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.
I'm a bit confused where you got your question out of my statement, please elaborate friend.
It wasn't just what you wrote, but rather what you wrote along with a general trend of thinking on this forum where, at times, people have said, "they're just training rules". For example, in the context that drinking or drugs are not really a problem because they're just training rules.
I can't speak for others here, but I would never say they're "just training rules" but that they are not commandments or sins. That makes them harder to follow and more potent as tools to develop Buddha Nature, in my opinion, because there is no outside authority, no Big Daddy in the sky that is going to know you've broken the rules and punish you for it.
To me, the Precepts are doing exactly what they're designed to do in this case. They force you to ask yourself, what would a Buddha do? This is an example of a real-life situation that our "No Good Choice" type Zen koans imitate and are supposed to help you handle.
The No Good Choice koan here is: An honored Grandfather gives you a gift of a valuable fishing rod and wants to honor you by taking you along while he goes fishing. Yet the precept says "Refrain from taking life." If you refuse the gift, you insult the Grandfather by refusing his unselfish gift and cause suffering and strife. If you go along, you risk breaking the precept against killing. So what do you do?
Having asked and been given answers by all of us, the Buddhist must still find his own answer. It might not be what I would do, or anyone here suggests, but that only makes it his answer, not a wrong answer.
You can't compare all situations and say they are the same. Take one thing at a time, investigate and do what feels right to you. If it truly feels wrong to fish, then you will have to find the kindest and simplest way of explaining it but I would do so along with a suggestion. Thank him for the invite, offer to go but explain you do not fish. If you say "I don't fish because killing animals is wrong" you are highly likely to greatly offend him because he enjoys fishing and he is going to take it as a judgement on something that is part of his life. If you are going to decline that is fine, but offer something to do instead, or go and not fish. Make it clear you are not judging his fishing or that you don't not want to spend time with him, just that fishing in particular doesn't work for you. If you want to go, then go.
One day Nasrudin saw a strange-looking building at whose door a contemplative Yogi sat. The Mulla decided that he would learn something from this impressive figure, and started a conversation by asking him who and what he was. "I am a Yogi," said the other, "and I spend my time in trying to attain harmony with all living things." "That is interesting," said Nasrudin, "because a fish once saved my life." The Yogi begged him to join him, saying that in a lifetime devoted to trying to harmonize himself with the animal creation, he had never been so close to such communion as the Mulla had been. When they had been contemplating for some days, the Yogi begged the Mulla to tell him more of his wonderful experience with the fish, "now that we know one another better." "Now that I know you better," said Nasrudin, "I doubt whether you would profit by what I have to tell." But the Yogi insisted. "Very well," said Nasrudin. "The fish saved my life all right. I was starving at the time, and it sufficed me for three days."
---
I tend to think of most animals as people of sorts. Am I happy to eat them? With the right seasoning . . . :rarr:
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.
There is no precept that says you cannot eat meat.. the Buddha never forbade this and it is certainly not a part of the first precept. at least in the original suttas and the Theravada.. I can't speak for the Mahayana.
at least in the original suttas and the Theravada.. I can't speak for the Mahayana.
Tibetan Buddhists eat meat in a ceremony to signify non-attachment to purity. They traditionally should eat the most lower meats such as organ (whatever a hotdog is made of :P ) but now they eat nice meat I have heard.
And anyhow they ate meat because the climate in Tibet had problems with agriculture.
My teacher said she didn't like glorifying of meat which makes me think of the bacon fad.
@caz can you point to an example of someone who has experienced pain as a result of fishing?
There is the story of the fishing village in Tibet, One day a Yogi was passing who remark that these people where continually switching places with the fish and visa versa.
I was hoping for first hand knowledge you might have. Does Tibet have fishing villages? I thought it was land locked and mountainous.
I have no Clairvoyance so cannot see directly the results of Action and their corresponding effects but rely on those who can. Tibet has various lakes
From what I understand, Buddha would not himself cause suffering by killing an animal for its meat, but if offered meat, would gladly accept the gift. Like many have said, to reject a gift does more harm then eating the flesh, but Buddha himself would not do the killing. Something I paid close attention to and tried to research thoroughly when studying Buddha's view on vegetarianism years ago.
@caz can you point to an example of someone who has experienced pain as a result of fishing?
There is the story of the fishing village in Tibet, One day a Yogi was passing who remark that these people where continually switching places with the fish and visa versa.
I was hoping for first hand knowledge you might have. Does Tibet have fishing villages? I thought it was land locked and mountainous.
I have no Clairvoyance so cannot see directly the results of Action and their corresponding effects but rely on those who can. Tibet has various lakes
@caz can you point to an example of someone who has experienced pain as a result of fishing?
There is the story of the fishing village in Tibet, One day a Yogi was passing who remark that these people where continually switching places with the fish and visa versa.
I was hoping for first hand knowledge you might have. Does Tibet have fishing villages? I thought it was land locked and mountainous.
I have no Clairvoyance so cannot see directly the results of Action and their corresponding effects but rely on those who can. Tibet has various lakes
I am not clairvoyant either, but I see what I see. Stories and fables are not good enough.
Directly seen by the accomplished ones the result of various non virtuous actions. If one can believe these stories then it increases ones resolve not to engage in even the slightest non virtue. At least it does for me.
The sun heats the earth which results in the the rain falling from the sky. It gathers and flows into the rivers and fills our lakes. In this process it provides the ingredients for plant life to flourish. Animals eat the plants and that provides these animals with the nourishment for life. Some animals kill and eat other animals and that provides them with food. And on and on it goes. A balance of life in which all things are temporary manifestations that are inter-dependent.
Me, now I like to go fishing. Although I try to catch and release most of the time. If I am hungry I will eat the fish. However, my intention is not to go on a fish killing spree. It just provides the motivation I need to get out in the middle of nature and see and appreciate what is important.
in an ideal world we would only eat vegetables that have died of natural causes . . . for sustaining the real body in the real world we eat and practice. Some will be aware of the mindful eating practiced in some traditions . . .
It wasn't just what you wrote, but rather what you wrote along with a general trend of thinking on this forum where, at times, people have said, "they're just training rules".
I agree. Calling them training rules doesn't mean that they aren't important, or that we shouldn't take them seriously.
What is implicit is that once they are internalised and understood fully you WILL live by them. They will be as natural as breathing.
Yes, and ethical behaviour can be seen as both the foundation and result of practice
What is equally true is that one can live the rest of your life without breaking a single precept and not be any closer to comprehending the Noble Truths. That's because the precepts, like any list of Commandments or Rules, actually promotes selfish behavior. Notice the problem above is, "The thought of breaking my rule bothers me." not "The thought of hurting the feelings of someone else by refusing their generosity bothers me."
That's the problem with any set of rules for behaviour. The rules become more important than people. We tend to focus on the rules instead of the effects the rules have on people.
That's because the precepts, like any list of Commandments or Rules, actually promotes selfish behavior.
I disagree. The whole point of the precepts is to reduce selfish behaviour. And I thought we'd agreed that the precepts are training principles, not commandments? This seems like a straw-man argument to me.
I think that they (precepts and other such rules) can cause people to feel superior. If you use them to guide your own life, then perfect, that is what they are for. If you use them to say "well this is what I do, and this is what you should do too" or "I follow the precepts to the T so I am a better Buddhist than you" then there is a problem. I've never seen anyone here say those words exactly, but I have seen the attitudes present behind those statements more than once.
I'm just talking about people treating religious rules including our precepts as commandments. But people can keep the precepts and still be selfish, destructive you-know-whats. There's nothing special about the precepts. "Don't lie, kill, steal, screw around or get drunk and make an ass of yourself." Well, duh! In what way are these barebone ethical rules different from any other religion or moral code of conduct out there? Obeying the precepts doesn't make you a Buddhist or a Buddha; it makes you someone who understands there has to be limits on behavior in a polite society.
If you use them to say "well this is what I do, and this is what you should do too" or "I follow the precepts to the T so I am a better Buddhist than you" then there is a problem.
Yes, being judgemental is unhelpful. But are you saying we should never challenge unethical behaviour?
One can go fishing with their grandfather and not fish. What the grandfather wants is time spent with his grandchild. And that can be done. As for killing or even just harming the fish, this is in violation of the Five Precepts. Even if you have not actually taken the Five Precepts vow, you should be endeavoring to live by those Precepts. Tell the grandfather you would love to spend the time with him, but will not participate in fishing. Tell him that you are attempting to practice Buddhism and that fishing is not a proper activity. Even if you do not kill the fish or harm them, just imagine the terror YOU would feel if something grabbed you by the wrist and dragged you down into the water where you could not breathe. This is what we do to fish when we pull them out of the water. And in the spirit of compassion, we just cannot do this to another sentient being. The grandfather is a grown-up. He can handle the truth, especially if given honestly and gently and with love. And he should be respected enough to be given the truth.
I don't think that the point of the precepts is to have a polite society.
I think that overall, people need to concentrate on living their ethics their way. Once you have perfected your life, and the ethics within it, then MAYBE you can tell someone else how to live. It is simply not ok to take your beliefs, your religious code and tell other people that is how they have to live. I don't like when people of other belief systems try to tell me how to live, so I try not to do it to other people. For *me* Buddhism is the answer to those places in my life. For others, that is not the case so I don't tell them how to live. I appreciate when they afford me the same thing. That includes other Buddhists. We are all in different places on the path, some people who are here aren't even Buddhists. Some have been living a lifetime of Buddhism, some started yesterday. Expecting us all to view and uphold the sutras, the precepts, etc in the same way, is just unnecessary. We all do the best we can, and if in your opinion someone is justifying their behavior, does it really impact you? They will learn as time goes on. Or perhaps no and maybe they'll find Buddhism isn't for them. That's ok, too. But when Joe jumps on Bob acting as if Bob is less Buddhist for not following or understanding something the same way, then the problem is Joe's, not Bob's and Joe has some things he should be investigating about himself and his desire to prove that his way is the only way.
This is one reason finding a teacher if at all possible is so valuable. Then you don't have to view and weigh all the aspects of Buddhism based on what random people with lifetimes of different experiences and traditions think. It's much easier to read what others say even if they are trying to tell you you are doing it wrong, if you have a good relationship with a teacher who can work with you on your questions and sticking points.
1
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
Blargh. I hate when people suddenly jump to "vegetarianism isn't natural because the world cannot sustain all vegetarians!"
Duh. But in the United States, with a vegetarian population hovering around 5%, is this really even an issue? Imo, it's just a red herring to distract from the real point... which is suffering. The real question has always been, does eating meat perpetuate suffering? Buddhism doesn't say DO NOT EAT MEAT because it doesn't have the concept of sin, it has the concept of skillfulness, which is quite different. It means that you need to look at the effect of an action and determine for yourself whether or not it is skillful. The first precept has been interpreted as anywhere from "not killing humans" to "not harming any sentient being" and everything in between. Obviously, with vegetarianism in particular, many people have come to different conclusions. My conclusion is just as valid as someone who has come to a different conclusion, however, what is most important in this case is the conclusion the OP has ended up with.
here is a tough guy Buddhist and his response to fishing . . . http://buddhismfordudes.blog.com/2012/05/25/161/ I loved that rainbow trout . . . and I would eat it. If I would eat it, I would fish and kill it. Am I a bad precept killing failed pseudo Buddhist? No doubt. No doubt I am just fishing . . . some raise to the bait . . .
Can you kill your judgements long enough to practice? Maybe we all break the precepts and exalt ourselves in different ways?
here is a tough guy Buddhist and his response to fishing . . . http://buddhismfordudes.blog.com/2012/05/25/161/ I loved that rainbow trout . . . and I would eat it. If I would eat it, I would fish and kill it. Am I a bad precept killing failed pseudo Buddhist? No doubt. No doubt I am just fishing . . . some raise to the bait . . .
Can you kill your judgements long enough to practice? Maybe we all break the precepts and exalt ourselves in different ways?
I highly doubt there's any human being without some blood on their hands. As I said in another thread about a different topic I hold no judgment of anyone. I think you're all beautiful creatures and perfectly capable of figuring out your own "wrong or right" or however you'd like to put that. I just speak from my own personal experiences
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.
But people can keep the precepts and still be selfish, destructive you-know-whats.
I disagree again! We are what we do, and somebody who kept the precepts perfectly would be both wise and compassionate.
The precepts say nothing about compassion or caring for others. Let's take an example for our recent US history. We have a very rich man running for political office. As a Mormon, and a very devout one, he doesn't drink, steal, lie, and not a hint of sex scandal from his long term marriage. As far as anyone can tell, he lives the same precepts we do and in fact lives an even more "ethical" life than most lay Buddhists ever will. The Mormons take their rules very seriously.
Yet this man founded and ran a company that bought businesses for the express purpose of gutting them for profit and closing the factories, raiding the pension plans and leaving thousands of people out of jobs while he pockets millions of dollars he doesn't need. He was unable to hide his arrogance and distain for anyone who couldn't figure out how to be rich, no matter what your circumstances. In the end it cost him the election. And nowhere in this life does he break a single precept.
No, he didn't steal. Everything he did was entirely legal, and he points this out. It's not his responsibility to provide jobs or even pensions. The companies were sold to him legally even knowing what he was going to do to them. As far as he's concerned, it's only laziness that keeps the unemployed from starting their own company and being rich like him. He keeps the rules in a legalistic way and lacks the self-awareness to understand those rules are only the beginning. He personally doesn't lie, but doesn't have to, because he has hired people to do that for him. What he does isn't stealing because he and his rich friends have made sure they help elect congressmen who write the laws to make it legal. So it's not stealing. Any lawyer can tell you that.
Compassion must trump precepts. Rules are important, but they're not enough. A spiritual life cannot be reduced to 5 or 10 or a thousand rules of "don't do this" but one single rule "Have compassion for others" is all you need in the end.
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
Compassion must trump precepts. Rules are important, but they're not enough.
I agree, and precepts are only one aspect of practice. But the precepts are useful as training principles, particularly if we understand the spirit of the precepts and the importance of ethical behaviour. And as our practice develops ethical behaviour becomes a natural expression of a wiser and more compassionate state of mind.
But you still seem to be stuck on the idea of precepts as legalistic rules. IMO it's a straw-man because nobody is arguing that position.
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 think it just means that harming living beings isn't compatible with Buddhahood.
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 think it just means that harming living beings isn't compatible with Buddhahood.
It's true that stream entry is far from Buddhahood.
Just an FYI @PedanticPorpoise, you can reply to multiple people in the same post, just hit the quote button and it'll place the quote syntax wherever your cursor is in the comment box
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
The first precept has been interpreted as anywhere from "not killing humans" to "not harming any sentient being" and everything in between.
Yes, you're right, but I think the spirit of the first precept - non-harm - is clear to see.
Not for everyone... otherwise, imo, everyone would be a vegetarian. Killing an animal harms them, clearly. The problem is that when meat comes to you in a little package at your supermarket, it doesn't look like harm. The topic only seems to become obvious when we discuss fishing/hunting in which you take the matter into your own hands. Then, oddly enough, almost everyone seems to agree that it's wrong. Even as a vegetarian, my personal opinion is that fishing/hunting is more admirable than buying meat at the supermarket because at least the animal lived out its life in the wild. I oppose the poor practices of the meat industry... fishing/hunting has nothing on the cruelty they commonly employ.
My point was that precepts are not enforced like sin in Christianity. You take the precepts when you're ready. You understand the precepts when you're ready. This is the understanding I have arrived at but I cannot fault anyone who views differently. I used to view differently. *shrugs* Maybe someday I will view even more differently.
@zombiegirl, I really like that you said, "I cannot fault anyone who views differently. I used to view differently. *shrugs* Maybe someday I will view even more differently."
I cook. The family eat meat. I have reduced the amount. We can not hunt or fish. We eat more fish than meat. Not ideal. Just real. One day we may all be vegetarian. If not OK. That is my environment. I will push gently not fanatically. Do I like meat? Yes. Did I miss it when vegan or vegetarian? Not at all. Go fishing and you may talk about compassion or other stuff. I too believe fishing and hunting shows more integrity than shop bought slaughter. Course fishing is not compassionate . . surely . . .?
Not to derail the thread but I just had an interesting encounter that's kind of related to this topic. I was washing my hands and I hadn't noticed a cockroach that was inside the drain, typically I'd be more mindful of the water pressure to disturb as little as possible, as I live in a ghettoish apartment complex infested by bugs, but this time I hadn't been. The cockroach appeared to die. I was disappointed in myself for having let something like that happen by my own direct careless actions. I wasn't being mindful and this little bug had paid the price for my action. For a moment I contemplated that these things happen and that I couldn't let it get to me. I got on my knees in front of it and all I could say was "please wake up, please wake up, please wake up." It would not move. I dried it off and sat there. Praying it would move. I put my hand over it and offered the universe some of my life force in return for its life. Suddenly, a twitch. I continued willing it to live. Another twitch. Then another. I dried off its tiny mouth. It perked up and looked at me. I cried for a moment. It brought me such joy to see it live. Sat it up on the counter, watched it scurry away and went on with my business.
Maybe the universe listened.
Laugh all you want, it made my night all the more precious.
Sometimes the ordinary can make an interesting experience.
Who laughed? This morning when I was in the shower a tiny housefly that could barely fly landed on the ledge of the shower where it was dry. Then it crawled too close and got wet. I used a comb to pick it up and put it back to the dry area to dry off, and it went right back into the water, except this time it got washed over the edge of the tub by a big drop. So I shut off the water, clogged the drain with my foot, used the comb again to pick it up (to avoid squishing it, it was like half the size of a normal housefly) and put it on the window sill to dry, and it buzzed off after a few minutes. We do what we can
Who laughed? This morning when I was in the shower a tiny housefly that could barely fly landed on the ledge of the shower where it was dry. Then it crawled too close and got wet. I used a comb to pick it up and put it back to the dry area to dry off, and it went right back into the water, except this time it got washed over the edge of the tub by a big drop. So I shut off the water, clogged the drain with my foot, used the comb again to pick it up (to avoid squishing it, it was like half the size of a normal housefly) and put it on the window sill to dry, and it buzzed off after a few minutes. We do what we can
That to me, is so precious. Thank you for saving its life. I flipping love you guys!
I am glad you prayed for that cockroach. I used to leave sugared water on a stupa for Buddhist wasps. They responded by protecting the stupa. On several occasions they responded and distracted negative mind states around the stupa by angrily buzzing the protagonist.
Even insects repay kindness according to their capacity . . . how extraordinary . . .
I am glad you prayed for that cockroach. I used to leave sugared water on a stupa for Buddhist wasps. They responded by protecting the stupa. On several occasions they responded and distracted negative mind states around the stupa by angrily buzzing the protagonist.
Even insects repay kindness according to their capacity . . . how extraordinary . . .
Very interesting encounter my friend, thank you for sharing that! I'm starting to realize that the more in-tune with the world we are, the more we work together naturally! Extraordinary indeed! One thing Buddha realized is that in fact, the extraordinary is all around us at all times, always loved that idea.
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.
Just an FYI @PedanticPorpoise, you can reply to multiple people in the same post, just hit the quote button and it'll place the quote syntax wherever your cursor is in the comment box
Thanks, but I only have a small porpoise brain and replying to more than one person at a time would confuse me...
Killing an animal harms them, clearly. The problem is that when meat comes to you in a little package at your supermarket, it doesn't look like harm.
I agree, and I suspect that a lot more people would be vegetarian if they had to kill and prepare their own meat.
These verses from the Dhammapada seem relevant:
129. All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill. 130. All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
Despite this kindness he will not be subsisting on a diet of seaweed. He still lives on fish that others have caught . . . Like me he belongs to that rare breed of crustacean, ready to be boiled alive for consumption by the confirmed omnivore . . .
Uncle Lobby (he was born in the entrance to an Atlantean Hotel), wishes to extend his thanks for a longer life . . .
Comments
To me, the Precepts are doing exactly what they're designed to do in this case. They force you to ask yourself, what would a Buddha do? This is an example of a real-life situation that our "No Good Choice" type Zen koans imitate and are supposed to help you handle.
The No Good Choice koan here is: An honored Grandfather gives you a gift of a valuable fishing rod and wants to honor you by taking you along while he goes fishing. Yet the precept says "Refrain from taking life." If you refuse the gift, you insult the Grandfather by refusing his unselfish gift and cause suffering and strife. If you go along, you risk breaking the precept against killing. So what do you do?
Having asked and been given answers by all of us, the Buddhist must still find his own answer. It might not be what I would do, or anyone here suggests, but that only makes it his answer, not a wrong answer.
"I am a Yogi," said the other, "and I spend my time in trying to attain harmony with all living things."
"That is interesting," said Nasrudin, "because a fish once saved my life."
The Yogi begged him to join him, saying that in a lifetime devoted to trying to harmonize himself with the animal creation, he had never been so close to such communion as the Mulla had been.
When they had been contemplating for some days, the Yogi begged the Mulla to tell him more of his wonderful experience with the fish, "now that we know one another better."
"Now that I know you better," said Nasrudin, "I doubt whether you would profit by what I have to tell."
But the Yogi insisted.
"Very well," said Nasrudin. "The fish saved my life all right. I was starving at the time, and it sufficed me for three days."
---
I tend to think of most animals as people of sorts. Am I happy to eat them? With the right seasoning . . . :rarr:
There is no precept that says you cannot eat meat.. the Buddha never forbade this and it is certainly not a part of the first precept. at least in the original suttas and the Theravada.. I can't speak for the Mahayana.
And anyhow they ate meat because the climate in Tibet had problems with agriculture.
My teacher said she didn't like glorifying of meat which makes me think of the bacon fad.
Yes you are right. A quick google provided this link http://2007.tibetmagazine.net/en/20056-p32.htm
I am not clairvoyant either, but I see what I see. Stories and fables are not good enough.
Me, now I like to go fishing. Although I try to catch and release most of the time. If I am hungry I will eat the fish. However, my intention is not to go on a fish killing spree. It just provides the motivation I need to get out in the middle of nature and see and appreciate what is important.
Fish or not, practice or not.
Don't have a cow man (Bart Simpson)
That's the problem with any set of rules for behaviour. The rules become more important than people. We tend to focus on the rules instead of the effects the rules have on people.
And I thought we'd agreed that the precepts are training principles, not commandments? This seems like a straw-man argument to me.
As for killing or even just harming the fish, this is in violation of the Five Precepts. Even if you have not actually taken the Five Precepts vow, you should be endeavoring to live by those Precepts.
Tell the grandfather you would love to spend the time with him, but will not participate in fishing. Tell him that you are attempting to practice Buddhism and that fishing is not a proper activity. Even if you do not kill the fish or harm them, just imagine the terror YOU would feel if something grabbed you by the wrist and dragged you down into the water where you could not breathe. This is what we do to fish when we pull them out of the water. And in the spirit of compassion, we just cannot do this to another sentient being.
The grandfather is a grown-up. He can handle the truth, especially if given honestly and gently and with love. And he should be respected enough to be given the truth.
I think that overall, people need to concentrate on living their ethics their way. Once you have perfected your life, and the ethics within it, then MAYBE you can tell someone else how to live. It is simply not ok to take your beliefs, your religious code and tell other people that is how they have to live. I don't like when people of other belief systems try to tell me how to live, so I try not to do it to other people. For *me* Buddhism is the answer to those places in my life. For others, that is not the case so I don't tell them how to live. I appreciate when they afford me the same thing. That includes other Buddhists. We are all in different places on the path, some people who are here aren't even Buddhists. Some have been living a lifetime of Buddhism, some started yesterday. Expecting us all to view and uphold the sutras, the precepts, etc in the same way, is just unnecessary. We all do the best we can, and if in your opinion someone is justifying their behavior, does it really impact you? They will learn as time goes on. Or perhaps no and maybe they'll find Buddhism isn't for them. That's ok, too. But when Joe jumps on Bob acting as if Bob is less Buddhist for not following or understanding something the same way, then the problem is Joe's, not Bob's and Joe has some things he should be investigating about himself and his desire to prove that his way is the only way.
This is one reason finding a teacher if at all possible is so valuable. Then you don't have to view and weigh all the aspects of Buddhism based on what random people with lifetimes of different experiences and traditions think. It's much easier to read what others say even if they are trying to tell you you are doing it wrong, if you have a good relationship with a teacher who can work with you on your questions and sticking points.
Duh. But in the United States, with a vegetarian population hovering around 5%, is this really even an issue? Imo, it's just a red herring to distract from the real point... which is suffering. The real question has always been, does eating meat perpetuate suffering? Buddhism doesn't say DO NOT EAT MEAT because it doesn't have the concept of sin, it has the concept of skillfulness, which is quite different. It means that you need to look at the effect of an action and determine for yourself whether or not it is skillful. The first precept has been interpreted as anywhere from "not killing humans" to "not harming any sentient being" and everything in between. Obviously, with vegetarianism in particular, many people have come to different conclusions. My conclusion is just as valid as someone who has come to a different conclusion, however, what is most important in this case is the conclusion the OP has ended up with.
but just for someone with no prey empathy.
http://buddhismfordudes.blog.com/2012/05/25/161/
I loved that rainbow trout . . . and I would eat it. If I would eat it, I would fish and kill it. Am I a bad precept killing failed pseudo Buddhist? No doubt. No doubt I am just fishing . . . some raise to the bait . . .
Can you kill your judgements long enough to practice? Maybe we all break the precepts and exalt ourselves in different ways?
Yet this man founded and ran a company that bought businesses for the express purpose of gutting them for profit and closing the factories, raiding the pension plans and leaving thousands of people out of jobs while he pockets millions of dollars he doesn't need. He was unable to hide his arrogance and distain for anyone who couldn't figure out how to be rich, no matter what your circumstances. In the end it cost him the election. And nowhere in this life does he break a single precept.
No, he didn't steal. Everything he did was entirely legal, and he points this out. It's not his responsibility to provide jobs or even pensions. The companies were sold to him legally even knowing what he was going to do to them. As far as he's concerned, it's only laziness that keeps the unemployed from starting their own company and being rich like him. He keeps the rules in a legalistic way and lacks the self-awareness to understand those rules are only the beginning. He personally doesn't lie, but doesn't have to, because he has hired people to do that for him. What he does isn't stealing because he and his rich friends have made sure they help elect congressmen who write the laws to make it legal. So it's not stealing. Any lawyer can tell you that.
Compassion must trump precepts. Rules are important, but they're not enough. A spiritual life cannot be reduced to 5 or 10 or a thousand rules of "don't do this" but one single rule "Have compassion for others" is all you need in the end.
My opinion. Make of it what you will.
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
But you still seem to be stuck on the idea of precepts as legalistic rules. IMO it's a straw-man because nobody is arguing that position.
My point was that precepts are not enforced like sin in Christianity. You take the precepts when you're ready. You understand the precepts when you're ready. This is the understanding I have arrived at but I cannot fault anyone who views differently. I used to view differently. *shrugs* Maybe someday I will view even more differently.
One day we may all be vegetarian. If not OK. That is my environment. I will push gently not fanatically.
Do I like meat? Yes. Did I miss it when vegan or vegetarian? Not at all.
Go fishing and you may talk about compassion or other stuff. I too believe fishing and hunting shows more integrity than shop bought slaughter.
Course fishing is not compassionate . . surely . . .?
Maybe the universe listened.
Laugh all you want, it made my night all the more precious.
Sometimes the ordinary can make an interesting experience.
I used to leave sugared water on a stupa for Buddhist wasps. They responded by protecting the stupa. On several occasions they responded and distracted negative mind states around the stupa by angrily buzzing the protagonist.
Even insects repay kindness according to their capacity . . . how extraordinary . . .
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.
These verses from the Dhammapada seem relevant:
129. All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
130. All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
http://www.ibtimes.com/photos-buddhists-liberate-lobsters-massachusetts-840291
Despite this kindness he will not be subsisting on a diet of seaweed. He still lives on fish that others have caught . . .
Like me he belongs to that rare breed of crustacean, ready to be boiled alive for consumption by the confirmed omnivore . . .
Uncle Lobby (he was born in the entrance to an Atlantean Hotel), wishes to extend his thanks for a longer life . . .