Killing an animal doesn't break the first precept?

[Aryjna]

In the case of monks it might be the case if the fault is repeatedly comited. Id like to know more about this.

In the case of the boddhisatva vow it is submitted to circumstances and what you are aiming to but, again, if killing is linked to an habit then it can't be ok.. the job is to stop it, prevent it, and hopefully reverse it. Imo. Id like to know what would you and the fellowship here would do, maybe in another thread.

You can't just make up stuff and claim it is dharma just because you feel like it. If you have sources stating that one loses the bodhisattva vow because of killing an animal intentionally, you can present them. It is very unlikely that you do, since it doesn't seem to be the case.

The rest of your post is out of topic. As I said, I was talking about whether one loses the vow, not about whether killing animals is good. It is obviously negative and contrary to the bodhisattva ideal in general.

Did i?

Study is a needed intellectual excersice, a simulation, in order to engage in actual practice. Then you just need a few principles to remember, and the rest is up to you. Isn't obvious?

That is not necessarily the case. Without study, and without understanding and correctly interpreting what one is studying, one is likely to be practicing the wrong thing and end up with the wrong result. Also, if one is planning to teach the dharma to others, then just keeping to mind a few principles is not nearly enough.

[Konchog Thogme Jampa]

This is slightly off-topic, but renunciation is so central to the path, especially celibacy. It is only when you come face to face with your defilements that you can understand their power and sway and fully understand and realize the emptiness of persons, as you realize you can never fully control them.

When I renounced the world physically and became a Thai Forest Monk the biggest thing I wasn't prepared for was how the mind changes.

When you stop engaging with TV, Music, Radio (it was 1999 so pre internet) everything the afflictions get way more powerful I was only 20 at the time and going cold turkey on the world was really really tough

[Virgo]

When I renounced the world physically and became a Thai Forest Monk the biggest thing I wasn't prepared for was how the mind changes.

When you stop engaging with TV, Music, Radio (it was 1999 so pre internet) everything the afflictions get way more powerful I was only 20 at the time and going cold turkey on the world was really really tough

Yes, it is definitely a 'taste of apple' kind of thing. People don't get it unless they have the experience themselves.

I have been thinking about trying to explain this to Theravadins more...

And soon I will commence this project.

Virgo

[jet.urgyen]

You can't just make up stuff and claim it is dharma just because you feel like it. If you have sources stating that one loses the bodhisattva vow because of killing an animal intentionally, you can present them. It is very unlikely that you do, since it doesn't seem to be the case.

The rest of your post is out of topic. As I said, I was talking about whether one loses the vow, not about whether killing animals is good. It is obviously negative and contrary to the bodhisattva ideal in general.

Did i?

Study is a needed intellectual excersice, a simulation, in order to engage in actual practice. Then you just need a few principles to remember, and the rest is up to you. Isn't obvious?

That is not necessarily the case. Without study, and without understanding and correctly interpreting what one is studying, one is likely to be practicing the wrong thing and end up with the wrong result. Also, if one is planning to teach the dharma to others, then just keeping to mind a few principles is not nearly enough.

i think that's correct, one should be checking the Buddha's words like reading a map.

yeah, well, imo mastering a book ain't enough for teaching dharma. one must master the whole pathway, and that's very very difficult. for example being able to answer "how in the heck can be moral for a monk being able to kill animals, confess, and keep being living a holy life at the eyes of everyone else? how can it be considered a lesser thing?" by means of understanding and explaining the principle behind the rule, not just the mere rule, is sign of understanding, which is the thing to teach (knowledge). but again, this is just how i see it.

[Aryjna]

Did i?

Study is a needed intellectual excersice, a simulation, in order to engage in actual practice. Then you just need a few principles to remember, and the rest is up to you. Isn't obvious?

That is not necessarily the case. Without study, and without understanding and correctly interpreting what one is studying, one is likely to be practicing the wrong thing and end up with the wrong result. Also, if one is planning to teach the dharma to others, then just keeping to mind a few principles is not nearly enough.

i think that's correct, one should be checking the Buddha's words like reading a map.

yeah, well, imo mastering a book ain't enough for teaching dharma. one must master the whole pathway, and that's very very difficult.

Sure, it is not just about knowing texts.

for example being able to answer "how in the heck can be moral for a monk being able to kill animals, confess, and keep being living a holy life at the eyes of everyone else? how can it be considered a lesser thing?" by means of understanding and explaining the principle behind the rule, not just the mere rule, is sign of understanding, which is the thing to teach (knowledge). but again, this is just how i see it.

On the other hand, there is the case where a monk or nun may kill a mosquito intentionally out of momentary frustration or a similar reason. If killing an animal was the same as killing a human in the vinaya, they would permanently lose their monastic vows. Also, there would be no way to use medicine to remove/kill lice or bedbugs, or deal with insect infestations, which could create serious health concerns in monasteries.

[Tolya M]

One time I used to think that the sense of "prāṇātipāta vairamaṇya śikṣāpadaṃ samādayāmi" is actually the compound of
प्राण m. prANa life and अतिपात m. atipAta ill-usage.

Because in the case of "murder" only it turns out that beating, cutting off the nose, etc., upasaka-rules are not violated. Thus, a more general concept conveys the meaning better.

[Tolya M]

In general, this is a very big topic. I think that hanging out with girlfriends who do not even share the correct mundane view is kāmamithyācāra, because unlike prostitutes, they exert a bad ideological influence.

This topic, it must be admitted, is not sufficiently covered by the authors although it is important.

But the Indian society of the past is no longer available. And there is no interpretation of the rules for nowaday times.