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.
While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse (270) of this book, with reference to a fisherman named Ariya.
Once, there was a fisherman who lived near the north gate of Savatthi. One day through his supernormal power, the Buddha found that time was ripe for the fisherman to attain Sotapatti Fruition. So on his return from the alms-round, the Buddha, followed by the bhikkhus, stopped near the place where Ariya was fishing. When the fisherman saw the Buddha, he threw away his fishing gear and came and stood near the Buddha. The Buddha then proceeded to ask the names of his bhikkhus in the presence of the fisherman, and finally, he asked the name of the fisherman. When the fisher man replied that his name was Ariya, the Buddha said that the Noble Ones (ariyas) do not harm any living being, but since the fisherman was taking the lives of fish he was not worthy of his name.
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows: Verse 270: He who harms living beings is, for that reason, not an ariya (a Noble One); he who does not harm any living being is called an ariya.
At the end of the discourse the fisherman attained Sotapatti Fruition.
What I find interesting about this story, is the fact that Ariya, while engaged in a fishing livelyhood was able to purify himself to the point of attracting the attention of the Buddha. He was ripe for stream entry. In other words, the negative effect of killing fish was failure to achieve stream entry. There was no painful karmic consequence to be experienced later or the omniscient Buddha would have mentioned it. I believe this story makes the point I tried to make earlier in this thread in my exchange with @caz
Your point you made earlier was that wrong actions don't have consequences? Sorry friend, but that is impossible! All wrong actions have consequences guaranteed. The Buddha said this many times. Not being able to point out the exact specifics of it does not cause it to be false.
While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse (270) of this book, with reference to a fisherman named Ariya.
Once, there was a fisherman who lived near the north gate of Savatthi. One day through his supernormal power, the Buddha found that time was ripe for the fisherman to attain Sotapatti Fruition. So on his return from the alms-round, the Buddha, followed by the bhikkhus, stopped near the place where Ariya was fishing. When the fisherman saw the Buddha, he threw away his fishing gear and came and stood near the Buddha. The Buddha then proceeded to ask the names of his bhikkhus in the presence of the fisherman, and finally, he asked the name of the fisherman. When the fisher man replied that his name was Ariya, the Buddha said that the Noble Ones (ariyas) do not harm any living being, but since the fisherman was taking the lives of fish he was not worthy of his name.
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows: Verse 270: He who harms living beings is, for that reason, not an ariya (a Noble One); he who does not harm any living being is called an ariya.
At the end of the discourse the fisherman attained Sotapatti Fruition.
What I find interesting about this story, is the fact that Ariya, while engaged in a fishing livelyhood was able to purify himself to the point of attracting the attention of the Buddha. He was ripe for stream entry. In other words, the negative effect of killing fish was failure to achieve stream entry. There was no painful karmic consequence to be experienced later or the omniscient Buddha would have mentioned it. I believe this story makes the point I tried to make earlier in this thread in my exchange with @caz
So what your saying is the effect of killing fish is not achieving stream entry ? Sounds like utter rubbish to me when you consider innumerable times past one would have spent as a fish. Killing always results in great misfortune. The fish is a living being is it not ? One cannot be and Ariya and harm other beings.
However,If you agonize about harming an insect or a fish for that matter, but have no concerns about buying and eating meat because it was killed by someone else for you, that makes no sense.
While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse (270) of this book, with reference to a fisherman named Ariya.
Once, there was a fisherman who lived near the north gate of Savatthi. One day through his supernormal power, the Buddha found that time was ripe for the fisherman to attain Sotapatti Fruition. So on his return from the alms-round, the Buddha, followed by the bhikkhus, stopped near the place where Ariya was fishing. When the fisherman saw the Buddha, he threw away his fishing gear and came and stood near the Buddha. The Buddha then proceeded to ask the names of his bhikkhus in the presence of the fisherman, and finally, he asked the name of the fisherman. When the fisher man replied that his name was Ariya, the Buddha said that the Noble Ones (ariyas) do not harm any living being, but since the fisherman was taking the lives of fish he was not worthy of his name.
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows: Verse 270: He who harms living beings is, for that reason, not an ariya (a Noble One); he who does not harm any living being is called an ariya.
At the end of the discourse the fisherman attained Sotapatti Fruition.
What I find interesting about this story, is the fact that Ariya, while engaged in a fishing livelyhood was able to purify himself to the point of attracting the attention of the Buddha. He was ripe for stream entry. In other words, the negative effect of killing fish was failure to achieve stream entry. There was no painful karmic consequence to be experienced later or the omniscient Buddha would have mentioned it. I believe this story makes the point I tried to make earlier in this thread in my exchange with @caz
Your point you made earlier was that wrong actions don't have consequences? Sorry friend, but that is impossible! All wrong actions have consequences guaranteed. The Buddha said this many times. Not being able to point out the exact specifics of it does not cause it to be false.
No, my point made earlier, and clarified by the story of Ariya, is that the consequences of fishing are experienced at the time of the fishing. Those consequences being a failure to achieve Ariyahood, according the Buddha, and/or, the unavoidable suppression of compassion and the resulting reduced capacity for insight, that goes along with taking life, as experienced by me. Now both you and caz are unwilling to see the story of Ariya in its entirety because it conflicts with your belief, against all the evidence, that killing fish will have unavoidable negative consequences at some future time. So tell me now, how did Ariya come be "ripe to attain sotapatti fruition? Was it by magic? I say it was by his own effort. Having attained stream entry he will never fall to lower births. Within seven lifetimes he will achieve full awakening. Where are the consequences from his life of fishing. Does the story have a sad ending? Two more things. One, I have known hundreds of fishermen, many who have lived out their lives with happiness and died peacefully. Others who have died younger, loved and respected by everyone who knew them. I know many who are deeply religious. I have not noticed that these people suffer any more than anyone else, regardless of their lively hood. Have you noticed such a thing? And two. If fishermen and hunters are to suffer their deserved fate in some future life, then how is it that the entire human race was not extinguished as a result of millennia of hunting and fishing?
@caz no, I inferred from the story that Ariya was ripe for sotapatti fruition and it was not until he threw away his fishing gear and heard the Buddhas discourse was he able to attain it. Is that the way it reads to you?
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.
Not true. It's far more efficient to feed people with grain than to feed the grain to animals and then eat them
I recently took a course on the environment and it talked about this. I was very surprised by the figures actually. Here is a quote from the course material for those interested:
'...arable farming is 20 times more efficient than livestock production, and a meat-based diet requires approximately 7 times more land than a plant-based diet.'
For those visual learners, here's an example food chain. The numbers represent the chemical energy available.
Wheat grain (100 units) --> human being (10 units) Wheat grain (100 units) --> cow (beef) (10 units) --> human being (1 unit)
In reality, it's not all as simple as that since not all land is appropriate for arable farming and our digestive systems aren't efficient enough to get all the energy from the wheat (stalks, leaves) or the cow (hooves, bones etc.).
- - - As for the fishing conundrum, I don't think there's anything I can say that hasn't already been said. My main thought on it is the fact that he's already bought you a fishing rod. I've no idea how much those things cost or whether he could return it if you refuse to go, but it's something to consider. Personally, I would put the life/suffering of the fish above a bonding opportunity since there are other things you can do together, but it depends entirely on factors we, as bystanders, don't know. For example, your gf's grandad's personality, whether he's prone to defensiveness, easily insulted, intolerant of other views or whether he'd just accept it or even appreciate your honesty. Whatever you decide, I hope it work out well for you
While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse (270) of this book, with reference to a fisherman named Ariya.
Once, there was a fisherman who lived near the north gate of Savatthi. One day through his supernormal power, the Buddha found that time was ripe for the fisherman to attain Sotapatti Fruition. So on his return from the alms-round, the Buddha, followed by the bhikkhus, stopped near the place where Ariya was fishing. When the fisherman saw the Buddha, he threw away his fishing gear and came and stood near the Buddha. The Buddha then proceeded to ask the names of his bhikkhus in the presence of the fisherman, and finally, he asked the name of the fisherman. When the fisher man replied that his name was Ariya, the Buddha said that the Noble Ones (ariyas) do not harm any living being, but since the fisherman was taking the lives of fish he was not worthy of his name.
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows: Verse 270: He who harms living beings is, for that reason, not an ariya (a Noble One); he who does not harm any living being is called an ariya.
At the end of the discourse the fisherman attained Sotapatti Fruition.
What I find interesting about this story, is the fact that Ariya, while engaged in a fishing livelyhood was able to purify himself to the point of attracting the attention of the Buddha. He was ripe for stream entry. In other words, the negative effect of killing fish was failure to achieve stream entry. There was no painful karmic consequence to be experienced later or the omniscient Buddha would have mentioned it. I believe this story makes the point I tried to make earlier in this thread in my exchange with @caz
Your point you made earlier was that wrong actions don't have consequences? Sorry friend, but that is impossible! All wrong actions have consequences guaranteed. The Buddha said this many times. Not being able to point out the exact specifics of it does not cause it to be false.
No, my point made earlier, and clarified by the story of Ariya, is that the consequences of fishing are experienced at the time of the fishing. Those consequences being a failure to achieve Ariyahood, according the Buddha, and/or, the unavoidable suppression of compassion and the resulting reduced capacity for insight, that goes along with taking life, as experienced by me. Now both you and caz are unwilling to see the story of Ariya in its entirety because it conflicts with your belief, against all the evidence, that killing fish will have unavoidable negative consequences at some future time. So tell me now, how did Ariya come be "ripe to attain sotapatti fruition? Was it by magic? I say it was by his own effort. Having attained stream entry he will never fall to lower births. Within seven lifetimes he will achieve full awakening. Where are the consequences from his life of fishing. Does the story have a sad ending? Two more things. One, I have known hundreds of fishermen, many who have lived out their lives with happiness and died peacefully. Others who have died younger, loved and respected by everyone who knew them. I know many who are deeply religious. I have not noticed that these people suffer any more than anyone else, regardless of their lively hood. Have you noticed such a thing? And two. If fishermen and hunters are to suffer their deserved fate in some future life, then how is it that the entire human race was not extinguished as a result of millennia of hunting and fishing?
@caz no, I inferred from the story that Ariya was ripe for sotapatti fruition and it was not until he threw away his fishing gear and heard the Buddhas discourse was he able to attain it. Is that the way it reads to you?
The idea that killing does not incur negative consequences is not what the Buddha taught. He taught that killing always has negative consequences. The fact that these negative consequences can not be specifically pointed with a particular observable consequence, is completely irrelevant. Negative action always have negative consequences, this is what the Buddha taught. The idea that fishing might not have these negative consequences, is not what Buddhism teaches and not what the Buddha taught. All of the evidence suggests that wrong actions always have wrong consequences, regardless if you can personally know or don't know what they are exactly. Just because you can not track down exactly the chain of events of cause and effect, does not mean it's not there. The fact that you knew fisherman that appeared happy, is not relevant.
Seeker. I am not denying that fishing has negative consequences or did you not read any of what I posted. Again, I am saying that the story of Ariya clearly points to the limits of those consequences. If I have misinterpreted the story, please help me to see where I have got it wrong.
Now both you and caz are unwilling to see the story of Ariya in its entirety because it conflicts with your belief, against all the evidence, that killing fish will have unavoidable negative consequences at some future time.
The Buddha taught that killing will and does have unavoidable negative consequences. This is not my belief, this is what the Buddha taught. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Fishing is harmful, Id not plant unwanted suffering for the future. There are other ways with which to have good relations with family rather then engaging in something that will be a cause of pain in the future.
If strict interpretation and adherence to the precept is what is important to your practice then you will be a vegetarian. My hat is off to you for this level of commitment to your beliefs.
However,If you agonize about harming an insect or a fish for that matter, but have no concerns about buying and eating meat because it was killed by someone else for you, that makes no sense.
When I eat the fish that I have caught and killed, I am aware of my actions and also have much appreciation for the fish whose life is providing me with life.
When the eagle swoops down and kills the mouse where is the wrong action? Although we may judge it as an act of cruelty, it is not.
Note to the original OP. - What is more important to you. Strict adherence to someones interpretation of a Buddhist precept or family? The fact that your girlfriends grandpa is willing to take a chance on you and welcome you into the family or the life of a fish? The decision would seam to be clear to me. That's just me.
I was a vegetarian long before I knew what a precept was. The two just ended up fitting together when I found out about Buddhism. I realized that what I had realized was part of the Buddha nature within us all. I do completely agree that there isn't much difference between buying meat, which supports more slaughter, and going out and doing the killing yourself. It's kind of like hiring an assassin to do the dirty work so that the person won't have to come in contact with the suffering. On that note I agree with zombiegirl who said they'd rather someone go out and do the hunting or fishing themselves. Often times I've brought that up with those who ridiculed my way of thinking, and more often then not, they refuse to go do the killing themselves because they can't face the harm they'd be causing. Which will either lead them to decide to alter their views to an extent, or declare that buying and doing it themselves are two radically different things.
These are simply personal views, not judgments I'm trying to make of others. However, when approached on the matter, I do not have problems expressing why my opinions on the matter are what they are. The only person I can truly judge is the one I wake up and look in the mirror at every morning.
These days I'm more or less broke, so 90% of what I eat is given to me by a select few who do not wish to see me go hungry, all of them eat meat, so occasionally meat is what is given to me, and I still accept the gift and eat it with them. Often times I do work in exchange for a meal on a 1 on 1 basis. That part, was something I learned from Buddha, as I was not always that way after going vegetarian. He realized that rejecting someone's kind gift did more harm then good, and I agree with him.
@zombiegirl, isn't that a mindless self indulgence album cover? I think I remember seeing it in my youth when I listened to them.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
@Cole_ Yep. It's from Frankenstein Girls Will Seem Strangely Sexy. I used to be really into MSI in high school. Not as much these days, but I'm still a fan of the art by Jamie Hewlett from Tank Girl comics. He also does the Gorillaz work.
Comments
I love spiders. Predators, they are distant relatives of lobsters.
What I find interesting about this story, is the fact that Ariya, while engaged in a fishing livelyhood was able to purify himself to the point of attracting the attention of the Buddha. He was ripe for stream entry.
In other words, the negative effect of killing fish was failure to achieve stream entry. There was no painful karmic consequence to be experienced later or the omniscient Buddha would have mentioned it.
I believe this story makes the point I tried to make earlier in this thread in my exchange with @caz
Your point you made earlier was that wrong actions don't have consequences? Sorry friend, but that is impossible! All wrong actions have consequences guaranteed. The Buddha said this many times. Not being able to point out the exact specifics of it does not cause it to be false.
What I find interesting about this story, is the fact that Ariya, while engaged in a fishing livelyhood was able to purify himself to the point of attracting the attention of the Buddha. He was ripe for stream entry.
In other words, the negative effect of killing fish was failure to achieve stream entry. There was no painful karmic consequence to be experienced later or the omniscient Buddha would have mentioned it.
I believe this story makes the point I tried to make earlier in this thread in my exchange with @caz
So what your saying is the effect of killing fish is not achieving stream entry ? Sounds like utter rubbish to me when you consider innumerable times past one would have spent as a fish. Killing always results in great misfortune. The fish is a living being is it not ? One cannot be and Ariya and harm other beings.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.177.than.html.
Effectively I'd be saying "I'm a Buddhist so I don't want to kill animals, but I'm happy for you to do it on my behalf."
No, my point made earlier, and clarified by the story of Ariya, is that the consequences of fishing are experienced at the time of the fishing. Those consequences being a failure to achieve Ariyahood, according the Buddha, and/or, the unavoidable suppression of compassion and the resulting reduced capacity for insight, that goes along with taking life, as experienced by me.
Now both you and caz are unwilling to see the story of Ariya in its entirety because it conflicts with your belief, against all the evidence, that killing fish will have unavoidable negative consequences at some future time.
So tell me now, how did Ariya come be "ripe to attain sotapatti fruition? Was it by magic?
I say it was by his own effort.
Having attained stream entry he will never fall to lower births. Within seven lifetimes he will achieve full awakening. Where are the consequences from his life of fishing. Does the story have a sad ending?
Two more things. One, I have known hundreds of fishermen, many who have lived out their lives with happiness and died peacefully. Others who have died younger, loved and respected by everyone who knew them. I know many who are deeply religious.
I have not noticed that these people suffer any more than anyone else, regardless of their lively hood. Have you noticed such a thing?
And two. If fishermen and hunters are to suffer their deserved fate in some future life, then how is it that the entire human race was not extinguished as a result of millennia of hunting and fishing?
@caz no, I inferred from the story that Ariya was ripe for sotapatti fruition and it was not until he threw away his fishing gear and heard the Buddhas discourse was he able to attain it. Is that the way it reads to you?
'...arable farming is 20 times more efficient than livestock production, and a meat-based diet requires approximately 7 times more land than a plant-based diet.'
For those visual learners, here's an example food chain. The numbers represent the chemical energy available.
Wheat grain (100 units) --> human being (10 units)
Wheat grain (100 units) --> cow (beef) (10 units) --> human being (1 unit)
In reality, it's not all as simple as that since not all land is appropriate for arable farming and our digestive systems aren't efficient enough to get all the energy from the wheat (stalks, leaves) or the cow (hooves, bones etc.).
- - -
As for the fishing conundrum, I don't think there's anything I can say that hasn't already been said. My main thought on it is the fact that he's already bought you a fishing rod. I've no idea how much those things cost or whether he could return it if you refuse to go, but it's something to consider. Personally, I would put the life/suffering of the fish above a bonding opportunity since there are other things you can do together, but it depends entirely on factors we, as bystanders, don't know. For example, your gf's grandad's personality, whether he's prone to defensiveness, easily insulted, intolerant of other views or whether he'd just accept it or even appreciate your honesty. Whatever you decide, I hope it work out well for you
Now both you and caz are unwilling to see the story of Ariya in its entirety because it conflicts with your belief, against all the evidence, that killing fish will have unavoidable negative consequences at some future time.
So tell me now, how did Ariya come be "ripe to attain sotapatti fruition? Was it by magic?
I say it was by his own effort.
Having attained stream entry he will never fall to lower births. Within seven lifetimes he will achieve full awakening. Where are the consequences from his life of fishing. Does the story have a sad ending?
Two more things. One, I have known hundreds of fishermen, many who have lived out their lives with happiness and died peacefully. Others who have died younger, loved and respected by everyone who knew them. I know many who are deeply religious.
I have not noticed that these people suffer any more than anyone else, regardless of their lively hood. Have you noticed such a thing?
And two. If fishermen and hunters are to suffer their deserved fate in some future life, then how is it that the entire human race was not extinguished as a result of millennia of hunting and fishing?
@caz no, I inferred from the story that Ariya was ripe for sotapatti fruition and it was not until he threw away his fishing gear and heard the Buddhas discourse was he able to attain it. Is that the way it reads to you?
The idea that killing does not incur negative consequences is not what the Buddha taught. He taught that killing always has negative consequences. The fact that these negative consequences can not be specifically pointed with a particular observable consequence, is completely irrelevant. Negative action always have negative consequences, this is what the Buddha taught. The idea that fishing might not have these negative consequences, is not what Buddhism teaches and not what the Buddha taught. All of the evidence suggests that wrong actions always have wrong consequences, regardless if you can personally know or don't know what they are exactly. Just because you can not track down exactly the chain of events of cause and effect, does not mean it's not there. The fact that you knew fisherman that appeared happy, is not relevant.
Again, I am saying that the story of Ariya clearly points to the limits of those consequences.
If I have misinterpreted the story, please help me to see where I have got it wrong.
These are simply personal views, not judgments I'm trying to make of others. However, when approached on the matter, I do not have problems expressing why my opinions on the matter are what they are. The only person I can truly judge is the one I wake up and look in the mirror at every morning.
These days I'm more or less broke, so 90% of what I eat is given to me by a select few who do not wish to see me go hungry, all of them eat meat, so occasionally meat is what is given to me, and I still accept the gift and eat it with them. Often times I do work in exchange for a meal on a 1 on 1 basis. That part, was something I learned from Buddha, as I was not always that way after going vegetarian. He realized that rejecting someone's kind gift did more harm then good, and I agree with him.
@zombiegirl, isn't that a mindless self indulgence album cover? I think I remember seeing it in my youth when I listened to them.