Nicolas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 6:34 pmAt the very least, one can expect lay people to emulate arahants when it comes to killing, stealing, adultery or rape, lying, and drinking, i.e. the five precepts.
Yep, now we get to some pithy discussion & some eel-wriggling. It is obvious sexual misconduct is much more than adultery or rape. I doubt rape is even mentioned in the suttas, given it is a civil crime in most places. The above post appears to say any sex that is not rape or not adultery is wholesome & skilful.
Nicolas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 6:53 pmI have no trouble not killing, and it does not make me vulnerable.
Indeed. Most people don't have problems with killing other people.
Nicolas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 6:53 pmI am lucky enough to live in a safe area, so am privileged in that respect, but even in more dangerous areas, what might be the percentage of people who have killed in self-defense? I would expect it to be low, unless one were in a warzone.
Indeed. Which is why a pointed out the ridiculousness of Buddhists being sanctimonious about non-killing; similar to the Tibetan Lama who offered refuge with the precept of non-killing and spent his time both sexually & financially abusing a number of his female disciples.
Nicolas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 6:53 pmAt the very least, one can expect lay people to keep the five precepts.
What, non-rape & non-adultery?
Nicolas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 7:24 pmIndeed. Difficult choices! But does the tomcat deserve to die because of their terrorizing actions? What if you kill the tomcat, won't the neighbor be upset, and perhaps even retaliate by killing one of your cats?
I already provided the example of dogs that kill children.
Nicolas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 7:59 pmIndeed... it is difficult to live in the world and be pure.
This sounds quite voyeuristic to me: "
I am lucky enough to live in a safe area, so am privileged in that respect". When one lives in a Buddhist country, when one lives with monks in a monastery dependent upon the donations of laypeople and when one actually discerns what the Buddha taught (rather than picking & choosing to copy & paste lofty quotes that are totally divorced from one's own life) - one might discover it is not particularly proper & virtuous to disparage laypeople as appear to be done above. There are many teachings in the suttas that appear to disparage the lives of laypeople but these teachings were never meant to be read by or spoken to laypeople. This is part of training in virtue. Your posts appear to be going further & further into extremes of non-Dhamma because, like a fundamentalist person that worships a God & disparages non-believers, you seem to be involved in the fundamentalist worship of Arahants in a way that disparages laypeople. For example, in MN 87, when a man is grieving for his lost son, the Buddha does not disparage the life of a householder (as found in Snp 2.14). The Buddha merely says:
That's the way it is, householder. That's the way it is — for sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are born from one who is dear, come springing from one who is dear.
Nicolas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 7:59 pmLucky are those who don't have to take lives to sustain their own.
In the suttas, are there any explicit teachings about not killing animals for food? Why didn't the Buddha insist his monks only take vegetarian food?