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.
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited October 2005
Herman, YodaMama (yes, I do believe it' stuck!) Simon, BF, Elohim...and everyone else who has taken part.....
This has been a wonderful thread, and it will, like all threads, continue, or not, sporadically or not.... and I for one feel we have done very well... it seems that the general consensus is that we've done the round, flogged the dead horse, and agreed to differ.... and all in good humour without a sign of vitriol or spite, insult or aggression.
It is, has and always will be an emotive subject, and one which will always be the basis of a good discourse - Long may we continue exactly like this: different opinions, much to discuss but able to be heard.
Thank you all for making this thread, interesting, informative, varied, animated, educational and entertaining. :rockon:
Yo Ogamama,
Tell me why you don't want to have a reasonable discussion about cinema. For all I know you probably only watch chick flicks and secretly eat chilli dogs from the back seat.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited October 2005
Herman.....that you should even know what a chick-flick is.....!! pass the popcorn....!!
Yo Ogamama,
Tell me why you don't want to have a reasonable discussion about cinema. For all I know you probably only watch chick flicks and secretly eat chilli dogs from the back seat.
Who said I didn't want to have a reasonable discussion with you? I said "Bring it on"!
I just want to let you all know that Herman Hesse has respectfully requested that his account be removed from this site. I have complied with his wishes, and have removed his account.
I just didn't want anybody to expect a response from him, his account has been closed.
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited October 2005
Ajani, if there was a reason, he obviously discussed it with Brian, and Brian has had the courtesy to come on forum and tell us of Herman's decision. I think we had better leave it at that. I for one am sorry that this decision has been taken, but given that Herman must, by all accounts, have discussed this with Brian in private, that's how it should remain.
I hope it wasn't something that I said that made him leave, and I sure hope I didn't make him upset. Sometimes I forget that not everyone knows what a smart alec I am, and 99% of the time, I am joking!
When the Buddha was alive, there was not the huge choice of food that is available today. It is clear that the issue of killing animals for food was one which he gave a lot of thought to. It's also clear that his teachings extend compassion to all sentient beings, including those destined for the butcher. But in some sutras he did not require his followers to be vegetarians, and rejected such a requirement when suggested by his cousin (and, later, rival) Devadatta. In fact, Buddha's last meal could have been wild boar meat, given him by Cunda the smith. Tough I should say that others believe it was mushrooms.
On the issue of vegetarianism the Buddhist sutras are contradictory, and different schools have different attitudes toward it depending on the sutras they believe authoritative. Or, given how we get attached to our food choices, maybe they have just chosen which sutras they believe authoritative depending on their attitudes towards vegetarianism, and I admit I am guilty of this picking and choosing what suits me myself with regards to some sutras.
There are some Buddhists who seem to ignore the issue completely. I mean some Buddhist such as the Dali Lama and the Shunryu Suzuki, who praise vegetarianism while continuing to eat meat themselves , and then there are Zen temples which have elevated shojin ryori to an art. Hui Neng, is supposed to have lived with hunters during his exile, but would destroy their traps and gather vegetables to eat. On the other hand some Vajrayana Buddhists believe it's more important to chant mantras or dedicate their merit to the souls of slaughtered animals, than to actually refrain from killing them.
So what does this all actually mean ? Were the early Buddhists happy to eat animal flesh, as long as someone else accumulated the bad karma of doing the killing? In the past this is how things were done in Japan, with the burakumin, getting stuck doing work like butchering. Side note here, the discrimination against the descendants of these people still continues today in Japan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burakumin
So if we take Buddha's words to be true in the sutras which say it's ok to eat meat, then why did Buddha take the stance he did on this issue ?
First of all the precept against taking the lives of animals is there for all to see. It applied to monks and lay followers. So if everyone followed the Buddha's teachings, there would be no slaughter houses, no butchers, no meat to eat. The world would be a vegetarian world. Also you have to take into account that early Buddhist monks lived with a different economic system than todays. They were not allowed to use money and went begging for their food, basically they were teaching to the local community in return for food, clothing, etc etc. This behaviour goes all the way back to the time the Buddha spent under the Bo tree, when children brought him food and he would teach them in return.
Anyway the monks were expected to accept whatever was offered to them, but were not allowed to accept offerings of meat from animals that had been killed specifically for them. Even the suspicion that this was the case, was enough to reject the meat. When a monk eat meat it was not an endorsement of the act of killing the animal, because the monk or nun taught the lay person the precept against the taking of life. Maybe if the Buddha made his monks accept only vegetarian food, the message of compassion would be less likely to get to those who did not have vegetarian food to offer. By allowing, (but not forcing I should add) his monks to accept meat, maybe the Buddha thought this would allow his teaching to spread to more laypeople. Does anyone else agree/disagree with this opinion, does anyone have any other opinion why Buddha did allow meat to be eaten, and yet was so against animals being killed for meat ?
I should also say that a lot of monks did not like the idea that lay people should practice vegetarianism. After the Buddha's death, this was one of the issues that lead to the split between the Theravada and Mahayana schools, that is would Buddhism be a practice predominantly for monastic practice, or could lay people participate fully too. When Devadatta proposed that the monks should be allowed to accept only vegetarian food, it was because he wanted greater separation between monks and laypeople. Maybe Buddha rejected this and his other proposals because he wanted to affirm that Buddhism was inclusive to all, and not because he wanted to endorse eating meat.
I've gotta type out my response all over again, from the other zombie thread?
OK, I didn't know that vegetarianism was one thing that contributed to the schism. I think it's interesting that the Buddha may have rejected it in order to make the dharma more inclusive to all. The problem is that now, the teachings on the subject are open to interpretation, and people kind find in them what the want to support their preferences.
My teacher believes that there wouldn't be livestock whatsoever if we didn't eat them. Thus the benefit of vegetarianism is the kind wish to make the animals happy. Even though we cannot possibly save them except for a petting zoo.
I've gotta type out my response all over again, from the other zombie thread?
OK, I didn't know that vegetarianism was one thing that contributed to the schism. I think it's interesting that the Buddha may have rejected it in order to make the dharma more inclusive to all. The problem is that now, the teachings on the subject are open to interpretation, and people kind find in them what the want to support their preferences.
I think vegetarianism was one of the reasons included in the monastic rules which there was disagreement about and contributed to the schism, and you right Dakini about people interpreting to suit their own preference, I know being a vegetarian I prefer to think that the Lankavatara Sutra was how Buddha viewed meat eating, tough of course it may not be correct. Like I have mentioned in other posts, because Buddhism is so open to interpretation there is no really right or wrong for a lot of what it teaches, and this I think makes it so popular to a lot of people, simply because a person can interpret a lot of the teachings to what sounds favourably to them, as I do with the Lankavatara Sutra and vegetarianism.
I remember that post. Seems a little strange that Buddhism is sort of up for grabs. But I guess people read into all religions what they want. Christianity. Islam. Sufism seemes like a completely different religion than radical Islam. And there's a whole spectrum inbetween those two.
@Jeffrey: I'm so lame with computer skills! :dunce:
My teacher believes that there wouldn't be livestock whatsoever if we didn't eat them. Thus the benefit of vegetarianism is the kind wish to make the animals happy. Even though we cannot possibly save them except for a petting zoo.
I would always preferably buy the more compassionate product. The only exception is free trade coffee. Don't get me wrong I buy the free trade product 50% of the time. But I like my variety. I buy free range eggs. And if if they had free range meat I would buy that. I suppose I could search for meat outside the super market, but I wouldn't know where to go.
Comments
This has been a wonderful thread, and it will, like all threads, continue, or not, sporadically or not.... and I for one feel we have done very well... it seems that the general consensus is that we've done the round, flogged the dead horse, and agreed to differ.... and all in good humour without a sign of vitriol or spite, insult or aggression.
It is, has and always will be an emotive subject, and one which will always be the basis of a good discourse - Long may we continue exactly like this: different opinions, much to discuss but able to be heard.
Thank you all for making this thread, interesting, informative, varied, animated, educational and entertaining. :rockon:
(Ok, carry on.....)
Tell me why you don't want to have a reasonable discussion about cinema. For all I know you probably only watch chick flicks and secretly eat chilli dogs from the back seat.
Who said I didn't want to have a reasonable discussion with you? I said "Bring it on"!
Chilli dogs RULE.
PUKE!
I just didn't want anybody to expect a response from him, his account has been closed.
Sorry
--B
I am sorry he decided to leave us.
On the issue of vegetarianism the Buddhist sutras are contradictory, and different schools have different attitudes toward it depending on the sutras they believe authoritative. Or, given how we get attached to our food choices, maybe they have just chosen which sutras they believe authoritative depending on their attitudes towards vegetarianism, and I admit I am guilty of this picking and choosing what suits me myself with regards to some sutras.
There are some Buddhists who seem to ignore the issue completely. I mean some Buddhist such as the Dali Lama and the Shunryu Suzuki, who praise vegetarianism while continuing to eat meat themselves , and then there are Zen temples which have elevated shojin ryori to an art. Hui Neng, is supposed to have lived with hunters during his exile, but would destroy their traps and gather vegetables to eat. On the other hand some Vajrayana Buddhists believe it's more important to chant mantras or dedicate their merit to the souls of slaughtered animals, than to actually refrain from killing them.
So what does this all actually mean ? Were the early Buddhists happy to eat animal flesh, as long as someone else accumulated the bad karma of doing the killing? In the past this is how things were done in Japan, with the burakumin, getting stuck doing work like butchering. Side note here, the discrimination against the descendants of these people still continues today in Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burakumin
So if we take Buddha's words to be true in the sutras which say it's ok to eat meat, then why did Buddha take the stance he did on this issue ?
First of all the precept against taking the lives of animals is there for all to see. It applied to monks and lay followers. So if everyone followed the Buddha's teachings, there would be no slaughter houses, no butchers, no meat to eat. The world would be a vegetarian world. Also you have to take into account that early Buddhist monks lived with a different economic system than todays. They were not allowed to use money and went begging for their food, basically they were teaching to the local community in return for food, clothing, etc etc. This behaviour goes all the way back to the time the Buddha spent under the Bo tree, when children brought him food and he would teach them in return.
Anyway the monks were expected to accept whatever was offered to them, but were not allowed to accept offerings of meat from animals that had been killed specifically for them. Even the suspicion that this was the case, was enough to reject the meat. When a monk eat meat it was not an endorsement of the act of killing the animal, because the monk or nun taught the lay person the precept against the taking of life. Maybe if the Buddha made his monks accept only vegetarian food, the message of compassion would be less likely to get to those who did not have vegetarian food to offer. By allowing, (but not forcing I should add) his monks to accept meat, maybe the Buddha thought this would allow his teaching to spread to more laypeople. Does anyone else agree/disagree with this opinion, does anyone have any other opinion why Buddha did allow meat to be eaten, and yet was so against animals being killed for meat ?
I should also say that a lot of monks did not like the idea that lay people should practice vegetarianism. After the Buddha's death, this was one of the issues that lead to the split between the Theravada and Mahayana schools, that is would Buddhism be a practice predominantly for monastic practice, or could lay people participate fully too. When Devadatta proposed that the monks should be allowed to accept only vegetarian food, it was because he wanted greater separation between monks and laypeople.
Maybe Buddha rejected this and his other proposals because he wanted to affirm that Buddhism was inclusive to all, and not because he wanted to endorse eating meat.
OK, I didn't know that vegetarianism was one thing that contributed to the schism. I think it's interesting that the Buddha may have rejected it in order to make the dharma more inclusive to all. The problem is that now, the teachings on the subject are open to interpretation, and people kind find in them what the want to support their preferences.
Like I have mentioned in other posts, because Buddhism is so open to interpretation there is no really right or wrong for a lot of what it teaches, and this I think makes it so popular to a lot of people, simply because a person can interpret a lot of the teachings to what sounds favourably to them, as I do with the Lankavatara Sutra and vegetarianism.
@Jeffrey: I'm so lame with computer skills! :dunce:
No Birth = No suffering.
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/10594/buddhism-and-vegetarianism#Item_2