Fishing And The Precepts

[mrt273nva]

I would suggest getting barb-less hooks so that there is minimal damage done to the fish. The fish can even be unhooked without even leaving the water. If your mind is getting hung up on the fish then maybe it is something you should meditate on and then make your decision whether you should fish or not. Luckily fish have very short memories and will forget that they were even caught within seconds of letting them go (this is what I have heard, but I'm not a scientist) so there is no harm done to the fish.

[SeerObserver]

I would suggest getting barb-less hooks so that there is minimal damage done to the fish. The fish can even be unhooked without even leaving the water. If your mind is getting hung up on the fish then maybe it is something you should meditate on and then make your decision whether you should fish or not. Luckily fish have very short memories and will forget that they were even caught within seconds of letting them go (this is what I have heard, but I'm not a scientist) so there is no harm done to the fish.

Except for that they now have a gash in their mouth and will get gashed again and again due to this supposed poor memory.

[kimincm]

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.

I hope you people disagreeing with fishing don't eat fish,for that would really open a can of worms.

[sabaijai]

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.

It goes without saying that perception can be wrong. Neither you nor I can say what kind of citta is arising with another person. But kamma knows.

Even if we think we know something is akusala, there are conditions in which akusala can act as an agent for kusala.

Let's suppose you see someone fishing, and you think that this is akusala kamma and you decide to do something to stop it, either verbally or physically. Is your intention kusala or akusala?

Kusala and akusala as catalysts for each other

An act of faith or generosity, moral purity, or even an experience of insight during meditation, which are all kusala conditions, can precipitate the arising of conceit, pride and arrogance. Conceit and pride are akusala conditions. This situation is known as "kusala acting as an agent for akusala." Meditation practice can lead to highly concentrated states of mind (kusala), which in turn can lead to attachment (akusala). The development of thoughts of goodwill and benevolence to others (kusala), can, in the presence of a desirable object, precipitate the arising of lust (akusala). These are examples of kusala acting as an agent for akusala.

Sometimes moral or meditation practice (kusala) can be based on a desire to be reborn in heaven (akusala). A child's good behavior (kusala) can be based on a desire to show off to its elders (akusala); a student's zeal in learning (kusala) can stem from ambition (akusala); anger (akusala), seen in the light of its harmful effects, can lead to wise reflection and forgiveness (kusala); the fear of death (akusala) can encourage introspection (kusala): these are all examples of akusala as an agent for kusala.

An example: the parents of a teenage boy warn their son that his friends are a bad influence on him, but he takes no notice and is lured into drug addiction. On realizing his situation, he is at first angered and depressed, then, remembering his parents' warnings, he is moved by their compassion (akusala as an agent for kusala), but this in turn merely aggravates his own self-hatred (kusala as an agent for akusala).

These changes from kusala to akusala, or akusala to kusala, occur so rapidly that the untrained mind is rarely able to see them.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/9280/kamma2.htm

[mrt273nva]

I would suggest getting barb-less hooks so that there is minimal damage done to the fish. The fish can even be unhooked without even leaving the water. If your mind is getting hung up on the fish then maybe it is something you should meditate on and then make your decision whether you should fish or not. Luckily fish have very short memories and will forget that they were even caught within seconds of letting them go (this is what I have heard, but I'm not a scientist) so there is no harm done to the fish.

Except for that they now have a gash in their mouth and will get gashed again and again due to this supposed poor memory.

it is a good thing that there are no nerve endings around the fish's mouth and it is also a good thing that the fish has no ego and no sense of vanity so that it wouldn't be concerned with a small hole that would soon close anyway. I guess my first sentence suggesting barb-less hooks to reduce damage went over your head though.

[camerata]

Loss of freedom is dukkha. As soon as a fish is caught on a hook it is suffering. If it is pulled out of the water it is suffering more, not just because it's been forced into an alien environment but because it immediately starts to "drown" in oxygen. If you've ever got your clothes caught on barbed wire or brambles you'll have an idea how this feels. Not being free to do what you want to do creates instant frustration, which is dukkha.

Ajahn Sumedho tells a story in his recent book about a fisherman who asked permission to fish in the temple's pond and promised to set the fish free again. But Ajahn Sumedho refused because he said he could see the fish were suffering when caught.

[rockyysdt]

Excellent resource sabaijai.

[phetaroi]

I hope you people disagreeing with fishing don't eat fish,for that would really open a can of worms.

I agree with you hook, line, and sinker!

[phetaroi]

Ajahn Sumedho tells a story in his recent book about a fisherman who asked permission to fish in the temple's pond and promised to set the fish free again. But Ajahn Sumedho refused because he said he could see the fish were suffering when caught.

In fact, I have visited a number of riverside temples throughout Thailand where fishing is not allowed for that very reason.

[SeerObserver]

I would suggest getting barb-less hooks so that there is minimal damage done to the fish. The fish can even be unhooked without even leaving the water. If your mind is getting hung up on the fish then maybe it is something you should meditate on and then make your decision whether you should fish or not. Luckily fish have very short memories and will forget that they were even caught within seconds of letting them go (this is what I have heard, but I'm not a scientist) so there is no harm done to the fish.

Except for that they now have a gash in their mouth and will get gashed again and again due to this supposed poor memory.

it is a good thing that there are no nerve endings around the fish's mouth and it is also a good thing that the fish has no ego and no sense of vanity so that it wouldn't be concerned with a small hole that would soon close anyway. I guess my first sentence suggesting barb-less hooks to reduce damage went over your head though.

There was no misunderstanding of your point...just disagreement. It is ok to disagree with someone, so there is no need to take it so personally and respons with ad-homs. Although my response sounded a bit curt, in general nobody is really trying to judge anyone...just have a discussion over the topic from a Buddhist POV on a Buddhist forum.

I've heard the scientific arguments about there being no nerve endings and also a point about the hooks without the barb that will tear the side of the mouth when you remove it. Right...I'm even with you that fish probably don't have that same vanity that you're talking about as well. But the hole from the hook closing up soon...how soon? Will it be closed before the next hook that they go after? I'm not all that familiar with using those hooks. I'm assuming they fish may still be hungry after the first release and possibly go after another bait. This is highly speculative, I know. But it's possible that they could have a series of gashes in their mouth that inhibit function at least for a period of time. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I raised these questions in the previous post.

So which stance of yours are you really standing behind though? One of your highlighted points says minimal damage, and the other says no damage. After that you then say, ""reduce damage". I could see what you mean though in that it seems you argue that long-term there is no damage, but the jury will always be out on the general issue.

Edited April 13, 2009 by SeerObserver

[mrt273nva]

Loss of freedom is dukkha. As soon as a fish is caught on a hook it is suffering. If it is pulled out of the water it is suffering more, not just because it's been forced into an alien environment but because it immediately starts to "drown" in oxygen. If you've ever got your clothes caught on barbed wire or brambles you'll have an idea how this feels. Not being free to do what you want to do creates instant frustration, which is dukkha.

the precepts limit what you are free to do and causes instant frustration. is this also known as dukkha? the fish that is on the end of the line should find the middle path and not be frustrated because it was deceived into eating food with strings attached. the fish should also not gloat because it found a piece of food floating in the water where no other food is to be found. instead, the fish should realize that it's self sacrificing behavior that is given to the angler at the other end of the line is a gesture of it's selflessness. soon the fish will obtain nirvana by being one of the few in it's school to graduate from swimming to full on aerial acrobatics in a series of twists and turns that could never be accomplished by a fish in it's own environment. the fish is a hungry ghost (fish not ghost) that is aimlessly looking for that hook in life to pull them from the depths of despair. and also, after you kill it, are you not giving it another chance at a better reincarnated life? it is said that to be reincarnated as a human is rare, so why not give this being another shot at the big time, because it obviously went wrong when it was born as a fish. perhaps the tables were turned and the fish was a former angler that used some random fish a chum to catch bigger fish. the philosophy could go on and on and the scenarios could continue however i have no reel point except that i feel there is no problem fishing and that the fish most likely have no problem being fished. we can't all be at the top of the food pyramid (if you weren't then how buddhist would you really be?). monks could not survive if it were not for the lay buhhdist doing all the dirty work (such as catching fish for monks). anyway, i'm rambling. my knowledge of buhhdism is limited as is yours, so have away at my response. convince me that fishing is wrong and i will stop. if you don't stop me then you are subjecting many fish to further "harm", but that is up to you.

[camerata]

the precepts limit what you are free to do and causes instant frustration.

Following the precepts don't cause me any frustration because I chose to follow them to make myself a better person. It's all about getting control of the monkey mind, not letting it have its own way. This is my choice. Being caught on a hook is not the fish's choice.

monks could not survive if it were not for the lay buhhdist doing all the dirty work (such as catching fish for monks). anyway, i'm rambling. my knowledge of buhhdism is limited as is yours, so have away at my response. convince me that fishing is wrong and i will stop. if you don't stop me then you are subjecting many fish to further "harm", but that is up to you.

We can all make up convoluted excuses why we should be able to break the precepts to suit our mind's desires, but then we don't get the benefit of the precepts. Monks don't kill fish. Monks don't ask others to kill fish for them. This is a subject that's been done to death already. For one who follows the Buddha's teachings, it is not against any precept to simply eat a fish.

This is a discussion about fishing and the Buddha's precepts. It's not up to me to convince you of anything, and if you harm fish it's your own akusala kamma. The kusala kamma is mine for pointing out that it's unskillful.

[robblok]

There was no misunderstanding of your point...just disagreement. It is ok to disagree with someone, so there is no need to take it so personally and respons with ad-homs. Although my response sounded a bit curt, in general nobody is really trying to judge anyone...just have a discussion over the topic from a Buddhist POV on a Buddhist forum.

I've heard the scientific arguments about there being no nerve endings and also a point about the hooks without the barb that will tear the side of the mouth when you remove it. Right...I'm even with you that fish probably don't have that same vanity that you're talking about as well. But the hole from the hook closing up soon...how soon? Will it be closed before the next hook that they go after? I'm not all that familiar with using those hooks. I'm assuming they fish may still be hungry after the first release and possibly go after another bait. This is highly speculative, I know. But it's possible that they could have a series of gashes in their mouth that inhibit function at least for a period of time. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I raised these questions in the previous post.

So which stance of yours are you really standing behind though? One of your highlighted points says minimal damage, and the other says no damage. After that you then say, ""reduce damage". I could see what you mean though in that it seems you argue that long-term there is no damage, but the jury will always be out on the general issue.

It all depends how someone fishes how much damage is done. If done correctly there will be little to no damage. Using a hook without a barb is one thing to do (you could loose more fish but i don't care). Also making sure things are flexible is important that means the gash is real small.

I have seen fish getting hooked twice, i must say its a real rare occasion but it happens. I try to minimize damage to the fish as a good angler should.

That does not mean however that it always goes as planned there are situations where a fish could be damaged but that is certainly not the intention.

Anyway to each his / her own most of you guys are quite reasonable with one or two post as an exception that rattled my cage and made me flame back. I don't need Budist permission to fish as i have no religion i was just anoyed by someone calling it a cruel and unnecessary pastime. I considered that bad taste so i flamed religion back.