Ambition vs. the dhamma

[DNS]

There can be a good ambition for everything we do, where is the line between good and bad?

It is bad if it inflicts harm on another living being. It is bad if it involves killing another living being. This is permeated throughout the Suttas.

This sounds like extremist view off middle.

It's directly from the Suttas.

[purple planet]

What is the consequence?

You reduce chances to advance in the "path" , you increase bad factors (aversion ,greed , wrong view etc) and yes increase your bad kamma which will result in bad effects in worldly life

So it is not just some "worldly" effect it also effects you "spiritually"

It is not some obscure sutta we are talking about saying something out of the ordinary ... not killing is one of the clearest things to avoid in buddhism and its repeated in different sutta's

its in the 5 precepts even , which are very basic core teaching in buddhism

[cappuccino]

What is the consequence? Some future misery to fear?

Yes

[Radix]

Are we not to live in the here and now?

Right here right now, we're at a Theravada forum. And you're doing something other than Theravada. You're not in the present moment.

[thepea]

It is bad if it inflicts harm on another living being. It is bad if it involves killing another living being. This is permeated throughout the Suttas.

This sounds like extremist view off middle.

It's directly from the Suttas.

Well again we have the translations and language fraud over 2500 yrs.
what is the consequence of killing a fish.
One is you have a meal.
This is good isn’t it?

Two others can eat(Dana) you can share.
This is good too isn’t it?

What is the bad?

[thepea]

Are we not to live in the here and now?

Right here right now, we're at a Theravada forum. And you're doing something other than Theravada. You're not in the present moment.

My practice stems from Goenka Vipassana.
This is first and for most a dhamma site, that leans to theravada. I’ve had this discussion before about removing Goenka from theravada but it was decided it originated in Burma so it stays in theravada grouping.
But yes I agree I’m not practicing theravada but rather the dhamma without religious belief structure.
Why am I not present?

[DNS]

Well again we have the translations and language fraud over 2500 yrs.
what is the consequence of killing a fish.
One is you have a meal.
This is good isn’t it?

Two others can eat(Dana) you can share.
This is good too isn’t it?

What is the bad?

No translation issue. Just an adhamma interpretation by you. Others have shown, repeatedly that it is about not killing, including Thanissaro's translations.

Regarding vegetarian or omnivore diets, that is for the great vegetarian debate thread. You can post there about that. In regard to killing, the Buddha's Dhamma is 100% clear; no killing. Buddhists who eat meat do not kill; they eat meat from animals that were already dead. You can argue that this is appropriate or inappropriate and make your case in the vegetarian debate thread, but regarding killing, the Buddha's Dhamma is clear and obvious: no killing.

[SDC]

Well again we have the translations and language fraud over 2500 yrs.

You do realize you’ve already admitted, on multiple occasions, that you’ve never made an effort to verify this fraud for yourself and simply took your teachers word for it?

[purple planet]

The pea you dont follow the suttas ?


what you do follow ?

because from my point of view you are asking what is X and people quote to you were X=2 and than you write " i dont see where X=2" - so why you ask the question in the first place ?

In a theravada forum you ask why killing is wrong and people give you the suttas that say very clealrly killing is wrong , and also explain in words what is the issue with killing like i did and yet you ignore what is written to you

Is there a source you will agree on ?

Do you accept only stuff goenka said ?

Does goneka say there is no problem with killing living beings ?

If so i had no idea that was the case - so i think its worth mentioning in the first post that that is the case

cause without that it just seems you like fishing and dont like the answers and than find some excuse to not listen to answers - but if the case is you deny the suttas but follow only certain sources than best mention it in first post to save time and effort for everyone including yourself

[thepea]

Well again we have the translations and language fraud over 2500 yrs.
what is the consequence of killing a fish.
One is you have a meal.
This is good isn’t it?

Two others can eat(Dana) you can share.
This is good too isn’t it?

What is the bad?

No translation issue. Just an adhamma interpretation by you. Others have shown, repeatedly that it is about not killing, including Thanissaro's translations.

Regarding vegetarian or omnivore diets, that is for the great vegetarian debate thread. You can post there about that. In regard to killing, the Buddha's Dhamma is 100% clear; no killing. Buddhists who eat meat do not kill; they eat meat from animals that were already dead. You can argue that this is appropriate or inappropriate and make your case in the vegetarian debate thread, but regarding killing, the Buddha's Dhamma is clear and obvious: no killing.

You seem to be dodging the question.
What is the consequence, of fishing?
I’ve given two goods, what is the bad?

There is no proof given by anyone, it’s all opinion when dealing with sutta translations. We have our direct experience which is not opinion but our own truth.
You can share your truth as can I, but it’s not absolute.

I’m not trying to discuss eating habits, that’s quite obvious.
We are discussing ambition.
If my ambition is to end my hunger or my families hunger, and I must kill an animal for its flesh and I do this in absolute consciousness with respect and love what is the bad.
Why won’t you answer this?

[purple planet]

I just checked this fourm itself and i see david quoted to you goenka himself - and goenka himself says a reason not to eat fish :

Why is vegetarian food helpful for meditation?
Mr. S. N. Goenka: When you eat meat or something, then this being - animal or fish or whatever it is - for its whole life was generating nothing but craving, aversion, craving, aversion. After all, human beings can find some time when they can come out of craving and aversion. These beings cannot come out of it. So every fibre of their body is vibrating with craving and aversion. And you yourself want to come out of craving, aversion and you are giving an input to all of that. So what sort of vibrations you will have. That is why it is not good.

Why is vegetarian food helpful for meditation?
Can a non-vegetarian succeed in Vipassana?
Mr. S. N. Goenka: When you come to a Vipassana course, only vegetarian food is served. But we don't say that if you take non-vegetarian food, you will go to hell. It is not like that. Slowly, you will come out of eating meat, like thousands of Vipassana students have. You will naturally find there is no more need for you to have non-vegetarian food. Your progress in Vipassana will certainly be better if you are vegetarian.

so when you ask what is the bad goenka himself answers it and you were told this before , this is according to goneka that not eating meat (not even talking about killing which is just clear in buddhism as bad) will make your progress be better , that means better progress for you to not eat meat

Now i am not sure at all about eating meat , unlike killing in buddhism its a debatable area and im not advanced enough to know - but if you go by goenka saying only and think all the suttas are bad in some way - than goenka himself said a reason not to fish and not to give others to eat that fish meat

Because the sutta's and buddhist teachers from all sects (thereavada and mahyana) are so very very clear in saying that killing is bad and have a bad effect on you .... by that alone , by the chance that might be true is a good,logical, smart decision to avoid this one type of action (killing) just in case its right even if you are skeptical about it ( but again even if you go by goenka only than you have explanation by him why not to it)

[thepea]

Well again we have the translations and language fraud over 2500 yrs.

You do realize you’ve already admitted, on multiple occasions, that you’ve never made an effort to verify this fraud for yourself and simply took your teachers word for it?

Never, and this mainly comes from my own investigations into religious belief structures.
It’s a collective issue.
Collective groups manipulate the language to support their belief structures.
This is freedom of religion.
My position is Buddha was not religious and taught experiential wisdom. Not ritual.

[thepea]

The pea you dont follow the suttas ?


what you do follow ?

because from my point of view you are asking what is X and people quote to you were X=2 and than you write " i dont see where X=2" - so why you ask the question in the first place ?

In a theravada forum you ask why killing is wrong and people give you the suttas that say very clealrly killing is wrong , and also explain in words what is the issue with killing like i did and yet you ignore what is written to you

Is there a source you will agree on ?

Do you accept only stuff goenka said ?

Does goneka say there is no problem with killing living beings ?

If so i had no idea that was the case - so i think its worth mentioning in the first post that that is the case

cause without that it just seems you like fishing and dont like the answers and than find some excuse to not listen to answers - but if the case is you deny the suttas but follow only certain sources than best mention it in first post to save time and effort for everyone including yourself

I’m not Theravaden Buddhist.
I’m a dhamma practitioner.
So is Mahayana wrong?
Is everyone at dharma wheel wrong?
It’s all about language and translations with religion.
I do the practice and speak from experience.
It not that I don’t read a sutta if someone references one, but if I disagree with the translations then I bring this up.
There is the monastic serious practice, and there is layman’s life.
The layman must do layman’s responsibilities that monastics do not have to do. From time to time I go snd become a monastic and live and practice as a monastic and then I return to family.
I have passed through the insight knowledges and I can fish and kill bugs in my garden. Trap mice in my basement. I don’t get upset about this, it’s just something that needs to be done.

[thepea]

I just checked this fourm itself and i see david quoted to you goenka himself - and goenka himself says a reason not to eat fish :

Why is vegetarian food helpful for meditation?
Mr. S. N. Goenka: When you eat meat or something, then this being - animal or fish or whatever it is - for its whole life was generating nothing but craving, aversion, craving, aversion. After all, human beings can find some time when they can come out of craving and aversion. These beings cannot come out of it. So every fibre of their body is vibrating with craving and aversion. And you yourself want to come out of craving, aversion and you are giving an input to all of that. So what sort of vibrations you will have. That is why it is not good.

Why is vegetarian food helpful for meditation?
Can a non-vegetarian succeed in Vipassana?
Mr. S. N. Goenka: When you come to a Vipassana course, only vegetarian food is served. But we don't say that if you take non-vegetarian food, you will go to hell. It is not like that. Slowly, you will come out of eating meat, like thousands of Vipassana students have. You will naturally find there is no more need for you to have non-vegetarian food. Your progress in Vipassana will certainly be better if you are vegetarian.

so when you ask what is the bad goenka himself answers it and you were told this before

You ignore many posts , which is problematic and will not lead the conversation anywhere except cause arguments without benefits

I didn’t ignore that post. I honestly did not get a notification from David of this post.
I’ll answer.
Goenka centres are not monasteries. There is no alms round. Because the centre is directly purchasing the students food and the students are acting as monastics, they choose vegetarian food to bypass the monastic refusing animal flesh killed directly for them.
A monastic should avoid killing. Killing and serious meditation are not comparable. When I sit as a monastic I do not kill. But serving the monastics I have had to kill bedbugs from mattresses. It’s the quality of mind you carry when killing that matters. Not all should kill, it does not agree with them, it causes the mind to stir.
Similarly some who are vegans must avoid dairy so their minds do not stir. Everybody is different and catering to layman vs monastics comes with additional challenges.

[Radix]

But yes I agree I’m not practicing theravada but rather the dhamma without religious belief structure.


Why am I not present?

You're like a person who speaks only English, but who goes to France, and then frets that the French don't speak English, but insists on speaking only English to them.