And apart from personal preference, your evidence for this is...thepea wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 9:21 pmThe 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.thepea wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 8:48 pmWe seem to be going off tangent.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 8:30 pm
As I've said repeatedly, it seems - in the Kevatta and many other suttas - to be a metaphor for violence and punishment.
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?
Sure, and some are more valid interpretations than others.
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.
Catching fish for food can be free from cruelty even if it involves killing them. It’s in the mind one carries.
First precept
Re: First precept
Re: First precept
I don’t even know for certain we are on a globe and neither can you, unless you have been into outer space. This is simply what the masses accept as truth, it doesn’t make it truth.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 9:16 pmYou're right. I deal with the issue of laymen, monastics, and those striving for samādhi in my previous post.thepea wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 8:48 pmWe seem to be going off tangent.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 8:30 pm
As I've said repeatedly, it seems - in the Kevatta and many other suttas - to be a metaphor for violence and punishment.
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?
Sure, and some are more valid interpretations than others.
Originally the discrepancy was Buddha teaching to layman and not only monastics.
It would be a stretch for me to believe that they were flourishing across the globe, though. That's not just feasible.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.
I’m simply saying the teachings seem to have spread in buddhas timeline in a similar fashion as the way it spread with Goenka. Geographically this was most likely very different, building structure and construction most likely very different.
Re: First precept
Re-read the sutta.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 9:27 pmAnd apart from personal preference, your evidence for this is...thepea wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 9:21 pmThe 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.thepea wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 8:48 pm
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.
Catching fish for food can be free from cruelty even if it involves killing them. It’s in the mind one carries.
It starts off hearing of boys catching fish, then when Buddha witnessed this first hand it changes to “small fish”. This is different from simply catching fish.
There is most likely no use for small fish and the boys are committing the act of torturing small fish. This is destructive behaviour. Better to let the small fish mature have and fertilize eggs for next generation then catching and eating mature fish is not destructive.
Re: First precept
Let's try to avoid adolescent forays into pop philosophy. There are many ways to verify that we are situated on a globe without going into outer space.thepea wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 9:30 pmI don’t even know for certain we are on a globe and neither can you, unless you have been into outer space. This is simply what the masses accept as truth, it doesn’t make it truth.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 9:16 pmYou're right. I deal with the issue of laymen, monastics, and those striving for samādhi in my previous post.
It would be a stretch for me to believe that they were flourishing across the globe, though. That's not just feasible.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.
Well, Goenka's teachings spread, as you say, "across the globe":I’m simply saying the teachings seem to have spread in buddhas timeline in a similar fashion as the way it spread with Goenka.
https://www.dhamma.org/en/maps
You think the Buddha's teachings spread in a similar way during the Iron Age? I'm not interested in structure, construction, etc., just the geographical spread.
Re: First precept
Wrong, I'm afraid. Thanissaro's translation changes it from "fish" to "small fish". Anadajoti's translation has it the other way around: it starts off as "little fish" and then changes to "fish". It's just a matter of style in translation. Sujato's translation says "fish" throughout. And that's closest to the original, which has no change in the Pali word.thepea wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 9:36 pmRe-read the sutta.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 9:27 pmAnd apart from personal preference, your evidence for this is...thepea wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 9:21 pm
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.
It starts off hearing of boys catching fish, then when Buddha witnessed this first hand it changes to “small fish”. This is different from simply catching fish.
Wrong again. No mention of immature fish. Both in India and South East Asia I have seen huge quantities of very tiny fish offered for sale as food. For mixing with rice, or making soup. There doesn't seem to be an issue about their maturity, or their size.There is most likely no use for small fish and the boys are committing the act of torturing small fish. This is destructive behaviour. Better to let the small fish mature have and fertilize eggs for next generation then catching and eating mature fish is not destructive.
Re: First precept
I’m merely answering to the sutta translation you provided with the differing term fish to small fish.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 9:53 pmWrong, I'm afraid. Thanissaro's translation changes it from "fish" to "small fish". Anadajoti's translation has it the other way around: it starts off as "little fish" and then changes to "fish". It's just a matter of style in translation. Sujato's translation says "fish" throughout. And that's closest to the original, which has no change in the Pali word.
Wrong again. No mention of immature fish. Both in India and South East Asia I have seen huge quantities of very tiny fish offered for sale as food. For mixing with rice, or making soup. There doesn't seem to be an issue about their maturity, or their size.There is most likely no use for small fish and the boys are committing the act of torturing small fish. This is destructive behaviour. Better to let the small fish mature have and fertilize eggs for next generation then catching and eating mature fish is not destructive.
Let’s for argument sake say it’s simply fish and no size is mentioned.
It’s apparent these are young boys opposed to adult fishemen. It’s likely the boys were catching and releasing the fish opposed to catching and harvesting them for food.
When I read this I get the feeling the boys were acting cruelly towards the fish perhaps simply bored and playing with them. Again this is destructive vs harvesting the fish for food consumption with purpose. It would be equivalent to burning ants with a magnifying glass IMO. It would seem the boys were being cruel and destructive in their behaviour.
Re: First precept
"It’s apparent...It's likely...When I read this I get the feeling...perhaps...IMO...It would seem..."thepea wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 10:07 pmI’m merely answering to the sutta translation you provided with the differing term fish to small fish.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 9:53 pmWrong, I'm afraid. Thanissaro's translation changes it from "fish" to "small fish". Anadajoti's translation has it the other way around: it starts off as "little fish" and then changes to "fish". It's just a matter of style in translation. Sujato's translation says "fish" throughout. And that's closest to the original, which has no change in the Pali word.
Wrong again. No mention of immature fish. Both in India and South East Asia I have seen huge quantities of very tiny fish offered for sale as food. For mixing with rice, or making soup. There doesn't seem to be an issue about their maturity, or their size.There is most likely no use for small fish and the boys are committing the act of torturing small fish. This is destructive behaviour. Better to let the small fish mature have and fertilize eggs for next generation then catching and eating mature fish is not destructive.
Let’s for argument sake say it’s difficult moly fish and no size is mentioned.
It’s apparent these are young boys opposed to adult fishemen. It’s likely the boys were catching and releasing the fish opposed to catching as harvesting them for food.
When I read this I get the feeling the boys were acting cruelly towards the fish perhaps simply bored and playing with them. Again this is destructive vs harvesting the fish for food consumption. It would be equivalent to burning ants with a magnifying glass IMO. It would seem the boys were being cruel snd destructive in their behaviour.
I think you've set some sort of a record, especially for such a short passage.
Where's the evidence they were releasing the fish? That they were not harvesting them for consumption? That they were bored? That it was the equivalent of burning ants with a magnifying glass? Again, In India and South East Asia, I've seen young boys engaged in providing food for their families.
Re: First precept
Then it’s inconclusive isn’t it?Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 10:28 pm"It’s apparent...It's likely...When I read this I get the feeling...perhaps...IMO...It would seem..."thepea wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 10:07 pmI’m merely answering to the sutta translation you provided with the differing term fish to small fish.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 9:53 pm
Wrong, I'm afraid. Thanissaro's translation changes it from "fish" to "small fish". Anadajoti's translation has it the other way around: it starts off as "little fish" and then changes to "fish". It's just a matter of style in translation. Sujato's translation says "fish" throughout. And that's closest to the original, which has no change in the Pali word.
Wrong again. No mention of immature fish. Both in India and South East Asia I have seen huge quantities of very tiny fish offered for sale as food. For mixing with rice, or making soup. There doesn't seem to be an issue about their maturity, or their size.
Let’s for argument sake say it’s difficult moly fish and no size is mentioned.
It’s apparent these are young boys opposed to adult fishemen. It’s likely the boys were catching and releasing the fish opposed to catching as harvesting them for food.
When I read this I get the feeling the boys were acting cruelly towards the fish perhaps simply bored and playing with them. Again this is destructive vs harvesting the fish for food consumption. It would be equivalent to burning ants with a magnifying glass IMO. It would seem the boys were being cruel snd destructive in their behaviour.
I think you've set some sort of a record, especially for such a short passage.
Where's the evidence they were releasing the fish? That they were not harvesting them for consumption? That they were bored? That it was the equivalent of burning ants with a magnifying glass? Again, In India and South East Asia, I've seen young boys engaged in providing food for their families.
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.
Re: First precept
The size of the fish was an almost literal red herring 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.thepea wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 10:58 pmThen it’s inconclusive isn’t it?Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 10:28 pm"It’s apparent...It's likely...When I read this I get the feeling...perhaps...IMO...It would seem..."thepea wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 10:07 pm
I’m merely answering to the sutta translation you provided with the differing term fish to small fish.
Let’s for argument sake say it’s difficult moly fish and no size is mentioned.
It’s apparent these are young boys opposed to adult fishemen. It’s likely the boys were catching and releasing the fish opposed to catching as harvesting them for food.
When I read this I get the feeling the boys were acting cruelly towards the fish perhaps simply bored and playing with them. Again this is destructive vs harvesting the fish for food consumption. It would be equivalent to burning ants with a magnifying glass IMO. It would seem the boys were being cruel snd destructive in their behaviour.
I think you've set some sort of a record, especially for such a short passage.
Where's the evidence they were releasing the fish? That they were not harvesting them for consumption? That they were bored? That it was the equivalent of burning ants with a magnifying glass? Again, In India and South East Asia, I've seen young boys engaged in providing food for their families.
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.
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.
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17188
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: First precept
I agree. It's completely irrelevant to the passage what size or species the fish were. A classic red-herring logical fallacy. And the fallacy is even named after a fish, how perfect (a fallacy) is that?
Talk about the size or anything else is just a distraction, to make it look ambiguous. The passage was not ambiguous. The Buddha was obviously talking about not killing.
Re: First precept
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.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 11:52 pmThe size of the fish was an almost literal red herring 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.thepea wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 10:58 pmThen it’s inconclusive isn’t it?Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 10:28 pm
"It’s apparent...It's likely...When I read this I get the feeling...perhaps...IMO...It would seem..."
I think you've set some sort of a record, especially for such a short passage.
Where's the evidence they were releasing the fish? That they were not harvesting them for consumption? That they were bored? That it was the equivalent of burning ants with a magnifying glass? Again, In India and South East Asia, I've seen young boys engaged in providing food for their families.
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.
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.
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?
Re: First precept
There is a difference between fishing for food, fishing for sport or pleasure, and torturing a fish. It is not about killing, it’s is about kamma.DNS wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 12:11 amI agree. It's completely irrelevant to the passage what size or species the fish were. A classic red-herring logical fallacy. And the fallacy is even named after a fish, how perfect (a fallacy) is that?
Talk about the size or anything else is just a distraction, to make it look ambiguous. The passage was not ambiguous. The Buddha was obviously talking about not killing.
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17188
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: First precept
There might be a difference in the kamma-vipaka for those three (fishing for food, sport fishing, torture), but they were all not approved of by the Buddha.
Re: First precept
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17188
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: First precept
He didn't kill.