Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Meat Eating and Mahayana
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
We're all bound for hell because we all kill sentient beings.
Lovely outlook you have there, seeker.
Milerapa had to stop killing before he got enlightenment. He did not get it before he stopped doing it. Milerapa's situation is an exceptional circumstance. It's not something that normally happens.
No, I don't care to clarify because you are only interested in making an argument out of a benign statement.
Not to anyone following Theravada, they don't. That as far as I am concerned, is actually quite inaccurate at best, and presumptuous at worst....
I don't have any clue as to why you would assume this.
It's certainly never occurred in my experience.
Brama Net Sutra
3. On Eating Meat
A disciple of the Buddha must not deliberately eat meat. He should not eat the flesh of any sentient being. The meat-eater forfeits the seed of Great Compassion, severs the seed of the Buddha Nature, and causes [animals and transcendental] beings to avoid him. Those who do so are guilty of countless offenses. Therefore, Bodhisattvas should not eat the flesh of any sentient beings whatsoever. If instead, he deliberately eats meat, he commits a secondary offense.
I think it's obvious that Theravada does not follow this precept or believe that. This takes precedence over anything said to the contrary by Theravada tradition. It's a monks vow and they must follow it regardless of what anyone else thinks about it. Is does not matter if the Pali Canon says something to the contrary. Theravada views on eating meat are irrelevant to discussion about Mahayana sutras talking about eating and not eating meat. The Shurangama Sutra is a perfect example of that. Devout Theravadins should leave this thread if they feel that Mahayana sutras are offensive. To a Mahayana monk, Mahayana sutras will always take precedence. It's not inaccurate or presumptuous, it's just reality. Why would a Mahayana monk follow scriptures of another tradition, when his own traditions says not to? He wouldn't! The Mahayana sutras will always take precedence.
This is why I find Thich Nhat Hanh's Fourteen Mindfulness Trainings important to bear in mind...
This sort of divisiveness does not help any.
I'm not saying a diabetic *has* to eat meat, I'm sure there are vegetarian diabetics, I'm just saying in our circumstance our son's diet is physician prescribed, basically, and it includes meat on a regular basis. Diet most certainly makes a difference in the health of a type 1 diabetic, but no matter how perfect the diet, diet and exercise cannot in any way cure or reverse type 1 diabetes. It is a lifelong disease.
Just like Jehovahs Witnesses who say that the world was created in seven days. When asked for proof they point to one interpretation of the Bible..when asked why we should believe the Bible they say ' because it was revealed by God who made the world in seven days.'
Theres a hole in the bucket dear Liza dear Liza...
And yes, TNH is vegan. But the Fourteen Mindfulness Trainings are an important guide to how one goes about Buddhist practice. The first three are especially concerned with sound (or "right") view. How one approaches and utilizes Buddhist doctrine is just as important (if not more) than the content of that doctrine.
TNH has drawn from Pali texts just as much as from later Mahayana texts. It isn't a matter of "precedence" -- this just sets up a divisiveness among those who practice from their own experience. Drawing these kinds of dotted lines benefit no one. It doesn't have to be a strict either/or proposition.
It is more important to be skillful than merely "correct." Better to cultivate the qualities of others than to be dogmatic (even within just Mahayana). And that cultivation requires patience. People can only practice from their own experience. Otherwise Buddhist practice risks being reduced to a mere ideology.
The First Mindfulness Training: Openness: Aware of the suffering created by fanaticism and intolerance, we are determined not to be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. We are committed to seeing the Buddhist teachings as a guiding means that help us learn to look deeply and develop understanding and compassion. They are not doctrines to fight, kill, or die for. We understand that fanaticism in its many forms is the result is the result of perceiving things in a dualistic or discriminative manner. We will train ourselves to look at everything with openness and the insight of interbeing in order to transform dogmatism and violence in ourselves and the world.
The Second Mindfulness Training: Non-Attachment to Views: Aware of the suffering created by attachment to views and wrong perceptions, we are determined to avoid being narrow-minded and bound to present views. We are committed to learning and practicing nonattachment from views and being open to other’s insights and experiences in order to benefit from the collective wisdom. Insight is revealed through the practice of compassionate listening, deep looking, and letting go of notions rather than through the accumulation of intellectual knowledge. We are aware that the knowledge we presently possess is not changeless, absolute truth. Truth is found in life, and we will observe life within and around us in every moment, ready to learn throughout our lives.
The Third Mindfulness Training: Freedom of Thought: Aware of the suffering brought about when we impose our view on others, we are determined not to force others, even our children, by any means whatsoever – such as authority, threat, money, propaganda, or indoctrination – to adopt our views. We are committed to respecting the rights of others to be different, to choose what to believe and how to decide. We will, however, learn to help others let go of and transform narrowness through loving speech and compassionate dialogue.
There is no known Pali or Sanskrit Original.
Until the modern era when Chinese Buddhists migrated to other parts of the world it was unknown outside China.
Does this make it inauthentic ? No, but it is a relatively little known text of mysterious origin . And one that almost no non -Chinese school would see as taking precedence over other Suttas and Sutras.
We can and should respect the followers of those schools. However we do not have to accept their evaluation of the Shurangama Sutra.
Fifth Mindfulness Training: Nourishment and Healing
Aware of the suffering caused by unmindful consumption, I am committed to cultivating good health, both physical and mental, for myself, my family, and my society, by practicing mindful eating, drinking, and consuming. I am committed to ingest only items that preserve peace, well-being, and joy in my body, in my consciousness, and in the collective body and consciousness of my family and society. I am determined not to use alcohol or any other intoxicant or to ingest foods or other items that contain toxins, such as certain TV programs, magazines, books, films, and conversations. I am aware that to damage my body or my consciousness with these poisons is to betray my ancestors, my parents, my society, and future generations. I shall work to transform violence, fear, anger, and confusion in myself and in society by practicing a diet for myself and for society. I understand that a proper diet is crucial for self-transformation and for the transformation of society.
A proper diet is a diet that embraces and manifests Ahimsa. Which of course is what this whole thread is supposed to be about.
[/quote]
Killing and eating meat are two entirely different things. You can kill something and not eat it. You can eat something you didn't kill.
Y'think? Milarepa was truly exceptional and had remarkable capacity for practice.
We all have the potential for enlightenment. Right here. Right now. That's taught in the Mahayana. Enlightenment is abnormal? ;-)
you are only interested in making an argument out of a benign statement.
Actually, I'm not interested in an argument. My question was that your assertions seem to indicate a belief that your sangha holds itself as better than the rest, solely by virtue of diet. Is that so? Have I got that right? That's all I want to know. I certainly don't want to argue the point.
If all you want to do is argue in a controversial manner like you are doing, Y'think? I will have to say good day sir.
No, it's entirely normal. The ordinary mind is the enlightened mind. All one has to do is strip away the obfuscations and defilements and you have enlightenment. Enlightenment is already there. The Mahayana teaches this. It's simply acknowledging the understatement in saying that Milarepa was "exceptional".
And as long as we're on the subject of Milarepa, do you know of any of his songs that attributes his not eating meat to his enlightenment?
As Citta points out, and I believe correctly, Amhisa isn't a Mahayana concept.
Maybe you should given your thread a different name.
That much is true, but I didn't find that clear in your original statement, and I took it to mean in general.
I think, unless anyone can add anything of any greater value than that which has been aired and discussed, this thread is now in danger of going round in circles.
And I did warn members about to arguments focussing excessively on criticisms of traditions.
I think it might be best to leave it here.
Thank you to all contributors.
it makes for interesting reading.