First precept
-
- Posts: 2298
- Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:33 pm
Re: First precept
If someone really wants to find justification for something--anything, they will usually find it. Or at least, they will have convinced themselves they have. Not surprising, because the mind state which seeks to find religious justification for destroying life is a confused and unhappy one. History has not shined favorably on those who have followed that path, and it ends poorly for those who do. It is frightening to see.
Re: First precept
I disagree.Johann wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:38 pmThose ways of arguing around will neither lead good householder to see faults, nor to confess them and so block his possibilities to walk on. It's not for the sake of defending a unsecured stand/house, that those of compassion give time, effort, so that lost could bend toward secure.thepea wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:31 pmI don’t believe Buddha or Sariputta taught abstaining from killing. I’m quite certain that they taught abstinence from destroying life.Johann wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:26 pm
How can one, for the sake of defending his incapacity, suggest the Sublime Buddha and Ven Sariputta taught abstain while enjoying sensuality, spoke with corrupt mind? All of what would happen with dogs throwing dirt into the diamon cave is to leave if full covered of dirst, smelling, even more down, while the cave of the lion still shines. Issa is a very bad state of mind.
Re: First precept
I’m not being ambiguous, I’m being clear and decisive. As stated it has never sat well with me to vilify the North American Indian and their ways of living harmoniously with the land as hunter/gatherers or the Australian Aboriginal and their ways.SDC wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:44 pmSeems you’re inducing the ambiguity - as you often do - in order to justify the way you prefer to live.thepea wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:10 pmBut it isn’t so clear as it’s not translated as killing but rather: 1. Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.
Destroying is not killing.
Destroying is greed leading to extinction, cruelty, and mutilation.
The point of the precepts is to avoid behavior that supports a wrong understanding of one’s relationship with the world - the five precepts being the coarsest of those behaviors. Whether it is a quick kill for food (as you describe) or a brutal torture and murder, the understanding is the same: it is based on the belief that circumstance necessitated the ending of the life of another and the resulting change was a gain for me. Killing, stealing, lying, sexual/sensual misconduct and taking intoxicants are all understood on the basis of acquisition in the most wrong view sense of the word. That is why any act that is for intentional end of the life of another is wrong.
The first precept has always felt extremist and learning that the translation is destruction gives it an entirely different take which fits and feels very harmonious with life on this planet.
I grasp this may not sit well with others but I’m putting it out there for others to accept or reject as they see fit.
Again I’m only interested in polite expression and debate with others. I feel this abstaining from destruction fully encompasses the propagation of life on this planet while simultaneously unifying cultures.
This also supports much of what vegan activists take issue with. As an ex-vegan I too felt compassion for the treatment of animals in factory farms. But ultimately it was not a good fit for me as it felt extreme. Similarly vegetarianism felt extreme and I adopted more of the beggars bowl attitude towards my daily meat.
I know you think I’m merely trying to justify certain lifestyle choices I make, but it’s rather the opposite and accepting the ways of living of others that I come across on my path journey.
Replacing killing with destruction is like a key that just fits the lock perfectly for me. If this brings ease, peace and tranquility is there harm in this?
Re: First precept
Yes, and that's simply the opposite of Saddha, and here he stucks, with on way for release. One can just leave good householder at hire of his action run on. Or as the Buddha similar draw a sample: let those not willing to go forth die off within relation.thepea wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 12:28 amI disagree.Johann wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:38 pmThose ways of arguing around will neither lead good householder to see faults, nor to confess them and so block his possibilities to walk on. It's not for the sake of defending a unsecured stand/house, that those of compassion give time, effort, so that lost could bend toward secure.
Re: First precept
I have faith in avoiding destruction of life.Johann wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 12:54 amYes, and that's simply the opposite of Saddha, and here he stucks, with on way for release. One can just leave good householder at hire of his action run on. Or as the Buddha similar draw a sample: let those not willing to go forth die off within relation.thepea wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 12:28 amI disagree.Johann wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:38 pm
Those ways of arguing around will neither lead good householder to see faults, nor to confess them and so block his possibilities to walk on. It's not for the sake of defending a unsecured stand/house, that those of compassion give time, effort, so that lost could bend toward secure.
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17229
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: First precept
You keep bringing up North American Indians and aboriginals, but this is mostly a moot point. There are currently 370 million indigenous peoples in the world and nearly all of them live in modern, developed cities. The don't live in teepees and hunt buffalo with bows and arrows. They drive cars and live in houses and apartments. No one knows for sure the exact number, but it's been estimated that there are only a few thousand at the most who still live in tribal living arrangements, with no modern utilities or other modern luxuries. They go to the grocery store like the rest of us.
In the 1970s my parents, siblings, and I visited Africa and my brother got a picture with a tribal man. My brother was on his knees pretending to be begging for his life that the tribal man wouldn't kill him as he asked the tribal man put a spear towards his throat. On the picture, you can see the tribal man is wearing a luxury watch on his wrist. Kind of spoiled the photo-op.
Re: First precept
You keep bringing up a bunch of bald guys who lived in the forest 2500 years ago.....DNS wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:24 amYou keep bringing up North American Indians and aboriginals, but this is mostly a moot point. There are currently 370 million indigenous peoples in the world and nearly all of them live in modern, developed cities. The don't live in teepees and hunt buffalo with bows and arrows. They drive cars and live in houses and apartments. No one knows for sure the exact number, but it's been estimated that there are only a few thousand at the most who still live in tribal living arrangements, with no modern utilities or other modern luxuries. They go to the grocery store like the rest of us.
In the 1970s my parents, siblings, and I visited Africa and my brother got a picture with a tribal man. My brother was on his knees pretending to be begging for his life that the tribal man wouldn't kill him as he asked the tribal man put a spear towards his throat. On the picture, you can see the tribal man is wearing a luxury watch on his wrist. Kind of spoiled the photo-op.
Re: First precept
That’s all well and good, but as I’ve said too many times to count, your views are not in line with the themes presented throughout the Pali canon. It should be a red flag for you when the solution to this discrepancy is that the themes need adjusting, not you. I’m not sure why you cannot just admit that you’ve grown to value something that is different than what the Buddha likely taught, and instead of trying to bend and twist your current lifestyle into something resembling a Dhamma view, you should find a way to admit that actually enjoy being involved with the world and developing your relationship with the natural environment, and that it is opposed to the lifestyle of renunciation.thepea wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 12:49 amI’m not being ambiguous, I’m being clear and decisive. As stated it has never sat well with me to vilify the North American Indian and their ways of living harmoniously with the land as hunter/gatherers or the Australian Aboriginal and their ways.SDC wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:44 pmSeems you’re inducing the ambiguity - as you often do - in order to justify the way you prefer to live.thepea wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:10 pm
But it isn’t so clear as it’s not translated as killing but rather: 1. Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.
Destroying is not killing.
Destroying is greed leading to extinction, cruelty, and mutilation.
The point of the precepts is to avoid behavior that supports a wrong understanding of one’s relationship with the world - the five precepts being the coarsest of those behaviors. Whether it is a quick kill for food (as you describe) or a brutal torture and murder, the understanding is the same: it is based on the belief that circumstance necessitated the ending of the life of another and the resulting change was a gain for me. Killing, stealing, lying, sexual/sensual misconduct and taking intoxicants are all understood on the basis of acquisition in the most wrong view sense of the word. That is why any act that is for intentional end of the life of another is wrong.
The first precept has always felt extremist and learning that the translation is destruction gives it an entirely different take which fits and feels very harmonious with life on this planet.
I grasp this may not sit well with others but I’m putting it out there for others to accept or reject as they see fit.
Again I’m only interested in polite expression and debate with others. I feel this abstaining from destruction fully encompasses the propagation of life on this planet while simultaneously unifying cultures.
This also supports much of what vegan activists take issue with. As an ex-vegan I too felt compassion for the treatment of animals in factory farms. But ultimately it was not a good fit for me as it felt extreme. Similarly vegetarianism felt extreme and I adopted more of the beggars bowl attitude towards my daily meat.
I know you think I’m merely trying to justify certain lifestyle choices I make, but it’s rather the opposite and accepting the ways of living of others that I come across on my path journey.
Replacing killing with destruction is like a key that just fits the lock perfectly for me. If this brings ease, peace and tranquility is there harm in this?
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17229
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: First precept
Yeah, I guess I do. I am buddhist and this is a buddhist forum.
Re: First precept
I consider and treat this as a forum for the discussion of dhamma. I’m not Buddhist or religious in any way whatsoever.
I bring up the ancient ways of these tribes as they are congruent with lifestyles 2500 yrs ago when there wasn’t the local grocery store and global shipping.
Hunting and gathering was necessity and killing is part of this. I find it difficult to comprehend the Buddha chastising layman for hunting and gathering.
Chastising them for destroying life(hunting and gathering irresponsibly) seems more appropriate.
Re: First precept
It’s the buddhas practice and insights arising that allow me to comprehend and challenge potentially divisive translations. Not being a Pali scholar I do not give all importance to the suttas, I challenge them where I disagree. In this case a Pali scholar has translated the first precept as avoid destruction of life. This fits my comprehension and experience and also does not contradict what I read in suttas.SDC wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:30 amThat’s all well and good, but as I’ve said too many times to count, your views are not in line with the themes presented throughout the Pali canon. It should be a red flag for you when the solution to this discrepancy is that the themes need adjusting, not you. I’m not sure why you cannot just admit that you’ve grown to value something that is different than what the Buddha likely taught, and instead of trying to bend and twist your current lifestyle into something resembling a Dhamma view, you should find a way to admit that actually enjoy being involved with the world and developing your relationship with the natural environment, and that it is opposed to the lifestyle of renunciation.thepea wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 12:49 amI’m not being ambiguous, I’m being clear and decisive. As stated it has never sat well with me to vilify the North American Indian and their ways of living harmoniously with the land as hunter/gatherers or the Australian Aboriginal and their ways.SDC wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:44 pm
Seems you’re inducing the ambiguity - as you often do - in order to justify the way you prefer to live.
The point of the precepts is to avoid behavior that supports a wrong understanding of one’s relationship with the world - the five precepts being the coarsest of those behaviors. Whether it is a quick kill for food (as you describe) or a brutal torture and murder, the understanding is the same: it is based on the belief that circumstance necessitated the ending of the life of another and the resulting change was a gain for me. Killing, stealing, lying, sexual/sensual misconduct and taking intoxicants are all understood on the basis of acquisition in the most wrong view sense of the word. That is why any act that is for intentional end of the life of another is wrong.
The first precept has always felt extremist and learning that the translation is destruction gives it an entirely different take which fits and feels very harmonious with life on this planet.
I grasp this may not sit well with others but I’m putting it out there for others to accept or reject as they see fit.
Again I’m only interested in polite expression and debate with others. I feel this abstaining from destruction fully encompasses the propagation of life on this planet while simultaneously unifying cultures.
This also supports much of what vegan activists take issue with. As an ex-vegan I too felt compassion for the treatment of animals in factory farms. But ultimately it was not a good fit for me as it felt extreme. Similarly vegetarianism felt extreme and I adopted more of the beggars bowl attitude towards my daily meat.
I know you think I’m merely trying to justify certain lifestyle choices I make, but it’s rather the opposite and accepting the ways of living of others that I come across on my path journey.
Replacing killing with destruction is like a key that just fits the lock perfectly for me. If this brings ease, peace and tranquility is there harm in this?
Re: First precept
Again, it goes back to just how fortunate we are to have the high standard of the suttas and vinaya, so that individuals and/or groups can’t just upend them at their convenience. Those with the capacity to think critically will always have the option to make the decision for themselves as long as that standard remains. What a dark time it will be when that standard is gone.thepea wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:46 am
It’s the buddhas practice and insights arising that allow me to comprehend and challenge potentially divisive translations. Not being a Pali scholar I do not give all importance to the suttas, I challenge them where I disagree. In this case a Pali scholar has translated the first precept as avoid destruction of life. This fits my comprehension and experience and also does not contradict what I read in suttas.
Be well.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Re: First precept
Moha (delusional) and Avijja (ignorant) indeed.thepea wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:46 am It’s the buddhas practice and insights arising that allow me to comprehend and challenge potentially divisive translations. Not being a Pali scholar I do not give all importance to the suttas, I challenge them where I disagree. In this case a Pali scholar has translated the first precept as avoid destruction of life. This fits my comprehension and experience and also does not contradict what I read in suttas.
With wrong view ... lead to wrong samadhi. Then, only lower realms will be available.
O yeah, please stop propagate your wrong view. Do you know about head splitting spell?
Please check in Sutta before you see someone who may have this capability in future and you still holding this wrong view and Misrepresentation of Buddha words.
Good luck.
Re: First precept
I’m not upending the suttas. I’m literally at the mercy of the Pali scholars translations. I just happened across this destruction translation and because I was looking into the morality of body mutilation it linked up.SDC wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 2:08 amAgain, it goes back to just how fortunate we are to have the high standard of the suttas and vinaya, so that individuals and/or groups can’t just upend them at their convenience. Those with the capacity to think critically will always have the option to make the decision for themselves as long as that standard remains. What a dark time it will be when that standard is gone.thepea wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:46 am
It’s the buddhas practice and insights arising that allow me to comprehend and challenge potentially divisive translations. Not being a Pali scholar I do not give all importance to the suttas, I challenge them where I disagree. In this case a Pali scholar has translated the first precept as avoid destruction of life. This fits my comprehension and experience and also does not contradict what I read in suttas.
Be well.
I don’t see anything wrong with non destructive killing.
I try to produce as much of my own food as I can and I simply cannot produce enough vegetables to live on. Animals are a big part of my food.
I don’t feel this non destructive killing takes away from the dhamma in the least. It actually aligns with morality quite nicely.
Re: First precept
I’m not the one who translates the buddhas words. It was a monk who translated the first precept as avoid destroying living beings. I am simply exploring the word destruction and how it fits into my comprehension of the dhamma.Joe.c wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 2:16 amMoha (delusional) and Avijja (ignorant) indeed.thepea wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:46 am It’s the buddhas practice and insights arising that allow me to comprehend and challenge potentially divisive translations. Not being a Pali scholar I do not give all importance to the suttas, I challenge them where I disagree. In this case a Pali scholar has translated the first precept as avoid destruction of life. This fits my comprehension and experience and also does not contradict what I read in suttas.
With wrong view ... lead to wrong samadhi. Then, only lower realms will be available.
O yeah, please stop propagate your wrong view. Do you know about head splitting spell?
Please check in Sutta before you see someone who may have this capability in future and you still holding this wrong view and Misrepresentation of Buddha words.
Good luck.
I do not know of head splitting spell, perhaps provide a link.