First precept

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
NotMe
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:41 pm

Re: First precept

Post by NotMe »

DNS wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:57 am As mentioned in my previous posts, I know of course that First Precept means no killing of any sentient being. I wasn't completely sure about the harming and maiming, but found this:
1. THE FIRST PRECEPT: ABSTINENCE FROM TAKING LIFE
The first of the five precepts reads in Pali, Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami; in English, "I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life." Here the word pana, meaning that which breathes, denotes any living being that has breath and consciousness. It includes animals and insects as well as men, but does not include plants as they have only life but not breath or consciousness. The word "living being" is a conventional term, an expression of common usage, signifying in the strict philosophical sense the life faculty (jivitindriya). The word atipata means literally striking down, hence killing or destroying. Thus the precept enjoins abstinence (veramani) from the taking of life. Though the precept's wording prohibits the killing of living beings, in terms of its underlying purpose it can also be understood to prohibit injuring, maiming, and torturing as well.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... el282.html
See especially the last sentence where the spirit of the teaching appears to include maiming and harming.
Awesome post. About the only one is this thread I can see with no thepea, whose name shall not spoken above font size 25.

We need more like this in the thread.

Metta

:anjali:

edit to add off topic: Here what 1st jhana does for ya:
fly buzzing, fly buzzing, fly buzzing, fly buzzing, fly buzzing, fly buzzing, fly buzzing, fly buzzing, fly buzzing, fly buzzing, fly buzzing, fly buzzing, fly buzzing, fly buzzing, fly buzzing, fly buzzing, fly buzzing, fly buzzing, fly buzzing!
Last edited by NotMe on Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:41 pm, edited 3 times in total.
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 4:31 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:53 pm
thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:38 pm

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.
Look, I’m simply going from thanisarros translation which I have provided twice in this thread he translates as destroy.
Actually, you may have a point there. If someone as scholarly and eminent as Ajahn Thanissaro translates pānātipāta as "destroy", then it's perfectly possible that there is an ambiguity there; that the Buddha meant "destroy" living creatures rather than "kill" them. After all, Thanissaro is a real Pali expert, and he's probably seen something that I and other people didn't spot in the precepts. I might have to revise my position on this...

But wait! :o What's this??! Here's that same Thanissaro on destroyi...er, I mean, killing:
Killing is never skillful. Stealing, lying, and everything else in the first list are never skillful. When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone. If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill...When formulating lay precepts based on his distinction between skillful and unskillful, the Buddha never made any allowances for ifs, ands, or buts. When you promise yourself to abstain from killing or stealing, the power of the promise lies in its universality. You won't break your promise to yourself under any conditions at all...So the Buddha's position on the precepts was uncompromising and clear. If you want to follow his teachings, there's absolutely no room for killing, stealing, or lying, period.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... ssage.html

Oh dear. :( Never mind. :weep: Back to the drawing board.
User avatar
NotMe
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:41 pm

Re: First precept

Post by NotMe »

Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:34 pm Oh dear. :( Never mind. :weep: Back to the drawing board.
I am taking the chalk away! Wheres the eraser...

<GRIN> fading fast ... worn out ...

Metta

:anjali:

edit to add: Wasn't it Rodney Dangerfield who said "I get no respect", and everyone got mad because he compared himself to the warriors of racism who as a group suffered centuries of lynchings, murders, rapes, pillaging etc etc jest asking if it was Rodney? http://www.rodney.com
wenjaforever
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue May 24, 2022 4:44 am

Re: First precept

Post by wenjaforever »

If you mutilate and cut a Brahma in a 100 pieces it won't die nor feel pain since it's a shape shifter. But if you cut Satan in a 100 pieces I think it's probably dead. But I never tested this just yet. You just have to throw everything into the equation. If you mutilate a Brahma he'll just laughs it off and say: that all you got?
money is worthless toilet paper • the tongue has no bone (a person might say one thing but it cannot be further from the truth) • you cannot teach a goat math as in you cannot teach the dhamma to a dumb person
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

From Kevatta sutta: “When he has thus gone forth, he lives restrained by the rules of the monastic code, seeing danger in the slightest faults. Consummate in his virtue, he guards the doors of his senses, is possessed of mindfulness and alertness, and is content.

The Lesser Section on Virtue
"And how is a monk consummate in virtue? Abandoning the taking of life, he abstains from the taking of life. He dwells with his rod laid down, his knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. This is part of his virtue.”

It seems pretty clear that Buddha is instructing those who have “gone forth” to put their fishing rods and hunting knives down to settle into calming the mind and doing jhana, and that these activities are not conducive to jhana.
But for the laity when finishing a retreat they would logically take back their fishing rods and hunting knives as they returned to regular lay life.
One could logically do the good work following buddhas teachings and meticulously observing sila and reach nobility as a sota then bound by their past kamma and responsibility they could return to laity life and resume food production as a fisherman etc...
I see absolutely zero evidence pointing towards this not fitting into Buddha dhamma teachings. There is the possibility that one may choose to remain “in robes” and not return to lay life but this is not an absolute for nobility.
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: Sun Jul 24, 2022 1:07 pm From Kevatta sutta: “When he has thus gone forth, he lives restrained by the rules of the monastic code, seeing danger in the slightest faults. Consummate in his virtue, he guards the doors of his senses, is possessed of mindfulness and alertness, and is content.

The Lesser Section on Virtue
"And how is a monk consummate in virtue? Abandoning the taking of life, he abstains from the taking of life. He dwells with his rod laid down, his knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. This is part of his virtue.”
I don't think that's from the Kevatta Sutta. It looks to be from the Samaññaphāla Sutta.
It seems pretty clear that Buddha is instructing those who have “gone forth” to put their fishing rods and hunting knives down to settle into calming the mind and doing jhana, and that these activities are not conducive to jhana.
No, it doesn't seem to be about fishing rods. The word danda means a stick, as in a walking stick or cudgel, and is used in lots of suttas as a metaphor for violence and punishment in general.
But for the laity when finishing a retreat they would logically take back their fishing rods and hunting knives as they returned to regular lay life.
One could logically do the good work following buddhas teachings and meticulously observing sila and reach nobility as a sota then bound by their past kamma and responsibility they could return to laity life and resume food production as a fisherman etc...
The laity (such as Cunda the silversmith in AN 10.176) are advised to lay aside the rod, meaning to avoid being punitive and violent to others per se, not when merely "on a retreat" - if they ever did that. It is for purposes of purification.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 2:14 pm
thepea wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 1:07 pm From Kevatta sutta: “When he has thus gone forth, he lives restrained by the rules of the monastic code, seeing danger in the slightest faults. Consummate in his virtue, he guards the doors of his senses, is possessed of mindfulness and alertness, and is content.

The Lesser Section on Virtue
"And how is a monk consummate in virtue? Abandoning the taking of life, he abstains from the taking of life. He dwells with his rod laid down, his knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. This is part of his virtue.”
I don't think that's from the Kevatta Sutta. It looks to be from the Samaññaphāla Sutta.
It seems pretty clear that Buddha is instructing those who have “gone forth” to put their fishing rods and hunting knives down to settle into calming the mind and doing jhana, and that these activities are not conducive to jhana.
No, it doesn't seem to be about fishing rods. The word danda means a stick, as in a walking stick or cudgel, and is used in lots of suttas as a metaphor for violence and punishment in general.
But for the laity when finishing a retreat they would logically take back their fishing rods and hunting knives as they returned to regular lay life.
One could logically do the good work following buddhas teachings and meticulously observing sila and reach nobility as a sota then bound by their past kamma and responsibility they could return to laity life and resume food production as a fisherman etc...
The laity (such as Cunda the silversmith in AN 10.176) are advised to lay aside the rod, meaning to avoid being punitive and violent to others per se, not when merely "on a retreat" - if they ever did that. It is for purposes of purification.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
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: Sun Jul 24, 2022 2:27 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 2:14 pm
thepea wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 1:07 pm From Kevatta sutta: “When he has thus gone forth, he lives restrained by the rules of the monastic code, seeing danger in the slightest faults. Consummate in his virtue, he guards the doors of his senses, is possessed of mindfulness and alertness, and is content.

The Lesser Section on Virtue
"And how is a monk consummate in virtue? Abandoning the taking of life, he abstains from the taking of life. He dwells with his rod laid down, his knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. This is part of his virtue.”
I don't think that's from the Kevatta Sutta. It looks to be from the Samaññaphāla Sutta.
It seems pretty clear that Buddha is instructing those who have “gone forth” to put their fishing rods and hunting knives down to settle into calming the mind and doing jhana, and that these activities are not conducive to jhana.
No, it doesn't seem to be about fishing rods. The word danda means a stick, as in a walking stick or cudgel, and is used in lots of suttas as a metaphor for violence and punishment in general.
But for the laity when finishing a retreat they would logically take back their fishing rods and hunting knives as they returned to regular lay life.
One could logically do the good work following buddhas teachings and meticulously observing sila and reach nobility as a sota then bound by their past kamma and responsibility they could return to laity life and resume food production as a fisherman etc...
The laity (such as Cunda the silversmith in AN 10.176) are advised to lay aside the rod, meaning to avoid being punitive and violent to others per se, not when merely "on a retreat" - if they ever did that. It is for purposes of purification.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Ah, thanks, I stand corrected. :anjali: Sujato's version doesn't include that bit.

But danda doesn't mean fishing rod, and requirement to lay it aside is universal, rather than being about "retreats".
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 2:32 pm
thepea wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 2:27 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 2:14 pm

I don't think that's from the Kevatta Sutta. It looks to be from the Samaññaphāla Sutta.



No, it doesn't seem to be about fishing rods. The word danda means a stick, as in a walking stick or cudgel, and is used in lots of suttas as a metaphor for violence and punishment in general.



The laity (such as Cunda the silversmith in AN 10.176) are advised to lay aside the rod, meaning to avoid being punitive and violent to others per se, not when merely "on a retreat" - if they ever did that. It is for purposes of purification.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Ah, thanks, I stand corrected. :anjali: Sujato's version doesn't include that bit.

But danda doesn't mean fishing rod, and requirement to lay it aside is universal, rather than being about "retreats".
I don’t see the word danda, I see rod and knife.
Rod I’m assuming is fishing rod and knife I’m assuming is hunting knife. But I agree in general it’s an instruction for those going forth to lay down their weapons or work tools and begin the cultivation of jhana.
With rains retreats I could see many layman going forth and taking robes for these periods of time. Then at dnd of rains retreat returning to laylife and picking back up their rods and knives or work tools and getting back to being productive members of society. Working to remain aware as much as possible but unlikely in depths of jhana as possible on retreat.
Again.... I can see a layman doing the good work of dhamma snd reaching nobility(sota or slightly higher) then returning to their job as a fisherman etc.... and not remaining in robes.
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: Sun Jul 24, 2022 2:45 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 2:32 pm
Ah, thanks, I stand corrected. :anjali: Sujato's version doesn't include that bit.

But danda doesn't mean fishing rod, and requirement to lay it aside is universal, rather than being about "retreats".
I don’t see the word danda, I see rod and knife.
Try looking at the Pali:
It’s when a mendicant gives up killing living creatures, renouncing the rod and the sword. They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings.
Idha, mahārāja, bhikkhu pāṇātipātaṁ pahāya pāṇātipātā paṭivirato hoti. Nihitadaṇḍo nihitasattho lajjī dayāpanno sabbapāṇabhūtahitānukampī viharati.
This pertains to their ethics.
Idampissa hoti sīlasmiṁ.
Rod I’m assuming is fishing rod and knife I’m assuming is hunting knife
No basis for that assumption. I can't remember seeing an account of fishing rods anywhere else in the Nikayas, but I'm open to persuasion.
But I agree in general it’s an instruction for those going forth to lay down their weapons or work tools and begin the cultivation of jhana.
No, the word is used elsewhere for those who are not monks, or going forth. It's used as a metaphor for violence and punishment in general.
With rains retreats I could see many layman going forth and taking robes for these periods of time. Then at dnd of rains retreat returning to laylife and picking back up their rods and knives or work tools and getting back to being productive members of society. Working to remain aware as much as possible but unlikely in depths of jhana as possible on retreat.
"Could see" appears to mean "imagine". But there is no evidence for it; it's just your imagination.
Again.... I can see a layman doing the good work of dhamma snd reaching nobility(sota or slightly higher) then returning to their job as a fisherman etc.... and not remaining in robes.
"Can see" again means "imagines". But let's leave this particular bit of the topic - the idea that a sotapanna can kill - just here, as further iterations are very unlikely to generate new thought and will likely be excised.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 3:06 pm
thepea wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 2:45 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 2:32 pm

Ah, thanks, I stand corrected. :anjali: Sujato's version doesn't include that bit.

But danda doesn't mean fishing rod, and requirement to lay it aside is universal, rather than being about "retreats".
I don’t see the word danda, I see rod and knife.
Try looking at the Pali:
It’s when a mendicant gives up killing living creatures, renouncing the rod and the sword. They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings.
Idha, mahārāja, bhikkhu pāṇātipātaṁ pahāya pāṇātipātā paṭivirato hoti. Nihitadaṇḍo nihitasattho lajjī dayāpanno sabbapāṇabhūtahitānukampī viharati.
This pertains to their ethics.
Idampissa hoti sīlasmiṁ.
Rod I’m assuming is fishing rod and knife I’m assuming is hunting knife
No basis for that assumption. I can't remember seeing an account of fishing rods anywhere else in the Nikayas, but I'm open to persuasion.
But I agree in general it’s an instruction for those going forth to lay down their weapons or work tools and begin the cultivation of jhana.
No, the word is used elsewhere for those who are not monks, or going forth. It's used as a metaphor for violence and punishment in general.
With rains retreats I could see many layman going forth and taking robes for these periods of time. Then at dnd of rains retreat returning to laylife and picking back up their rods and knives or work tools and getting back to being productive members of society. Working to remain aware as much as possible but unlikely in depths of jhana as possible on retreat.
"Could see" appears to mean "imagine". But there is no evidence for it; it's just your imagination.
Again.... I can see a layman doing the good work of dhamma snd reaching nobility(sota or slightly higher) then returning to their job as a fisherman etc.... and not remaining in robes.
"Can see" again means "imagines". But let's leave this particular bit of the topic - the idea that a sotapanna can kill - just here, as further iterations are very unlikely to generate new thought and will likely be excised.
What I’m saying is rod can be seen as laying down ones tools for killing. When going forth to cultivate jhana one must observe sila scrupulously. This is virtue.
We seem to be saying the same thing about the rod(tool).
Regarding the “could see” I remember Goenka giving sermon regarding the Buddha in the day creating meditation centres and al of society coming to learn dhamma. Of course this is belief as is all second hand knowledge, we were not there to have the direct wisdom.
I seems logical that Buddha taught to layman as well as monastics. The layman might have taken robes for retreats with intention or possibility to return to laylife or perhaps Buddha had people simply sit and do jhana without formalities. It’s all up to ones interpretation. With practice and direct wisdom we can see if this supports our interpretations.
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: Sun Jul 24, 2022 3:38 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 3:06 pm
thepea wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 2:45 pm

I don’t see the word danda, I see rod and knife.
Try looking at the Pali:
It’s when a mendicant gives up killing living creatures, renouncing the rod and the sword. They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings.
Idha, mahārāja, bhikkhu pāṇātipātaṁ pahāya pāṇātipātā paṭivirato hoti. Nihitadaṇḍo nihitasattho lajjī dayāpanno sabbapāṇabhūtahitānukampī viharati.
This pertains to their ethics.
Idampissa hoti sīlasmiṁ.
Rod I’m assuming is fishing rod and knife I’m assuming is hunting knife
No basis for that assumption. I can't remember seeing an account of fishing rods anywhere else in the Nikayas, but I'm open to persuasion.
But I agree in general it’s an instruction for those going forth to lay down their weapons or work tools and begin the cultivation of jhana.
No, the word is used elsewhere for those who are not monks, or going forth. It's used as a metaphor for violence and punishment in general.
With rains retreats I could see many layman going forth and taking robes for these periods of time. Then at dnd of rains retreat returning to laylife and picking back up their rods and knives or work tools and getting back to being productive members of society. Working to remain aware as much as possible but unlikely in depths of jhana as possible on retreat.
"Could see" appears to mean "imagine". But there is no evidence for it; it's just your imagination.
Again.... I can see a layman doing the good work of dhamma snd reaching nobility(sota or slightly higher) then returning to their job as a fisherman etc.... and not remaining in robes.
"Can see" again means "imagines". But let's leave this particular bit of the topic - the idea that a sotapanna can kill - just here, as further iterations are very unlikely to generate new thought and will likely be excised.
What I’m saying is rod can be seen as laying down ones tools for killing.
And for non-lethal aggression and violence in general. That's clear from lots of other suttas.
When going forth to cultivate jhana one must observe sila scrupulously. This is virtue.
We seem to be saying the same thing about the rod(tool).
No, we don't. The suttas don't seem to restrict the use of danda to killing; nor do they specify that it is only laid aside when cultivating jhāna.
Regarding the “could see” I remember Goenka giving sermon regarding the Buddha in the day creating meditation centres and al of society coming to learn dhamma. Of course this is belief as is all second hand knowledge, we were not there to have the direct wisdom.
I remember it too. It's not second-hand knowledge, it is pure speculation until there is textual evidence for it. I'm open to that evidence, but I don't recall any.
I seems logical that Buddha taught to layman as well as monastics. The layman might have taken robes for retreats with intention or possibility to return to laylife or perhaps Buddha had people simply sit and do jhana without formalities
Anything is possible. Evidence is required to turn speculation into probability.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 4:19 pm
thepea wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 3:38 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 3:06 pm

Try looking at the Pali:





No basis for that assumption. I can't remember seeing an account of fishing rods anywhere else in the Nikayas, but I'm open to persuasion.



No, the word is used elsewhere for those who are not monks, or going forth. It's used as a metaphor for violence and punishment in general.



"Could see" appears to mean "imagine". But there is no evidence for it; it's just your imagination.



"Can see" again means "imagines". But let's leave this particular bit of the topic - the idea that a sotapanna can kill - just here, as further iterations are very unlikely to generate new thought and will likely be excised.
What I’m saying is rod can be seen as laying down ones tools for killing.
And for non-lethal aggression and violence in general. That's clear from lots of other suttas.
When going forth to cultivate jhana one must observe sila scrupulously. This is virtue.
We seem to be saying the same thing about the rod(tool).
No, we don't. The suttas don't seem to restrict the use of danda to killing; nor do they specify that it is only laid aside when cultivating jhāna.
Regarding the “could see” I remember Goenka giving sermon regarding the Buddha in the day creating meditation centres and al of society coming to learn dhamma. Of course this is belief as is all second hand knowledge, we were not there to have the direct wisdom.
I remember it too. It's not second-hand knowledge, it is pure speculation until there is textual evidence for it. I'm open to that evidence, but I don't recall any.
I seems logical that Buddha taught to layman as well as monastics. The layman might have taken robes for retreats with intention or possibility to return to laylife or perhaps Buddha had people simply sit and do jhana without formalities
Anything is possible. Evidence is required to turn speculation into probability.
Ok, this is where you and I differ.
The teacher(Buddha) is within, in a man like sayaghi u bha khin and SN Goenka they were highly evolved and as such the dhamma spread across the globe. Vipassana centres sprung up like blades of grass with strong roots.
But now Goenka is dead and there was nobody within this tradition who had reached the higher nobility to pass the torch so it’s “being” is gone. Like the sunflower reaching to the sky to feed from the sun it grew and grew but then it’s being was removed it was pulled from the earth and it will die. This is why the centres globally are such a mess and will die out. It’s similar with some theravada practices which is why instead of direct experience many are stuck looking into scriptures and holding these translations as authority. It has no being.
I witnessed the Vipassana centres flourishing with life with the buddhas teachings being taught to both monastics and layman. I saw this directly. But you will only accept the scripture as evidence or proof. This is annicca of buddhas teachings. Within certain beings these teachings will rise up again when the plant matured, eventually it will give fruit to others.
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: Sun Jul 24, 2022 4:38 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 4:19 pm
thepea wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 3:38 pm

What I’m saying is rod can be seen as laying down ones tools for killing.
And for non-lethal aggression and violence in general. That's clear from lots of other suttas.
When going forth to cultivate jhana one must observe sila scrupulously. This is virtue.
We seem to be saying the same thing about the rod(tool).
No, we don't. The suttas don't seem to restrict the use of danda to killing; nor do they specify that it is only laid aside when cultivating jhāna.
Regarding the “could see” I remember Goenka giving sermon regarding the Buddha in the day creating meditation centres and al of society coming to learn dhamma. Of course this is belief as is all second hand knowledge, we were not there to have the direct wisdom.
I remember it too. It's not second-hand knowledge, it is pure speculation until there is textual evidence for it. I'm open to that evidence, but I don't recall any.
I seems logical that Buddha taught to layman as well as monastics. The layman might have taken robes for retreats with intention or possibility to return to laylife or perhaps Buddha had people simply sit and do jhana without formalities
Anything is possible. Evidence is required to turn speculation into probability.
Ok, this is where you and I differ.
The teacher(Buddha) is within, in a man like sayaghi u bha khin and SN Goenka they were highly evolved and as such the dhamma spread across the globe. Vipassana centres sprung up like blades of grass with strong roots.
But now Goenka is dead and there was nobody within this tradition who had reached the higher nobility to pass the torch so it’s “being” is gone. Like the sunflower reaching to the sky to feed from the sun it grew and grew but then it’s being was removed it was pulled from the earth and it will die. This is why the centres globally are such a mess and will die out.
Whatever Goenka was, no matter how much being and sunflowery grassy essence was floating around him (I met him, and he seemed a nice man...) his idea that the Buddha established "meditation centres" is, until proven through texts, naught but supposition. Was he there? Did his vision extend into the past as if it were still there?
But you will only accept the scripture as evidence or proof
Again, that's pure speculation on your part. You have no idea what I will accept as evidence or proof. You know that I won't accept your view of scripture where it is contradicted by other scriptures, but that's about all...
This is annicca of buddhas teachings. Within certain beings these teachings will rise up again when the plant matured, eventually it will give fruit to others.
You mean that some people will teach the Buddha's Dhamma to others? I don't doubt that at all. Trouble is, there are also people who will claim that a lot of old nonsense and speculation is the Buddha's teaching, and you need more than a botanical metaphor to back that up...
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 4:56 pm
thepea wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 4:38 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 4:19 pm

And for non-lethal aggression and violence in general. That's clear from lots of other suttas.



No, we don't. The suttas don't seem to restrict the use of danda to killing; nor do they specify that it is only laid aside when cultivating jhāna.



I remember it too. It's not second-hand knowledge, it is pure speculation until there is textual evidence for it. I'm open to that evidence, but I don't recall any.



Anything is possible. Evidence is required to turn speculation into probability.
Ok, this is where you and I differ.
The teacher(Buddha) is within, in a man like sayaghi u bha khin and SN Goenka they were highly evolved and as such the dhamma spread across the globe. Vipassana centres sprung up like blades of grass with strong roots.
But now Goenka is dead and there was nobody within this tradition who had reached the higher nobility to pass the torch so it’s “being” is gone. Like the sunflower reaching to the sky to feed from the sun it grew and grew but then it’s being was removed it was pulled from the earth and it will die. This is why the centres globally are such a mess and will die out.
Whatever Goenka was, no matter how much being and sunflowery grassy essence was floating around him (I met him, and he seemed a nice man...) his idea that the Buddha established "meditation centres" is, until proven through texts, naught but supposition. Was he there? Did his vision extend into the past as if it were still there?
But you will only accept the scripture as evidence or proof
Again, that's pure speculation on your part. You have no idea what I will accept as evidence or proof. You know that I won't accept your view of scripture where it is contradicted by other scriptures, but that's about all...
This is annicca of buddhas teachings. Within certain beings these teachings will rise up again when the plant matured, eventually it will give fruit to others.
You mean that some people will teach the Buddha's Dhamma to others? I don't doubt that at all. Trouble is, there are also people who will claim that a lot of old nonsense and speculation is the Buddha's teaching, and you need more than a botanical metaphor to back that up...
I’m saying I witnessed and experienced the Buddha teaching within these centres to both monastics and layman. Why would it be different 2500 years ago when S Gotama taught to the masses and Vipassana flourished across the globe?
Post Reply