I know it to be true.cappuccino wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 4:13 pmYou know that’s not trueSpiny Norman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 3:57 pmThat's right. So Buddhists who buy meat are far from enlightenment, despite all the self-justifying BS.
Shame on them.
the great vegetarian debate
-
- Posts: 10154
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: the great vegetarian debate
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: the great vegetarian debate
No you don’t. It’s an opinion, and one that is still unsubstantiated. You have not shown how buying meat is unwholesome intention.Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 4:26 pmI know it to be true.cappuccino wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 4:13 pmYou know that’s not trueSpiny Norman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 3:57 pm
That's right. So Buddhists who buy meat are far from enlightenment, despite all the self-justifying BS.
Shame on them.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
-
- Posts: 10154
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: the great vegetarian debate
Buying meat contravenes the devlopment of harmlessness, an aspect of Right Intention.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 4:35 pmNo you don’t. It’s an opinion, and one that is still unsubstantiated. You have not shown how buying meat is unwholesome intention.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: the great vegetarian debate
Not that you have shown. When I buy some harm, I’m not intentionally killing anything or intentionally being cruel. Perhaps it does in Spinny Norman’s Dhamma, but no one is interested in that.Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 4:40 pmBuying meat contravenes the devlopment of harmlessness, an aspect of Right Intention.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
-
- Posts: 10154
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: the great vegetarian debate
Clearly you don't understand what developing harmlessness means.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 4:40 pmNot that you have shown. When I buy some harm, I’m not intentionally killing anything or intentionally being cruel. Perhaps it does in Spinny Norman’s Dhamma, but no one is interested in that.Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 4:40 pmBuying meat contravenes the devlopment of harmlessness, an aspect of Right Intention.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: the great vegetarian debate
I do, and it has nothing to do with your crypto Jainism beliefs.Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 4:48 pmClearly you don't understand what developing harmlessness means.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 4:40 pmNot that you have shown. When I buy some harm, I’m not intentionally killing anything or intentionally being cruel. Perhaps it does in Spinny Norman’s Dhamma, but no one is interested in that.Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 4:40 pm
Buying meat contravenes the devlopment of harmlessness, an aspect of Right Intention.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
-
- Posts: 10154
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: the great vegetarian debate
So what does developing harmlesness mean to you, practically speaking?Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 4:52 pmI do, and it has nothing to do with your crypto Jainism beliefs.Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 4:48 pmClearly you don't understand what developing harmlessness means.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: the great vegetarian debate
Refraining from unwholesome intention in body, speech and mind. Sense restraint, to hold back the development of the 2nd dart of anger, hate, fear and so on when struck by the first dart.Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 5:02 pmSo what does developing harmlesness mean to you, practically speaking?Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 4:52 pmI do, and it has nothing to do with your crypto Jainism beliefs.Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 4:48 pm
Clearly you don't understand what developing harmlessness means.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
Re: the great vegetarian debate
Sensory gratification is the primary motivation of meat consumption. It completely overwhelms any hint of metta or compassion that might arise and guide the meat eater’s actions.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 5:51 pmRefraining from unwholesome intention in body, speech and mind. Sense restraint, to hold back the development of the 2nd dart of anger, hate, fear and so on when struck by the first dart.Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 5:02 pm
So what does developing harmlesness mean to you, practically speaking?
-
- Posts: 10154
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: the great vegetarian debate
[james] wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 11:31 pmSensory gratification is the primary motivation of meat consumption. It completely overwhelms any hint of metta or compassion that might arise and guide the meat eater’s actions.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 5:51 pmRefraining from unwholesome intention in body, speech and mind. Sense restraint, to hold back the development of the 2nd dart of anger, hate, fear and so on when struck by the first dart.Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 5:02 pm
So what does developing harmlesness mean to you, practically speaking?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: the great vegetarian debate
One thing to clarify: I don't think that the dead are ever formally included in metta meditation in the Pāli Canon. Perhaps I'm wrong and someone's about to correct me. So dead human relatives and dead animals alike, whether eaten in the case of the animals or buried or cremated in the case of the relatives, are not traditionally recipients of metta in traditional Buddhism, unless I'm quite wrong.
It is in Mahāyāna bodhisattvaśīla that consumption of meat is forbidden, but this is hardly universally observed. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Meat eating smashes the seed of great compassion." The Śīlaskandha section of the Brahmājāla vaipulya says: "A disciple of the Buddha should not intentionally eat meat of any living creature because if he does so, he smashes great compassion, virtue, and seed of the Buddhahood. This also causes all the creatures meeting him to evade him. Therefore, all the Bodhisattva have to avoid the eating of meat of any living creature. Meat eating is the source of unlimited sin." And lastly in order of importance, the lahukapatti division of the apocryphal Chinese bodhisattvaśīla sūtra known as the 菩薩瓔珞本業經 ("the Sūtra of the Deeds that Decorate the Bodhisattvas") : "A monk who eats flesh that comes from animal life, commits a lahukapatti sin." A lahukapatti offense, as in Theravāda AFAIK, is an offense entailing confession.
But the Buddha never forbade his Śrāvaka disciples to eat meat, neither the monks nor the laity. It's just not a part of their training as set forth by the Buddha. In fact, the exact opposite is the case, and if a monastic is donated edible meat, he is expected to consume what is given to him unless he literally can't (unless I'm once again to be corrected!) or unless he is permitted to give it to another. The idea is to develop dispassion towards food. The less-rigorous householder counterpart to this is a parent teaching his child not to be a picky eater. This householder version of the teaching often goes "You eat what's put in front of you on your plate. Your mother worked very hard on this dish." Now, obviously ideally monastics are far beyond the stage of a child who needs to be taught not to be picky, but the same general edifying moral principle informs both instances of teaching, IMO.
In contrast to this, in Tibetan-style Vajrayāna Buddhism, eating meat is mandatory, as several rites in that religious framework require the consumption of "impure substances" such as animal flesh and liquor.
It is in Mahāyāna bodhisattvaśīla that consumption of meat is forbidden, but this is hardly universally observed. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Meat eating smashes the seed of great compassion." The Śīlaskandha section of the Brahmājāla vaipulya says: "A disciple of the Buddha should not intentionally eat meat of any living creature because if he does so, he smashes great compassion, virtue, and seed of the Buddhahood. This also causes all the creatures meeting him to evade him. Therefore, all the Bodhisattva have to avoid the eating of meat of any living creature. Meat eating is the source of unlimited sin." And lastly in order of importance, the lahukapatti division of the apocryphal Chinese bodhisattvaśīla sūtra known as the 菩薩瓔珞本業經 ("the Sūtra of the Deeds that Decorate the Bodhisattvas") : "A monk who eats flesh that comes from animal life, commits a lahukapatti sin." A lahukapatti offense, as in Theravāda AFAIK, is an offense entailing confession.
But the Buddha never forbade his Śrāvaka disciples to eat meat, neither the monks nor the laity. It's just not a part of their training as set forth by the Buddha. In fact, the exact opposite is the case, and if a monastic is donated edible meat, he is expected to consume what is given to him unless he literally can't (unless I'm once again to be corrected!) or unless he is permitted to give it to another. The idea is to develop dispassion towards food. The less-rigorous householder counterpart to this is a parent teaching his child not to be a picky eater. This householder version of the teaching often goes "You eat what's put in front of you on your plate. Your mother worked very hard on this dish." Now, obviously ideally monastics are far beyond the stage of a child who needs to be taught not to be picky, but the same general edifying moral principle informs both instances of teaching, IMO.
In contrast to this, in Tibetan-style Vajrayāna Buddhism, eating meat is mandatory, as several rites in that religious framework require the consumption of "impure substances" such as animal flesh and liquor.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: the great vegetarian debate
Except, perhaps, to wish for a “better” rebirth for the deceased, which would be quite hypocritical if one is busy eating parts of the corpse (some Vajrayanists possibly exempt here).
And how does one develop dispassion towards food while wilfully indulging (unlike the Buddha’s disciples, one would hope) in the beguiling sensations of meat eating?But the Buddha never forbade his Śrāvaka disciples to eat meat, neither the monks nor the laity. It's just not a part of their training as set forth by the Buddha. In fact, the exact opposite is the case, and if a monastic is donated edible meat, he is expected to consume what is given to him unless he literally can't (unless I'm once again to be corrected!) or unless he is permitted to give it to another. The idea is to develop dispassion towards food.
Re: the great vegetarian debate
Or someone just wants to feed themselves and their family.[james] wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 11:31 pmSensory gratification is the primary motivation of meat consumption.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 5:51 pmRefraining from unwholesome intention in body, speech and mind. Sense restraint, to hold back the development of the 2nd dart of anger, hate, fear and so on when struck by the first dart.Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 5:02 pm
So what does developing harmlesness mean to you, practically speaking?
You can be full of metta and compassion and eat meat. The Buddha did.It completely overwhelms any hint of metta or compassion that might arise and guide the meat eater’s actions.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
Re: the great vegetarian debate
Eating meat was forbidden in Tibetan Buddhist Kagyu monasteries in 2007.
https://dakinitranslations.com/buddhist ... nasteries.
More here: http://www.shabkar.org/vegetarianism/index.htm
https://dakinitranslations.com/buddhist ... nasteries.
More here: http://www.shabkar.org/vegetarianism/index.htm
Re: the great vegetarian debate
This thread is almost 14 years old.
In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.