Understanding the fourth precept

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
User avatar
samseva
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by samseva » Tue Apr 05, 2016 11:16 pm

D1W1 wrote:That's why I'm not sure how did Bhante Dhammanando come to that conclusion.
Well, the Sutta is about actors in the time of the Buddha, which had to do with stage shows, not too far from debauchery. The Buddha talks about actors that are intoxicated and heedless, with passion and relatively strong defilements. With the last part, he talks about actors that have wrong view regarding their next rebirth. There is some difference with today's actors, in movies and in theater, compared to those of the time of the Buddha.

D1W1
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 5:52 am

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by D1W1 » Fri Apr 08, 2016 5:28 am

samseva wrote:
D1W1 wrote:That's why I'm not sure how did Bhante Dhammanando come to that conclusion.
Well, the Sutta is about actors in the time of the Buddha, which had to do with stage shows, not too far from debauchery. The Buddha talks about actors that are intoxicated and heedless, with passion and relatively strong defilements. With the last part, he talks about actors that have wrong view regarding their next rebirth. There is some difference with today's actors, in movies and in theater, compared to those of the time of the Buddha.
Just like any other thing, not everything remains the same. For example, in the Buddha time, most people probably kill animal using knife or other sharp tools. But in modern days, those who work in slaughterhouse may not kill animal in exactly in the same fashion but that doesn't mean they do not engage in killing activity. I think the same thing with actor.
Any beings who are not devoid of passion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of passion, focus with even more passion on things inspiring passion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of aversion, focus with even more aversion on things inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of delusion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of delusion, focus with even more delusion on things inspiring delusion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Thus the actor — himself intoxicated & heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell of laughter.
I think the actor doesn't have to be on stage in order to make other people focus with even more passion, aversion or delusion.

User avatar
samseva
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by samseva » Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:09 pm

D1W1 wrote:Just like any other thing, not everything remains the same. For example, in the Buddha time, most people probably kill animal using knife or other sharp tools. But in modern days, those who work in slaughterhouse may not kill animal in exactly in the same fashion but that doesn't mean they do not engage in killing activity. I think the same thing with actor.
No, the comparison doesn’t really work. What you describe is the method of killing being different. If you use the same comparison, it would be like the debauchery circus-like shows being broadcasted on television rather than in a theatre or somewhere outside and surrounded by a crowd. The difference between a well-made documentary-like fictional movie from these days, compared with festival theatre shows in the time of the Buddha is in large part, in content and intentions, not only in the method. It would be a bit like hate-filled murder compared to killing an animal for food (not that festival theatre is any close to hate-filled murder though).

iHappy
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2016 4:30 pm

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by iHappy » Thu Apr 14, 2016 5:29 pm

Dennenappelmoes wrote:I am very much a fan of Ajahn Brahm when it comes to this. In all of his talks that listened to (and there were many) he never mentioned "honesty" (in the sense of speaking factual correctness). He always talks about skillful speech. Also, he stresses that to him, the definition of truth is that which brings peace and harmony. If something leads to argument, to disagreement, to division, how can it be true? Following this argument, saying "you don't look fat in that at all" can be 'true'/skilfull even when it isn't a factual truth.

To me, I tend to focus on what the speech causes. If someone was nervous about doing something and then asks "did I do ok?" when they didn't, I may well say "yes" because this conveys that I have confidence in them, which is the truth, whereas saying "no" would convey that I did not have confidence in them, which would be false. However, this is a slippery slope and the way I see it, it needs to be balanced with humble, honest personal reflection to ensure the intention wasn't to deceive, just as the others have mentioned.

But the best advice is to just always eat pasta with sauce, you avoid the problem and it's much healthier and less gross as well! :namaste:
This was a very helpful comment and I want to thank you for it :) :twothumbsup:

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 10935
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact:

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by DNS » Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:10 am

Mod note:
I have merged some of the very similar topics on the 4th precept into this one big one. And reminder once again to keep the posts to the issues, no name calling of one side as fundamentalists, etc or the other side as slanderers of the Buddha, etc.

User avatar
Sovatthika
Posts: 313
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Understanding the fourth precept

Post by Sovatthika » Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:42 am

i actually don't have a source for it. i asked the person that told me and he said it in the authenticity of the early buddhist texts paper. but i couldn't find it
upaya means differently for mahayana and theravāda, here is a source about that http://www.buddhanet.net/skilful-means.htm
Attachments
Screen Shot 2017-11-17 at 21.59.38.png
Screen Shot 2017-11-17 at 21.59.38.png (119.58 KiB) Viewed 51 times
Screen Shot 2017-11-17 at 22.14.04.png
Screen Shot 2017-11-17 at 22.14.04.png (141.72 KiB) Viewed 51 times
Last edited by DNS on Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: post not edited; just moved to the correct topic it should be in.
"Just as the ocean has a single taste — that of salt — in the same way, this Dhamma-Vinaya has a single taste: that of release."
— Ud 5.5

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: catsquotl and 9 guests