First precept

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
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: Mon Jul 25, 2022 7:37 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 7:16 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 6:45 pm
He ate the animal flesh, he didn’t tell the layman to stop farming/fishing.
How does eating the flesh of a dead animal imply that one supports the killing of that animal? One might support the killing, or one might not. There is no necessary relation between the eating and the support for the killing. If you think there is, please show your reasoning. You might like to start with what you think "support" means.
This is similar to the layman purchasing meat from the grocery store. We support this industry and the killing.
In the case of purchasing meat, it might be said that the industry is "supported" by the purchase price contributing to the grocer being able to buy more meat from the wholesaler. But it's still the grocer's choice to do so. And this certainly does not apply to one receiving alms. There is no purchase price and the alms-giver does not benefit in any way. So it's similar, but not in a relevant way.
Then there is the vegetarian/vegan who does not support the killing of animals and who may speak out against this killing. That is moral preference(aversion or craving). This can be considered extreme as a monastic simply has the beggars bowl.
This is irrelevant to the main point here, which is whether the Buddha supported killing by accepting meat.
It’s complex and messy this business of life and death.
Maybe, but my claim that the Buddha did not support killing by accepting meat is simple. Focus on that, if you would, rather than on your gardening tasks, which seem to be more red herrings.
Buddha had this balance even while supporting the killing or observing others killing
This is mere assertion or question-begging. Try to focus: what is "supporting killing", and how exactly does the Buddha's acceptance of meat make him a supporter of killing?
Support is enabling.
In the case of the Buddha accepting meat from a donor, he is not "enabling" them to kill the animal. They were able to do that whether the Buddha accepted it or not. So if support is enabling, he is not in this instance supporting killing.
The layman purchasing animal flesh from the grocery store is enabling this industry to continue. If nobody ate animal flesh their would be no industry for it. It’s only a very minute partial support of a very large industry but by purchasing and eating the flesh one supports or enables this business to continue.
Again, this is irrelevant, I'm afraid. We are talking about the Buddha supporting killing by accepting meat as dana. He is not a layman, and he is emphatically not purchasing it. He does not support this business to continue.
Sam, why don’t you tell me what is wrong with killing a chicken you have raised and having it as a meal, or going into the forest and snaring a rabbit for your stew. What exactly is the issue?
Who is telling you this is wrong?
Try to remember what the issue is here. Your claim is that the Buddha supported killing by accepting meat. Not what I think is wrong.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:15 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 7:37 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 7:16 pm

How does eating the flesh of a dead animal imply that one supports the killing of that animal? One might support the killing, or one might not. There is no necessary relation between the eating and the support for the killing. If you think there is, please show your reasoning. You might like to start with what you think "support" means.



In the case of purchasing meat, it might be said that the industry is "supported" by the purchase price contributing to the grocer being able to buy more meat from the wholesaler. But it's still the grocer's choice to do so. And this certainly does not apply to one receiving alms. There is no purchase price and the alms-giver does not benefit in any way. So it's similar, but not in a relevant way.



This is irrelevant to the main point here, which is whether the Buddha supported killing by accepting meat.



Maybe, but my claim that the Buddha did not support killing by accepting meat is simple. Focus on that, if you would, rather than on your gardening tasks, which seem to be more red herrings.



This is mere assertion or question-begging. Try to focus: what is "supporting killing", and how exactly does the Buddha's acceptance of meat make him a supporter of killing?
Support is enabling.
In the case of the Buddha accepting meat from a donor, he is not "enabling" them to kill the animal. They were able to do that whether the Buddha accepted it or not. So if support is enabling, he is not in this instance supporting killing.
The layman purchasing animal flesh from the grocery store is enabling this industry to continue. If nobody ate animal flesh their would be no industry for it. It’s only a very minute partial support of a very large industry but by purchasing and eating the flesh one supports or enables this business to continue.
Again, this is irrelevant, I'm afraid. We are talking about the Buddha supporting killing by accepting meat as dana. He is not a layman, and he is emphatically not purchasing it. He does not support this business to continue.
Sam, why don’t you tell me what is wrong with killing a chicken you have raised and having it as a meal, or going into the forest and snaring a rabbit for your stew. What exactly is the issue?
Who is telling you this is wrong?
Try to remember what the issue is here. Your claim is that the Buddha supported killing by accepting meat. Not what I think is wrong.
No Sam,
My claim is that the first precept is not about killing but rather destruction which has the characteristics of
Greed: with regards to extincting a species which could be not respecting the breeding cycles of animals, taking pregnant females.
Cruelty: torturing animals through improper living conditions, lack of proper food/water, etc...
Mutilation: experimenting and testing drugs or cosmetics on animals, etc....

This is my claim regarding first precept.

So I’m asking you, what is the issue with me killing one of my chickens, plucking it’s feathers, gutting it, and roasting it for supper, then offering the leftovers to some monks for their alms?

What will happen to me for doing this deed?
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: Mon Jul 25, 2022 9:02 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:15 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 7:37 pm
Support is enabling.
In the case of the Buddha accepting meat from a donor, he is not "enabling" them to kill the animal. They were able to do that whether the Buddha accepted it or not. So if support is enabling, he is not in this instance supporting killing.
The layman purchasing animal flesh from the grocery store is enabling this industry to continue. If nobody ate animal flesh their would be no industry for it. It’s only a very minute partial support of a very large industry but by purchasing and eating the flesh one supports or enables this business to continue.
Again, this is irrelevant, I'm afraid. We are talking about the Buddha supporting killing by accepting meat as dana. He is not a layman, and he is emphatically not purchasing it. He does not support this business to continue.
Sam, why don’t you tell me what is wrong with killing a chicken you have raised and having it as a meal, or going into the forest and snaring a rabbit for your stew. What exactly is the issue?
Who is telling you this is wrong?
Try to remember what the issue is here. Your claim is that the Buddha supported killing by accepting meat. Not what I think is wrong.
No Sam,
My claim is that the first precept is not about killing but rather destruction which has the characteristics of
Greed: with regards to extincting a species which could be not respecting the breeding cycles of animals, taking pregnant females.
Cruelty: torturing animals through improper living conditions, lack of proper food/water, etc...
Mutilation: experimenting and testing drugs or cosmetics on animals, etc....

This is my claim regarding first precept.
It certainly was your claim, up until about an hour ago. This is how you made that claim:
Did Buddha eat the animal flesh placed in his alms bowl?
This is supporting the actions of killing.
Earlier in the thread, you said:
The Buddha ate fish, did he not?
That’s approval.
And you made several subsequent posts defending that claim. Do you still want to do that, or are you abandoning that now? Were you wrong to say that the Buddha approved of or supported killing?
So I’m asking you, what is the issue with me killing one of my chickens, plucking it’s feathers, gutting it, and roasting it for supper, then offering the leftovers to some monks for their alms?
As far as this thread is concerned, my issue with it has been whether the Buddha ever spoke in praise of the first bit - the killing of the chicken. He didn't. He taught lay supporters to refrain from killing living beings, it seems.
What will happen to me for doing this deed?


How would I know?! :shrug: That doesn't have anything to do with whether the Buddha supported or approved of it.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:01 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 9:02 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:15 pm

In the case of the Buddha accepting meat from a donor, he is not "enabling" them to kill the animal. They were able to do that whether the Buddha accepted it or not. So if support is enabling, he is not in this instance supporting killing.



Again, this is irrelevant, I'm afraid. We are talking about the Buddha supporting killing by accepting meat as dana. He is not a layman, and he is emphatically not purchasing it. He does not support this business to continue.



Try to remember what the issue is here. Your claim is that the Buddha supported killing by accepting meat. Not what I think is wrong.
No Sam,
My claim is that the first precept is not about killing but rather destruction which has the characteristics of
Greed: with regards to extincting a species which could be not respecting the breeding cycles of animals, taking pregnant females.
Cruelty: torturing animals through improper living conditions, lack of proper food/water, etc...
Mutilation: experimenting and testing drugs or cosmetics on animals, etc....

This is my claim regarding first precept.
It certainly was your claim, up until about an hour ago. This is how you made that claim:
Did Buddha eat the animal flesh placed in his alms bowl?
This is supporting the actions of killing.
Earlier in the thread, you said:
The Buddha ate fish, did he not?
That’s approval.
And you made several subsequent posts defending that claim. Do you still want to do that, or are you abandoning that now? Were you wrong to say that the Buddha approved of or supported killing?
So I’m asking you, what is the issue with me killing one of my chickens, plucking it’s feathers, gutting it, and roasting it for supper, then offering the leftovers to some monks for their alms?
As far as this thread is concerned, my issue with it has been whether the Buddha ever spoke in praise of the first bit - the killing of the chicken. He didn't. He taught lay supporters to refrain from killing living beings, it seems.
What will happen to me for doing this deed?


How would I know?! :shrug: That doesn't have anything to do with whether the Buddha supported or approved of it.
Yes, eating the alms is supporting the harvesting of the alms and the need for the alms.
The layman know there is a group of monastics coming for alms I’m sure they made certain to have enough to go around.
Like I mentioned previously in the Sri lanken temple I frequented, a family was chosen each week to prepare and deliver the good for the monks. This was a meal prepared specifically for them. It always included fish, chicken or beef, or pork with rice and vegetables,
This was prepared specifically for the monks living there.
The monks ate the foods and when I questioned them about the animal flesh they said “this is traditional Sri lanken diet, we always eat these foods.”
So there seems little concern from the monks where there traditional meal comes from and the killing involved specifically for this meal.
People traditionally eat animals even in warm climates where fruits and vegetables are abundant.
This involves killing of said animals, if this was frowned upon the monks should speak out to this, don’t you think? Their silence is quiet support of traditional ways and this seems the same for buddhas time, with the difference being the monks walked in for alms vs the layman bringing to him directly.
I don’t consider intentional killing to be a breach of precept if done for non destructive purpose.
To single out killing in general is what I’m arguing as an extreme and incorrect.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: First precept

Post by SDC »

thepea wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:46 pm I don’t consider intentional killing to be a breach of precept if done for non destructive purpose.
To single out killing in general is what I’m arguing as an extreme and incorrect.
We are all so fortunte that the suttas and vinaya have provided clarification on this matter and that we don’t have to rely on what random individuals or groups prefer. Such a relief. :D
“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
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 9:26 pm
bpallister wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 9:23 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 2:33 pm

No. The first precept prohibits killing. You can eat meat and not kill anything. Buying meat killed by someone else breaks no precept.
why is someone else killing it ok? that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
It's not that it's "ok", but rather you have not engaged in unwholesome kamma yourself by killing the animal. If you get the other person to kill the animal for you, then that is unwholesome. If someone is buying meat from a supermarket, or eating some meat that a friend has cooked for a meal, they aren't intentionally killing anything. Nor are they asking someone to kill a being for them. The being is already dead.
How about Australian aboriginals and their wandering and gathering grubs, fishing, and hunting flesh, are these ancient tribal ways and members all destined for hell?
We all don’t have the luxury of servants doing the killing and processing of foods for us. What is the wrong action doing this for oneself or for others benefit and from time to time taking a break from this killing to do some deep meditation work and cleansing?
User avatar
Johann
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2022 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: First precept

Post by Johann »

thepea wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 6:47 pm
Johann wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 12:40 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 12:00 pm

Thank you. This another example of the Buddha and Ven. Sariputta apparently saying that there are no mitigating circumstances by which killing other beings might be excused. :thumbsup: :anjali:
Rejoicing on virtue, rejoicing on the reflection of the Gems, are signs of gaining faith, toward ways to higher and beyond, possible soon near the release from doubt.
I’m sure the Buddha and sariputa spoke of this as they enjoyed their bowls of fish stew.
Does good householder think that such thoughts of dogs throw dirt into the diamon cave of the lion is supportive for his own welfare and possibilities to reach higher and cleaner states?
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: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:46 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:01 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 9:02 pm
No Sam,
My claim is that the first precept is not about killing but rather destruction which has the characteristics of
Greed: with regards to extincting a species which could be not respecting the breeding cycles of animals, taking pregnant females.
Cruelty: torturing animals through improper living conditions, lack of proper food/water, etc...
Mutilation: experimenting and testing drugs or cosmetics on animals, etc....

This is my claim regarding first precept.
It certainly was your claim, up until about an hour ago. This is how you made that claim:
Did Buddha eat the animal flesh placed in his alms bowl?
This is supporting the actions of killing.
Earlier in the thread, you said:
The Buddha ate fish, did he not?
That’s approval.
And you made several subsequent posts defending that claim. Do you still want to do that, or are you abandoning that now? Were you wrong to say that the Buddha approved of or supported killing?
So I’m asking you, what is the issue with me killing one of my chickens, plucking it’s feathers, gutting it, and roasting it for supper, then offering the leftovers to some monks for their alms?
As far as this thread is concerned, my issue with it has been whether the Buddha ever spoke in praise of the first bit - the killing of the chicken. He didn't. He taught lay supporters to refrain from killing living beings, it seems.
What will happen to me for doing this deed?


How would I know?! :shrug: That doesn't have anything to do with whether the Buddha supported or approved of it.
Yes, eating the alms is supporting the harvesting of the alms and the need for the alms.
How is this "support"? You said that support was "enabling", but I pointed out that the recipient of alms was not enabling anyone to kill. Would you like to address that?

The rest of your post is about what monks do or should do. According to the vinaya they should not be accepting meat if they know or suspect it has been killed for them. So let's return to the case of what is allowed. If a monk accepts meat which they believe to have been slaughtered for someone else, how is that supporting or approving of the slaughter?
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

SDC wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:59 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:46 pm I don’t consider intentional killing to be a breach of precept if done for non destructive purpose.
To single out killing in general is what I’m arguing as an extreme and incorrect.
We are all so fortunte that the suttas and vinaya have provided clarification on this matter and that we don’t have to rely on what random individuals or groups prefer. Such a relief. :D
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.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Johann wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:06 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 6:47 pm
Johann wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 12:40 pm
Rejoicing on virtue, rejoicing on the reflection of the Gems, are signs of gaining faith, toward ways to higher and beyond, possible soon near the release from doubt.
I’m sure the Buddha and sariputa spoke of this as they enjoyed their bowls of fish stew.
Does good householder think that such thoughts of dogs throw dirt into the diamon cave of the lion is supportive for his own welfare and possibilities to reach higher and cleaner states?
Sorry but you are going to have to expand on this as I’m not certain what you are getting at.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:10 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:46 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:01 pm

It certainly was your claim, up until about an hour ago. This is how you made that claim:



Earlier in the thread, you said:



And you made several subsequent posts defending that claim. Do you still want to do that, or are you abandoning that now? Were you wrong to say that the Buddha approved of or supported killing?



As far as this thread is concerned, my issue with it has been whether the Buddha ever spoke in praise of the first bit - the killing of the chicken. He didn't. He taught lay supporters to refrain from killing living beings, it seems.



How would I know?! :shrug: That doesn't have anything to do with whether the Buddha supported or approved of it.
Yes, eating the alms is supporting the harvesting of the alms and the need for the alms.
How is this "support"? You said that support was "enabling", but I pointed out that the recipient of alms was not enabling anyone to kill. Would you like to address that?

The rest of your post is about what monks do or should do. According to the vinaya they should not be accepting meat if they know or suspect it has been killed for them. So let's return to the case of what is allowed. If a monk accepts meat which they believe to have been slaughtered for someone else, how is that supporting or approving of the slaughter?
My point using the Sri lanken monks is the consent through silence or ignorance. Obviously these fish were purchased for the monks meal and the laity are very excited to do so, and the monks are aware of this and this cycle goes on snd on and it’s accepted as a non breach.
But in a complex system we are all codependent on others for our survival, so much so that some must die for us to survive. Many living beings must be killed for monks to survive. It’s all supporting within a complex system.
This is why defining the first precept as avoid killing is extremism where avoid destroying is middle ground.
User avatar
Johann
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2022 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: First precept

Post by Johann »

thepea wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:12 pm
Johann wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:06 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 6:47 pm

I’m sure the Buddha and sariputa spoke of this as they enjoyed their bowls of fish stew.
Does good householder think that such thoughts of dogs throw dirt into the diamon cave of the lion is supportive for his own welfare and possibilities to reach higher and cleaner states?
Sorry but you are going to have to expand on this as I’m not certain what you are getting at.
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.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Johann wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:26 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:12 pm
Johann wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:06 pm

Does good householder think that such thoughts of dogs throw dirt into the diamon cave of the lion is supportive for his own welfare and possibilities to reach higher and cleaner states?
Sorry but you are going to have to expand on this as I’m not certain what you are getting at.
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.
I don’t believe Buddha or Sariputta taught abstaining from killing. I’m quite certain that they taught abstinence from destroying life.
User avatar
Johann
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2022 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: First precept

Post by Johann »

thepea wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:31 pm
Johann wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:26 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:12 pm
Sorry but you are going to have to expand on this as I’m not certain what you are getting at.
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.
I don’t believe Buddha or Sariputta taught abstaining from killing. I’m quite certain that they taught abstinence from destroying life.
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.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: First precept

Post by SDC »

thepea wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:10 pm
SDC wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:59 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:46 pm I don’t consider intentional killing to be a breach of precept if done for non destructive purpose.
To single out killing in general is what I’m arguing as an extreme and incorrect.
We are all so fortunte that the suttas and vinaya have provided clarification on this matter and that we don’t have to rely on what random individuals or groups prefer. Such a relief. :D
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.
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.
“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
Post Reply