Fishing And The Precepts

[Talisman]

As a Buddhist, I always try and comply with the five precepts: Here is my problem;

Some people interpret the first precept as meaning: we must not kill other sentient beings!

Another interpretation being: that we should not harm other sentient beings!

I fish for sport; therefore I release any fish caught: so I do not kill! But am I harming a fish, in releasing it unharmed???

[OldSarge]

The first precept is sometimes rendered into English this way:

"The first precept admonishes against the destruction of life. This is based on the principle of goodwill and respect for the right to life of all living beings."

One of the fundamental differences between Buddhism - as I understand the Dharma - and Christianity is this idea of sin, violation of the Commandments, violation of the Precepts. The point of the precepts is not the simple avoidance of those acts or acts like those in the precepts. The point is to restrain our behavior and - for lack of a more concise way to say it - refine our moral sense and compassion so that we are a person who would not violate the precepts. The Christian emphasis is upon each commission of sin or sin of ommision; each violation and the consequent need for repentance, for confession by some method or another, for punishment and for forgiveness by God or his represenative for the violation of his law. As I understand the Dharma, the emphasis is upon following the precepts to avoid the consequences to ourselves, both literally in life and in our rebirth via kamma, of violations of the precepts. There is no violation, no need for repentance etc, and of course, the subsequent re-commission, etc. Rather there is a lesson learned, a resolution, a self-restraint, which avoid our repetition. Followed by meditation to examine the connection between this restraint and our freedom from contamination, ultimately breaking the bonds tieing us to rebirth. Whether we are forgiven or not, our actions cause consequences; this is the law of cause and effect, the law of conditional origination, which is the foundation of the Dhamma. Refraining from the acts - as acts of intention - reduces the ill consequences. But intention is not a requirement for causation.

Observe that in the very act of living, our bodies' natural immune systems and all that create the necessary and sufficient conditions for our physical existences, whether we will or intend it to happen or not, kills millions of living things, so that we may continue to live. If nirbana requires that we kill nothing ever, then we are all doomed - are we not? - by the very character and nature of our means of living, literally. Plainly, that is not what the Dhamma means. The precepts therefore, I take to be guides to creating a habit within our hearts of self-restraint, so that we may learn and train our hearts further to our own eventual freedom. It is not possible to never violate the precepts; that isn't what the Dhamma is about.

I do not answer this way to make fun of your question, but to express the opinion that you ask the wrong question, as a Buddhist who intends to adhere to the precepts. And to explain why that is my opinion. Nor do I intend by my answer to insult those of our brothers and sisters who are Christian, but rather to explicate what I perceive to be an important difference between Christianity and Buddhism.

[camerata]

I fish for sport; therefore I release any fish caught: so I do not kill! But am I harming a fish, in releasing it unharmed???

Well, clearly killing is worse than harming. You may not be killing the fish but you are probably causing them a lot of suffering. I read recently that the sport of angling is only allowed in the UK because scientists believe fish don't feel pain (that is now being disputed), but it's pretty obvious they suffer when they are yanked out of their world gasping and thrashing around.

In one of Ajahn Sumedho's books he mentions that an angler asks if he can fish in a pond on the monastery's grounds if he puts the fish back after they are caught. But Aj Sumedho says he could see that the fish were suffering when caught, so he wouldn't allow it.

[Crushdepth]

But am I harming a fish, in releasing it unharmed???

Firstly, it will suffer varying degrees of physical damage from the hook, second you will stress the living daylights out of it, and third while two things are quite possibly fatal in themselves they will also leave it more vulnerable to disease until (if) it recovers.

So are you harming the fish: Absolutely yes. But I have no idea about Bhuddist precepts, so whether you think this is acceptable or not is up to you.

[robitusson]

Part of keeping the precepts is developing a mindset of kindness and respect for life. The purpose of the keeping the no killing precept is to develop our compassion and understanding of the preciousness of life as we progress on the path, not just to stick by the rules for the sake of it. If we're keeping the precept rigorously while causing harm to others, which fishing obviously does in my opinion, it misses the point .

Edited May 24, 2006 by robitusson

[sabaijai]

The key is your intention. The example of the immune system doesn't apply since there is no intention to harm.

kusala citta (wholesome thought) --> kusala kamma (wholesome intended action) --> kusala vipaka (wholesome result)

Karma/kamma = intended action

[OldSarge]

sabaijai: Precisely and concisely. Well-said!

[Sheryl]

Yes, intention (volituion) is the key -- but what is the intention here?

It is to enjoy oneself despite causing probable suffering to another living being.

That's not a good volition.

Fishing as described may not technically violate the first precept but it is most definitely harmful to both the fish and the person who does it.

Developing in Dhamma requires more than just the 5 precepts..it involves development of a pure and compassionate mind. Cultivating compassion is essential.

I think if the OP really focuses on the fish and images being in their place -- or perhaps the human equivalent, which would be being yanked underwater, starting to drown, and then pulled out (a form of torture), he will come to feel revulsion for the very idea and will cease to have any desire to do this -- in fact will become unable to do such a thing. Which is what is important -- merely forcing oneslef to abstain from a wrong action without eradicating the underlying volition is of limited benefit because the mind remains defiled. It's also quite difficult to do and creates tension.

The original question both answers itself as soon as one imagines oneself as the fish. ANd the dilemma is solved, because with a clear understanding of what the fish go through and that they are sentient beings like oneself. the desire to do this will vanish.

[fabianfred]

I really used to love Angling..... (being the type of fishing done with a rod & line..... since Fishing includes both trawlers and explosives).... it was my number one hobby since the age of seven.... until I learned in depth about the law of karma from Luang por jaran.

I collected fishing tackle of all sorts....antique rods of cane and old reels...even going to auctions for them. I amassed a large library of books on Angling (over 500 titles)...buying them from specialist dealers.... and large collections of Angling magazines and periodicals, either as complete sets or searching to complete my own sets. I even wrote in a few magazines myself...

I don't think i was particularly successful as an angler.... but enjoyed manipulating the tackle and being in the countryside.

I started to employ methods to reduce the suffering to the fish....... knotless nets...... barbless hooks..... and eventually using no nets to retain fish and just releasing them as caught...in an attempt to reduce the stress upon them.

I just came to the decision to stop one day...and sold or gave away the lot...... the subject is still of interest to me...but i am unable to pursue it now.

[rockyysdt]

I really used to love Angling..... (being the type of fishing done with a rod & line..... since Fishing includes both trawlers and explosives).... it was my number one hobby since the age of seven.... until I learned in depth about the law of karma from Luang por jaran.

Do you think it may take much effort in this & possibly future lives to eradicate any accumulated negative kamma?

[rockyysdt]

The key is your intention. The example of the immune system doesn't apply since there is no intention to harm.

kusala citta (wholesome thought) --> kusala kamma (wholesome intended action) --> kusala vipaka (wholesome result)

Can't perceived "wholesome thought" be attributed to a lack of "self awareness" & "awareness", things which can be overcome with practice?

Isn't ones current state of awareness a measure of ones defilement & khamma?

Therefore, isn't poor behaviour due to lack of awareness indefensible?

[fabianfred]

I really used to love Angling..... (being the type of fishing done with a rod & line..... since Fishing includes both trawlers and explosives).... it was my number one hobby since the age of seven.... until I learned in depth about the law of karma from Luang por jaran.

Do you think it may take much effort in this & possibly future lives to eradicate any accumulated negative kamma?

I think i was always concerned about the fish and distressed if they suffered....except the few occasions when i killed Pike or Trout for the table...but in those days I was ignorant of the truth....

I hope I have done enough skillful karma since to swamp the unskillful, and aim to achieve Sotapanna in this life....after which any suffering which comes to me from past karma I will be glad to settle the bill until i escape altogether

[fabianfred]

We have to realise that all beings cherish life...even mosquitoes flee when we attempt to swat them

[camerata]

Supposedly, fish have no central nervous system and so can't feel pain. But recent research seems to show that both fish and crustaceans can feel discomfort.

In Australia's recent debate on abortion, Ajahn Brahm (representing Buddhists) has argued that you cannot "harm" (cause suffering to) a being if it has no nervous system, so an early abortion - before the nervous system has developed in the foetus - wouldn't violate the precepts. This seems pretty dodgy to me.

[phetaroi]

Yes, intention (volituion) is the key -- but what is the intention here?

It is to enjoy oneself despite causing probable suffering to another living being.

That's not a good volition.

Fishing as described may not technically violate the first precept but it is most definitely harmful to both the fish and the person who does it.

Developing in Dhamma requires more than just the 5 precepts..it involves development of a pure and compassionate mind. Cultivating compassion is essential.

I think if the OP really focuses on the fish and images being in their place -- or perhaps the human equivalent, which would be being yanked underwater, starting to drown, and then pulled out (a form of torture), he will come to feel revulsion for the very idea and will cease to have any desire to do this -- in fact will become unable to do such a thing. Which is what is important -- merely forcing oneslef to abstain from a wrong action without eradicating the underlying volition is of limited benefit because the mind remains defiled. It's also quite difficult to do and creates tension.

The original question both answers itself as soon as one imagines oneself as the fish. And the dilemma is solved, because with a clear understanding of what the fish go through and that they are sentient beings like oneself. the desire to do this will vanish.

Sheryl, I think you've provided the best insight here. Philosophically, I think what is most grievous in the situation is the causing of harm of an animal just so the person can have "fun".

[fabianfred]

Supposedly, fish have no central nervous system and so can't feel pain. But recent research seems to show that both fish and crustaceans can feel discomfort.

In Australia's recent debate on abortion, Ajahn Brahm (representing Buddhists) has argued that you cannot "harm" (cause suffering to) a being if it has no nervous system, so an early abortion - before the nervous system has developed in the foetus - wouldn't violate the precepts. This seems pretty dodgy to me.

Buddhism seems to accept that the entity enters the human foetus any time between conception and a few days after birth....... harm is not the issue........ one is depriving a being from the rare and precious opportunity of human rebirth

[SeerObserver]

Supposedly, fish have no central nervous system and so can't feel pain. But recent research seems to show that both fish and crustaceans can feel discomfort.

In addition to that, aside from the pain fish are harmed since much recreational fishing involves hooking which can leave a mouth in tatters rendering a fish unable to eat as effectively (or at all).

[khaojao]

As a Buddhist, I always try and comply with the five precepts: Here is my problem;

Some people interpret the first precept as meaning: we must not kill other sentient beings!

Another interpretation being: that we should not harm other sentient beings!

I fish for sport; therefore I release any fish caught: so I do not kill! But am I harming a fish, in releasing it unharmed???

What is it about fishing that you like?

[robblok]

As a Buddhist, I always try and comply with the five precepts: Here is my problem;

Some people interpret the first precept as meaning: we must not kill other sentient beings!

Another interpretation being: that we should not harm other sentient beings!

I fish for sport; therefore I release any fish caught: so I do not kill! But am I harming a fish, in releasing it unharmed???

What is it about fishing that you like?

Fishing is fun, though not everyone thinks that way. Im an atheist so i dont have to worry about my beliefs but i do try to handle the fish as best i can. Many people fish so it clearly isnt a problem with everyone. I see zillions of thais when im fishing who do the same.

Buddism is nice but i doubt there are many true buddists around if they would follow all the rules. Only a select few can follow all the rules.

For me i just go out fishing and enjoy my day out. Its all about skill luck and the unknown.

[Yamantaka]

Motivation is an important element of karma. Finding pleasure in piercing a sentient being with a hook, dragging it out of the water where it begins to suffocate is certainly doing it harm. And since the motivation appears to be ego gratification derided from being able to outsmart or outmaneuver a creature with a brain the size of a pea, there can be no positive aspect to this. It would be my ignorant opinion that you have enough wisdom to know that this is a cruel and unnecessary pastime, and enough compassion to ask for someone to reinforce that understanding.

[phetaroi]

Motivation is an important element of karma. Finding pleasure in piercing a sentient being with a hook, dragging it out of the water where it begins to suffocate is certainly doing it harm. And since the motivation appears to be ego gratification derided from being able to outsmart or outmaneuver a creature with a brain the size of a pea, there can be no positive aspect to this. It would be my ignorant opinion that you have enough wisdom to know that this is a cruel and unnecessary pastime, and enough compassion to ask for someone to reinforce that understanding.

I pretty much agree, and I've felt that way since I was 10 years old! Fishing for food...that's one thing. Fishing purely for sport...quite another.

[markwhite]

Some people interpret the first precept as meaning: we must not kill other sentient beings!

Another interpretation being: that we should not harm other sentient beings!

Another interpretation is that we should not kill [waste] this [opportunity of] life.

Ie: don't waste time.

Do what you do. You will change what you do at the right time if you need to.

[robblok]

Motivation is an important element of karma. Finding pleasure in piercing a sentient being with a hook, dragging it out of the water where it begins to suffocate is certainly doing it harm. And since the motivation appears to be ego gratification derided from being able to outsmart or outmaneuver a creature with a brain the size of a pea, there can be no positive aspect to this. It would be my ignorant opinion that you have enough wisdom to know that this is a cruel and unnecessary pastime, and enough compassion to ask for someone to reinforce that understanding.

One of the reasons im an atheist is because the fact that religion causes so much death and destruction. It also prohibits fun with crazy rules and it makes sure that people don't think for themselves. But if i had to choose (at gun point) it would be Buddhism that i would choose as religion because its the least bad of them all.

I think if you compare the trauma fishes have with all the problems caused by religion it would be better if we all went fishing.

Just my humble opinion.

[sabaijai]

The key is your intention. The example of the immune system doesn't apply since there is no intention to harm.

kusala citta (wholesome thought) --> kusala kamma (wholesome intended action) --> kusala vipaka (wholesome result)

Can't perceived "wholesome thought" be attributed to a lack of "self awareness" & "awareness", things which can be overcome with practice?

Isn't ones current state of awareness a measure of ones defilement & khamma?

Therefore, isn't poor behaviour due to lack of awareness indefensible?

'Perceived' intention and actual intention may differ, but kusala citta can yield only kusala vipaka. A person might think their intention is kusala when it's actually akusala, of course. But that doesn't invalidate the natural law of karma.

[sabaijai]

The key is your intention. The example of the immune system doesn't apply since there is no intention to harm.

kusala citta (wholesome thought) --> kusala kamma (wholesome intended action) --> kusala vipaka (wholesome result)

Can't perceived "wholesome thought" be attributed to a lack of "self awareness" & "awareness", things which can be overcome with practice?

Isn't ones current state of awareness a measure of ones defilement & khamma?

Therefore, isn't poor behaviour due to lack of awareness indefensible?

'Perceived' intention and actual intention may differ, but kusala citta can yield only kusala vipaka. A person might think their intention is kusala when it's actually akusala, of course. But that doesn't invalidate the natural law of karma.

[rockyysdt]

The key is your intention. The example of the immune system doesn't apply since there is no intention to harm.

kusala citta (wholesome thought) --> kusala kamma (wholesome intended action) --> kusala vipaka (wholesome result)

Can't perceived "wholesome thought" be attributed to a lack of "self awareness" & "awareness", things which can be overcome with practice?

Isn't ones current state of awareness a measure of ones defilement & khamma?

Therefore, isn't poor behaviour due to lack of awareness indefensible?

'Perceived' intention and actual intention may differ, but kusala citta can yield only kusala vipaka. A person might think their intention is kusala when it's actually akusala, of course. But that doesn't invalidate the natural law of karma.

The concern is that you might think your intention is kusala citta (wholesome thought), but it might be the opposite due to your "beliefs, lack of self awareness & awareness generally which color your thoughts & decisions.

Your self deception may be due to the result of previously accumulated negative khamma.

So despite your perceived kusala citta (wholesome thought) & your perceived kusala kamma (wholesome intended action), your actions may cause akusala citta & akusala kamma.

Whilst anchored to the "I" our thoughts & beliefs are coloured.

What I'm suggesting is that "good intention" may not be enough as your good intention may only be your perception.

In summary, even if you think you have "wholesome thought" which should result in "wholesome intended action" you might be fooling yourself & going backwards.

Edited April 12, 2009 by rockyysdt

[khaojao]

how odd...the OP has disappeared.

i hope he is reflecting on his enjoyment that is conditioned by the suffering of other beings.

[phetaroi]

One of the reasons im an atheist is because the fact that religion causes so much death and destruction. It also prohibits fun with crazy rules and it makes sure that people don't think for themselves. But if i had to choose (at gun point) it would be Buddhism that i would choose as religion because its the least bad of them all.

I think if you compare the trauma fishes have with all the problems caused by religion it would be better if we all went fishing.

Just my humble opinion.

Religion can be a group thing or a personal thing, and if you see it as a personal thing, then it doesn't have to cause any death or destruction.

Religion prohibits fun with crazy rules? You mean like the Ten Commandments? Don't kill, steal, lie, etc.? And, again, depending on how you as an individual look at religion, you can use it as a framework for personal and cultural behavior without giving into "crazy rules". For example, you can be Catholic and still eat meat on Fridays. In a sense, you can "be" some religion, but take the middle path in that religion and still think for yourself.

I have no problem with anyone being an atheist, but I think you're looking at it in a rather lazy way, just as some look at faith in a lazy way...with no real thought.

[robblok]

One of the reasons im an atheist is because the fact that religion causes so much death and destruction. It also prohibits fun with crazy rules and it makes sure that people don't think for themselves. But if i had to choose (at gun point) it would be Buddhism that i would choose as religion because its the least bad of them all.

I think if you compare the trauma fishes have with all the problems caused by religion it would be better if we all went fishing.

Just my humble opinion.

Religion can be a group thing or a personal thing, and if you see it as a personal thing, then it doesn't have to cause any death or destruction.

Religion prohibits fun with crazy rules? You mean like the Ten Commandments? Don't kill, steal, lie, etc.? And, again, depending on how you as an individual look at religion, you can use it as a framework for personal and cultural behavior without giving into "crazy rules". For example, you can be Catholic and still eat meat on Fridays. In a sense, you can "be" some religion, but take the middle path in that religion and still think for yourself.

I have no problem with anyone being an atheist, but I think you're looking at it in a rather lazy way, just as some look at faith in a lazy way...with no real thought.

The thing is and i doubt you can deny it religion does cause death and destruction, we would be a lot better off if everyone was an atheist. That beeing said then we will probably find something else to kill each other for. But you are right if you keep your religion to yourself and don't bother others with its ok. I just hate people who try to force me to do certain things because they believe. Like porn is bad.. or you can't eat is fasting time ect. As long as people keep religion to them selves and don't force it on others its ok.

You were saying the ten commandments some of them are quite reasonable like don't kill but you don't have to be religious to understand those kind of things. The christians act like those commandments are christian.. to not kill is actually quite normal and to call it a christian thing is a bit crazy.

My previous post was more a flame towards the people who were attacking fishing then to the normal ppl around here. I enjoy my fishing and when someone flames me i flame back. There is something bad to be said about anything anybody does.

[phetaroi]

The thing is and i doubt you can deny it religion does cause death and destruction, we would be a lot better off if everyone was an atheist.

Yes, I do deny the accuracy of that statement. Not that any religions have always been right, and in fact, often wrong, but nevertheless over the centuries they have set up moral codes in different cultures that have normalized human behavior.

You were saying the ten commandments some of them are quite reasonable like don't kill but you don't have to be religious to understand those kind of things. The christians act like those commandments are christian.. to not kill is actually quite normal and to call it a christian thing is a bit crazy.

Frankly, I don't hear Christians saying that not killing is a Christian "thing" (as you put it). Every Christian I know acknowledges that that precept is common throughout most religions.

My previous post was more a flame towards the people who were attacking fishing then to the normal ppl around here. I enjoy my fishing and when someone flames me i flame back. There is something bad to be said about anything anybody does.

I don't see the statements in this thread to be flames, at all...although intent is everything...so I guess your posts are flames. This is a forum to discuss Thai Buddhist religious beliefs. And, clearly, several on here (including me) see fishing and hunting for sport a violation of Buddhist principles.