First precept

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: First precept

Post by Sam Vara »

thepea wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:51 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:31 pm
thepea wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:25 pm

I have not defined destruction, Oxford dictionary has.
A Pali scholar monk translated the first precept as avoid destruction of living beings. THIS had zero mention of killing, which is a different thing all together.
It's a synonym for killing. If one destroys a living being, it is thereby killed.

In some translations, it is actually translated as refraining from killing.
Of course, but as Ive shown destruction contains the elements that are offensive. Killing in general does not.
If they are synonyms, then they both contain the elements that are offensive. They are different words which mean the same thing.
justindesilva
Posts: 2600
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: First precept

Post by justindesilva »

Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 12:09 am
thepea wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:51 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:31 pm

It's a synonym for killing. If one destroys a living being, it is thereby killed.

In some translations, it is actually translated as refraining from killing.
Of course, but as Ive shown destruction contains the elements that are offensive. Killing in general does not.
If they are synonyms, then they both contain the elements that are offensive. They are different words which mean the same thing.
Since I was a child associated with buddhist priests of the dhamma schools I was made to understand that the first precept meant , "not torturing or harassing living beings ".
Here a being has to be identified as any being with life. Life is an energy that is not described any where, except with the term jivitendriya (one of 7 universals of citta). Life can be termed as energy shaping the earth and the universe.
Fear is engraved in losing life in order to protect life. The second to fifth precepts are also made to protect life energy.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: First precept

Post by Sam Vara »

justindesilva wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 6:31 am
Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 12:09 am
thepea wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:51 pm

Of course, but as Ive shown destruction contains the elements that are offensive. Killing in general does not.
If they are synonyms, then they both contain the elements that are offensive. They are different words which mean the same thing.
Since I was a child associated with buddhist priests of the dhamma schools I was made to understand that the first precept meant , "not torturing or harassing living beings ".
Here a being has to be identified as any being with life. Life is an energy that is not described any where, except with the term jivitendriya (one of 7 universals of citta). Life can be termed as energy shaping the earth and the universe.
Fear is engraved in losing life in order to protect life. The second to fifth precepts are also made to protect life energy.
Was the understanding that it was OK to kill creatures if one didn't unnecessarily torture and harass them, or was the idea that one should refrain from killing and harassing?
User avatar
Johann
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2022 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: First precept

Post by Johann »

It's possible easier to understand the matter by "taking what isn't given", yet people with wrong view, thinking they are on a base of rights after coming, justify their evil deeds with telling such ideas as being given by nature, God... what ever, good householder.

Yet the 1. precepts goes even more far as one abstains even when given to destroy life, kill.
justindesilva
Posts: 2600
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: First precept

Post by justindesilva »

Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 8:50 am
justindesilva wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 6:31 am
Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 12:09 am

If they are synonyms, then they both contain the elements that are offensive. They are different words which mean the same thing.
Since I was a child associated with buddhist priests of the dhamma schools I was made to understand that the first precept meant , "not torturing or harassing living beings ".
Here a being has to be identified as any being with life. Life is an energy that is not described any where, except with the term jivitendriya (one of 7 universals of citta). Life can be termed as energy shaping the earth and the universe.
Fear is engraved in losing life in order to protect life. The second to fifth precepts are also made to protect life energy.
Was the understanding that it was OK to kill creatures if one didn't unnecessarily torture and harass them, or was the idea that one should refrain from killing and harassing?
Torture and harassing is involved in killing beings and this fact cannot be denied. I have watched cattle being dragged by butchers while these cattle were shedding tears. They the cattle feel the death to come. The moslem way of killing them called halal is by cutting the extrajugular vein and allowing the blood to flow out. It is the same with killing poultry while the neck is severed from the body and thrown in to a basket...See how pigs are been killed by hitting them to swell the meat. Thus is torture .
In the same manner fish being caught do shiver in need of oxygen before death.
That too is torture. The crabs are always never killed but thrown in boiling water for reason of maintaining its flesh.
So much more which can be shown of killing for meat in this so called civilised world .
Killing always harm life as life does not exist in killed flesh is no secret .
One may argue that modern killing of farming reduces harassing and torture and still that all creatures feel their death cannot be stopped by any method.
With metta.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: First precept

Post by Sam Vara »

justindesilva wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 9:51 am
Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 8:50 am
justindesilva wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 6:31 am
Since I was a child associated with buddhist priests of the dhamma schools I was made to understand that the first precept meant , "not torturing or harassing living beings ".
Here a being has to be identified as any being with life. Life is an energy that is not described any where, except with the term jivitendriya (one of 7 universals of citta). Life can be termed as energy shaping the earth and the universe.
Fear is engraved in losing life in order to protect life. The second to fifth precepts are also made to protect life energy.
Was the understanding that it was OK to kill creatures if one didn't unnecessarily torture and harass them, or was the idea that one should refrain from killing and harassing?
Torture and harassing is involved in killing beings and this fact cannot be denied. I have watched cattle being dragged by butchers while these cattle were shedding tears. They the cattle feel the death to come. The moslem way of killing them called halal is by cutting the extrajugular vein and allowing the blood to flow out. It is the same with killing poultry while the neck is severed from the body and thrown in to a basket...See how pigs are been killed by hitting them to swell the meat. Thus is torture .
In the same manner fish being caught do shiver in need of oxygen before death.
That too is torture. The crabs are always never killed but thrown in boiling water for reason of maintaining its flesh.
So much more which can be shown of killing for meat in this so called civilised world .
Killing always harm life as life does not exist in killed flesh is no secret .
One may argue that modern killing of farming reduces harassing and torture and still that all creatures feel their death cannot be stopped by any method.
With metta.
Thank you. I agree with you. I also think that you were lucky to get such a good education in the dhamma schools! :anjali: :heart:
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 12:09 am
thepea wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:51 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:31 pm

It's a synonym for killing. If one destroys a living being, it is thereby killed.

In some translations, it is actually translated as refraining from killing.
Of course, but as Ive shown destruction contains the elements that are offensive. Killing in general does not.
If they are synonyms, then they both contain the elements that are offensive. They are different words which mean the same thing.
Not at all the same.
Killing an injured horse and dropping a bomb on a city are two different things completely.
The first precept is referring to the second which causes PTSD and mental disease.
But as stated when practicing jhana both should be avoided.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

cappuccino wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:30 pm "Live by the sword, die by the sword"
We all will die.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

justindesilva wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 9:51 am
Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 8:50 am
justindesilva wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 6:31 am
Since I was a child associated with buddhist priests of the dhamma schools I was made to understand that the first precept meant , "not torturing or harassing living beings ".
Here a being has to be identified as any being with life. Life is an energy that is not described any where, except with the term jivitendriya (one of 7 universals of citta). Life can be termed as energy shaping the earth and the universe.
Fear is engraved in losing life in order to protect life. The second to fifth precepts are also made to protect life energy.
Was the understanding that it was OK to kill creatures if one didn't unnecessarily torture and harass them, or was the idea that one should refrain from killing and harassing?
Torture and harassing is involved in killing beings and this fact cannot be denied. I have watched cattle being dragged by butchers while these cattle were shedding tears. They the cattle feel the death to come. The moslem way of killing them called halal is by cutting the extrajugular vein and allowing the blood to flow out. It is the same with killing poultry while the neck is severed from the body and thrown in to a basket...See how pigs are been killed by hitting them to swell the meat. Thus is torture .
In the same manner fish being caught do shiver in need of oxygen before death.
That too is torture. The crabs are always never killed but thrown in boiling water for reason of maintaining its flesh.
So much more which can be shown of killing for meat in this so called civilised world .
Killing always harm life as life does not exist in killed flesh is no secret .
One may argue that modern killing of farming reduces harassing and torture and still that all creatures feel their death cannot be stopped by any method.
With metta.
We were invited to an Indian neighbours when they did a yearly sacrifice of a goat. I’m not into this religion of sacrificing to a god but was invited as neighbourhood.

The goats legs were tied and the group gathered around the goat to calm it down as they all thanked the goat for its sacrifice. You could see the animal come to a place of calm and then the man slit the throat of the goat and you could see the life leave the body. Through this they all told the goat the live they have for it and thanked it.
Then the goat was gone and it was simply flesh to be butchered.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 11:31 am
justindesilva wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 9:51 am
Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 8:50 am

Was the understanding that it was OK to kill creatures if one didn't unnecessarily torture and harass them, or was the idea that one should refrain from killing and harassing?
Torture and harassing is involved in killing beings and this fact cannot be denied. I have watched cattle being dragged by butchers while these cattle were shedding tears. They the cattle feel the death to come. The moslem way of killing them called halal is by cutting the extrajugular vein and allowing the blood to flow out. It is the same with killing poultry while the neck is severed from the body and thrown in to a basket...See how pigs are been killed by hitting them to swell the meat. Thus is torture .
In the same manner fish being caught do shiver in need of oxygen before death.
That too is torture. The crabs are always never killed but thrown in boiling water for reason of maintaining its flesh.
So much more which can be shown of killing for meat in this so called civilised world .
Killing always harm life as life does not exist in killed flesh is no secret .
One may argue that modern killing of farming reduces harassing and torture and still that all creatures feel their death cannot be stopped by any method.
With metta.
Thank you. I agree with you. I also think that you were lucky to get such a good education in the dhamma schools! :anjali: :heart:
I also feel corporate farms are not free from destruction with their methods snd in fact are far from this.
Smaller farms are much more personal and caring although not all.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: First precept

Post by Sam Vara »

thepea wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 1:12 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 12:09 am
thepea wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:51 pm

Of course, but as Ive shown destruction contains the elements that are offensive. Killing in general does not.
If they are synonyms, then they both contain the elements that are offensive. They are different words which mean the same thing.
Not at all the same.
Killing an injured horse and dropping a bomb on a city are two different things completely.
In the context of the precept, they are the same. The words can have different meanings outside of that context. In the same way, when people talk about "he died" and "he passed away": In the context of receiving bad news about your Uncle Joe, they mean exactly the same. They are two different phrases having the same referent. Of course, outside that context, they have different meanings. Uncle Joe might have kicked a football to someone - he "passed away". He might have crossed your path far from home - he "passed away". But that's to ignore the context.

In the same way, the expressions "your children grew rapidly" and "your children shot up" are synonyms, within a particular context. They are synonyms, and have exactly the same referent. If you start thinking about firearms discharged into the air, you have missed the context and are a classic case of what Wittgenstein called being "bewitched by language".

If there were a Pali compound along the lines of "city-destruction", it would be a very different thing from "breathing being-destruction", which is what the actual preceptual compound is. When we destroy a city we bulldoze or bomb it. When we destroy a living creature we kill it.

Synonyms, see?
The first precept is referring to the second which causes PTSD and mental disease.


Intriguing idea, although the product of bewitchment. Any evidence for it, though?
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 3:28 pm
thepea wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 1:12 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 12:09 am

If they are synonyms, then they both contain the elements that are offensive. They are different words which mean the same thing.
Not at all the same.
Killing an injured horse and dropping a bomb on a city are two different things completely.
In the context of the precept, they are the same. The words can have different meanings outside of that context. In the same way, when people talk about "he died" and "he passed away": In the context of receiving bad news about your Uncle Joe, they mean exactly the same. They are two different phrases having the same referent. Of course, outside that context, they have different meanings. Uncle Joe might have kicked a football to someone - he "passed away". He might have crossed your path far from home - he "passed away". But that's to ignore the context.

In the same way, the expressions "your children grew rapidly" and "your children shot up" are synonyms, within a particular context. They are synonyms, and have exactly the same referent. If you start thinking about firearms discharged into the air, you have missed the context and are a classic case of what Wittgenstein called being "bewitched by language".

If there were a Pali compound along the lines of "city-destruction", it would be a very different thing from "breathing being-destruction", which is what the actual preceptual compound is. When we destroy a city we bulldoze or bomb it. When we destroy a living creature we kill it.

Synonyms, see?
The first precept is referring to the second which causes PTSD and mental disease.


Intriguing idea, although the product of bewitchment. Any evidence for it, though?
The evidence is the disease. If you are free from disease then you are free(release( if you experience disease then you are in the grip(restrained).
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: First precept

Post by Sam Vara »

thepea wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 4:38 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 3:28 pm
thepea wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 1:12 pm

Not at all the same.
Killing an injured horse and dropping a bomb on a city are two different things completely.
In the context of the precept, they are the same. The words can have different meanings outside of that context. In the same way, when people talk about "he died" and "he passed away": In the context of receiving bad news about your Uncle Joe, they mean exactly the same. They are two different phrases having the same referent. Of course, outside that context, they have different meanings. Uncle Joe might have kicked a football to someone - he "passed away". He might have crossed your path far from home - he "passed away". But that's to ignore the context.

In the same way, the expressions "your children grew rapidly" and "your children shot up" are synonyms, within a particular context. They are synonyms, and have exactly the same referent. If you start thinking about firearms discharged into the air, you have missed the context and are a classic case of what Wittgenstein called being "bewitched by language".

If there were a Pali compound along the lines of "city-destruction", it would be a very different thing from "breathing being-destruction", which is what the actual preceptual compound is. When we destroy a city we bulldoze or bomb it. When we destroy a living creature we kill it.

Synonyms, see?
The first precept is referring to the second which causes PTSD and mental disease.


Intriguing idea, although the product of bewitchment. Any evidence for it, though?
The evidence is the disease. If you are free from disease then you are free(release( if you experience disease then you are in the grip(restrained).
So if what you say is true, then your paradigm example of destruction (dropping a bomb on a city) would result in disease. So let's see....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tibb ... _and_death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Ferebee

No sign of it, but maybe they had dandruff or fallen arches or something.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 5:00 pm
thepea wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 4:38 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 3:28 pm

In the context of the precept, they are the same. The words can have different meanings outside of that context. In the same way, when people talk about "he died" and "he passed away": In the context of receiving bad news about your Uncle Joe, they mean exactly the same. They are two different phrases having the same referent. Of course, outside that context, they have different meanings. Uncle Joe might have kicked a football to someone - he "passed away". He might have crossed your path far from home - he "passed away". But that's to ignore the context.

In the same way, the expressions "your children grew rapidly" and "your children shot up" are synonyms, within a particular context. They are synonyms, and have exactly the same referent. If you start thinking about firearms discharged into the air, you have missed the context and are a classic case of what Wittgenstein called being "bewitched by language".

If there were a Pali compound along the lines of "city-destruction", it would be a very different thing from "breathing being-destruction", which is what the actual preceptual compound is. When we destroy a city we bulldoze or bomb it. When we destroy a living creature we kill it.

Synonyms, see?



Intriguing idea, although the product of bewitchment. Any evidence for it, though?
The evidence is the disease. If you are free from disease then you are free(release( if you experience disease then you are in the grip(restrained).
So if what you say is true, then your paradigm example of destruction (dropping a bomb on a city) would result in disease. So let's see....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tibb ... _and_death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Ferebee

No sign of it, but maybe they had dandruff or fallen arches or something.
Did they have PTSD, were they substance abusers?
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: First precept

Post by Sam Vara »

thepea wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 5:28 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 5:00 pm
thepea wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 4:38 pm

The evidence is the disease. If you are free from disease then you are free(release( if you experience disease then you are in the grip(restrained).
So if what you say is true, then your paradigm example of destruction (dropping a bomb on a city) would result in disease. So let's see....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tibb ... _and_death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Ferebee

No sign of it, but maybe they had dandruff or fallen arches or something.
Did they have PTSD, were they substance abusers?
Not so as to show up on wikipedia. They lived a long time, had successful careers, and didn't regret what they did. Indistinguishable from millions of Americans their age.
Post Reply