DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Snocioncilm** · 11-05-2011, 01:58 AM

again

they were medicants. they silently accepted what was given to them from the ordinary consumption of the common peoples

the monks spent much of their time wandering around India, including to places where Buddhism had not previously entered

they silently (and gratefully) accepted what was given to them from the ordinary consumption of the common peoples

And they could just as well have silently accepted the food given to them and silently set aside any meat and not eaten it. Silently buried it next to a tree to fertilize it or silently fed it to a hungry snake or scorpion or rat or tiger.

how a layfollower chose to act in relation to acquiring food, during the Buddha's time, is implicit in the 1st precept. if the layfollower chose to not kill animals then this was according to the 1st precept. it was not required of the Buddha to make an additional precept. according to the interpretation and circumstances of individals, the guidance in the 1st precept is self-explanatory

for example, King Ashoka created wildlife reserves and place prohibitions on hunting animals inspired by the 1st precept This was nonetheless not at the direction of the Buddha.

or many Buddhists train themselves to not kill insects inspired by the 1st precept

it was not required of the Buddha to make numerous 'sub-precepts' regard what could and could not be killed And in at least one instance he took criticism for not doing so, for not outright forbidding the consumption of meat. And, standing up against that criticism, he refused to do so.

11-05-2011, 01:58 AM	#30
Snocioncilm Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 445 Senior Member	again they were medicants. they silently accepted what was given to them from the ordinary consumption of the common peoples the monks spent much of their time wandering around India, including to places where Buddhism had not previously entered they silently (and gratefully) accepted what was given to them from the ordinary consumption of the common peoples And they could just as well have silently accepted the food given to them and silently set aside any meat and not eaten it. Silently buried it next to a tree to fertilize it or silently fed it to a hungry snake or scorpion or rat or tiger. how a layfollower chose to act in relation to acquiring food, during the Buddha's time, is implicit in the 1st precept. if the layfollower chose to not kill animals then this was according to the 1st precept. it was not required of the Buddha to make an additional precept. according to the interpretation and circumstances of individals, the guidance in the 1st precept is self-explanatory for example, King Ashoka created wildlife reserves and place prohibitions on hunting animals inspired by the 1st precept This was nonetheless not at the direction of the Buddha. or many Buddhists train themselves to not kill insects inspired by the 1st precept it was not required of the Buddha to make numerous 'sub-precepts' regard what could and could not be killed And in at least one instance he took criticism for not doing so, for not outright forbidding the consumption of meat. And, standing up against that criticism, he refused to do so.
	Quote