Through consciousness and conventional truth, isn't it taught that we must believe in kamma-ownership right view (kammassakatā sammādiṭṭhi) - the two aspects of unwholesome and wholesome kamma?
From killing living beings to taking intoxicants, from killing to wrong view - when these are committed, is it wholesome or unwholesome?
Isn't it taught that due to unwholesome kamma, the result immediately after death is hell, animal realm, peta realm, or asura realm? Is this happiness or suffering? Isn't it frightening?
When one abstains from killing living beings to taking intoxicants, from killing to wrong view - is it unwholesome or wholesome?
Due to wholesome kamma, isn't it taught that the result is human realm and six deva realms? Is this suffering or happiness?
Isn't it taught that we must believe in kamma?
Kamma-ownership right view, Jhāna right view, Vipassanā right view, Path right view, Fruition right view - aren't these five types of right view mentioned in Mogok Sayadaw's recordings? Consider that we must believe in kamma.
Therefore, when committing acts from killing to taking intoxicants, from killing to wrong view - it's unwholesome. When abstaining, it's wholesome. Let's consider this.
People who truly understand the five precepts are rare.
Isn't this worth contemplating?"
"How should we consider this? Since the time of previous Buddhas, haven't there been monks giving the five precepts in every village and town related to Buddhism?
Regarding 'pāṇātipātā veramaṇī' - should we kill or abstain? Yes - we should abstain. Isn't this taught everywhere? Think about it.
Let's consider again. When monks travel doing missionary work, people investigate. They ask what the Sao Dhammasami monk eats. Don't they investigate?
They say he eats gourd leaves, pumpkin, fresh vegetables, and such fruits. Don't they mention these? Yes. So people have to search for these vegetarian foods, don't they?
Some also ask, "What does your teacher like to eat?" Don't they mention he likes eggs? Don't they have to find eggs? They say he likes chicken soup. Don't they have to search for these because the monk likes them?
Look at this - the three cycles: defilements (kilesavaṭṭa), kamma (kammavaṭṭa), and results (vipākavaṭṭa). Isn't it taught that when freed from these three cycles, one reaches Nibbāna?
Consider conventional truth again. Consider ultimate truth with wisdom. Don't we need to distinguish between concepts and ultimate reality?
Doesn't Mogok Sayadaw teach in his recordings that mixing conventional and ultimate truth is more painful than being struck by lightning? Think about this.
If we eat vegetarian food and fruits, don't we still get craving? We enjoy it, saying "How good this gourd leaf is today," or "How nice to have coffee today." Don't we develop attachment? Isn't this craving?
With meat too - "The fried egg is good," "Your pork is well-cooked today" - don't people say such things? Don't they enjoy it? Craving. Isn't the term 'craving' the same in both cases?
So when someone likes pork, chicken, or eggs, don't they have to search for these? When searching, does this incur the kamma of killing?
If we eat vegetarian food and fruits, but others have to search and kill for us, would they incur the kamma of killing? Consider this too.
Isn't it taught that we should be 'sutavā ariyasāvako' (well-informed noble disciples)? Don't speak one-sidedly.
Consider also the Goṇasurā Dīpanī text written by Ledi Sayadaw, who wrote about both theoretical and practical aspects.
Look from both conventional truth and ultimate truth perspectives. Isn't this worth considering? When monks say they like something, people have to search for it. When eating meat, don't they have to search for animals? Don't those who search for animals for others create unwholesome kamma? They do.
Consider this: craving for fruits and vegetables affects physical life, but does it incur the kamma of killing? Living beings have both physical and mental life. It does incur killing kamma.
Isn't 'pāṇātipātā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi' (I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing) included in the traditional giving of precepts? Doesn't it say we must abstain? Think about this.
In some places, they've heard about this - well, Bhante doesn't know when they encountered it. They've read Ledi Sayadaw's text.
After reading it, they largely avoid [killing]. When they avoid it, some who like certain foods can't eat them anymore.
Then they say, "Well, we didn't kill these ourselves. These are like alms food (piṇḍapāta)."
Then the devotee replies, "In that case, Venerable Sir, let's set aside the kamma of killing."
They say, "Let's include the other [precepts]. We'll avoid as you've taught." Consider this too. Isn't this worth studying?"
Regarding 'pāṇātipātā veramaṇī' - should we kill or abstain? Yes - we should abstain. Isn't this taught everywhere? Think about it.
Let's consider again. When monks travel doing missionary work, people investigate. They ask what the Sao Dhammasami monk eats. Don't they investigate?
They say he eats gourd leaves, pumpkin, fresh vegetables, and such fruits. Don't they mention these? Yes. So people have to search for these vegetarian foods, don't they?
Some also ask, "What does your teacher like to eat?" Don't they mention he likes eggs? Don't they have to find eggs? They say he likes chicken soup. Don't they have to search for these because the monk likes them?
Look at this - the three cycles: defilements (kilesavaṭṭa), kamma (kammavaṭṭa), and results (vipākavaṭṭa). Isn't it taught that when freed from these three cycles, one reaches Nibbāna?
Consider conventional truth again. Consider ultimate truth with wisdom. Don't we need to distinguish between concepts and ultimate reality?
Doesn't Mogok Sayadaw teach in his recordings that mixing conventional and ultimate truth is more painful than being struck by lightning? Think about this.
If we eat vegetarian food and fruits, don't we still get craving? We enjoy it, saying "How good this gourd leaf is today," or "How nice to have coffee today." Don't we develop attachment? Isn't this craving?
With meat too - "The fried egg is good," "Your pork is well-cooked today" - don't people say such things? Don't they enjoy it? Craving. Isn't the term 'craving' the same in both cases?
So when someone likes pork, chicken, or eggs, don't they have to search for these? When searching, does this incur the kamma of killing?
If we eat vegetarian food and fruits, but others have to search and kill for us, would they incur the kamma of killing? Consider this too.
Isn't it taught that we should be 'sutavā ariyasāvako' (well-informed noble disciples)? Don't speak one-sidedly.
Consider also the Goṇasurā Dīpanī text written by Ledi Sayadaw, who wrote about both theoretical and practical aspects.
Look from both conventional truth and ultimate truth perspectives. Isn't this worth considering? When monks say they like something, people have to search for it. When eating meat, don't they have to search for animals? Don't those who search for animals for others create unwholesome kamma? They do.
Consider this: craving for fruits and vegetables affects physical life, but does it incur the kamma of killing? Living beings have both physical and mental life. It does incur killing kamma.
Isn't 'pāṇātipātā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi' (I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing) included in the traditional giving of precepts? Doesn't it say we must abstain? Think about this.
In some places, they've heard about this - well, Bhante doesn't know when they encountered it. They've read Ledi Sayadaw's text.
After reading it, they largely avoid [killing]. When they avoid it, some who like certain foods can't eat them anymore.
Then they say, "Well, we didn't kill these ourselves. These are like alms food (piṇḍapāta)."
Then the devotee replies, "In that case, Venerable Sir, let's set aside the kamma of killing."
They say, "Let's include the other [precepts]. We'll avoid as you've taught." Consider this too. Isn't this worth studying?"
"This is conventional truth. Avoiding killing based on the belief that beings have life and soul - that's eternalism (sassata). Isn't eternalist view taught as wholesome, as puññābhi kusala?
When one takes the annihilationist (uccheda) view that there's no next life (na paraloke), they kill if they want to eat. They commit unwholesome acts freely.
If there's no next life, wouldn't people commit cruel unwholesome acts? Because there's no consequence to face.
With no next life to aspire to, there's no goal. Without a goal, they won't even give five cents. They won't do wholesome deeds because there's nothing to aspire to.
With nothing to aspire to and no consequences to face, wouldn't they commit cruel unwholesome acts? Consider this. Isn't it worth considering eternalism and annihilationism?
The annihilationist has greater fault.
The eternalist has lesser fault. You see?
The eternalist is very afraid of killing beings. They fear committing wrongdoing. They dare to do wholesome deeds but fear unwholesome ones.
The annihilationist doesn't do wholesome deeds, you see? They commit cruel unwholesome acts freely.
When meeting the Buddha, between annihilationism and eternalism - the annihilationist is easier to liberate, you see? Because they're decisive.
When meeting the Buddha and the Sangha, they're easier to liberate. The eternalist is harder to liberate.
Isn't it worth asking why it's harder to liberate someone with more wholesome deeds?
Speaking as a farmer - when you have fields, don't you plant mango trees, coconut trees, durian trees around? You still want to eat from the trees you planted, right?
You want to eat what you've planted. Don't you want to eat? You want to eat what your children offer. The food from your children.
Or the merits from dana (giving) and sila (morality) you've done - you still want to enjoy these results, you see? That's why liberation is difficult. Isn't this worth considering? The annihilationist doesn't have these attachments. Isn't this worth studying?
Without meeting the Buddha or his disciples, the annihilationist goes straight to the lower realms - to Avīci hell.
The eternalist alternates between human and deva realms. Because they have many wholesome deeds. But for Nibbana, they're harder to liberate, you see? They still want to enjoy the results of their dana and sila. Isn't this how it is?
A farmer still wants to eat from the plants they grew. They're not satisfied if they can't eat what they planted. Study this too. Isn't it worth considering deeply?
Therefore, metta (loving-kindness)...
One who keeps the five precepts perfectly already has metta.
Isn't it worth considering why it's included as navanga-sila (nine precepts) specifically as abstinence?
Isn't it clear that the Buddha conquered through metta in his eight victories? That's conventional truth, not ultimate truth seen with wisdom.
Isn't this worth studying? Consider this.
Don't we need to understand each truth in its own context?
We must believe in kamma and rely on wisdom..."
When one takes the annihilationist (uccheda) view that there's no next life (na paraloke), they kill if they want to eat. They commit unwholesome acts freely.
If there's no next life, wouldn't people commit cruel unwholesome acts? Because there's no consequence to face.
With no next life to aspire to, there's no goal. Without a goal, they won't even give five cents. They won't do wholesome deeds because there's nothing to aspire to.
With nothing to aspire to and no consequences to face, wouldn't they commit cruel unwholesome acts? Consider this. Isn't it worth considering eternalism and annihilationism?
The annihilationist has greater fault.
The eternalist has lesser fault. You see?
The eternalist is very afraid of killing beings. They fear committing wrongdoing. They dare to do wholesome deeds but fear unwholesome ones.
The annihilationist doesn't do wholesome deeds, you see? They commit cruel unwholesome acts freely.
When meeting the Buddha, between annihilationism and eternalism - the annihilationist is easier to liberate, you see? Because they're decisive.
When meeting the Buddha and the Sangha, they're easier to liberate. The eternalist is harder to liberate.
Isn't it worth asking why it's harder to liberate someone with more wholesome deeds?
Speaking as a farmer - when you have fields, don't you plant mango trees, coconut trees, durian trees around? You still want to eat from the trees you planted, right?
You want to eat what you've planted. Don't you want to eat? You want to eat what your children offer. The food from your children.
Or the merits from dana (giving) and sila (morality) you've done - you still want to enjoy these results, you see? That's why liberation is difficult. Isn't this worth considering? The annihilationist doesn't have these attachments. Isn't this worth studying?
Without meeting the Buddha or his disciples, the annihilationist goes straight to the lower realms - to Avīci hell.
The eternalist alternates between human and deva realms. Because they have many wholesome deeds. But for Nibbana, they're harder to liberate, you see? They still want to enjoy the results of their dana and sila. Isn't this how it is?
A farmer still wants to eat from the plants they grew. They're not satisfied if they can't eat what they planted. Study this too. Isn't it worth considering deeply?
Therefore, metta (loving-kindness)...
One who keeps the five precepts perfectly already has metta.
Isn't it worth considering why it's included as navanga-sila (nine precepts) specifically as abstinence?
Isn't it clear that the Buddha conquered through metta in his eight victories? That's conventional truth, not ultimate truth seen with wisdom.
Isn't this worth studying? Consider this.
Don't we need to understand each truth in its own context?
We must believe in kamma and rely on wisdom..."