Things are not as they seem
First precept
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: First precept
Jeez ... why people emphasized on insight when precepts hasn't been fully understood. This should be the first insight for stream enterer.
I'm very sure you might have delusional insights if precepts hasn't been understood.
Do you think by meditate one can get into sotapanna? Please quote a sutta where a person become sotapanna due to meditation only.
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: First precept
You merely have to understand dependent arising
I say merely but it’s asking a lot
Last edited by cappuccino on Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: First precept
Nope. Things are as clear as can be.
One who has wrong view only land in lower realm such as ghosts, animal and hells.
Re: First precept
Lol. Delusional indeed.cappuccino wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:40 am You merely have to understand dependent arising
I say merely but it’s asking a lot
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: First precept
Things seem as clear as can be
Re: First precept
A stream enterer has passed through the stages of insight.Joe.c wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:38 amJeez ... why people emphasized on insight when precepts hasn't been fully understood. This should be the first insight for stream enterer.
I'm very sure you might have delusional insights if precepts hasn't been understood.
Do you think by meditate one can get into sotapanna? Please quote a sutta where a person become sotapanna due to meditation only.
Precepts are merely for developing samadhi.
You don’t “get into” sotapanna, you pass through these wisdoms when ripe to do so. These wisdoms prevent one(through liberation) from carrying fear in the mind capable of generating thought formations of the lower planes. The thought I will catch a fish to feed my family is not of the lower planes.
Re: First precept
You have the freedom to defend yourself from harm or trespass.bpallister wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:15 am i almost killed an ant yesterday trying to get him off me.
Now was it the sensation of the ant climbing on you that provoked fear or was it a fire ant that can cause unpleasantness. If you were aware of the situation and chose to calmly remove the ant and it’s killed accidentally then this is not destructive. If there was no danger and one loses the balance of mind and blindly lashes and kills then this is destructive killing.
If there was danger and one consciously smacks the ant then this is self defence and not destructive.
Re: First precept
I don't have any problem with how you practice anything, thepea. But this is a forum for the discussion of the Dhamma of Theravadan Buddhism. If anyone has their own idiosyncratic beliefs which are at odds with Theravadan Buddhism but which are expressed using Theravadan terms incorrectly, that has the potential for causing pointless misunderstandings and conflict. If they post obsessively and with an apparent lack of good faith, then excisions and removal of posts and suspensions will be the result.thepea wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:48 amCorrect.... I’m not Buddhist, but neither was/is Buddha.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 9:07 pmWhat evidence have you got? Lots of vets don't suffer at all. And lots of of people who have no war experience suffering greatly.
Ah, you're back to this one. You played this card in another thread. If you believe it, it means that pāṇātipātā is not what the Buddha said - it must be a later corrupt addition by some monk or transcriber. And someone has translated this Pali term into a range of meanings, to try to convey what it means. "Killing, killing living beings, killing breathing creatures, destroying breathing creatures, destroying life, etc, etc...". And you are then deciding that it means those English terms that you favour - those which don't use the word "kill", but use another term which has a wider range of meanings in the English, like "destruction".The textual support is in the translation, it’s destruction not killing. The entirety of the suttas are language corrupted.
That's merely your own moral code or system of ethics that you are using there. It cannot have anything to do with what the Buddha said, because you have no cogent reason to select one translation rather than another; and because corrupted texts mean that you can't ever know what the Buddha actually meant. That's fine. You have your own moral code, which you have rehearsed here so often that I probably know it almost as well as you do. It's your own private morality, or one cobbled together from other ethical systems you have read about. There's nothing wrong with that, and I wish you well with it. You have said you are not a Buddhist. But presenting it here on a Theravadan Buddhist forum, and occasionally relating it to Buddhist ideas, means that you will be perpetually talking at cross-purposes with people who think you have misunderstood the teachings. Whereas in fact, you have a different teaching.
Do you think it's time to give it a rest now? Are there any new ideas that you want to raise about the first precept, or does the thread need locking? As you don't have a Buddhist morality, I could put in in "connections to other paths"...
This is what Mr. Goenka taught and what I’ve mentioned countless times here. I really don’t comprehend why you find it so difficult for one to practice the dhamma without being or labelling oneself as Buddhist. This seems to be a defence mechanism used here to devalue another member or to cast them aside.
-
- Posts: 662
- Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2021 2:13 am
Re: First precept
he was climbing up my leg and i kinda shook him off but almost stepped on him. i was aware of the situationthepea wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 4:17 amYou have the freedom to defend yourself from harm or trespass.bpallister wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:15 am i almost killed an ant yesterday trying to get him off me.
Now was it the sensation of the ant climbing on you that provoked fear or was it a fire ant that can cause unpleasantness. If you were aware of the situation and chose to calmly remove the ant and it’s killed accidentally then this is not destructive. If there was no danger and one loses the balance of mind and blindly lashes and kills then this is destructive killing.
If there was danger and one consciously smacks the ant then this is self defence and not destructive.
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: First precept
Even though it’s normal… this does not mean there is no Karma
The truth is inconvenient!
Re: First precept
Every action(verb/thought) has kamma.cappuccino wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:31 pmEven though it’s normal… this does not mean there is no Karma
The truth is inconvenient!
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: First precept
Intention is action(thought or verb).
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: First precept
Suppose I intend to help someone and harm them instead
Karma is uncertain but I did not intend to harm