See especially the last sentence where the spirit of the teaching appears to include maiming and harming.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
First precept
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17191
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: First precept
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:
Re: First precept
I imagine all practicing buddhadhamma must be very pleased with Roe v. Wade being overturned?
Last edited by thepea on Sat Jun 25, 2022 1:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17191
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: First precept
I am not familiar with that case. That would be a family and legal matter to ensure there is no coercion involved.thepea wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:52 am What do you think of the British Columbia man who was jailed and given $30000.00 fine for calling his daughter she in court where he was trying to stop his wife and the dr from putting her on puberty blockers?
Is this consent when offspring is minor?
Legal harm?
And in no way is comparable to a fish who doesn't want to be killed. The fish or the First Precept doesn't care if you're a layman or a monk. It's still killing.
Re: First precept
Not sure who wrote that but,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:
See especially the last sentence where the spirit of the teaching appears to include maiming and harming.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
Plants need to breathe for the same reason people and animals must breathe – they need oxygen to convert food into energy
Re: First precept
This ruling is a worldly thing. The world rule will change all the time.
For all practicing Buddha dhamma, they remain unaffected.
If one hasn't understood that, how can one understand what wholesome & unwholesome is.
Re: First precept
Do you think a minor can decide if they want to mutilate their body?DNS wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 1:04 amI am not familiar with that case. That would be a family and legal matter to ensure there is no coercion involved.thepea wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:52 am What do you think of the British Columbia man who was jailed and given $30000.00 fine for calling his daughter she in court where he was trying to stop his wife and the dr from putting her on puberty blockers?
Is this consent when offspring is minor?
Legal harm?
And in no way is comparable to a fish who doesn't want to be killed. The fish or the First Precept doesn't care if you're a layman or a monk. It's still killing.
Employ a surgeon to carve up their genitals?
They can’t even vote or buy booze.
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17191
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: First precept
One of the greatest monks of modern times and one of the greatest Pali translators of all-time: Bhikkhu Bodhi.
Regarding plants, I've already mentioned in the other threads, plants are not samsaric beings that undergo rebirth, according to Buddhism.
Re: First precept
Well as laymen we are not out of this world. Where is your body?
Re: First precept
He needs to try to grow tomatoes without oxygen.
Then why can’t a monk pick a flower?
Re: First precept
I would think of that man as $30,000.00 poorer and in jail.
Joe c. "This ruling is a worldly thing. The world rule will change all the time.
For all practicing Buddha dhamma, they remain unaffected.
If one hasn't understood that, how can one understand what wholesome & unwholesome is."
The courts decide what a minor is, not Buddhist doctrine in this context. Same with consent.
Joe c. "This ruling is a worldly thing. The world rule will change all the time.
For all practicing Buddha dhamma, they remain unaffected.
If one hasn't understood that, how can one understand what wholesome & unwholesome is."
Courts call, not doctrinal.
Joe c. "This ruling is a worldly thing. The world rule will change all the time.
For all practicing Buddha dhamma, they remain unaffected.
If one hasn't understood that, how can one understand what wholesome & unwholesome is."
Pray tell us YOU feel - what do you think and please. Isn't that what this is about? Just stirring the pot here?
Metta
Re: First precept
Are you responding to me or joe c ?NotMe wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 1:22 amI would think of that man as $30,000.00 poorer and in jail.
Joe c. "This ruling is a worldly thing. The world rule will change all the time.
For all practicing Buddha dhamma, they remain unaffected.
If one hasn't understood that, how can one understand what wholesome & unwholesome is."
The courts decide what a minor is, not Buddhist doctrine in this context. Same with consent.
Joe c. "This ruling is a worldly thing. The world rule will change all the time.
For all practicing Buddha dhamma, they remain unaffected.
If one hasn't understood that, how can one understand what wholesome & unwholesome is."
Courts call, not doctrinal.
Joe c. "This ruling is a worldly thing. The world rule will change all the time.
For all practicing Buddha dhamma, they remain unaffected.
If one hasn't understood that, how can one understand what wholesome & unwholesome is."
Pray tell us YOU feel - what do you think and please. Isn't that what this is about? Just stirring the pot here?
Metta
I’m not really sure what questions you are asking?
Re: First precept
I am responding to you echoing Joe at every turn because I agree with him.
Why can’t a monk pick a rose?
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Metta
Why can’t a monk pick a rose?
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Metta
Re: First precept
Then, follow the ever changing worldly rule, never break any law. You will always on the safe side.
If the highway marker says 70 miles/hour, don't go higher than that. So, the trooper will never catch you. If you go higher, then you accept to pay whatever ticket/fine if they catch you. But you still happy to pay and never angry even when you get the ticket.
Keep your 5 precepts that make you & others happy. Then the dukkha will cease gradually if you satisfy the right view requirement.
I thought someone claim a stream enterer before.
Re: First precept
You mean this Bodhi? viewtopic.php?p=678791#p678791
I guess for you it doesn't really matter what is written in the Pali Canon or by Theravadian monks is it? Like these major contradictions for instance; viewtopic.php?p=680110#p680110 You believe it all blindly, and I am the ignorant unworthy heretical secular buddhist.
Re: First precept
What if you follow the rules.Joe.c wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 9:01 amThen, follow the ever changing worldly rule, never break any law. You will always on the safe side.
If the highway marker says 70 miles/hour, don't go higher than that. So, the trooper will never catch you. If you go higher, then you accept to pay whatever ticket/fine if they catch you. But you still happy to pay and never angry even when you get the ticket.
Keep your 5 precepts that make you & others happy. Then the dukkha will cease gradually if you satisfy the right view requirement.
I thought someone claim a stream enterer before.
Purchase education.
Purchase licences to do certain things.
Accept employment with contract
Life is going swimmingly as you are able to function in society and maintain your morals.
You are happy driving your bus.
Then your employer says the blacks must sit in the back of the bus.
And your chest restricts at this thought, then you pick up passengers and they are upset at segregation as they want to sit with their white friends.
Do you have to simply accept this new policy or quit your career?