It's rare to find people who truly understand the Five Precepts. Isn't this worth contemplating?
How should we contemplate? Throughout history, many Buddhas have appeared, and in every village and town, aren't there monks giving the Five Precepts as part of Buddhist practice?
Pāṇātipātā veramaṇī - should we kill or abstain? Hmm - we should abstain. #We_must_abstain, remember? Isn't this taught everywhere? Think about it.
Let's think again. When monks travel for missionary work, don't people investigate what the monks eat? #Don't_they_ask_what_the_Maunglae_Sayadaw_eats? They do investigate.
They say he eats gourd leaves, pumpkin, tender vegetables, and such fruits and vegetables. Don't they mention these? They do. So, don't people then search for these foods that monks eat? They do.
Some also ask, "What does your teacher like to eat?" Don't they say he likes eggs? Don't they then look for eggs?
They say he likes chicken soup. Don't they then search for these, #because_it's_what_the_monk_likes? Don't they search? Yes, they do.
Look here - isn't it taught that liberation from the three cycles (kilesa vaṭṭa, kamma vaṭṭa, vipāka vaṭṭa) leads to Nibbāna?
Also consider conventional truth again. Consider ultimate truth as seen by 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.
Well, if we eat vegetarian food and fruits, don't we develop #attachment_and_craving? We enjoy it. "This gourd leaf curry is good, today's coffee is nice" - don't we become attached? Isn't this craving?
With meat and fish too: "The fried egg is good, today your pork curry is well-cooked" - don't people say this? Don't they enjoy it? #Craving. Isn't the nature of craving the same in both cases? Yes, it is.
So when someone likes pork, chicken, or eggs, don't they have to search for these? #When_searching_consider_whether_it_leads_to_killing.
Well, if you eat vegetarian food and fruits, does the person who has to search for these foods incur the kamma of killing? Think about 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 seeing both sides of pariyatti and paṭipatti (theory and practice).
Look from the conventional truth perspective and from wisdom's ultimate truth perspective. Isn't this worth contemplating? When they say the monk likes something, they have to search for it. When eating meat, don't they have to search for meat? Don't the people who search for animals for our consumption #create_unwholesome_kamma? They do.
Now, the craving for fruits and vegetables - yes, they have physical life, but does it incur the kamma of killing? Living beings have both physical and mental life. #It_incurs_killing_kamma. No, it doesn't. Yes, it does.
Isn't "Pāṇātipātā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi" (I undertake the precept to abstain from killing) included in the traditional giving of precepts? Doesn't it say we must abstain? Think about this, do you understand?
Then, in some places I've heard - well, I'm not sure if it's true or not, I wasn't there when the monk came - but that village had read Ledi Sayadaw's text.
After reading it, they avoided a lot. When they avoided these things, some people who liked certain foods couldn't eat them anymore.
Then they say, "Well, we didn't kill them ourselves. You didn't kill them either. This is paṃsukūla (already available food)," don't they say this?
Then the devotee replied, "In that case, Venerable Sir, let's set aside the precept about killing," do you hear?
Include the other precepts. They say they'll avoid as the venerable ones teach. Think about this too. Hmm, isn't this worth studying?
This is conventional truth - avoiding killing based on the concept of life, soul, and permanent existence.
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 seeing both sides of pariyatti and paṭipatti (theory and practice).
Look from the conventional truth perspective and from wisdom's ultimate truth perspective. Isn't this worth contemplating? When they say the monk likes something, they have to search for it. When eating meat, don't they have to search for meat? Don't the people who search for animals for our consumption #create_unwholesome_kamma? They do.
Now, the craving for fruits and vegetables - yes, they have physical life, but does it incur the kamma of killing? Living beings have both physical and mental life. #It_incurs_killing_kamma. No, it doesn't. Yes, it does.
Isn't "Pāṇātipātā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi" (I undertake the precept to abstain from killing) included in the traditional giving of precepts? Doesn't it say we must abstain? Think about this, do you understand?
Then, in some places I've heard - well, I'm not sure if it's true or not, I wasn't there when the monk came - but that village had read Ledi Sayadaw's text.
After reading it, they avoided a lot. When they avoided these things, some people who liked certain foods couldn't eat them anymore.
Then they say, "Well, we didn't kill them ourselves. You didn't kill them either. This is paṃsukūla (already available food)," don't they say this?
Then the devotee replied, "In that case, Venerable Sir, let's set aside the precept about killing," do you hear?
Include the other precepts. They say they'll avoid as the venerable ones teach. Think about this too. Hmm, isn't this worth studying?
This is conventional truth - avoiding killing based on the concept of life, soul, and permanent existence.
🌺Eternalism (Sassata) / Annihilationism (Uccheda)🌺
Isn't eternalist view considered wholesome? Isn't it taught as meritorious wholesomeness? But with annihilationism, believing there's no next world, they think "I'll kill if I want to eat."
When one commits unwholesome actions... If there's no next world, wouldn't people commit cruel unwholesome acts? Because there are no consequences.
With no next world, there are no consequences, so they won't even worry about five cents. #Won't_do_good_deeds. Since there's nothing to receive the results. Without consequences, don't they commit cruel unwholesome acts?
Consider this about eternalism and annihilationism. Isn't this worth contemplating? We need to understand these two views. Annihilationists commit greater wrong, eternalists lesser wrong, understand?
The eternalist greatly fears killing beings. They're afraid of doing wrong deeds, but they dare to do good. #They_fear_unwholesome_acts.
The annihilationist doesn't do good deeds, understand? They commit cruel unwholesome acts. When meeting the Buddha, between annihilationists and eternalists, annihilationists are easier to liberate, understand?
Because they're absolute, you see. When meeting the Buddha and the Sangha, #they're_easier_to_liberate. Eternalists are harder to liberate.
Isn't it worth asking why those with more good deeds are harder to liberate? Speaking as a farmer, when you have fields, don't you plant mango trees, eucalyptus trees, durian trees around?
#You_still_want_to_eat_what_you_plant, understand? You still want to eat what you planted. Don't you want to eat? You still want to eat what your children offer. The food from children.
Or the merits from giving (dāna) and morality (sīla) you've done. You still want to enjoy these results, understand? That's why liberation is difficult. Isn't this worth considering? #Annihilationists_don't_have_these_attachments. Isn't this worth studying?
Without meeting the Buddha or his disciples, annihilationists go straight to lower realms. #To_Avīci. Eternalists cycle between human and deva realms.
Because they have many good deeds. But for Nibbāna, they're harder to liberate, understand? They still want to enjoy the results of their giving, their morality. Isn't this how they are?
Farmers too still want to eat from plants they grew. #They're_not_satisfied_if_they_can't_eat_what_they_planted. Study this too. Isn't this worth contemplating deeply?
Isn't eternalist view considered wholesome? Isn't it taught as meritorious wholesomeness? But with annihilationism, believing there's no next world, they think "I'll kill if I want to eat."
When one commits unwholesome actions... If there's no next world, wouldn't people commit cruel unwholesome acts? Because there are no consequences.
With no next world, there are no consequences, so they won't even worry about five cents. #Won't_do_good_deeds. Since there's nothing to receive the results. Without consequences, don't they commit cruel unwholesome acts?
Consider this about eternalism and annihilationism. Isn't this worth contemplating? We need to understand these two views. Annihilationists commit greater wrong, eternalists lesser wrong, understand?
The eternalist greatly fears killing beings. They're afraid of doing wrong deeds, but they dare to do good. #They_fear_unwholesome_acts.
The annihilationist doesn't do good deeds, understand? They commit cruel unwholesome acts. When meeting the Buddha, between annihilationists and eternalists, annihilationists are easier to liberate, understand?
Because they're absolute, you see. When meeting the Buddha and the Sangha, #they're_easier_to_liberate. Eternalists are harder to liberate.
Isn't it worth asking why those with more good deeds are harder to liberate? Speaking as a farmer, when you have fields, don't you plant mango trees, eucalyptus trees, durian trees around?
#You_still_want_to_eat_what_you_plant, understand? You still want to eat what you planted. Don't you want to eat? You still want to eat what your children offer. The food from children.
Or the merits from giving (dāna) and morality (sīla) you've done. You still want to enjoy these results, understand? That's why liberation is difficult. Isn't this worth considering? #Annihilationists_don't_have_these_attachments. Isn't this worth studying?
Without meeting the Buddha or his disciples, annihilationists go straight to lower realms. #To_Avīci. Eternalists cycle between human and deva realms.
Because they have many good deeds. But for Nibbāna, they're harder to liberate, understand? They still want to enjoy the results of their giving, their morality. Isn't this how they are?
Farmers too still want to eat from plants they grew. #They're_not_satisfied_if_they_can't_eat_what_they_planted. Study this too. Isn't this worth contemplating deeply?