Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Fishing
Wisdom23
Veteran
For a while my gf's grandad has been trying to get me to go fishing. Ofcourse this disobeys the do not harm precep but he has told me he has bought me a rod n reel. I dont want to upset him yet i dont really wanna cause unnecessary harm,i mean i certainly wouldn'tlike a hook through my cheek.
what do you recommend my dear friends
what do you recommend my dear friends
0
Comments
When I asked my teacher about it he said, "reflect deeply. Some people are just fishermen. Some are even hunters. If you feel this is who you are, then be it. But understand your reasons for wanting to do it versus being it, reflect on your motivations and be honest with yourself." That was the answer he (my teacher) was given by one of TNH's monks when he asked at a retreat. He also used an example at another time where a person had decided to be a vegetarian as part of their Buddhist practice, but it was routine every Sunday for her grandmother to make her (the Buddhist) a Sunday meal that always included the same meat dish. He said that it was more harmful to reject the love of the grandmother and the tradition that made them both connect and share a special thing, than it was to eat the meat mindfully and thankfully.
So, it depends on your intentions, as always
Depending on him and the your development of skillful means, it could go many different ways but
I can't think of a more respectful way to relate to your GF's Grandad?
If you really can't get around it, then perhaps you could donate the fish you catch to a needy family you might know? Or catch and release... which, of course, is quite cruel, but in most cases the fish will at least keep their life.
"Panitipata veramani sikkhapadam samadyami."
Which translates as " I undertake the rule of training to abstain from intentional taking of life ".
Which is fairly unambiguous.
However an important clause here is " the rule of training "..
The precepts are not commandments. They are rules of training.
People find the rule of training regarding some precepts a hard and lengthy process..and some will find different precepts more difficult.
I am not tempted to hunt or fish for example...but I have to work hard with anger..
Most of us are works in progress.
There is a middle way between self indulgence and unrealistic expectations of ourselves.
The urge to fish and hunt is natural to humans - and especially men. With our rational mind we can realize, that fishing and hunting hurts and kills animals. Animals who love life just like you do.
To me that's the one great absurdity in life. Ultimately there is but one option:
Accept your cruel fate. Hurt fish or hurt granpa - who means the most to you?
A really cruel truth is, that granpa will live to experience being hurt, while the fish die almost immediately.
I say to the OP, go with your "gut" or your 7th sense as some call it. the 5 precepts will often and always come up against modern society and put you in these types of situations. A great example for me is the not taking drinks or drugs that cause heedlessness, while I am now the official designated driver the rare times I ever go out anymore, at first not drinking anymore caused confusion and social awkwardness, more for the other people with me then myself, but people begin to understand. A talk with your Gf's grandfather is probably a good idea if you are firm in your feelings to not fish.
Now I shudder to think of all the killings done.
The old man bought you a rod and reel? Then accept the gift gracefully and go with him. Accept that sometimes in life we are faced with conflicting choices and your decisions aren't always going to fit into the box you've labeled "this is good, this is bad".
Yes, you might damage or even kill a fish in order to forge a bond with an old man. More likely you'll be lucky to even get a bite if you don't know what you're doing. People never seem to understand fishing requires skill and practice to be successful.
Which is more important to you, strict obedience to your precepts or not insulting someone your girlfriend loves who is reaching out to you? You can't always have both. And if you think the fish is just as important as the people in your life, you're fooling yourself. You don't want to break a precept in order to live a normal life? Become a monk. You also have that choice.
Also, because he is my son, I asked him to take me with him some time. This he did, driving over to a nearby pond that was pretty. He gave me a short course on casting and I tried it a few times. Neither of us had caught anything when suddenly I felt a resistance along the line. I thought perhaps I had snagged a stick, but when I reeled in the line ... lo and behold, I had caught, no kidding, a clam which had clamped down on the backside of the hook ... no harm done. (I'd post a picture, but can't upload).
I threw the clam back and figured that was enough fishing for me.
There are always compromises (go with but do something else, as many have suggested) but I personally would just fish.
maybe that is because you have no problem with fishing. What if his granddad's hobby was to squash frogs with a big hammer (which in the end is not so different from fishing, correct me if I am wrong). To make him happy, would you do it?
What I see is that fishing can be a cause for present suffering when someone is sensitive to the suffering of beings. Sometimes someone's empathy for the fish makes its suffering unbearable.
For someone who has strived to enhance their capacity for compassion, to engage in fishing for a pastime, they risk undoing the progress they have made. Killing their compassion.
I rarely see empathy for the plight of the fish in any type of fishing. Some catch and release fly fishermen claim to be concerned for the welfare of the fish and the habitat, but it seems hollow to me. Their pleasure still comes from the fish's struggle.
If you go fishing you must be ready to accept that fish will die. You can't reel them in and expect that they will all swim away unharmed. Once they are bleeding you can't undo it, the fish will die.
Catch and release is dumb.
I don't know what my point is here. I think about fishing a lot.
It doesnt involve hammers. but it does involve frogs and sharp knives.
There are ways to accept this kindness without compromising one's own beliefs about (against) fishing. Simply don't fish - but like others said- do something else; walk about, draw, meditate, or simply keep Granddad company while he fishes.
And IMO there is a HUGE difference between randomly killing animals for a "hobby" and fishing, if one eats what they catch and respects the process for getting that food to the table.
I was hoping for first hand knowledge you might have.
Does Tibet have fishing villages? I thought it was land locked and mountainous.
What is implicit is that once they are internalised and understood fully you WILL live by them. They will be as natural as breathing.
But no one gets there overnight.
For the rest, I mostly agree with you. My point was not that fishing is equally bad as frog squashing (although the means are similar, the ends are different, and then the question becomes whether the ends justify the means) but rather that it is not so easy to go fishing with someone if you are really opposed to it. I invented the example of frog squashing, because it might produce the type of revulsion that other people would have to fishing.
Actually I think that frog squashing produces more revulsion because it is more gross, not because of the question whether you can eat the result or not. Probably, fishing on fish that are not edible is still considered more acceptable than squashing frogs, because it looks cleaner and in fact it does not even look aggressive.
I think about this (killing for food) from time to time as I'm sure most of us do.
I just can't wrap my head around the idea that we should ignore *all* natural inclinations to eat certain animals based on a very organic and natural system called The Food Chain, and feel guilty and shameful for being near the top of that Food Chain, because of ANY religious teaching or belief.
I can understand to a point the idea that Buddha had instructed monks to refrain from such activities as killing/hunting themselves, and to avoid eating the food that comes from killing/hunting if others have done it for them specifically.
But to take that concept and expect it to apply (and work) amongst all lay people everywhere, (Buddhist or not) seems to me to be very contrary to what nature itself has deemed as sensible, natural and necessary.
Yes, we humans have a level of emotional reasoning and cognitive skills that most other animals do not have and this is what has elevated humans to the upper level of the food chain. But to eat/feed ourselves is a basic instinct we share with all living things, without exception.
We should feel honored and privileged to be at the top of the food chain, and remember to treat all creatures below us as respectfully and with as much kindness as possible.
But respect and kindness for animals doesn't mean I would hesitate one split second if I had to choose to feed a starving dog, or a starving child; or if I had to rescue a cat from a burning car, or a human from a burning car. The idea that all creatures are completely equal is a good theory on paper, but in the grand scheme of LIFE, some things end up with more value over others. And I firmly believe this world could not survive - and millions of humans would not survive- if people everywhere decided they would eat only plants.
What science? The science of diabetes and epilepsy don't point to that, nor does the science of cardiovascular health in general. The whole "grain" fad has been around for a while now but it's looking more and more sketchy all the time with new research.
The healthiest diet is probably the non strict "paleo" diet (heavy on the meat and veg, no grains, no refined sugars, no processed oils and in some circles no dairy and legumes). More and more research is pointing in that direction.
What is implicit is that once they are internalised and understood fully you WILL live by them. They will be as natural as breathing.
But no one gets there overnight.
Ah, so you might say they are principles to live by. Rather than "just training rules" as some people say.
One needs to look beyond the dinner plate on the table to see why it wouldn't work. The "science" you say is leaning towards a different conclusion is only concerning itself with (our individual) physiological survival eating only plant matter. Sure, individually the majority of us probably could survive eating only plant material. Thrive? That's a matter of opinion.
But what about whole communities of people who live in areas where agriculture is nearly non-existent? Like mountain peoples and desert peoples, whose entire diet consists of poultry, meats and milk from various animals - with very little grains or plant matter?
What about the millions of people whose livelihoods depend on farming animals, butchering or processing and selling meats? What happens to all the livestock which will no longer be bred for disease resistance and general health? What happens to all the wild animals that peripherally benefit from livestock farming in other ways?
What happens to the millions of people who live in climates with extremely short growing seasons? Or limited sunlight hours? What happens when the limited modes of transporting plant foods into these regions can't keep up?
What happens when vast areas of agricultural regions are hit by droughts or floods or other natural calamities? What happens when the topsoil erodes and its nutrients are sucked out of it from over-farming? You think we will stick to ONLY organic fertilizers and food growth enhancements?
Hardly... we're already genetically screwing around with what we grow now.
World wide vegetarianism is a pipe dream. Actually, it's more of a nightmare.
the 10 commandments are enforced by the threat of force.. if you do this you get this punishment , or you go to hell, etc. The buddha is not like this and never forces the practice on anyone.
That being said I think your underlying thought is people thinking the precepts are not meant to be taken seriously by those who truly wish to practice. That I do not think is a major issue, when people are ready to practice and follow the precepts, they will do so naturally, no amount of forcing will accomplish this before their time is ready.
If people feel that drinking and drugs are not really a problem, and maybe to those people they aren't, maybe it does not affect their lives in any easily seen way so they don't see it as a hindrance. This is their perception and mind state, we can't force them to "take it seriously", etc.
and finally when talking to westerners who are use to the commandments, I do think we have to emphasize the difference that they ARE training rules and that guilt, fear, and punishment have no place there.
But I see Buddhism as something beyond religion. I personally think it is also one of the great universal moral codes. I don't do or not do things simply because if I do I would go to hell. And in fact, I don't think in today's world that most people operate that way. I don't do or not do things simply because of kamma. To me, whether it's the 10 Commandments or kamma, I have an inner calling that makes me want to do good things and not do bad things. I never didn't kill somebody because of the 10 Commandments. I never didn't kill somebody because of kamma.
In the case of this thread, I would rather that somebody said, "I eat meat because I don't believe in that Precept", or "I eat meat because I don't agree that it applies to food sources", than have someone say, "I eat meat because that was just a training rule, and now I'm beyond training."
It's very much like my school system, which about every 2 years would train administrators and teachers on some (usually new or refined) teaching technique. It would be a major emphasis. Then, after a couple of years we would move on to some new teaching technique. I'd go in and observe a teacher and see kids failing, and in the post-conference I'd say, "Remember technique X, what happened in your classroom is a good example of when you should have used technique X." And more often than not, the teacher would say something along the lines of, "Oh, I thought we weren't doing that anymore." And I would want to say something like, "What the hell is wrong with you? You learned a valid teaching technique which is now is your bag of tricks of how to effectively teach children. You don't throw away valid techniques. They're always in there for you to pull out when you need them." Of course, I'd be professional and leave off the "What the hell is wrong with you" portion.
The key term here from the precepts in Pali is " sikkhapadam " which means literally " training way " or "way to walk "...sikkha means " training " and "padam " means walking. ( pad is foot, the same indo-european root as pedal, or pedestrian.)
So they are both principles to live by, and training in the way we should walk...
People would not have developed into what they are without eating animals. The sources (world wide) of omega fats and iron are not plentiful enough in plants and nuts to sustain people to develop the minds and bodies that we have. Without supplements we have today, it is very difficult to get enough omegas without eating fish. You can get it from flax and chia, but those things were not available in all parts of the world year round.
My teacher is a vegetarian when he is in the US because of the supplements and the huge variety of foods he can get living in a major metro area. When he is in Asia (nepal and tibet) he is not vegetarian because he could not stay healthy being so.