precept

Post by User13866 »

thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:53 am Praise is admiration if we can agree.
I don’t think I’m saying that the killing of living beings is admirable in and of itself, but the production of food is more or less a duty for layman.
If it's not admirable then it's not the Dhamma
Whatever teachings are admirable in the beginning, admirable in the middle, admirable in the end, that — in their meaning and expression — proclaim the holy life that is entirely complete and pure
Last edited by User13866 on Tue Jun 28, 2022 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

NotMe wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:48 pm
thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:02 pm ….
1) Animals are basically the only way to survive.
….
2) So the word seems to have two meanings killing and destruction.
……
3) You can kill and eat a chicken, or a celery stalk, but you are not destroying the species.
….
4) We can say that about any identity or view held to tightly. Ones has a great deal invested(reputation) it all comes down to sin(greed/fear of loss) remove sin and you are arahant.
1) I don’t think you’re going to find a quote of the Buddha saying “if you’re hungry it’s OK to kill.” If animals are the only way to survive, sorry but I would do everything I could to get out of Dodge and move someplace else not easy to do but doable.

2) The two words point at each other when talking about taking a life.

3) It is not about killing/destroying a species, it is about taking a single sentient life.

4) The awakening process is way more than simply removing greed/fear of loss.

Metta

:anjali:
Please don’t remove parts of past conversation and misrepresent them.
The “animals are the only way to survive” quote was directly speaking to people living in cold climates.
It was also speaking to a time when commercial global shipping was not a thing.

Fix it and we can have a conversation, continue to do that and I’ll ignore you.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

User13866 wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:56 pm
thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:53 am Praise is admiration if we can agree.
I don’t think I’m saying that the killing of living beings is admirable in and of itself, but the production of food is more or less a duty for layman.
If it's not admirable then it's not the Dhamma
Whatever teachings are admirable in the beginning, admirable in the middle, admirable in the end, that — in their meaning and expression — proclaim the holy life that is entirely complete and pure
You are making it sound like killing is not a choice. Production of food is not a duty, being a householder is neither.
Well if you are ok letting your offspring that you brought into this world starve than it’s not duty.
For me it seems my duty.
Now I get that i could simply abandon them and become a monk and let go, but I don’t feel that to be the wise thing to do in my case.
User13866
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:50 am

Re: First precept

Post by User13866 »

Either way transgressing a training rule is one thing and being in denial about it is another.

I understand that you have long thought & practiced otherwise but it's not a loss for you to admit that you haven't been restraining yourself in regards to the precept and that it's not admirable.
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 Jun 28, 2022 12:38 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:26 pm
thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:02 pm
You can kill and eat a chicken, or a celery stalk, but you are not destroying the species.
Once again, the precept does not talk about a species. Pāṇa is a living being; literally "a breather". The precept proscribes the destruction of living, breathing beings. You can't kill the chicken, or the whole species of chickens, but celery is OK.
If we cultivate and multiply these resources offered to us in the bounty that samsara provides then I see this not as destruction of life, but the flourishing of life
If their cultivation and multiplication involves killing any of them, for whatever reason, then you part company with the Buddha. That's not me judging your lifestyle. Like you, I have retired to a rural area, and one of the main livelihoods here is the killing of creatures for fun. People will do what they want to do. I'm just pointing out where what they do is in breach of the first precept. That certainly wouldn't bother the pheasant-shooters and deer-hunters around here. As you have said, I believe, that you are not a Buddhist, then it shouldn't bother you either.
Celery breathes, all life breathes.
Not in the sense meant by pāṇa. Sorry.
And if the word is destroy or a combination of the two which seems very plausible, then it’s the waste or mutilation that would be the sin.
The word isn't "destroy". As pointed out earlier, its a compound word which can only mean killing breathing creatures. If it seems "very plausible", please show it is derived from the Pali compound.
User avatar
NotMe
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:41 pm

Re: First precept

Post by NotMe »

thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:57 pm
NotMe wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:48 pm
thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:02 pm ….
1) Animals are basically the only way to survive.
….
2) So the word seems to have two meanings killing and destruction.
……
3) You can kill and eat a chicken, or a celery stalk, but you are not destroying the species.
….
4) We can say that about any identity or view held to tightly. Ones has a great deal invested(reputation) it all comes down to sin(greed/fear of loss) remove sin and you are arahant.
1) I don’t think you’re going to find a quote of the Buddha saying “if you’re hungry it’s OK to kill.” If animals are the only way to survive, sorry but I would do everything I could to get out of Dodge and move someplace else not easy to do but doable.

2) The two words point at each other when talking about taking a life.

3) It is not about killing/destroying a species, it is about taking a single sentient life.

4) The awakening process is way more than simply removing greed/fear of loss.

Metta

:anjali:
Please don’t remove parts of past conversation and misrepresent them.
The “animals are the only way to survive” quote was directly speaking to people living in cold climates.
It was also speaking to a time when commercial global shipping was not a thing.

Fix it and we can have a conversation, continue to do that and I’ll ignore you.
Do as you wish. Even in cold climates - find the Buddha saying "In cold climates, kill if you are hungry."

Metta

:anjali:

edit to add: Do I have put the context of 'kill sentient life' ? Sometimes context adds nothing.
edit to edit to add: Please ignore me like you ignore the Buddha - I'll be in the best of company.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

NotMe wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:56 pm
thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:57 pm
NotMe wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:48 pm

1) I don’t think you’re going to find a quote of the Buddha saying “if you’re hungry it’s OK to kill.” If animals are the only way to survive, sorry but I would do everything I could to get out of Dodge and move someplace else not easy to do but doable.

2) The two words point at each other when talking about taking a life.

3) It is not about killing/destroying a species, it is about taking a single sentient life.

4) The awakening process is way more than simply removing greed/fear of loss.

Metta

:anjali:
Please don’t remove parts of past conversation and misrepresent them.
The “animals are the only way to survive” quote was directly speaking to people living in cold climates.
It was also speaking to a time when commercial global shipping was not a thing.

Fix it and we can have a conversation, continue to do that and I’ll ignore you.
Do as you wish. Even in cold climates - find the Buddha saying "In cold climates, kill if you are hungry."

Metta

:anjali:

edit to add: Do I have put the context of 'kill sentient life' ? Sometimes context adds nothing.
edit to edit to add: Please ignore me like you ignore the Buddha - I'll be in the best of company.
See this is what is troubling.
Find this in a retranslated ancient text that was passed down in a game of telephone memorization and then translated from a long gone language.
But our own personal experience from practice is worthless.
Nope.... find it translated by bhikku bhodi or it’s not legit.
Oh wait I found it translated by thanissaro, ahhh.... nope not good enough as he clearly meant something else as I can show as translated by bhikku bhodi.
It’s like the political left and the political right of monastics. Subtler but similar.
Post Reply