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.
Primacy Of Man
sndymorn
Veteran
I am the boss; it cannot be otherwise. Since I am the boss, I can relent and let another creature be the boss .
But, I do not think I will like being under the sway of another creature; nor, should I so deem, would I like to consider myself their (even the use of the pronoun "their" is relenting... better "its") equal.
I heard of a monk who will not dig a hole in the ground for fear of hurting another being. He (or she) must not dig the hole but can "cause" the hole to be dug by the suggestion that a hole might help keep the fence post erect . Some other fellow, the hole digger ( not a right occupation in this monk's view), can see to his own karma as the monk goes about the business of enlightenment.
I am having a hard time with this whole(pun) notion.
:scratch:
But, I do not think I will like being under the sway of another creature; nor, should I so deem, would I like to consider myself their (even the use of the pronoun "their" is relenting... better "its") equal.
I heard of a monk who will not dig a hole in the ground for fear of hurting another being. He (or she) must not dig the hole but can "cause" the hole to be dug by the suggestion that a hole might help keep the fence post erect . Some other fellow, the hole digger ( not a right occupation in this monk's view), can see to his own karma as the monk goes about the business of enlightenment.
I am having a hard time with this whole(pun) notion.
:scratch:
0
Comments
How can highly observant monks or nuns live with themselves to push ‘’bad karma’’ to lay people.
They all depend on lay people to be fed, etc.
I guess what I am asking you to tell me that the OP is not kind of absurd by only relating an absurd extreme to which any religious belief might go. People are people and absurd is absurd. Any hard data on how often things like this happen?
The question is why humanity is so easy to get brainwashed? :werr: :zombie:
You may perceive limits and try to live by them but those limits aren't necessarily clear or justified. A lifetime of practice might be necessary to understand what they are and how to abide by them.
My point? It's like individual people's Kharma, everybody's is different. You have to find your own way within the practice of the Dharma.
For example, "All life is sacred," yet my Tibetan Dogzchen Master enjoyed the chicken we served to him. When I asked about it briefly I remember him saying, "The chicken was already dead."
That's what I think, just my $.02
people don't see reality as it is. reality = no self, impermanent, unsatisfactory.
i guess we really have to ask ourselves. what do we really want? do we want to be free? or do we want to play in this game called samsara some more.
I will have to google Samsara. I am a novice.
BTW, The facts as I stated them are true.
I could not agree more.
What I can’t understand : how can we get a further guidance from people like this.
They should be an example to us.
At least, they should prove that meditating for years will make us better and wiser.
Also, a Buddhist who eats butchered meat and calls the butcher a " wrong occupation' seems extreme.
Both these viewpoints are common on this forum.
Exactly.
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt".
Mark Twain
"I" am the butcher -- read 'em and weep.
"I" am the Buddha -- get used to it.
Of course "you" may see things differently.
10. Should any bhikkhu dig soil or have it dug, it is to be confessed.
Bhikkhu Pāṭimokkha
The Bhikkhus' Code of Discipline
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/bmc1.ch08-1.html
10. Should any bhikkhu dig soil or have it dug, it is to be confessed.
This is an offense with four factors: object, effort, perception, and intention.
Object. The Pali word for soil, paṭhavī, also means ground or earth. Thus the Vibhaṅga distinguishes which forms of earth are and are not classed as genuine soil:
Pure loam, pure clay, whatever is mostly loam or clay with a lesser portion of rock, stones, potsherds, gravel, or sand mixed in, is classed as "genuine" (or "natural") soil (jātā paṭhavī).
Whatever is pure rock, stones, potsherds, gravel, or sand, or any of these with a lesser portion of loam or clay mixed in, is earth classed as "ungenuine" (or "denatured") soil (ajātā paṭhavī). Also, burnt clay or loam — according to the Commentary, this means soil that has been burnt in the course of firing a bowl, a pot, etc. — is not classed as genuine soil. As for heaps of loam or clay that have been dug up: If they have been rained on for less than four months, they are not classed as genuine soil; but if rained on for four months or more, they are. Also, the layer of fine dust that forms on the surface of dry soil as the result of wind erosion is not classed as genuine soil.
The words for "genuine" and "not genuine" — jāta and ajāta — also mean "born" and "not born." These terms are apparently related to the ancient Indian belief that soil is a form of one-facultied life (see below). The distinction between them seems based on an intuited idea that rock, sand, etc., were not alive, whereas clay and loam were naturally alive, although they would lose life when dug up and regain life when rained on for four months or more.
As the Commentary makes clear in discussing the Vibhaṅga's non-offense clauses, there is no penalty in digging earth not classed as genuine soil. Thus, for example, digging into a pile of newly dug-up loam or drawing diagrams in the dust on top of dry soil would not be an offense.
Effort. The Vibhaṅga says that the term digging also covers burning, i.e., firing pottery; and breaking, i.e., making a furrow with a rake or a stick. Thus, using a stick to draw in the soil or driving in a stake or pulling one out in such a way as to disturb the surrounding soil would fulfill the factor of effort here.
The Vibhaṅga adds that if one gives a single command to dig, then no matter how much the person digs, the offense is a single pācittiya.
Perception. If one perceives a patch of genuine soil not to be genuine soil, it is not grounds for an offense. If one is in doubt as to whether a patch of earth is classed as genuine soil, it is grounds for a dukkaṭa regardless of whether it is actually classed as genuine soil or not.
Non-offenses. Because perception and intention are mitigating factors here, there is no offense for the bhikkhu who digs soil —
unknowingly — e.g., digging into a pile of soil perceiving it to be sand;
unthinkingly — e.g., absent-mindedly drawing in the dirt while talking with someone else; or
unintentionally — e.g., raking leaves, pulling a wheelbarrow through the mud, or digging in a pile of sand and accidentally digging into the soil underneath.
Also, there is no offense in asking for clay or soil, or in indicating a need for a hole in the ground, without expressly giving the command to dig. Examples in the Vibhaṅga: "Know this. Give this. Bring this. This is wanted. Make this allowable." Present examples would include such statements as, "Please get me some clay to make a pot." "We're going to need a hole right here." According to the Commentary, an explicit request that a reservoir or pit, etc., be dug also entails no penalty as long as one does not say precisely where to dig it. ("We're going to have to drain the water from A to B, so dig the trench wherever you think it would do the job best.") This sort of request or hint is termed kappiya-vohāra — "allowable expression," or in plain English, "wording it right" — and often finds use in the context of rules where an express command would be an offense, but an indication of a desire or intent would not.
The Commentary quotes the ancient commentaries as saying that if another person or animal has fallen into a pit, there is no penalty for digging the victim out. The same holds true if another person or animal is trapped by a fallen but still-living tree: The bhikkhu may cut the tree to free the victim without incurring a penalty under the following rule.
Although the Commentary cannot find any justification in the Canon for these opinions, it states that they should be accepted because they are the unanimous judgment of the ancient commentaries. As we have noted before, Buddhaghosa does not always accept even the unanimous judgment of the ancient commentaries, but perhaps he felt that these were cases in which it would be better to err on the side of compassion rather than strictness.
However, the Commentary goes on to say that if a bhikkhu falls into a pit himself, he should not dig any earth that would be classed as genuine soil, even for the sake of his life. The same holds true if he is trapped by a fallen but still-living tree: He may not cut the tree even though his life is in danger.
In line with Cv.V.32.1, which allows a bhikkhu to light a counter-fire to ward off an approaching wildfire, the Commentary to Pr 3 states that one may also dig a moat to ward off such a fire without incurring a penalty under this rule.
The reason for this rule, as indicated by the origin story, is that people in general at the time of the Buddha viewed soil as having a form of one-facultied life. The Jains, who were contemporaries of the Buddha, classed life into five categories according to the number of senses or faculties the living thing possessed. In the one-facultied category, where there is only the sense of touch, they included soil and vegetation. One scholar has suggested that the Jains here were simply systematizing an animist belief, predating their theories, that soil and plants had souls. At any rate, this sort of view was so widespread at the time that any potters who were meticulous in their precepts would take their clay only from termite nests and other piles of dug-up earth. The Ghaṭīkāra Sutta (MN 81) describes a potter — a non-returner in the dispensation of the Buddha Kassapa — who, even though he was a lay man, would take the earth for his pots only from collapsed embankments and the piles of dirt around rat holes so as to avoid injuring the soil.
Another consideration, carrying more weight at present, is that the act of digging soil risks killing or injuring whatever animals might be living there.
This rule, together with the following one, also effectively prevents bhikkhus from engaging in agriculture.
Summary: Digging soil or commanding that it be dug is a pācittiya offense.
Leaving aside fake monks, monks & lay people have different roles to play.
To help a monk in his pursuit of enlightenment is very good karma.
Would you eat beef if every time you had a burger you have to slaughter the cow with your own hands?
Here's a link relevant to my comments which might help: http://www.dzogchenlineage.org/
Wishing you well.
There's nothing a cow could do to mankind, no action, that the result would be mankind must kill that cow. It is mankind's karma to kill cows because they favor their meat, karma here being the repeated choice or trend to eat cows.
The cow plays no part in its death, is blameworthy and innocent, just as you would be if a cannibal kidnapped you by random selection, took you to their basement, and began chopping you to pieces while you're still alive.
the buddha taught there are four nutriments (necessities) of life, namely, physical food, intention, contact & consciousness. without these things, we cannot live & practise
the buddha compared the eating of physical food to eating one's own child; that we should eat with such an attitude
such a view allows us to see how unsatisfactory this life on earth is and thus let the world go
there is no perfection in this world, exception the "perfection" of letting it all go
this world is dog-eat-dog, that is, the human, animal, plant & even physical world
and this is asked with respect. I thank you for your responses.
"sometimes , killing cows is human necessity." So then we in the West who can fashion a diet which does not contain meat should do so? This (vegetarianism) is a superior lifestyle choice and should be purposely sought and engaged in if possible?
Right thinking Buddhist= vegetarian (as long as you are getting what you need nutritionally)?
there have been many vegetarian debates
is suppose it depends on where one lives
for example, in Australia, vast semi-arid zones are used to graze beef cattle
Australians eat & export alot of beef
if this did not occur then more fertile land would need to be used to grow crops, which includes clearing more forests
the essence of my post was there are inevitabilities the understanding of which can lead to enlightenment
moral idealism about the whole world being vegetarian will not lead to enlightenment
regards
I was feeding my cats. Can of food said "liver and hearts," I paused and gave thanks to the animals who once had their lives sustained by those livers and hearts.
My problem, which I lost sleep over (but not much): Should I "get rid" of my cats? :eek: :eek: :eek:
I resolved it like this: We're stuck in this human realm, it is a biological realm, my body needs animal protein (FWIW, two cents? I personally was 100% vegetarian for many years and then advised to stop the 100%, why? boring medical story).
Conclusion? We live in a sort of ____BIOLOGICAL____ protoplasm-y, flesh-y, bloody, violent Hell where animals eat the flesh of other animals. We have gardens where we kill worms with every shovelful of earth. We're supposed to eat pre-killed fish so our kids can develop good brains (literally).
What's more important? Our kids or the fish!? Darn it! What a Hellish question (for ten minutes before trying to get to sleep- seriously).
Sorry guys, I have to eat meat (about twice a week). My cats need meat (not getting rid of them).
My Tibetan Dogzchen Master who chose to enjoy the meat we OFFERED to him? I think he knows something we don't.
As genkaku said, and you echo,: "I am the butcher"
Are we , therefore, all in the "wrong occupation" by extrapolation?
Is being human on earth right now "Hell?"
I want to fall back on that "hippie poem" Desertarata(?) , "We have a right to be here" it says, while you imply something else... I know it is deeper than this.
I am going for a run. There should be a lot of earthworms out as it is raining.
In rich countries, you can choose to be vegan if you can afford it.
There are some tribal people in India whose only
source of protein are rats.
You cant change the world.
But you can make a personal choice. I choose to offer vegetarian food
to monks.
Were killing of Jews, Rwanda, and former Yugoslavia, etc etc down to nation’s bad karma?
what we do with that cause/effect is our choice.
Roger, Thanks.
Namasti
i guess we really have to ask ourselves. what do we really want? do we want to be free? or do we want to play in this game called samsara some more."
Great statement. For me that's it in a nutshell. I look at the world ask; when do you finally decide to get off the rollercoaster?
I am sorry if I have come across arrogant. I also don’t intend to offend.
I am trying to understand Buddhism teaching.
Taking into account to law of karma.
Can we say that suffering of every Japanese person in the moment is down to karma?
Every Jew killed in the holocaust or African’s mothers watching dying kids brought it on themselves?
we have a choice right now to help or not to help the japanese people in this moment.
we can choose to be the indifferent germans as the jews were being killed. or not.
we can choose to help the dying child or not. we work with what we can in a given situation. we cannot solve all the worlds problem but we can try.
I agree.
The problem is to find something outside this rollercoaster.
It is a huge jump.
play with that one.
much love guys.
Very true.
Still, I find it difficult that some unlucky few have been chosen for others to develop compassion and good karma.
It seems so unfair.
I don't believe that to be the case. Certain causes and conditions led to these things. It's not karma that a jewish family ends up gasssed or if a pig is beaten to death with a lead pipe. The people who perpetuate such things certainly create karma for themselves, their actions will have a result both physically and psychologically. I believe that it is best to focus on our own thoughts, words and deeds and use them as a vehicle for our own liberation and those around us. Generate that good karma and you will surely see its fruits.
With metta,
Todd