the great vegetarian debate

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Spiny Norman » Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:16 am

Ron-The-Elder wrote: If we support butchery then we are in effect supporting wrong livelihood. :buddha2:


Good point.
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: With the cockney chimney-sweeps in Mary Poppins

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Spiny Norman » Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:18 am

Durt_Dawg wrote:Sigh... its not about break da rule or Buddha said "no". It's about how much compassion you have or how much you want to cultivate ya compassion!


The spirit of the Buddhist precepts is certainly about non-harm, and I agree that obsession with the rules - the letter of the law - is completely missing the point. It's a bit like the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. ;)
Last edited by Spiny Norman on Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: With the cockney chimney-sweeps in Mary Poppins

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Spiny Norman » Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:20 am

Cittasanto wrote:
porpoise wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:yes and on that we agree, yet you are twisting a rule out of shape to draw that conclusion.


So it's OK to buy a turkey "off the shelf" at a butchers, but it's not OK to go into the butchers and order a Christmas turkey?


like I said "the best that rule could inform lay practice is"


The intention of the 3-fold rule is that we should not cause another life to be taken. In the example above it seems to me that both options result in another turkey being killed.
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: With the cockney chimney-sweeps in Mary Poppins

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby cooran » Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:56 am

Hello all,

I seem to post this every year or so in this thread.

These articles present the Theravada understanding of what the Buddha taught regarding vegetarianism.

What the Buddha said about eating Meat ~ Ajahn Brahmavamso
http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebsut034.htm

On Vegetarianism ~ Binh Anson
http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha022.htm

Buddhism and Vegetarianism - Ajahn Jagaro
http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha151.htm

Buddhism and Vegetarianism - The Rationale for the Buddha's Views on the Consumption of Meat by Dr V. A. Gunasekara
http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha069.htm

Are You Herbivore or Carnivore?
A Critical Analysis on Issues of Vegetarianism - Breaking Out Among the Buddhists for Centuries
- by Jan Sanjivaputta
http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha156.htm

Vegetarianism - Venerable K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera
http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha189.htm

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
cooran
 
Posts: 7510
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Cittasanto » Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:48 pm

porpoise wrote:The intention of the 3-fold rule is that we should not cause another life to be taken. In the example above it seems to me that both options result in another turkey being killed.

hI Porpoise,
please read what else I have said on the matter of that rule.

it is not a rule for lay people, and is layed down for mendicants for a reason
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5741
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:03 pm

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Ron,

Ron-The-Elder wrote:If we support butchery then we are in effect supporting wrong livelihood. :buddha2:

If that's your interpretation of the Dhamma, then by all means do what you think best as a layman. No one will stop you being vegetarian.

However, to call the Vinaya laid down for mendicants a "cop out" is over-reaching and disrespectful to the Buddha.

Metta,
Retro. :)


Metta back to you, Retro, and I mean no disrespect to The Buddha. When I see these inconsistencies in supposedly "What the Buddha said" I get this sick feeling that subsequent translators of The Dhamma snuck in their particular biases for whatever their own reasons. On another forum we started a thread entitled "false teachings". Perhaps we need one here which points out such inconsistencies. For example in Saddhammapatirupaka Sutta: A Counterfeit of the True Dhamma Buddha explained that we had to expect this and to be alert for this ourselves:

On one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven. Maha Kassapa went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "What is the cause, lord, what is the reason, why before there were fewer training rules and yet more monks established in final gnosis, whereas now there are more training rules and yet fewer monks established in final gnosis?"

"That's the way it is, Kassapa. When beings are degenerating and the true Dhamma is disappearing, there are more training rules and yet fewer monks established in final gnosis. There is no disappearance of the true Dhamma as long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of the true Dhamma when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has arisen in the world. Just as there is no disappearance of gold as long as a counterfeit of gold has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of gold when a counterfeit of gold has arisen in the world, in the same way there is no disappearance of the true Dhamma as long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of the true Dhamma when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has arisen in the world.[1]

"It's not the earth property that makes the true Dhamma disappear. It's not the water property... the fire property... the wind property that makes the true Dhamma disappear.[2] It's worthless people who arise right here [within the Sangha] who make the true Dhamma disappear. The true Dhamma doesn't disappear the way a boat sinks all at once.

"These five downward-leading qualities tend to the confusion and disappearance of the true Dhamma. Which five? There is the case where the monks, nuns, male lay followers, & female lay followers live without respect, without deference, for the Teacher. They live without respect, without deference, for the Dhamma... for the Sangha... for the Training... for concentration. These are the five downward-leading qualities that tend to the confusion and disappearance of the true Dhamma.

"But these five qualities tend to the stability, the non-confusion, the non-disappearance of the true Dhamma. Which five? There is the case where the monks, nuns, male lay followers, & female lay followers live with respect, with deference, for the Teacher. They live with respect, with deference, for the Dhamma... for the Sangha... for the Training... for concentration. These are the five qualities that tend to the stability, the non-confusion, the non-disappearance of the true Dhamma."

source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


True respect for The Buddha's words is to follow his teachings not defending one's personal views. :anjali: Ron
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
 
Posts: 1006
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:12 pm

cooran wrote:Hello all,

I seem to post this every year or so in this thread.

These articles present the Theravada understanding of what the Buddha taught regarding vegetarianism.

with metta
Chris


Thanks, Chris. I enjoy reading these every year. :anjali: Ron
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
 
Posts: 1006
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby marc108 » Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:49 pm

Bhante Sujato's blog post on why Buddhists should be vegetarian is very convincing imo. He brings up some interesting points, especially re: the Suttas not being the end all be all of ethics, ex: the Suttas lack of commentary on things like slavery.


http://sujato.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/ ... xtra-cute/

The Buddha clearly didnt ban eating meat directly, probably because his monks would have starved to death or placed undue burden on their lay supporters, but his basic 'code of conduct', re: the precept & the 8 fold path doesn't allow for animals to be traded or slaughtered for food.
"It's easy for us to connect with what's wrong with us... and not so easy to feel into, or to allow us, to connect with what's right and what's good in us."
User avatar
marc108
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:10 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby LonesomeYogurt » Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:36 pm

Cittasanto wrote:hI Porpoise,
please read what else I have said on the matter of that rule.

it is not a rule for lay people, and is layed down for mendicants for a reason

We all know that this is true. Placing dead flesh in your mouth is definitely allowable in Buddhism. But what you have failed to answer is the larger question: If the practice of eating meat causes suffering in both humans and animals, and we as Buddhists know that this is the case, can we have omnivorous diets while still maintaining our compassion and good will towards all beings?

Everyone agrees you can eat meat; I'm asking whether or not you should.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Cittasanto » Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:14 pm

Hi Marc
marc108 wrote:The Buddha clearly didnt ban eating meat directly, probably because his monks would have starved to death or placed undue burden on their lay supporters, but his basic 'code of conduct', re: the precept & the 8 fold path doesn't allow for animals to be traded or slaughtered for food.

Yes there are legitimate reasons without taking rules designed for mendicants out of context

[conduct changed to context]
Last edited by Cittasanto on Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5741
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby marc108 » Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:28 pm

Cittasanto wrote:Hi Marc
marc108 wrote:The Buddha clearly didnt ban eating meat directly, probably because his monks would have starved to death or placed undue burden on their lay supporters, but his basic 'code of conduct', re: the precept & the 8 fold path doesn't allow for animals to be traded or slaughtered for food.

Yes there are legitimate reasons without taking rules designed for mendicants out of conduct.


i dont understand what you mean?
"It's easy for us to connect with what's wrong with us... and not so easy to feel into, or to allow us, to connect with what's right and what's good in us."
User avatar
marc108
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:10 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Cittasanto » Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:49 pm

marc108 wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:Hi Marc
marc108 wrote:The Buddha clearly didnt ban eating meat directly, probably because his monks would have starved to death or placed undue burden on their lay supporters, but his basic 'code of conduct', re: the precept & the 8 fold path doesn't allow for animals to be traded or slaughtered for food.

Yes there are legitimate reasons without taking rules designed for mendicants out of conduct.


i dont understand what you mean?

I marc,
if you read the last three pages monastic rules are being used out of context, and unfortunately this actually twists and distorts the rule, even though as you point out there are perfectly sound reasons and arguments without relying upon monastic specific rules.

and just noticed my spelling error :)
conduct should be context and has been changed above
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5741
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Cittasanto » Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:57 pm

LonesomeYogurt wrote:We all know that this is true. Placing dead flesh in your mouth is definitely allowable in Buddhism.

I wasn't talking about eating meat there thanks

LonesomeYogurt wrote:But what you have failed to answer is the larger question: If the practice of eating meat causes suffering in both humans and animals, and we as Buddhists know that this is the case, can we have omnivorous diets while still maintaining our compassion and good will towards all beings?

you have obviously replied to something without reading it fully.
the only actual argument that could be supported within Buddhism is for a flexitarian type diet. eating vegetarian food when of your own design (bought/sought and made oneself) and eating meat when the food is offered such as as a guest at someone's home, so you are not inconveniencing them with special dietary needs not medically needed. this neither adopts the monastic rules nor goes against wrong livelihood; but then again eating a meat based diet does not specifically go against wrong livelihood as you are not making your living through that means, although if one is basing their argument on ahimsa - harmlessness (put down the stick and sword) the supply and demand argument is a valid one to make so long as it doesn't dictate onto others which would render the effacement regarding views (only this is correct) useless.


The maintaining of compassion is not dictated by diet and is not compromised by eating meat, if someone offers another food, and they are grateful for the work and sacrifice & reflective of the suffering of all beings involved that made the meal and for them to allay their hunger possible, then it is fine, there are other sources of meat than the abattoir BTW.

LonesomeYogurt wrote:Everyone agrees you can eat meat; I'm asking whether or not you should.
[/quote][/quote]
You don't actually know my eating habits, so best not guess!
I am pointing out it is best not to use rules of which there is only a cursory knowledge of because there are several thing which should be bore in mind regarding the rules which obviously are not being considered, such as the actual reasons for laying down rules, so what some have failed to notice is that the rules are not only a rule line as found in the patimokkha matika!
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5741
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby LonesomeYogurt » Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:46 pm

Cittasanto wrote:you have obviously replied to something without reading it fully.

I'm not asking, "Is it neat and nice to be a vegetarian?" I'm asking if you even can continue to eat meat while developing compassion and mindfulness! The discussion we're having here is whether or not vegetarianism is just nice, or whether it's an important and necessary step for the modern Buddhist.

The maintaining of compassion is not dictated by diet and is not compromised by eating meat, if someone offers another food, and they are grateful for the work and sacrifice & reflective of the suffering of all beings involved that made the meal and for them to allay their hunger possible, then it is fine, there are other sources of meat than the abattoir BTW.

Would it be appropriate to purchase fruits picked by slaves or diamonds harvested by children? Clearly such behaviors are permissible under a basic Buddhist ethical system, but can you really claim to be cultivating a limitless heart for all beings while making a basic choice that leads invariably to suffering, especially when an easy alternative with essentially no drawbacks exists?

You don't actually know my eating habits, so best not guess!

I don't mean you personally, just the general you.

I am pointing out it is best not to use rules of which there is only a cursory knowledge of because there are several thing which should be bore in mind regarding the rules which obviously are not being considered, such as the actual reasons for laying down rules, so what some have failed to notice is that the rules are not only a rule line as found in the patimokkha matika!

I agree there.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Cittasanto » Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:04 am

LonesomeYogurt wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:you have obviously replied to something without reading it fully.

I'm not asking, "Is it neat and nice to be a vegetarian?" I'm asking if you even can continue to eat meat while developing compassion and mindfulness! The discussion we're having here is whether or not vegetarianism is just nice, or whether it's an important and necessary step for the modern Buddhist.

and this was answered there, and further clarified - as you quote next - although don't forget equipoise!

The maintaining of compassion is not dictated by diet and is not compromised by eating meat, if someone offers another food, and they are grateful for the work and sacrifice & reflective of the suffering of all beings involved that made the meal and for them to allay their hunger possible, then it is fine, there are other sources of meat than the abattoir BTW.

Would it be appropriate to purchase fruits picked by slaves or diamonds harvested by children? Clearly such behaviors are permissible under a basic Buddhist ethical system, but can you really claim to be cultivating a limitless heart for all beings while making a basic choice that leads invariably to suffering, especially when an easy alternative with essentially no drawbacks exists?

The basic Buddhist Ethical system is timeless, any more is a luxury not affordable at all times & places, for all people, there is the ideal and then the reality of situations!
take the case of the Inuit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet
or the "manic depressive" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0NjS-_i ... ure=relmfu from 33 mins.
famine and lack of resources on an individual scale can still happen today, and there are those who scavenge bins for food and other resources (sometimes as a lifestyle choice sometimes not) and an individuals resources are needed to be considered on an individual basis, otherwise there is the risk of moralizing.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5741
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Spiny Norman » Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:28 am

Cittasanto wrote:
porpoise wrote:The intention of the 3-fold rule is that we should not cause another life to be taken. In the example above it seems to me that both options result in another turkey being killed.

hI Porpoise,
please read what else I have said on the matter of that rule.

it is not a rule for lay people, and is layed down for mendicants for a reason


OK, so would these verses from the Dhammapada have more general application? Note the section about not causing another to kill.

129. All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
130. All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: With the cockney chimney-sweeps in Mary Poppins

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby marc108 » Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:36 pm

Cittasanto wrote:if you read the last three pages monastic rules are being used out of context, and unfortunately this actually twists and distorts the rule, even though as you point out there are perfectly sound reasons and arguments without relying upon monastic specific rules.

and just noticed my spelling error :)
conduct should be context and has been changed above


ah I see. thanks for clarifying :)
"It's easy for us to connect with what's wrong with us... and not so easy to feel into, or to allow us, to connect with what's right and what's good in us."
User avatar
marc108
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:10 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Cittasanto » Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:27 pm

porpoise wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
porpoise wrote:The intention of the 3-fold rule is that we should not cause another life to be taken. In the example above it seems to me that both options result in another turkey being killed.

hI Porpoise,
please read what else I have said on the matter of that rule.

it is not a rule for lay people, and is layed down for mendicants for a reason


OK, so would these verses from the Dhammapada have more general application? Note the section about not causing another to kill.

129. All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
130. All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

yes these would, However, please understand the rule you are trying to use is saying something else to these verses; and what these verses are talking about are within the pārājika 3 & pācittiyā 61 not the Mahavagga passage or context you are trying to put it into.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5741
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Cittasanto » Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:32 pm

marc108 wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:if you read the last three pages monastic rules are being used out of context, and unfortunately this actually twists and distorts the rule, even though as you point out there are perfectly sound reasons and arguments without relying upon monastic specific rules.

and just noticed my spelling error :)
conduct should be context and has been changed above


ah I see. thanks for clarifying :)

no problem :)
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5741
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Spiny Norman » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:17 am

Cittasanto wrote:
porpoise wrote:OK, so would these verses from the Dhammapada have more general application? Note the section about not causing another to kill.

129. All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
130. All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.



yes these would, However, please understand the rule you are trying to use is saying something else to these verses; and what these verses are talking about are within the pārājika 3 & pācittiyā 61 not the Mahavagga passage or context you are trying to put it into.


Sorry but you've lost me - are you saying these Dhammapada verses don't have general application?
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: With the cockney chimney-sweeps in Mary Poppins

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest