Shaolin diet, vegetarianism and stuff

[Sevan]

I'm just currious...

To those who are, Why are you a vegetarain or vegan?

As I'm looking into it but dunno, sound good in some ways but I just dont know.

Thanks,
Shane

[rett]

I'm enjoying the discussion on vegetarianism in the zhan zhuang thread. I wonder if we could continue it here, so the crosshandz can keep the focus on zhan zhuang?

LFJ mentions how the Chanwuyi website mentions that meat blocks attaining englightenment. As I understand it, LFJ considers this claim to be unsubstantiated.

In another section of the site the argument is more nuanced. Please see here:

http://www.chanwuyi.org/showroom/model/T0152/templateCustomWebPage.do?webId=1233929329351&editCurrentLanguage=1235069892126&customWebPageId=1285147851750356729

First of all it's starts by saying "True followers of Shaolin Chanwuyi are vegetarians with a special diet". So right off, the article makes it clear that this is the view of a particular subbranch of the Caodong (jap. Soto) school, called ChanWuYi.

The heart of the argument on the page is that meat affects one's mental state and health. According to the chanwuyi theory, meat and spicy vegetables make it harder to have a stable and calm mind. They can also harm the body.

The scriptural reference is to Lankavatara Sutra.

For laypeople the recommendation on the site is appropriate amounts of meat or spicy vegetables when you are healthy. And in times of illness, no meat or spicy vegetables.

For someone seriously training and trying to reach a high level the more restrictive diet applies.

I find the more detailed explanations of what the Chanwuyi believe to be more helpful than the sweeping statement that LFJ reacted to, and which may have been written by the site author.

[RenDaHai]

In order to get anywhere in this training you need focus.

The Bland diet and lack of distractions can help this in most people.

The first stage of Practice is often referred to as Fuhu, Taming the Tiger. (The tiger being the unconscious element of your mind). The ability to achieve focus is essential.

Once you reach this level you can eat McDonalds every day and live in a Brothel and you will still be able to attain focus.

There are no Rules, No prerequisites. There is simply useful advice to help you along your way. In the end this kind of Kung Fu can only be realised by yourself. No master can take you with him. Just point you on a shorter path.

[Hendrik]

Why make life so difficult?

Follow the instruction for 100 days with the Neigong practice to cultivate Qi and find out what happen and how your body -mind transform.

Often, it is a problem for those who keep wanting proof and debating and arguing the basic , those are wasting of life. These people never really practice anything deeper but keep spinning their head and skeptics on anything beside their own skeptics and doubtfull mind.






Why you need to be vegetarianism?

in the most basic,

because if you take animal product and trying to cultivate and accumulate Qi in your Dan Tian, you will end up leak it out via sexual dream or unknown anger which disrupt your mind body.

vegetarianism is to avoid the above to happen in order to complete the training.




Some love to argue and debate.... on the sutra. Any serious advance Chan practitioner knows, Whatever the Shurangama sutra says NO. one dont argue. Why? because those are the safe guard and one could read in the history of Chinese Buddhism what goes wrong with those violate it. How many in the history of Chinese Buddhism which knows how to argue with clear twisiting words end up in trouble? read the history.

Again, if your Kung fu is advance, you know it because you can scan your body and mind and know what is the reaction.



It is a bad habit to require REASONS for everything as in the Post Newtonian philosophy science thinking if one has good reason that is the ultimate. knowing not that mind-body-soul cultivation is beyond Reasons, meaning reason doesnt cover everythings.

For example,

how many of people here can enter into silence, have accumulated Zhen Qi in the Dan Tian, and be able to evoke it at will? one can have all the reasons wherether that is possible, what happen, suspicion......etc but if you cant do it. then what is the point? you just dont know and you dont have experience.

To those who has the ability, they knows, sex is draining, meat is excitation. it is just how it is. No reasons, that is how the body and mind react.

So, one can have all the reasons and all the arguement....etc. those are just makes believe similar to those who has never eat apple keep skeptic and argue why why why.... Those are a wasting of time. the bottom line is to get the kung fu and see it for yourself if it support the training or it do nothing.



In China, instructors, expecially the advance one usually purposely expect someone to just follow the instruction and not answer to those questions because they are checking if the student is the real deal. most likely, 80%-90% of the student who keep skeptic and asking quenstions are those who is "talking Zen" just talk and not willing to do anywork. thus, it is a wasting of energy to deal with this type of student which at the end doesnt develop any kung fu but keep spinning the mind.



Asking Quesition is good if the question is for clarification,

however, when one ask all the question started with accusing others is dishonest, using skeptics attitude, challenging.....ect. Those are a wasting of energy which should be ignored because it doesnt contribute to any practice. no one ask you to practice if you has doubt dont practice.

[GeneChing]

...who here is vegetarian?

[rett]

...who here is vegetarian?

I'm sort of half-heartedly trying to be. Munching that tofu. Occasionally a slice of bacon or five slides down the hatch though. Dang, I'm a bad perso... mmmm.

For Hendrik: I've done 30 days Buddhist vegetarian food + full celibate + neigong about 1 1/2 to 2 hours early every morning (getting up about 4 or 5) plus regular training in the day. This once a year for the last four years. Afterwards I feel great. Healthy and strong.

So put it together... thats 120 days;)

[Hendrik]

I'm sort of half-heartedly trying to be. Munching that tofu. Occasionally a slice of bacon or five slides down the hatch though. Dang, I'm a bad perso... mmmm.

For Hendrik: I've done 30 days Buddhist vegetarian food + full celibate + neigong about 1 1/2 to 2 hours early every morning (getting up about 4 or 5) plus regular training in the day. This once a year for the last four years. Afterwards I feel great. Healthy and strong.

So put it together... thats 120 days;)



Great!

No one is perfect. Me neither.

nope that is not 120 days. but it is ok because not everyone is the same and not everyone's goal is the same.



if you seriously wants to cultivate Qi in Dan tian, the 100 days straight cannot be avoid. because one needs to transform the Qi holding ability of the body.

when the body got energetic, any sexy stuffs which one doesnt pay attention before will be ampliying 100X and thus it is easy to get wet dream. also, one will feel invincible when the energy is filling up so anger will be easily evoke because now the Ego has lots of energy it never has before to command.

So, that is vegitarian, without the vegitarian diet, man, one is one's worst enemy.

As in the Shurangama sutra, it is not just the Killing mind cause one problem, it is also what one eat, so, it is a problematic thinking the mind is everything. Nope, the food influence one, the emotion influence one, as much or even more then the mind.


One for the bad things now as bad as Meat is softdrink. That disrupted the body and mind. So, to be serious, the ancient art might not work for today's practice anymore if the food is not keep as nature as possible.


also, dont eat to much the so called Chinese vegetarian food, those are filling with toxic with lots of process carb, oil and sugar and salt. True vegitarian is balance whole food such as those in Fresh Choice restorant.



I am not trying to be an A$$ but just to tell you everything has its cause and effect and consequence. since you put your mind in training Shao Lin, then might as well develop some real kung fu with a little extra precaution in your life. instead of wasting your effort just because a certain small stuffs.

[David Jamieson]

As I said, this is kind of True while 'Taming the Tiger' and that is part of the 'Taming' of the tiger. But its not important after it and not essential for it. If you can evoke ZhenQi at will none of these other things matter any more, nor does any of the zhuang practice, or any of the breath or anything else.

Yes!

I would like to meet you some day perhaps Ren Da Hai. :-)

[Hendrik]

As I said, this is kind of True while 'Taming the Tiger' and that is part of the 'Taming' of the tiger.

But its not important after it and not essential for it.

If you can evoke ZhenQi at will none of these other things matter any more, nor does any of the zhuang practice, or any of the breath or anything else.



that is not true at all.

after one has the ren and du medirians flow connected, one will not use the ren to p@nis routh as much any more. one has switch the path of Qi.


Sex break the ren and du flow and force the qi goes from ren down to the p@nis and drain the heck out of your dan dien.


before you got the Zhen Qi accumulate, your drain is little per sex. after you got your dan dian fill you drain it big time. not to mention every time one have sex you break the ren and du flow. and one has to retrain it to go back to the ren and du flow which is down from ren upward with du down to dan dien with ren and storing in Dan dian. if you dont do that it will go as dan dien to P@nis and will not go upward with du and not store but drain.

one of the reason one has wet dream is because the habit of sex that make it flow down to peni$ instead of going back upward with Du medirian.



as for anger, if your Ren and Du doesnt govern and balance, then anger is not easy to settle naturally.


So, if you eat meat and have sex after you got the kung fu, that is suicide. one better off dont train.

[David Jamieson]

that is not true at all.

after one has the ren and du medirians flow connected, one will not use the ren to p@nis routh as much any more. one has switch the path of Qi.


Sex break the ren and du flow and force the qi goes from ren down to the p@nis and drain the heck out of your dan dien.


before you got the Zhen Qi accumulate, your drain is little per sex. after you got your dan dian fill you drain it big time. not to mention every time one have sex you break the ren and du flow. and one has to retrain it to go back to the ren and du flow which is down from ren upward with du down to dan dien and storing in Dan dian. if you dont do that it will go as dan dien to Peni$ and will not go upward with du.

one of the reason one has wet dream is because the habit of sex that make it flow down to peni$ instead of going back upward with Du medirian.



as for anger, if your Ren and Du doesnt govern and balance, then anger is not easy to settle naturally.


So, if you eat meat and have sex after you got the kung fu, that is suicide. one better off dont train.

I think this is a very complicated view to adhere to.

Simply, we become aware, we learn to cultivate, we know what degrades and we manage from there. With strength and all things in moderation, we do not need to know linguistic details in regards to how we actually are able to feel our body work or react to what we put in it.

[Hendrik]

I think this is a very complicated view to adhere to.

Simply, we become aware, we learn to cultivate, we know what degrades and we manage from there.

With strength and all things in moderation,

we do not need to know linguistic details in regards to how we actually are able to feel our body work or react to what we put in it.


That is true for common logic.
However, a train body and mind with Kung fu is no longer the ordinary mind-body. another layer of the body with is the Qi layer of the body needs to be cleary handle. most people dont know this exist and not aware of it. and even aware of it doesnt know how it works if not train properly by expert sifu.



if one doesnt know the details flow of Ren and Du, how Qi stored in Dan Dien and the entering into silence to activate Qi...etc then one practically dont have the training.


not to mention,
actually Ren could flow down to three path, one path going down to the legs and dissipate, one path going to the p@nis , one path going to the Du and upward. and if one doesnt have handing on this, one doesnt have Qigong.

so, there is no way out once one decides to walk this path. one got to listen to be body and Qi, no longer using the mind as ordinary people thinking moderation. it is a training for life and serious.


Thus, Wu Gu lun is speacking the Truth of Shao Lin 禅武 一如 cultivation


心意把乃历代单传之功法，
练心意把必须终生独,、素食，要言传身授，苦练十年以上的少林基本功方可学习。

试想若无明师悉心指点、无多年苦修浸淫，把从何来？若不知气，行功不知忌口，饮食不加调济，则 血浮气躁、气 息难调，何谈心意？

此亦少林禅功有别于其它功夫之一处。

世人辄曰：酒肉穿肠过，佛祖心中留，谬论也!

少林门人若不修心、意、气，不通禅，何以谈武？

所 谓禅拳、禅武 一如岂非妄谈？所谓少林外家乃无稽之谈，外行之讹传，后人之附会而已。


I am just sharing some more details on the Qi cultivation so that those who are interested knows there are such things needs to handle. and one needs a teacher to coach one if one decide to go this path.

Thus, those who keep asking why no sex, why no meat knows, how it is specifically influence the body- mind via the Qi layer. It is a technology not a believe. and in order to handle the production and repeatability of training, one needs to be clear.

[RenDaHai]

@Hendrik

Zhen Qi can't be drained or stored, at least not in the way that that terminology implies.

The more it is used, the stronger it becomes

I think we are talking about a different practice.

@Dave

Cheers, you too

[Hendrik]

@Hendrik

Zhen Qi can't be drained or stored, at least not in the way that that terminology implies.

The more it is used, the stronger it becomes

I think we are talking about a different practice.

@Dave

Cheers, you too



I am talking about traditional Chinese Zhen Qi 真气 definition as in TCM, TCMA .... cultivation.

[RenDaHai]

In my experience the different Qis are different

炁

I'll leave it there

[Hendrik]

In my experience the different Qis are different

炁

I'll leave it there



are you a Shao Lin? a Wudang? a Emei? a TCM? who do you practice Neigong from?


I am refering to Zhen Qi as the following it is common.
http://baike.baidu.com/view/331145.htm

you are posting an ancient Daoist character of the same thing.

What I have described above is a common knowledge of Qigong in China.

[RenDaHai]

I'm Shaolin, but I also practice SongXi (Wudang). I learned from an old man in a forgotten village, but thats not important ;)

炁 is the character specifically for ZhenQi, its not used any more. (Combin. Void + Fire means 'cessation of desire').

I know what your talking about, but its the compiled standard Qigong of all china. There are many sects with many different views. Somewhere along the centuries the concept of Zhen QI, breath Qi, and several others have been rolled into one....and it doesn't really make sense.

But when it comes to these things no one will heed whats written on a forum. So I'll have to leave it there. The character is worth looking up though :) It has a bit more meaning than the standard 'Vapour'.

[Hendrik]

I'm Shaolin, but I also practice SongXi (Wudang). I learned from an old man in a forgotten village, but thats not important ;)

炁 is the character specifically for ZhenQi, its not used any more. (Combin. Void + Fire means 'cessation of desire').

I know what your talking about, but its the compiled standard Qigong of all china. There are many sects with many different views. Somewhere along the centuries the concept of Zhen QI, breath Qi, and several others have been rolled into one....and it doesn't really make sense.

But when it comes to these things no one will heed whats written on a forum. So I'll have to leave it there. The character is worth looking up though :) It has a bit more meaning than the standard 'Vapour'. (The actual character is a little different to 炁 but thats the closest still used)



Thanks for sharing.

For me, it doesnt matter how the character is written. the important point is how to cultivate it.

what I am quoting is a proved, do able , and safe cultivation path, which accord with TCM, we dont want to mislead the Westeners and screw them. a proper path must be reveal.

[Hendrik]

内功经
For those who is serious and interested, this is the real deal of Neigong in Chinese Martial art tradition.



内功之传，脉络甚真，不知脉络，勉强用之，则无益而有损。

卷一内功篇


学医道者，不可不明乎经络，何况习内功乎？若不明脉络，犹习射而操弓矢，其不能也决矣。能内景遂道，返观而 以察之，则体用兼备矣。

前任后督，气行滚滚，井池双穴，发劲循循。气纳丹田，冲起命门，引督脉过尾闾，由脊中直上泥丸，下人中龈交 ，追动性元，引任脉降重楼，而下返气海。两脉上下，旋转如园，前降后升，络绎不绝也。井者，足少阳胆经，肩 上陷中之肩井穴也。池者，手阳明大肠经，屈时横纹头陷中之曲池穴也。大肠经所入合土，土生金，手足少阳，足 阳明，阳维之会，连入五脏，周身发劲之所也。

龟尾升气，丹田炼神，气下于海，光聚天心。龟尾者，长强穴也。谷道轻提，真气自然上升矣。丹田者，冲脉（上 起百会，下达会阴），带脉（腰一周之脉）之中，脐下内部也。为男子精室，女子胞宫所在，调整呼吸，固精健肾 ，练神之所也。小腹正中为气海，额上正中为天心，之气充于内，形光于外也。

既明脉络，次观格式。格式者，入门一定之规也。不明此，即脉络亦空谈耳。

[LFJ]

because if you take animal product and trying to cultivate and accumulate Qi in your Dan Tian, you will end up leak it out via sexual dream or unknown anger which disrupt your mind body.

This is the type of thing I'm saying you can't just claim without providing evidence to support it. If you have no evidence, there is no reason to believe it to be true and you shouldn't pass it around as if it were so.

Like the other things in the Zhan Zhuang thread you asked to have translated. They are just more claims of the same type, without evidence.

For example; "荦食者比素食者更易冲动，更有进攻性，这从动物界的行为能看出来。"

My translation is; "Meat eaters are more impulsive and aggressive than vegetarians, this can be seen in the behavior within the animal kingdom."

This is ridiculous. Carnivorous animals are of course more aggressive because they have to stalk and chase their prey. They don't get a free and easy meal like vegetarians. This is not at all caused by what goes into their stomach.

To use examples in the animal kingdom as proof of emotional or personality effects different diets have on human beings is ignorant. What would be accepted as proof of this claim would be an actual peer-reviewed scientific journal demonstrating the claim to be true. Not just someone saying so.


...who here is vegetarian?

I've been on the vegetarian diet for many years. So I'm not arguing against it at all. I'm simply asking for reasonable evidence to support claims made in regards to diet and training of Qigong and high level of Gongfu, which some people have been claiming requires a vegetarian diet.

[LFJ]

For me, it doesnt matter how the character is written. the important point is how to cultivate it.

You miss the point-

The difference between 气 and 炁 is not just the way the characters are written. They are very different concepts. Simply put 先天之炁 and 后天之气. The first is intrinsic, the second is extrinsic.

As Rendahai suggested, look it up.

[Hendrik]

You miss the point-

The difference between 气 and 炁 is not just the way the characters are written. They are very different concepts.

Simply put 先天之炁 and 后天之气. The first is intrinsic, the second is extrinsic.

As Rendahai suggested, look it up.




炁 and 气 has been used to refer to the same thing for the modern Chinese language.


炁 is just a fancy way of writing 气 today.

in fact, 炁 is mostly used these days to include some kind of mysterious-ism or show some "superiority" without substance for marketing purpose.




I am talking specifically Zhen Qi above ; the term uses in TCM and Chinese martial art .

the following is the standard definition.

go a head translate it.


真气

英文名称： genuine qi

定义： 由先天元气与后天水谷之精气结合而化生，为维持全身组织、器官生理功能的基本物质与原动力。

---------------------





you really love to play with words isnt it?


Please make sure you know what is what before post anything to confuse others by playing words game .

[Hendrik]

This is the type of thing I'm saying you can't just claim without providing evidence to support it.

If you have no evidence, there is no reason to believe it to be true and you shouldn't pass it around as if it were so.





anyone who practice Qigong and have accumulated Qi knows.
I suggest you go cultivated Qi and see for yourself.

It is passed around because it helps others to avoid wet dreams.
when one wakes up with the Wet blanket evidence it is too late --- one's many months kung fu is already in the drain.

[YouKnowWho]

It is passed around because it helps others to avoid wet dreams.
when one wakes up with the Wet blanket evidence it is too late --- one's many months kung fu is already in the drain.

If you tie a rope around your neck and below your knees to prevent your legs to be straight. As long as you cannot straight your legs when you sleep, you will never have wet dream.

Unfortunately today no matter how much that I straight my legs when I sleep, I can no longer have wet dream. It sucks to be old. :(

[Hendrik]

To those who is serious


I am talking 真气 or Zhen Qi or genuine qi specifically because one can then understood precisely the teaching in the above Neigong Chin Martial art Neigong class which I have posted in Chinese.

for example:
前任后督，气行滚滚，井池双穴，发劲循循。气纳丹田，冲起命门

since the 气 or Qi refer in the Neigong Chin is Zhen Qi.


we want to focus on what is it, how to do it, instead of all the fancy and meaningless 炁 character side track.




so,
Is the following idea true?




@Hendrik

Zhen Qi can't be drained or stored, at least not in the way that that terminology implies.

The more it is used, the stronger it becomes



No it is wrong.


why?

because

真气

英文名称： genuine qi

定义： 由先天元气与后天水谷之精气结合而化生，为维持全身组织、器官生理功能的基本物质与原动力。


Zhen Qi is define in TCM and Neigong as a fusion/creation of the pre-birth Yuan Qi and the post birth Food intake's Jing Qi.

A big part of this Zhen Qi is from Food. so Zhen Qi is always consume and dissipated unless one refill it with FOOD intake.

thus, it is misleading to make claim as



Zhen Qi can't be drained or stored, at least not in the way that that terminology implies.

The more it is used, the stronger it becomes


This type of claim is solidly showing one has never really deal with Zhen Qi, otherwise, one knows it cannot be.

[Hendrik]

If you tie a rope around your neck and below your knees to prevent your legs to be straight. As long as you cannot straight your legs when you sleep, you will never have wet dream.

Unfortunately today no matter how much that I straight my legs when I sleep, I can no longer have wet dream. It sucks to be old. :(


John,


Ya, tie the rope so that one cannot sleep flat will help.

however, if the energy from the meat is too strong, one will get into trouble like eating 5 viagra when one sees a sexy lady, at that point, there is no return.


after sixty, there are still methods to accumulate the Qi. with technics with proper diet one could do it.

[LFJ]

炁 and 气 has been used to refer to the same thing for the modern Chinese language.

炁 is just a fancy way of writing 气 today.

We're obviously not talking about modern language. Why would you even mention modern usage? Unless you are unaware of the classical meaning due to lack of education on the topic, which apparently...


真气

英文名称： genuine qi

定义： 由先天元气与后天水谷之精气结合而化生，为维持全身组织、器官生理功能的基本物质与原动力。

Now here you post something which makes the same point that you refute- that of having two separate concepts, i.e. "先天元气" and "后天水谷之精气". These (结合而化生) combine to make up "Genuine Qi" 真气.

Originally the character 炁 refers to the former "Intrinsic Qi" (先天之炁), while the character 气 refers to the latter "Extrinsic Qi" (后天之气). These combined create "Genuine Qi" (真气).

It is just that nowadays people write both as 气, and forget about the separate concepts, as you have. This is a huge mistake, because there are many finer details to these concepts which you will be missing.


you really love to play with words isnt it?

Please make sure you know what is what before post anything to confuse others by playing words game .

No. You just seem a little too naive and uneducated on the topic, while making very large unfounded claims here.

[Hendrik]

It is just that nowadays people write both as 气, and forget about the separate concepts, as you have. This is a huge mistake, because there are many finer details to these concepts which you will be missing.


No. You just seem a little too naive and uneducated on the topic, while making very large unfounded claims here.


is it nowadays ? is it a huge mistake?

Translate the following and see where do you stand with your opinion.




氣源自於古字气，
最早是雲氣的意思，是個象形字[6]。[/SIZE]

它有呼吸、氣息的意思[7]，也有米飯的意思[8]。它很快被引申，具備天氣、氣候、節氣、氣味乃至於風氣、流行等等意思，也發展出許多異體字，

如炁、餼，在唐朝之後逐漸定型為氣。


至宋代之後，道教思想家為了區別先天的氣與後天的氣，採用古字炁來代表先天的氣，代表無極，氣則被當成是後 天的氣，為太極。這兩個字的意義又被分開。


但是除了道教文獻之外，通常都以氣來概括。


http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B0%A3








Now here you post something which makes the same point that you refute-

that of having two separate concepts, i.e. "先天元气" and "后天水谷之精气". These (结合而化生) combine to make up "Genuine Qi" 真气.


Originally the character 炁 refers to the former "Intrinsic Qi" (先天之炁), while the character 气 refers to the latter "Extrinsic Qi" (后天之气). These combined create "Genuine Qi" (真气).


What's wrong to call it 先天元气 instead of 先天之炁 without using the character 炁?

[RenDaHai]

Originally the character 炁 refers to the former "Intrinsic Qi" (先天之炁), while the character 气 refers to the latter "Extrinsic Qi" (后天之气). These combined create "Genuine Qi" (真气).
.

Exactly.

In neigong we have a phrase 'Cong HouTian hui dao Xiantian' Or something like that, the meaning is to return to ones 'Prenatal' 'Intrinsic' 'original' nature.

A vast amount of training is required in being able to recognise 先天之炁 'Intrinsic' qi. (note the beauty of the character, Void + Fire, NO fire = Cessation of desire, in the prenatal state we have no knowledge of the world and no misconceptions and no illusion and no desire).

炁 Is different from the other(s). It is mental/conscious in nature. The concept of XianTianQi is not always reconcilable with TCM. In the past there were many doctors but few Neigong masters.

A vast amount of Neigong training is awareness of 炁. Awareness can only become stronger, not weaker.

[LFJ]

Hendrik-

Firstly, in message boards using very large and bold characters usually expresses shouting. Shouting won't make your points.

If you want to highlight something, simply change the color as I have in the last post. It's easier to read and more pleasant on the eyes. :)

Secondly, it's from a Wikipedia article on 气. It's not a very broad article, and doesn't discuss the concept in different systems, such as Buddhism or Shaolin Qigong.

The article starts off saying Qi is a concept often seen in Chinese Philosophy, Daoism, and TCM. So right from the beginning it states its limited scope.

The only relevant parts of your citation are; "在唐朝之後逐漸定型為氣" and "但是除了道教文獻之外，通常都以氣來概括".

The first sentence is talking about; after the Tang Dynasty "气" gradually became the standard character to express the concept of breath, air, gas, etc. in favor over other characters such as 炁 (which has another concept).

The second sentence says; apart from Daoist documents the character "气" is generally used to express both meanings of 炁 and 气, which Daoists used to differentiate between "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" Qi.

So what we know from this article is that 气 has become the dominant character, while 炁 is less commonly seen and understood now.

What the article doesn't mention is the concept of 炁 in Buddhist context, and the important distinction between it and 气.

[RenDaHai]

What's wrong to call it 先天元气 instead of 先天之炁 without using the character 炁?

Nothing, but its wrong to confuse its nature.

[Hendrik]

Exactly.

In neigong we have a phrase 'Cong HouTian hui dao Xiantian' Or something like that, the meaning is to return to ones 'Prenatal' 'Intrinsic' 'original' nature.

A vast amount of training is required in being able to recognise 先天之炁 'Intrinsic' qi. (note the beauty of the character, Void + Fire, NO fire = Cessation of desire, in the prenatal state we have no knowledge of the world and no misconceptions and no illusion and no desire).

炁 Is different from the other(s). It is mental/conscious in nature. The concept of XianTianQi is not always reconcilable with TCM. In the past there were many doctors but few Neigong masters.

A vast amount of Neigong training is awareness of 炁. Awareness can only become stronger, not weaker.



So, how do you recognize 先天之炁?


is it true on what you say


Zhen Qi can't be drained or stored, at least not in the way that that terminology implies.

The more it is used, the stronger it becomes

[LFJ]

In neigong we have a phrase 'Cong HouTian hui dao Xiantian' Or something like that, the meaning is to return to ones 'Prenatal' 'Intrinsic' 'original' nature.

A vast amount of training is required in being able to recognise 先天之炁 'Intrinsic' qi. (note the beauty of the character, Void + Fire, NO fire = Cessation of desire, in the prenatal state we have no knowledge of the world and no misconceptions and no illusion and no desire).

This speaks directly to the Buddhist concept 炁, as one's "original nature".

Your first point is the ultimate goal of practice in Shaolin, to use Neigong training to return to this "original" nature.

[Hendrik]

Nothing, but its wrong to confuse its nature.



Nope, not according to the TCM and TCMA neigong standard.


----------------------------
至宋代之後，道教思想家為了區別先天的氣與後天的氣，採用古字炁來代表先天的氣，代表無極，氣 則被當成是後 天的氣，為太極。這兩個字的意義又被分開。


但是除了道教文獻之外，通常都以氣來概括。


http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B0%A3
--------------------------------



read the Neigong classic


内功之传，脉络甚真，不知脉络，勉强用之，则无益而有损。

卷一内功篇


学医道者，不可不明乎经络，何况习内功乎？若不明脉络，犹习射而操弓矢，其不能也决矣。能内景 遂道，返观而 以察之，则体用兼备矣。

前任后督，气行滚滚，井池双穴，发劲循循。气纳丹田，冲起命门，引督脉过尾闾，由脊中直上泥丸 ，下人中龈交 ，追动性元，引任脉降重楼，而下返气海



in no where it uses 炁 but 气 as standard.

we are talking Martial art Neigong here. isnt it we need to follow the Neigong classic ?

[LFJ]

What's wrong to call it 先天元气 instead of 先天之炁 without using the character 炁?Nothing, but its wrong to confuse its nature.

Confusing or even forgetting it's nature.

Hendrik, is the Buddhist concept of 炁 vs 气 now clear to you? If so, you will see what's "wrong" with it.

[Hendrik]

This speaks directly to the Buddhist concept 炁, as one's "original nature".

Your first point is the ultimate goal of practice in Shaolin, to use Neigong training to return to this "original" nature.



Come on, I expect you to be better in making up BS.

[Hendrik]

Confusing or even forgetting it's nature.

Hendrik, is the Buddhist concept of 炁 vs 气 now clear to you? If so, you will see what's "wrong" with it.



Sure sure, Buddhist concept of 炁 vs 气, Get real.



come on, translate this

http://kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1116496&postcount=26

and let the world see what is what.

[RenDaHai]

So, how do you recognize 先天之炁?


is it true on what you say

It is true for Intrinsic Qi. The transmuted Qi is a another stage, and doesn't exist in every sect and I don't know about this.

The recognition is the goal of much of the Zhanzhuang training and months of meditation.

It is to listen to your body, to tame the tiger and subdue the dragon. I'm sorry i can't say much more.


Unfortunately there is no standard neigong. And much of what is written on it was written by people with skill in writing not in neigong. Its not reconcilable with TCM.

[LFJ]

Come on, I expect you to be better in making up BS.

Sure sure, Buddhist concept of 炁 vs 气, Get real.

Okay, if you like to read Chinese articles, have a look at it here:
http://baike.baidu.com/view/1615601.htm

“先天炁”在诸家修炼经典中的不同称谓:
Different names for "先天炁" (Intrinsic Qi) in various classics of different philosophical schools:

Note the Buddhist concept (in blue) is a synonym for "Mind", "Buddha Nature", "Suchness", "Wisdom Root", "Tathāgata", etc..



　　“先天炁”在诸家修炼经典中称谓众多，常用名词列举如下。
儒家称谓 (Confucianism)
　　心、理气、无极、天良、良知、良能、性、明德、黄中、仁、不易之气、浩然正气。
释家称谓 (Buddhism)
　　心、佛性、真如、慧根、智慧体、金刚不坏身、妙觉、妙明心、舍利子、妙明紫金光、金刚正法眼藏、自在菩 萨、如来、成佛因地、摩尼宝珠。
道家称谓 (Daoism)
　　心、先天炁、真阳之炁、真源、紫气、元神、谷神、真常、性命、黄庭、金丹、三寸气、天一真水、黍米玄珠 、大神性中天。
医家称谓 (TCM)
　　精神、真气。
现代称谓 (Modern)
　　生命、心灵、根源、灵魂、感觉思维能源、生命能源，等等。由于历史时期不同，诸家称谓也不相同，但说的 都是人的生命根本。

[RenDaHai]

Okay, if you like to read Chinese articles, have a look at it here:
http://baike.baidu.com/view/1615601.htm

“先天炁”在诸家修炼经典中的不同称谓:
Different names for "先天炁" (Intrinsic Qi) in various classics of different philosophical schools:

Note the Buddhist concept (in blue) is a synonym for "Mind", "Buddha Nature", "Suchness", "Wisdom Root", "Tathāgata", etc..


Thats a great article you posted J. Gonna take me a while to get through it properly. Thanks for the post.

But with what is written just in the first two paragraphs seems to explain the centre of our argument here.

[LFJ]

Yes, the section on “炁”与“气”我们如何区别 (How to differentiate 炁 and 气) is really good. It gets into the Buddhist concepts much more deeply.

[rett]

In Chinese contexts, if someone speaks of mustard (or maybe mustard greens?), what food is meant? Is it what's called 小白菜 (xiaobaicai) in Mandarin or Bok Choy in USA? Latin name would be best. Thanks for any clues.

I'm pretty sure they don't mean French's Yellow Mustard.

This is off the Chanwuyi site where they mention what I believe is supposed to be a leafy-green vegetable called mustard. I did som google image searches but couldn't figure out anything definite.

I just want to know what not to eat! Thanks...:)

[rett]

It is to listen to your body, to tame the tiger and subdue the dragon. I'm sorry i can't say much more.



Do you think a valid approach to Neigong is to be more interested in listening and observing (both physical and mental processes) and being less interested in technical manipulation of inner energies? Thie former is the kind of approach that feels more sympathetic to me right now.

I ask because I feel the discussion is hinging on an opposition between the value of awareness & insight vs. the value of striving for a super-body. Kind of typical Buddhists and Daoists at same interfaith conference argument.

[LFJ]

小白菜 (xiǎobáicài) is Chinese cabbage. Baak-coi is the Cantonese pronunciation of Baicai.

Mustard Greens (Brassica juncea) in Chinese is 芥菜 (jiècài).

[rett]

小白菜 (xiǎobáicài) is Chinese cabbage. Baak-coi is the Cantonese pronunciation of Baicai.

From what I've seen it appears that Baak-coi actually refers to a different plant than what is called baicai in the north. (despite their using the same characters and just having dialectal pron. differences)

Baicai in the North is the dense large heads of cabbage. (I've seen them in the garden and eaten them). Baak-coi as I understand it, are the smaller version with no heads and a large flat leafy part. In the north, these latter are called xiaobaicai.

But I could be wrong about this.


Mustard Greens (Brassica juncea) in Chinese is 芥菜 (jiècài).

Thank you!!! (I actually intend to try to avoid this vegetable... which shouldn't be too hard)

[LFJ]

You're probably right. In Chinese supermarkets here I see 小白菜 written as "Small Bok Choy" in English.

You can look up images of 小白菜 and 大白菜.

[rett]

Okay, thanks. I'll treat that as confirmed for the time being. Really appreciate the help.

Sorry to bring you down to the mundane plane:) Please continue with the regularly scheduled programming.

[GeneChing]

I've been on the vegetarian diet for many years. So I'm not arguing against it at all. I'm simply asking for reasonable evidence to support claims made in regards to diet and training of Qigong and high level of Gongfu, which some people have been claiming requires a vegetarian diet.
I confess, I tend to judge Shaolin wuseng on their abstinence now. There are members of the Shaolin fold that espouse Shaolin philosophy yet do not adhere to the monastic requirements. This is one reason why I train with someone who has formally disrobed.

Vegetarianism is challenging for sure. I never imagined I would go veg, but I've been so for several years now. I still eat fish occasionally (technically a pescatarian, not to be confused with pastafarian (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=61175)). And I'm not religiously strict. I mistakenly ate some meat at our TCKFMCIII Welcoming Banquet (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=977), which was more funny to me than upsetting.

I don't think vegetarianism has improved my kung fu or qigong directly. Peripherally, the practice has narrowed my attention and allowed me to focus better. I used to get overwhelmed by the consumer choices that America presents. Standing in the supermarket trying to decide which product to buy or stressing over what would be tastiest to select off a menu wasted a lot of my time for naught. Now, there are whole sections of the supermarket and menu that I don't even have to engage. It saves me a lot of time and energy, which I can dedicate to other things. I suppose if all I did was kung fu and qigong, I'd have more direct benefits.

[Hendrik]

Gene and those who is serious in this issue.


Be very careful.

The vegitarian food the ancient martial art scrip talks about is closer to the food offer in Fresh Choice or Sweat tomato. It is fresh, nature, and unrefine with very little process food.

The modern Chinese vegitarian food in the restorant are practically toxic with oil, salt, sugar, and other chemical. fill with lots of process carb. That is not the vegitarian food mention at all. in fact, that is worse then ordinary food.


So, if one want to really feel the effect of the vegitarian to improve the kung fu and qigong. one needs to diet in the fresh unrefine food. No soft drink too.


a 21 days or more in this type of diet and have a living similar to living in a small village with no tv and entertainment will show the result of the power of this diet. Obviously, most people dont do this. but to got advance, one has to go this seclusion path. sometimes when one is sick and need to use the Qigong to rebuilt the body or need to get to an advance level, so the sifu get one into this type of living.


the effect of this type of dieting will effect the body and mind. the mind is much easier to automatically settle itself, the body is light and empty, the qi is flowing very comfortably. it is in this platform that the body could be rebuild or further strengthen. or the Qi storage capacity is increased via the training.




Not everyone like to do the above, not everyone could affort to do the above, and it is not everyone's path.

For me,
However, if we want to talk real shao lin such as in Wugulun, one got to go this path. Sure, we might not be able to do it. however, we must not destroy this dharma due to our own like or dislike.



It is like the story of the Bhiku Lucky Star who thinking he has attained the second Arahat level where he just attain the second Dyna state. So he slanded the Buddha saying the Buddha is BS. That is not right because it destroy the path of training from one's own ignorance.



Vegitarian is just a chemical reaction to transform the body, mind, and Qi in the modern term. there is no mysterious.





I confess, I tend to judge Shaolin wuseng on their abstinence now. There are members of the Shaolin fold that espouse Shaolin philosophy yet do not adhere to the monastic requirements. This is one reason why I train with someone who has formally disrobed.

Vegetarianism is challenging for sure. I never imagined I would go veg, but I've been so for several years now. I still eat fish occasionally (technically a pescatarian, not to be confused with pastafarian (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=61175)). And I'm not religiously strict. I mistakenly ate some meat at our TCKFMCIII Welcoming Banquet (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=977), which was more funny to me than upsetting.

I don't think vegetarianism has improved my kung fu or qigong directly. Peripherally, the practice has narrowed my attention and allowed me to focus better. I used to get overwhelmed by the consumer choices that America presents. Standing in the supermarket trying to decide which product to buy or stressing over what would be tastiest to select off a menu wasted a lot of my time for naught. Now, there are whole sections of the supermarket and menu that I don't even have to engage. It saves me a lot of time and energy, which I can dedicate to other things. I suppose if all I did was kung fu and qigong, I'd have more direct benefits.

[LFJ]

However, if we want to talk real shao lin such as in Wugulun, one got to go this path. Sure, we might not be able to do it. however, we must not destroy this dharma due to our own like or dislike.

Like or dislike?

You speak as if I'm arguing against vegetarianism. As a long time vegetarian, I'm obviously not.

I simply asked you for evidence to support your claims, you are unable to provide any. So there is no reason to believe you.

Furthermore, you've demonstrated in this thread that you don't know what you're talking about, and you ignore evidence that is contrary to what you believe.

(See the article on Buddhist 炁 vs 气 above, a concept which you called BS that I made up.)

So I'm not sure why you continue to speak as if your words carry weight to people like this:


Gene and those who is serious in this issue.

[Hendrik]

Like or dislike?

You speak as if I'm arguing against vegetarianism. As a long time vegetarian, I'm obviously not.

I simply asked you for evidence to support your claims, you are unable to provide any. So there is no reason to believe you.

Furthermore, you've demonstrated in this thread that you don't know what you're talking about, and you ignore evidence that is contrary to what you believe.

(See the article on Buddhist 炁 vs 气 above, a concept which you called BS that I made up.)

So I'm not sure why you continue to speak as if your words carry weight to people like this:



you have an excellent post.

[RenDaHai]

Do you think a valid approach to Neigong is to be more interested in listening and observing (both physical and mental processes) and being less interested in technical manipulation of inner energies? Thie former is the kind of approach that feels more sympathetic to me right now.


They are part of the same thing. But for now don't worry at all about the 'technical manipulation of internal energies'. Focus on observing mental processes. But you need someone to talk to about it, and explain your experiences, this way they are reinforced.

[Hendrik]

Let see what is the reality with Martial art Neigong classic said.
This classical writing is a traditional reference of the Internal Martial atists .


Here is a brief brief translation so our western friends can know such reference exist in a holistic style in China.


内功经
Neigong classic



内功之传，脉络甚真，不知脉络，勉强用之，则无益而有损。
The transmission of Neigong, one needs to know the medirians of Qi flow properly. Not knowing the medirians of Qi; brute force/ forcefully / not accord to the medirians handling the issue. There will be no benifit but damage.






卷一内功篇
Scroll one, the Neigong chapter.




学医道者，不可不明乎经络，何况习内功乎？
Those who study chinese medicine must know Qi flow medirians, for those who practice Neigong even needed.


若不明脉络，犹习射而操弓矢，其不能也决矣。
If there is no understanding in medirians, that is like learning how to shoot arrow without knowing the handing of bow. one has no direction.


能内景遂道，返观而 以察之，则体用兼备矣。
capable of knowing the inner path ways, one watches it and examine it, only in that way the " body " and " its applications" are holistic/complete mastered.



前任后督，气行滚滚....

Ren medirian in front and Du medirian at the back, Zhen Qi flow strongly....


This classic in not known for most young generation Chinese martial artists or external style martial artists. Thus, it is even rare in the west. One needs to follow a classical such as this when practicing Internal martial art or Neigiong.

[Hendrik]

For those who is interested,


In my opinion,


Do you think a valid approach to Neigong is to be more interested in listening and observing (both physical and mental processes)

and being less interested in technical manipulation of inner energies?


Thie former is the kind of approach that feels more sympathetic to me right now.


listening and observing are actually a very broad and fuzzy ideas and too general. it often is like say something but nothing is said.

Neigong in martial art is a specific training with the goal of transform one's body into a certain way. Thus, specific technical handling and manipulation of mind, body, energy cannot be avoided.


Neigong in martial art is certainly not philosophical meditation which is up for anyone to define. often, usually, philosophical meditation or even Zen from those who has no proper transmission are just some wishful thinking which gets no where.







I ask because I feel the discussion is hinging on an opposition between the value of awareness & insight vs. the value of striving for a super-body. Kind of typical Buddhists and Daoists at same interfaith conference argument.


For me,

There is no opposition.

Awareness and insight of a certain Kong comes from the practice of handling the body, mind, and energy in martial art Neigong.

It is like the chef has develop the chef way of Awareness and insight compare with the Tailor. Chef's awareness/ insight and Tailor's awareness/ insight are different. and no one can train in awareness and insight and having Chef's or Tailor's awareness and insight. one got to do it in specific to get there.


Even in the Buddhist such as reciting Amitofo and Chan meditation or Daoist accumulate Qi have different handling technics or Dharma doors. every dharma door has its own way of handling. Thus, even in the realm of awareness and insight it is very specific. otherwise one really doesnt cultivate anything.


In Martial art neigong, there is no Buddhist or Daoists but technology, very specific technology to create something or own some power.

Thus, it is not a philosophy debate or a mind speculation. Philosophy or mind speculation or reasoning might sound great but at the end of the day, the Kung needs to get one somewhere. otherwise it is wasting energy.

In today's world, everyone love to have one's style and philosophy and individualism's .....etc. but take a look, what is really going on? a mess with no result in major general.


Thus, for me, if one doesnt follow the Proven traditional practice which is there and practice by others for hundreds of years and get result, one cant really expect any result.

also, for those who keeps asking for prove, simple learn from those who has the kung fu, that is the best prove.

[Hendrik]

They are part of the same thing. But for now don't worry at all about the 'technical manipulation of internal energies'. Focus on observing mental processes. But you need someone to talk to about it, and explain your experiences, this way they are reinforced.


so what is the result by doing Focus on observing mental processes ?

how is that related to martial art neigong where body strengthening and fa jing are the goal?

[GeneChing]

Quote:
Gene and those who is serious in this issue. You've got to understand that I've eaten a lot of meat in my day. I was an avid carnivore, and into stunt food as part of my twisted cultural heritage. I've eaten reptiles, amphibians, bugs, even dog (http://kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=61165). There's no way I can repay my karmic diet debt at this point, at least not within this lifetime.

That being said, all this talk of vegetarianism and channels, meridians and such comes off as just muddled noise. I hear the same about martial arts all the time. While there's a certain academic interest, it's really all in the practice. Either you're vegetarian or your not. Either you have a decent kung fu/qigong practice or you don't. I think they can be related in a gestalt sort of way, but to look for justification within TCM theory seems overly intellectual. Just practice it and see what comes of it.

In that regards, I stand beside LFJ. Surely I support vegetarianism as I practice it. But I don't see evidence that it makes your kung fu or your qigong better.

I do think it makes you a better person tho. ;):p

[Hendrik]

But I don't see evidence that it makes your kung fu or your qigong better.

I do think it makes you a better person tho. ;):p



i think if one is not training about 3 hours up per day, one doesnt feel anything.

as a better peson, sure, less work for the liver and kidney from meat always make a person more relax.

[bawang]

i do qigong after i eat kfc with zero problem

[rett]

Which is why I ask for pictures of vegetables.

And if I can learn the one or two biggest and most important meridians then I'll feel set to go.

Also, restaurant tips are always welcome:


The vegitarian food the ancient martial art scrip talks about is closer to the food offer in Fresh Choice or Sweat tomato. It is fresh, nature, and unrefine with very little process food.

[GeneChing]

The vegitarian food the ancient martial art scrip talks about is closer to the food offer in Fresh Choice or Sweat tomato. Do you work for Fresh Choice of Sweet Tomato or what?

Actually, I do like the term "Sweat tomato." Too bad I already declared today's word of the day as ip manifide (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1116999#post1116999).

[rett]

Sweat tomato is a necessary part of full English breakfast. See near bottom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stoke_newington_breakfast_1.jpg

[Hendrik]

Which is why I ask for pictures of vegetables.

And if I can learn the one or two biggest and most important meridians then I'll feel set to go.

Also, restaurant tips are always welcome:



learn the Ren and Du medirians from TCM as you can see it is the first mention in the Neigong classical. that is a good basic to have.


I dont know much about restorant.

[Hendrik]

Do you work for Fresh Choice of Sweet Tomato or what?

Actually, I do like the term "Sweat tomato." To bad I already declared today's word of the day as ip manifide (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1116999#post1116999).



Those are the only two restaurants I go to when WingChuners visit me in the bay area.

These days lots of Wingchuners are on Natural food diet. hahaha.

[RenDaHai]

so what is the result by doing Focus on observing mental processes ?

how is that related to martial art neigong where body strengthening and fa jing are the goal?

If you just want to improve Fa Jing, and body, we don't call this neigong.

Some Martial arts define it as neigong when there are excercises that improve the lungs, heart etc. But as I said before there tend to be 2 major schools. One which only practices the body, one which practices the mind.

Neigong can be practised independant of martial arts.

ALso, there is no use quoting TCM as it is not the same thing.

Neigong is about changing your awareness and perception of things. First by understanding your minds link to your body. Letting your mind better understand its unconscious element (Xin Yu Yi He).

[Scott R. Brown]

There is no real spiritual reason to be poor, vegetarian or celebate. This is clearly demonstrated in the Vimalakirti Sutra.

Vimalakirti was a wealthy householder with children and we may presume he also ate meat.

The Vimalakirti Sutra is one of the sutras the foundation or Ch'an was built upon. The themes of the Vimalakirti Sutra are found within the earliest Ch'an writings.

To be preoccupied with with such things is just another form of clinging. To believe one is BETTER for being a vegetarian, or another is worse for eating meat is just another form of clinging!

This principles is demonstrated in one of the earliest Ch'an writings:

Master Yuan and a friend were walking down a butcher's street. Master Yuan's companion commented to Master Yuan, "Do you not see these butchers?" (Monks were supposed avoid even the sight of the killing of animals!) Master Yuan responded, "You are seeing on top of seeing!"

Master Yuan's companion, clung to rules/teachings. Master Yuan clung to nothing, therefore walking down the street of butchers was not walking down the street of butchers.

For his companion, every street is a street of butchers because of his clinging mind!

[rett]

There is no real spiritual reason to be poor, vegetarian or celebate.

Maybe it can help someone focus. If you're willing to live in a hut that just barely keeps out the rain, eat the simplest food and give up physical affection... well if you can do it, your practice must be giving a lot in return.

The only one of those I'm even close too is diet, and my food is still luxurious compared to Stonehouse's diet if you read Red Pine's translation of his poems. (amazing amazing book btw)

He preferred to gather pine pollen to eat in the early spring before his garden got going over going down the hill and begging from the farmers.

If anyone gets the chance I'd also like to recommend the film Amongst White Clouds about hermits in the mountains near Xi'an. Maybe everyone already knows about it, but it's worth giving it another plug.

I realize my interest in this stuff is a kind of larping and that it involves forms of ego and fantasy. But I still like it. Having a feeling of purpose in life – even a little – makes a lot of extraneous stuff seem totally unimportant. Living in commercialism mainstream with that mindset would feel like prison. And I'm sure there's a long way left to go.

[Scott R. Brown]

Maybe it can help someone focus. If you're willing to live in a hut that just barely keeps out the rain, eat the simplest food and give up physical affection... well if you can do it, your practice must be giving a lot in return.

The only one of those I'm even close too is diet, and my food is still luxurious compared to Stonehouse's diet if you read Red Pine's translation of his poems. (amazing amazing book btw)

He preferred to gather pine pollen to eat in the early spring before his garden got going over going down the hill and begging from the farmers.

If anyone gets the chance I'd also like to recommend the film Amongst White Clouds about hermits in the mountains near Xi'an.

I realize my interest in this stuff is a kind of larping and that it involves forms of ego and fantasy. But I still like it. Having a feeling of purpose in life makes a lot of extraneous stuff seem totally unimportant.

Living in a cold wet hut always being hungry and absent human interaction creates just as many distractions to overcome as living a normal life.

Whether any of these things are distractions or not is all in the mind. The mind will create its own distractions out of nothing because that is the nature or the mind.

When we see distractions as non-distracting and non-distraction is not distracting, we are distracted by nothing! This is one of the earliest Ch'an teachings! :)

[rett]

Living in a cold wet hut always being hungry and absent human interaction creates just as many distractions to overcome as living a normal life.

Really? When did you do it and for how many years?


Also, I believe as in am pretty sure, that the most usual hermit life is a period of intensive practice for a set number of years. Then they go back to living in the monastery or in the cities as before.

Even in the mountains there is some community among the practitioners. It doesn't have to mean being entirely isolated all the time.

Speaking of ancient Ch'an teachings... how long did Damo live in the cave on the mountain?

[RenDaHai]

Both sides have something here.

Yes eliminating all other elements from your life means fewer distractions. No responsibility and no stress means you are free to work on your abilities.

But at the same time it doesn't help you in any other way than freeing you from your distractions. When it comes to the great work, the meditation, the focus it doesn't matter what you have where you are... Nothing matters except what is in your mind.

It goes back to what I said before about cause and consiquence. Becoming a hermit won't increase your spiritual ability, it just gives you more oppertunity to work on it. One who is not a hermit can just as well become as skilled.

Once people have reached this level they may become like a hermit because many things will no longer be important to them, but the act of becoming a hermit will not give them this level.

[Scott R. Brown]

Really? When did you do it and for how many years?


Also, I believe as in am pretty sure, that the most usual hermit life is a period of intensive practice for a set number of years. Then they go back to living in the monastery or in the cities as before.

Even in the mountains there is some community among the practitioners. It doesn't have to mean being entirely isolated all the time.

Speaking of ancient Ch'an teachings... how long did Damo live in the cave on the mountain?

If you have never been cold, wet and hungry in your entire life you are indeed fortunate!

All three can be just as distracting as anything else in life, if not more!;)

Just because damo was reported to have lived in a cave for 7 years does not mean everyone needs to do it or would benefit from it.

Vimalakirti was a wealthy householder, with a wife and children, yet he schooled all the bodhidsattvas!

The point is, any INSISTENCE that ANYTHING is necessary is merely another form of clinging. You cannot make a mirror out of a brick by polishing it with another brick!

[rett]

Just because damo was reported to have lived in a cave for 7 years does not mean everyone needs to do it or would benefit from it.

Oh yeah I totally agree. I'm just suggesting these things can be useful. I don't think anyone should be pressured into it. There just may come a point in some people's lives where they feel enthusiastic about doing it.

[Scott R. Brown]

Oh yeah I totally agree. I'm just suggesting these things can be useful. I don't think anyone should be pressured into it. There just may come a point in some people's lives where they feel enthusiastic about doing it.

I agree! My only point is that is not necessary, not that it is not of benefit to some.

[GeneChing]

There is no real spiritual reason to be poor, vegetarian or celebate. This gets complicated really quickly for anyone who practices Chan/Zen. It can easily be tantamount to tossing the baby out with the bath water. One of Bodhidharma's major teachings was to avoid attachment, but that can evolve into immorality in the blink of an eye. One only needs to recall the impact of Zen upon Nazism, or just read Zen at War by Brian Daizen Victoria, to see where that path might lead. It's an intellectualist's argument, preying on an intrinsic paradox of non-attachment. Certainly, for some, abstinence is not a pre-requisite. But for most, these disciplines are very useful for killing delusion.

[Scott R. Brown]

This gets complicated really quickly for anyone who practices Chan/Zen. It can easily be tantamount to tossing the baby out with the bath water. One of Bodhidharma's major teachings was to avoid attachment, but that can evolve into immorality in the blink of an eye. One only needs to recall the impact of Zen upon Nazism, or just read Zen at War by Brian Daizen Victoria, to see where that path might lead. It's an intellectualist's argument, preying on an intrinsic paradox of non-attachment. Certainly, for some, abstinence is not a pre-requisite. But for most, these disciplines are very useful for killing delusion.

Let me see if I understand your argument here:

If a Ch'an practitioner eats meat, it will turn them into a Nazi?:eek:

In all seriousness though:

When stating these disciplines are useful for killing delusion, one must be so deluded to begin with they do not recognize that these disciplines "themselves" are delusions one is using in order to cleanse their self of delusion!

Using delusion to kill delusion is no different than rubbing two bricks together in order to make a mirror.

While it is true that all things are delusion, one does not throw out all arbitrarily created rules with the bath water. Being free from delusion, and the clinging mind, does not mean one does not live in a delusive world and live by the rules of that world, It merely means, one is not attached to the delusion, not that they don't use the delusion as one might use paint and brush to paint a picture, or hammer and nail to build a house.

The world does not change, our perception and the reason we do things changes, when we become free from delusion and the clinging mind.

[rett]

That sounds like California zen. Be careful.

The iconoclastic statements in the old Ch'an books came from a monastic environment where people practiced very hard and believed teachers unquestioningly. Maybe they needed to be shaken up or something.

If anything, Californians need the opposite: to be encouraged to strive hard; simplify; revere parents, teachers, monks; be ethical; do without.

Context is key.

[wenshu]

The iconoclastic statements in the old Ch'an books came from a monastic environment where people practiced very hard and believed teachers unquestioningly. Maybe they needed to be shaken up or something.




If the teachings are meaningless delusions and my own mind is the path therefore when my mind tells me to smoke crack, pimp hos, punch kittens and engage in bestiality with all manner of ruminant quadrupeds that is enlightenment.


Debauchery is my asceticism. A very focused, one pointed debauchery.

[Scott R. Brown]

That sounds like California zen. Be careful.

The iconoclastic statements in the old Ch'an books came from a monastic environment where people practiced very hard and believed teachers unquestioningly. Maybe they needed to be shaken up or something.

If anything, Californians need the opposite: to be encouraged to strive hard; simplify; revere parents, teachers, monks; be ethical; do without.

Context is key.

I agree, context is important, however, that does not eliminate the truth of it! One of the reasons the Vimalakirti sutra was written was to demonstrate that advanced realization is available to regular Joes. It is not required that anyone follow the Buddhist rules. These are merely guides, not absolute rules. If this were not true, then Buddhism is NOT the Middle Path!


If the teachings are meaningless delusions and my own mind is the path therefore when my mind tells me to smoke crack, pimp hos, punch kittens and engage in bestiality with all manner of ruminant quadrupeds that is enlightenment.


Debauchery is my asceticism. A very focused, one pointed debauchery.

This is one of the criticisms given to those who profess what I have posted above and I think might be Gene's point. The view that all is delusion. therefore anything is permissible may lead some to believe that ANYTHING GOES! While this is technically, true it is doubtful this kind of behavior would actually occur without good reason.

Fist of all, actions still have social and world system consequences. One will still reap the consequences of going against the societal norms and the consequences to their body for abuse rendered to it.

While one technically could engage in bestiality and kick around kittens, it is doubtful one would ever do such a thing because there would be no real good reason to do so! To say, well, "One would do it just because they want too", would be a fallacy, because quite frankly, they wouldn't want too in the first place! The walking down the street of butchers of Master Yuan, is a far cry from having sex with animals. The former demonstrates the relativity of perspective and Buddhist rules of conduct, the latter demonstrates cruelty to animals, a disregard of societal norms and perversion!

But you have given a good example of sometimes a little knowledge is sometimes worse than none at all!;)

[GeneChing]

Actually that's a pretty hard argument to support as Hitler was a vegetarian. :o

The 'anything goes' mindtrap is common and it often starts with denial of abstinence, although it's a horrid simplification. Although I think we're on the same track with the kitten kicking. It's all about teasing out what is and is not delusion. So if vegetarianism is a delusion, why bother abide by it? Eat what you like. Eat meat. Eat kittens. Eat humans. You have to draw the line somewhere. Believe it or not, debauchery can actually be a form of asceticism. Take black tantra, such as the Mahakala cults, which indulge in eating the forbidden meats like elephant and human, in order to go the other way, to burn out the delusion. It's almost the yin to the yang. While Chan is reductionist, tantra is indulgent, but theoretically, all paths can lead to the same summit...that is, assuming you don't fall off a cliff on the way.

[rett]

The view that all is delusion. therefore anything is permissible may lead some to believe that ANYTHING GOES! While this is technically, true it is doubtful this kind of behavior would actually occur without good reason.

The Buddha specifically taught that believing everything goes is a warped or mistaken understanding of the teaching of emptiness. "Nothing's really real so there's no such thing as moral transgression, no reason to honor one's parents etc."

I don't remember exactly where, but there is a whole Sutta devoted to it, if I remember correctly it was in the Majjhima Nikaya.

To take one example. Suppose something understands that none of us ever really own anything. Objects are made of matter (or the earth element) and are just moving around in this soup of matter and energy. So there's no such thing as stealing. So I can steal without doing any moral harm.

This is wrong because by wanting something enough to steal it you are positioning yourself with a greedy ego. Your action says more about your understanding than your professed belief in emtpiness. You're acting as if you really do think this are worth craving, and the result will be to make you more of a Gollum.

That's the real reason I try (but often fail) to be moral IMO. The effects it has on me. Being sneaky and punching kittens turns me into a Gollum.

Edit: I just went back and read the rest of your post. You make interesting points, thanks.

[wenshu]

I agree, context is important, however, that does not eliminate the truth of it! One of the reasons the Vimalakirti sutra was written was to demonstrate that advanced realization is available to regular Joes. It is not required that anyone follow the Buddhist rules. These are merely guides, not absolute rules. If this were not true, then Buddhism is NOT the Middle Path!
Your assumptions about the Vimalakirti Sutra notwithstanding; by your own logic, this "truth" as you say, or to be more precise your interpretation of "the truth of it" is just you clinging to the teachings of Vimalakirti.

Clinging to not clinging. Mayhaps there are some pithy quotes about that. . .?




This is one of the criticisms given to those who profess what I have posted above and I think might be Gene's point. The view that all is delusion. therefore anything is permissible may lead some to believe that ANYTHING GOES! While this is technically, true it is doubtful this kind of behavior would actually occur without good reason.

Fist of all, actions still have social and world system consequences. One will still reap the consequences of going against the societal norms and the consequences to their body for abuse rendered to it.

While one technically could engage in bestiality and kick around kittens, it is doubtful one would ever do such a thing because there would be no real good reason to do so! To say, well, "One would do it just because they want too", would be a fallacy, because quite frankly, they wouldn't want too in the first place!

That is a monstrous assumption about cause and effect that borders on naivete.
Just because you think it abhorrent and unlikely doesn't make it so. Some people just have unmitigated impulse control problems.

Aren't societal mores, reasons, consequences and pathological behavior just delusions?




The walking down the street of butchers of Master Yuan, is a far cry from having sex with animals. The former demonstrates the relativity of perspective and Buddhist rules of conduct, the latter demonstrates cruelty to animals, a disregard of societal norms and perversion![

But you have given a good example of sometimes a little knowledge is sometimes worse than none at all!;)

Admittedly I was being grandiose for my own amusement and I don't think one has to be vegetarian (the butcher creates no bad karma)or even buddhist to become enlightened.



Believe it or not, debauchery can actually be a form of asceticism. Take black tantra, such as the Mahakala cults, which indulge in eating the forbidden meats like elephant and human, in order to go the other way, to burn out the delusion. It's almost the yin to the yang. While Chan is reductionist, tantra is indulgent, but theoretically, all paths can lead to the same summit...that is, assuming you don't fall off a cliff on the way.

That's what I was referring to. Tantric practice involves lust, however it is still within a basic framework of discipline. A highly focused, one pointed debauchery.

[Hendrik]

hahaha, all the Chan and tantra.....etc.

well, take a sleeping pill, and if one still get knock out. all are just talk.


Damo can dissipate poison in his food.

I think it is Kumārajīva which told the Chinese Monks that --- if you can eat a bow of iron needles then you can have sex.


So, if one cannot back one's unattachment by real kung fu. it is all talking Zen, useless stuffs.

[Scott R. Brown]

The 'anything goes' mindtrap is common and it often starts with denial of abstinence, although it's a horrid simplification. Although I think we're on the same track with the kitten kicking. It's all about teasing out what is and is not delusion. So if vegetarianism is a delusion, why bother abide by it? Eat what you like. Eat meat. Eat kittens. Eat humans. You have to draw the line somewhere. Believe it or not, debauchery can actually be a form of asceticism. Take black tantra, such as the Mahakala cults, which indulge in eating the forbidden meats like elephant and human, in order to go the other way, to burn out the delusion. It's almost the yin to the yang. While Chan is reductionist, tantra is indulgent, but theoretically, all paths can lead to the same summit...that is, assuming you don't fall off a cliff on the way.

I appears you are saying that what is important is to develop self-discipline. Is this correct?

If this is what you are saying then all that is required is to develop self-discipline and not necessarily deny oneself any one thing in particular, but to deny oneself something in order to develop the self-discipline to do without/ avoid clinging. This can be accomplished without being a vegetarian, of course, or without becoming ascetic in any way.

After all, Buddhism IS the Middle Path!


The Buddha specifically taught that believing everything goes is a warped or mistaken understanding of the teaching of emptiness. "Nothing's really real so there's no such thing as moral transgression, no reason to honor one's parents etc."

This is true, but one is always subject to the morals/rules of the deluded world, the world system, if they continue to participate within it.

There are advantages to participating in the world system if one wishes to assist others in transcending the clinging mind. So one might follow the dictum, when in Rome do as the Romans do to a certain degree. If your purpose is to assist others in transcending the world system, then setting an example in your conduct in order to set yourself apart from everyday people would help to serve that purpose.

By setting yourself apart you demonstrate, in small way, an outward appearance meant to reflect an inward difference. After all, one does not generally approach the village hedonist (one without apparent self-discipline) to ask for advice in finding happiness or a way to deal with life's sorrows, but one might approach someone who demonstrates, through actions and attitude, a certain equanimity.


To take one example. Suppose something understands that none of us ever really own anything. Objects are made of matter (or the earth element) and are just moving around in this soup of matter and energy. So there's no such thing as stealing. So I can steal without doing any moral harm.

This is wrong because by wanting something enough to steal it you are positioning yourself with a greedy ego. Your action says more about your understanding than your professed belief in emtpiness. You're acting as if you really do think this are worth craving, and the result will be to make you more of a Gollum.

I agree with you, for the most part, here.


Your assumptions about the Vimalakirti Sutra notwithstanding; by your own logic, this "truth" as you say, or to be more precise your interpretation of "the truth of it" is just you clinging to the teachings of Vimalakirti.

Nice try!, LOL!!;)

One might as well say that stating 2+2=4 means one is attached to that simple fact. Water IS wet! Fire IS hot! These are simple statements of reality, of fact, just as 2+2=4, is a statement of fact. They are NOT opinions or emotional attachments.

The Vimalakirti Sutra is widely acknowledged having as one of its messages, that householders, that is those who live normal everyday life, have just as much access to Buddha Mind as monks and Bodhisattvas.

Why is this? Well let's see.......

He was a householder, meaning he had a family, a house and possessions!

He had children, meaning he participated in sexual relations!

He was wealthy, meaning he not only had possessions, but he participated in commerce!

He schooled the Bodhisattvas such that they were reluctant to go visit him when he was sick, because he embarrassed them when he showed them they misunderstood the Dharma the last time each one had encountered him!

He was recognized by a Buddha to have extraordinary understanding, which is why he sent the Bodhisattvas to visit him on his sick bed to pay their respects!

2+2=4 and always will. Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not is up to you!

It is more likely you are clinging to a wish for it NOT to be so, but a wish does not change the facts!


Clinging to not clinging. Mayhaps there are some pithy quotes about that. . .?

Or mayhaps, clinging to "clinging to not clinging" etc.:eek:



That is a monstrous assumption about cause and effect that borders on naivete.
Just because you think it abhorrent and unlikely doesn't make it so. Some people just have unmitigated impulse control problems.

Aren't societal mores, reasons, consequences and pathological behavior just delusions?

It is more likely you have not thought the concept through very deeply!

If one has "unmitigated impulse control problems", they also have a self-discipline problem, meaning they cannot control themselves.

If they have no self-control they are controlled by the clinging mind and therefore are NOT realized! Since we are discussing the freedom a realized person would have to commit what are generally accepted to be atrocious acts, your example does not demonstrate the point.

Consider it in this manner:

You have perfect freedom to cut off your nose! Everyone does! The odds of you or anyone else cutting off their nose is minuscule! That is, it is unlikely you would do so, even though you can FREELY do so!

A realized person has perfect freedom to act in any manner he chooses without accruing karmic debt! The odds of him acting in "certain" socially abhorrent ways is minuscule! That is, it is unlikely he would do so, even though he can FREELY do so!

Why is this? Because reasonable people, just as a realized person would be, recognize that cutting off one's nose, or acting in "certain" socially abhorrent ways, serves no useful benefit, and the "world system" negative consequences of the act will likely outweigh any "world system" benefit that might be gained.

Just because a person is realized does not make them immune to world system consequences of their actions, it merely means they perceive those consequences from the clear perception that they are unreal in absolute terms. But they are always subject to them as long as they live and participate within the world system!

So, while a realized person COULD POTENTIALLY perform any act free from karmic consequence, it is unlikely he would perform "certain" socially abhorrent acts due to the world system consequence that WOULD accrue, and not just for himself, but for the innocent victims of his act.

When one examines the issue under discussion from a deeper perspective it becomes abundantly clear that there is no monstrous assumption occurring anywhere, but in your own mind!:p


hahaha, all the Chan and tantra.....etc.

well, take a sleeping pill, and if one still get knock out. all are just talk......

So, if one cannot back one's unattachment by real kung fu. it is all talking Zen, useless stuffs.

Just as your comments are all just "useless stuffs" talk as well!

So why not set a good example for us all and stop talking yourself!

BTW, unattachment has NOTHING to do with kung fu, REAL or PHONEY!

[wenshu]

I appears you are saying that what is important is to develop self-discipline. Is this correct?

If this is what you are saying then all that is required is to develop self-discipline and not necessarily deny oneself any one thing in particular, but to deny oneself something in order to develop the self-discipline to do without/ avoid clinging. This can be accomplished without being a vegetarian, of course, or without becoming ascetic in any way.

After all, Buddhism IS the Middle Path!

You keep saying that people are mistaken for clinging to certain basic "moral" imperatives. Aside from hendrik's grandoise pronouncements from plagarized blog posts, I don't really think anyone is saying vegetarianism, celibacy and poverty are imperatives. What rett is pointing out is the same thing I have been trying to tell you for a while:

All the Gong Ans and Hua Tous where you get all those pithy, obtuse non sequitors about bricks and mirrors etc grew out of cases where those who had already developed some wisdom were struggling to make breakthroughs and needed a master to show them to leave "the boat on the shore". They are not suitable for a beginner first embarking on the path.

I think you keep approaching this argument as if opposing the viewpoint that buddhist codes of conduct are moral imperatives on the order of the deadly sins. I don't see the precepts or the eight fold noble path as actual moral imperatives. It is more about behaving in a way that leaves the mind in a state that is conducive to liberation. Murderous Rage ,Mindless Chattering Gossip, Libidinousness and Intoxication are not wrong or bad in and of themselves. For most people they simply scatter the mind whence gives rise to ignorance and increases suffering. I think that the point you are trying to make is that clinging to precepts and behavioral imperatives as if the observance of precepts in and of itself will liberate you is false. We actually agree where on the surface circuitous rhetoric makes it appear otherwise.

The prohibition against intoxicants and libidousness is not because wine and sex is bad or evil, or even that they may lead to improper and lascivious behavior, it is because it leaves the mind scattered and hard to control. In my view, karma is not some metaphysical cosmological hypothesis, it is an immediate "action" and reaction in ones mind. As soon as you do some dirt your mind becomes clouded and more deluded. This makes practice more difficult. For others who can maintain a steady focus even in the midst of orgiastic hedonism realization is possible and not precluded due to any behavioral moral imperatives.

Precepts, Practice, Wisdom. You practice self discipline so that the mind is in a state conducive to the practice of concentration thereby leading to the development of wisdom. THEN you can leave the boat on the shore. It is not dependent on observance in and of itself.



One might as well say that stating 2+2=4 means one is attached to that simple fact. Water IS wet! Fire IS hot! These are simple statements of reality, of fact, just as 2+2=4, is a statement of fact. They are NOT opinions or emotional attachments.

The Vimalakirti Sutra is widely acknowledged having as one of its messages, that householders, that is those who live normal everyday life, have just as much access to Buddha Mind as monks and Bodhisattvas.

Why is this? Well let's see.......

He was a householder, meaning he had a family, a house and possessions!

He had children, meaning he participated in sexual relations!

He was wealthy, meaning he not only had possessions, but he participated in commerce!

He schooled the Bodhisattvas such that they were reluctant to go visit him when he was sick, because he embarrassed them when he showed them they misunderstood the Dharma the last time each one had encountered him!

He was recognized by a Buddha to have extraordinary understanding, which is why he sent the Bodhisattvas to visit him on his sick bed to pay their respects!

2+2=4 and always will. Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not is up to you!

It is more likely you are clinging to a wish for it NOT to be so, but a wish does not change the facts!

My meaning about your assumptions regarding the Vimalakirt Sutra was
a. That it was written with the intent of a specific purpose outside of the basic tenets of Mahayana.
b. That it was "written" at all and not compiled from various, relatively disparate oral sources over a century or so.

You're assumptions may very well, however unlikely, turn out to be true. . .


" The Vimalakirti Sutra appears to be a product of the early years of the Mahayana movement, though just where, when, or by whom it was composed is unknown. The earliest Chinese translation, now lost, was done in 188 C.E., so the sutra must predate that year, originating probably around 100C.E."
The Vimalakirti Sutra
Translated by Burton Watson Introduction pg.1

Also

Vimalakirti himself, as revealed in chapter 12 of The Vimalakirti Sutra, in his previous existence had been a bodhisattva in the realm of a Buddha named Akshobhya or Immovable. But he abandoned that land of purity and deliberately chose to be reborn in our present saha world in the time of Shakyamuni Buddha so that he could assist in expounding the Law of the Buddhas.
Ibid. pg. 7

In any case, your book report was unnecessary, I am familiar with the work.



If one has "unmitigated impulse control problems", they also have a self-discipline problem, meaning they cannot control themselves.

If they have no self-control they are controlled by the clinging mind and therefore are NOT realized! Since we are discussing the freedom a realized person would have to commit what are generally accepted to be atrocious acts, your example does not demonstrate the point.


I was not talking about someone who has already developed wisdom and directly experienced the emptiness of all phenomena, I was talking about a neophyte who mistakes the famous sayings and dead words of exchanges between the masters for realization.

[Hendrik]

unless on could get out of one's mind. yes, out of the mind.

all the non attachment intellecturalized arguement really doesnt mean anything but ideas which the body doesnt recognized.


Vegetarian diet is a support to get one out of one's mind. since human's behavior is influence heavily on the body, mind is influence by the body big time. handling the diet means handling the mind. It works because most people dont know what is their mind and thus has no handling. via vegetraian diet, it is an important indirect handling of mind. simple stuffs.



one can read all the sutras one wants and qoute all the koan one wants, if taken a viagra or watching a playboy mag could cause one to get high. then , all those sutras and koan are just "talks".

[wenshu]

all the non attachment intellecturalized arguement really doesnt mean anything


Then why do you insist on making incoherent contributions to it?

[Hendrik]

Then why do you insist on making incoherent contributions to it?

to get you out of your illusion.

[Scott R. Brown]

You keep saying that people are mistaken for clinging to certain basic "moral" imperatives. Aside from hendrik's grandoise pronouncements from plagarized blog posts, I don't really think anyone is saying vegetarianism, celibacy and poverty are imperatives.

What is important is to distinguish between following a moral imperative for a "reason", that is, understanding why one is adhering it, and blindly following a moral imperative because one is told to do so, because one believes they have to do so, or because one is emotionally or intellectually clinging to the precept.


What rett is pointing out is the same thing I have been trying to tell you for a while:

All the Gong Ans and Hua Tous where you get all those pithy, obtuse non sequitors about bricks and mirrors etc grew out of cases where those who had already developed some wisdom were struggling to make breakthroughs and needed a master to show them to leave "the boat on the shore". They are not suitable for a beginner first embarking on the path.

This is a common response many people use to justify not having to applying the teachings of these "pithy, obtuse, non sequitors" to themselves or others. I don't have a problem whether anyone applies them or not, but to say they are only applicable to those with some level of understanding and not to others makes some pretty broad assumptions about the understanding of others and the purpose and meaning of these "pithy, obtuse, non sequitors".

For one, there is no way for you or I to know who understands what and to what level. You may speak for yourself only, and presume about others, but that is the best you can do. Therefore, to avoid making comments on the presumption others are too naive to understand or not ready to understand is not a principle I am willing to follow.

If these "pithy, obtuse, non sequitors" were of no value to those who have not obtained a certain (yet unknown) level of understanding, why record them in the first place? Why are they not held as secret teaching available only to those with special understanding?

I do agree that many teachings can only be understood through the context of some level of understanding, however, teachings are teachings in order to help others achieve those levels of understanding.

Most here have some level of exposure to Buddhist (Ch'an) thought. Many, if not most, understand the concept of polishing a Brick with another Brick! Those who do not understand may ask for clarification, which leads to an expansion of understanding. The context is rather simple and easily understandable for those not exposed to the principle, thus it is not a principle available to only a select few, but applies to all people.

The manner in which I used it enhanced the point I was making and was not inappropriately applied out of context. If you believe it was applied out of context, please provide a cogent argument demonstrating my error in order that I may more deeply understand the principle for myself.

It is not for you to decide who it applies to and who it does not apply to based upon your own monstrous assumptions!:p


I think you keep approaching this argument as if opposing the viewpoint that buddhist codes of conduct are moral imperatives on the order of the deadly sins.......

You are mistaken! Try to avoid making monstrous assumptions about me and read what I have written more carefully. If I am unclear about anything I have said I am happy to rephrase my comments or explain in more detail in order to make myself more clear.:)


I don't see the precepts or the eight fold noble path as actual moral imperatives. It is more about behaving in a way that leaves the mind in a state that is conducive to liberation. Murderous Rage ,Mindless Chattering Gossip, Libidinousness and Intoxication are not wrong or bad in and of themselves. For most people they simply scatter the mind whence gives rise to ignorance and increases suffering.

I agree with you for the most part.

These behaviors, for most people, reflect a state of mind which is chaotic due to clinging!


I think that the point you are trying to make is that clinging to precepts and behavioral imperatives as if the observance of precepts in and of itself will liberate you is false. We actually agree where on the surface circuitous rhetoric makes it appear otherwise.

Pretty close!

To me it is less important what precepts one follows as it is to understand why one follows them! Following a precept for a reason is not the same thing as following one blindly!

Tools are tools, we use them and discard them. Precepts are merely tools. Use them for the purpose for which they are designed and when they are no longer useful, use other tools that are.


The prohibition against intoxicants and libidousness is not because wine and sex is bad or evil, or even that they may lead to improper and lascivious behavior, it is because it leaves the mind scattered and hard to control. In my view, karma is not some metaphysical cosmological hypothesis, it is an immediate "action" and reaction in ones mind. As soon as you do some dirt your mind becomes clouded and more deluded. This makes practice more difficult. For others who can maintain a steady focus even in the midst of orgiastic hedonism realization is possible and not precluded due to any behavioral moral imperatives.

I agree.

Also, clinging in any way clouds the mind and leaves it scattered. Using a precept or principle is not the same thing as clinging to a precept or principle.

I disagree with the principle that the mind must be controlled. Control is just another form of clinging. It is the need to control that causes clinging in the first place. We cling to things in order to try to gain control over them. The mind is fine on its own without trying to control it. It is letting go of clinging that is difficult to accomplish due to the habit energy created by attempting to cling to everything we can. When we "realize" that it is impossible to cling to anything in the first place, including the mind, we can relax and stop "trying", then everything works itself out on its own.


Precepts, Practice, Wisdom. You practice self discipline so that the mind is in a state conducive to the practice of concentration thereby leading to the development of wisdom. THEN you can leave the boat on the shore. It is not dependent on observance in and of itself.

I agree for the most part, other than it is not necessary to, "practice self discipline so that the mind is in a state conducive to the practice of concentration thereby leading to the development of wisdom."

It is clinging that clouds the mind. When one stops clinging, the mind clears and wisdom spontaneously occurs!


My meaning about your assumptions regarding the Vimalakirt Sutra was
a. That it was written with the intent of a specific purpose outside of the basic tenets of Mahayana.
b. That it was "written" at all and not compiled from various, relatively disparate oral sources over a century or so.

You're assumptions may very well, however unlikely, turn out to be true. . .

If you presumed that my conclusion was ”That it was written with the intent of a specific purpose outside of the basic tenets of Mahayana”. You are mistaken.

And perhaps you do not fully understand the basic tenets of Mahayana. Mahayana was a specific answer to the Hinayana that insisted monastic life was necessary in order to advance beyond a specific point spiritually. Mahayana’s most basic tenet is that Buddha Mind is available to all sentient beings. My comments do not fall outside this tenet. In fact, they emphasize this point!

The fact Vimalakirti was a Bodhisattva in a former life is immaterial. We do not know, of the people we meet in our daily lives, who was or wasn't a Bodhisattva in a past life, so we might want to avoid deciding what is appropriate or not appropriate for them based upon our monstrous assumptions.


In any case, your book report was unnecessary, I am familiar with the work.

You missed the point. It was not a book report. It was an argument demonstrating the reasoning behind the conclusion of the previous post you had a disagreement with. The fact is, Vimalakirti IS meant to demonstrate that a lay person may attain Buddha Mind and thereby most or all of the precepts followed by monks are NOT necessary. Which was my point in the first place and your disagreement of I was responding too.

At any rate, since you are familiar with the work and have apparently read Burton Watson’s introduction to the work, then you also know my points are made my others, including Burton and have been accepted as true by Buddhist’s across cultures for over 1,500 years. In which case why disagree without making a valid argument against my view that is also an accepted view of others.

My argument is not assumption, it is a reasoned conclusions based upon evidence. My “book report” was the evidence used to reach my conclusion! Argue against the argument presented please.


I was not talking about someone who has already developed wisdom and directly experienced the emptiness of all phenomena, I was talking about a neophyte who mistakes the famous sayings and dead words of exchanges between the masters for realization.

Who are these neophytes of which you speak and why do you presume to decide what they can or cannot understand? While your comment is in theory correct, who is to decide what any specific person can or cannot understand? I choose not to make those monstrous assumptions.:p

[Scott R. Brown]

all the non attachment intellecturalized arguement really doesnt mean anything but ideas which the body doesnt recognized.

Which also applies to your comments!

Since your comments are meaningless, they are unnecessary additions!


Vegetarian diet is a support to get one out of one's mind. since human's behavior is influence heavily on the body, mind is influence by the body big time. handling the diet means handling the mind. It works because most people dont know what is their mind and thus has no handling. via vegetraian diet, it is an important indirect handling of mind. simple stuffs.

Saying vegetarianism is beneficial is not the same thing as saying it is necessary!

Vegetarianism is NOT necessary! It is merely a tool used for a purpose!


one can read all the sutras one wants and qoute all the koan one wants, if taken a viagra or watching a playboy mag could cause one to get high. then , all those sutras and koan are just "talks".

This is not true! Taking viagra or watching a playboy mag has nothing to do with it. It is clinging that causes ignorance/confusion. One may cling to koans and sutras and teachings as easily as viagra or playboy.

One might argue that the confusion caused by clinging to koans and sutras is worse, because this form of clinging is insidious and often hidden behind the spiritual pride they tend to cultivate in some people!


Then why do you insist on making incoherent contributions to it?


to get you out of your illusion.

Your time might be better spent getting yourself out of your own illusion before you concern yourself with the illusion you have created about the illusions others may or may not have!

[Hendrik]

This is not true! Taking viagra or watching a playboy mag has nothing to do with it.

It is clinging that causes ignorance/confusion.

One may cling to koans and sutras and teachings as easily as viagra or playboy.


the sexual effect of viagra or watching a playboy is an indication of one is clinging.

Disregard of the person admit or not .







Your time might be better spent getting yourself out of your own illusion before you concern yourself with the illusion you have created about the illusions others may or may not have!

The different between you and me is that I know I am in illusion and you are keeping thinking you are not.

[Scott R. Brown]

the sexual effect of viagra or watching a playboy is an indication of one is clinging.

Disregard of the person admit or not .

They are merely "possible" indications, they are NOT absolute proof!

When you make the assumption they are absolute proof, you reveal the limitations of your own clinging mind


The different between you and me is that I know I am in illusion and you are keeping thinking you are not.

The difference is, you have created an illusion that I, and others, do not know we are in an illusion and you do not recognize this is YOUR illusion or that it is a creation of your clinging mind!

And,

When it is pointed out to you that your spinning, robotic, rainbow unicorn mind has created an illusion about what you think the illusions of others are, you prefer to cherish and keep cultivating your own illusion about ridding others of their illusions rather than address your own unrecognized illusions from the first!

How can you assist others in ridding themselves of their own illusions when you cannot recognize your own first?

[wenshu]

What is important is to distinguish between following a moral imperative for a "reason", that is, understanding why one is adhering it, and blindly following a moral imperative because one is told to do so, because one believes they have to do so, or because one is emotionally or intellectually clinging to the precept.
I specifically said I do not see the Buddhist precepts or eightfold noble path as moral imperatives. They are just tools. If you are going to offer someone reproach for not reading you clearly (as you do below) at least have the common courtesy to do the same.



This is a common response many people use to justify not having to applying the teachings of these "pithy, obtuse, non sequitors" to themselves or others. I don't have a problem whether anyone applies them or not, but to say they are only applicable to those with some level of understanding and not to others makes some pretty broad assumptions about the understanding of others and the purpose and meaning of these "pithy, obtuse, non sequitors".

Just as quoting paradoxical Chan sayings are a common response people use to justify not having to apply discipline.



If these "pithy, obtuse, non sequitors" were of no value to those who have not obtained a certain (yet unknown) level of understanding, why record them in the first place? Why are they not held as secret teaching available only to those with special understanding?
I never said they weren't of any value. Merely trying to point out that one can cling to paradoxical sayings of ancient wisdom just as much as to "thy shalt not".




I do agree that many teachings can only be understood through the context of some level of understanding, however, teachings are teachings in order to help others achieve those levels of understanding.

Are not precepts part of the teachings?



You are mistaken! Try to avoid making monstrous assumptions about me and read what I have written more carefully. If I am unclear about anything I have said I am happy to rephrase my comments or explain in more detail in order to make myself more clear.:)
Um. . .right back atcha.


Control is just another form of clinging. It is the need to control that causes clinging in the first place. We cling to things in order to try to gain control over them. The mind is fine on its own without trying to control it. It is letting go of clinging that is difficult to accomplish due to the habit energy created by attempting to cling to everything we can. When we "realize" that it is impossible to cling to anything in the first place, including the mind, we can relax and stop "trying", then everything works itself out on its own.
Semantics. There is no point in trying to have a discussion when you can just claim everything is a form of clinging.



You missed the point. It was not a book report. It was an argument demonstrating the reasoning behind the conclusion of the previous post you had a disagreement with. The fact is, Vimalakirti IS meant to demonstrate that a lay person may attain Buddha Mind and thereby most or all of the precepts followed by monks are NOT necessary. Which was my point in the first place and your disagreement of I was responding too.

I never disputed the capacity of householders to attain awakening. What was that about reading people clearly?



At any rate, since you are familiar with the work and have apparently read Burton Watson’s introduction to the work, then you also know my points are made my others, including Burton and have been accepted as true by Buddhist’s across cultures for over 1,500 years. In which case why disagree without making a valid argument against my view that is also an accepted view of others.

My argument is not assumption, it is a reasoned conclusions based upon evidence. My “book report” was the evidence used to reach my conclusion! Argue against the argument presented please.
Your interpretation is not evidence. I offered counter evidence to an argument for which you offer no evidence outside of your own word. So I'm just supposed to take your word for it about the purpose and meaning of the Vimalkirti Sutra? You make several assumptions about its purpose and meaning, and offer no evidence.


If you presumed that my conclusion was ”That it was written with the intent of a specific purpose outside of the basic tenets of Mahayana”. You are mistaken.

One of the reasons the Vimalakirti sutra was written was to demonstrate that advanced realization is available to regular Joes.



And perhaps you do not fully understand the basic tenets of Mahayana. Mahayana was a specific answer to the Hinayana that insisted monastic life was necessary in order to advance beyond a specific point spiritually. Mahayana’s most basic tenet is that Buddha Mind is available to all sentient beings. My comments do not fall outside this tenet. In fact, they emphasize this point!

The fact Vimalakirti was a Bodhisattva in a former life is immaterial. We do not know, of the people we meet in our daily lives, who was or wasn't a Bodhisattva in a past life, so we might want to avoid deciding what is appropriate or not appropriate for them based upon our monstrous assumptions.


It is arguable that the Bodhisattva ideal as a reaction to the Arhat ideal is the "most basic" tenet of the Mahayana. Vimalakirti status as a reborn Bodhisattav is immaterial? Maybe you feel this way because it inconveniently stands in opposition to your view that he was to represent the awakening of "regular Joes".

It is somewhat discourteous to insist upon factual evidence for a counter argument against your assumptions for which you offer no evidence other than your own word and estimation of your own understanding.

[wenshu]

one can read all the sutras one wants and qoute all the koan one wants, if taken a viagra or watching a playboy mag could cause one to get high. then , all those sutras and koan are just "talks".

Or one can plagiarize and repost all the blog posts one wants. . .

You quote sutras more than anyone here in your unjustifiably egotistical attempts to demonstrate your "awakening" but when others do it is just "talks".

I'll have you know that I actually read Playboy for the articles..

[Hendrik]

They are merely "possible" indications, they are NOT absolute proof!

When you make the assumption they are absolute proof, you reveal the limitations of your own clinging mind




Nope, that is not a "possible" but a sure shot.

Thus one needs to break the skandha of sensation/feeling to get there. instead of just talking Chan Chan Chan and no can do.

Go a head, proceed until you broke the skandha of sensation/feeling then see for yourself.





The difference is, you have created an illusion that I, and others, do not know we are in an illusion and you do not recognize this is YOUR illusion or that it is a creation of your clinging mind!



We cant even broken the skandha of form. so what's good to talk?

There is no liberation until one break all the five Skandhas, disregards of how good one can talk or think.

There is no Kung fu until one atleast break the form skandha.

you are just over simplified what is happening.











Shao lin Neigong / Qigong. Shao Lin Chan kung is just Siddhi.

One broken the form skandha, one attain certain power.

One broken the feeling skandha, one attain deeper handling and power.


one doesnt talk all the theory to master Yijinjing or Xisuijing. one practice it with mind-body-awareness to attain to different states.

Vegetarian diet is important because it is all about Siddhi attaiment for those who is serious.






Ananda, when the good person who is cultivating samadhi
and shamatha has put an end to the form skandha, he can see
the mind of all Buddhas as if seeing an image reflected in a clear
mirror..........

Ananda, at this point, as the person intently investigates
that wondrous brightness, the four elements will no longer
function together, and soon the body will be able to transcend
obstructions. This state is called ‘the pure brightness merging
into the environment.’ It is a temporary state in the course of
cultivation and does not indicate sagehood. If he does not think
he has become a sage, then this will be a good state. But if he
considers himself a sage, then he will be vulnerable to the
demons’ influence....


Ananda, when the good person who is cultivating samadhi
has put an end to the feeling skandha, although he has not
achieved freedom from outflows, his mind can leave his body
the way a bird escapes from a cage. From within his ordinary
body, he already has the potential for ascending through the
Bodhisattvas’ sixty levels of sagehood. He attains the ‘body
produced by intent’ and can roam freely without obstruction. --- Shurangama

[Hendrik]

Or one can plagiarize and repost all the blog posts one wants. . .

You quote sutras more than anyone here in your unjustifiably egotistical attempts to demonstrate your "awakening" but when others do it is just "talks".

I'll have you know that I actually read Playboy for the articles..


I qoute sutras because I follow the teaching of the Buddha.

As Anada starts the sutra by saying " Thus, I have heard, the Buddha teaches".

[Scott R. Brown]

Nope, that is not a "possible" but a sure shot.

Thus one needs to break the skandha of sensation/feeling to get there. instead of just talking Chan Chan Chan and no can do.

Go a head, proceed until you broke the skandha of sensation/feeling then see for yourself.

We cant even broken the skandha of form. so what's good to talk?

There is no liberation until one break all the five Skandhas, disregards of how good one can talk or think.

There is no Kung fu until one atleast break the form skandha.

you are just over simplified what is happening.

Breaking skandhas does not preclude one from living a human life.

There is nothing wrong with living a normal human life. There is nothing in human life that is required to be avoided in order to obtain liberation.

Human life is not a barrier to liberation, nor is it a distraction.

It is the misapplication of perspective of mind that causes one to be bound by illusion. It is when one confuses transient phenomena with permanent/absolute reality that one becomes trapped and thus clings to the transient in order to preserve enjoyable personal experiences in the hopes of making them permament.

Realization is merely seeing this clearly. One may still enjoy all the vicissitudes of life, all the experiences of life, and obtain liberation/realization.

When we realize that clinging to that which changes creates unhappiness all we need do is learn to let go. Then ALL experiences of life are more enjoyable including the use of Viagra or playboy magazines.

If you feel it is appropriate for yourself to run away from life in order to obtain your fantasy illusion that is fine for you, but it is unnecessary in order to obtain liberation.

[Hendrik]

Breaking skandhas does not preclude one from living a human life.

There is nothing wrong with living a normal human life. There is nothing in human life that is required to be avoided in order to obtain liberation.

Human life is not a barrier to liberation, nor is it a distraction.

It is the misapplication of perspective of mind that causes one to be bound by illusion. It is when one confuses transient phenomena with permanent/absolute reality that one becomes trapped and thus clings to the transient in order to preserve enjoyable personal experiences in the hopes of making them permament.

Realization is merely seeing this clearly. One may still enjoy all the vicissitudes of life, all the experiences of life, and obtain liberation/realization.

When we realize that clinging to that which changes creates unhappiness all we need do is learn to let go. Then ALL experiences of life are more enjoyable including the use of Viagra or playboy magazines.

If you feel it is appropriate for yourself to run away from life in order to obtain your fantasy illusion that is fine for you, but it is unnecessary in order to obtain liberation.





I have never said anything wrong with living a normal human life.

I just said dont pretend and talk like a skandhas breaker who do not cling.

Reading a few books having some ideas is not a substitute for real skandha breaking.

One can realize they too might be able to be a millionaire in their mind, without taking any action , that is billions of mile away from being a millionaire.


We can talk about clinging, realization.....etc as much as we want, but a stronger caugh medicine will knock us out. So what good is all those talk?



Shao lin diet is for Skandha breaking preparation. that is what it is.

[Scott R. Brown]

I just said dont pretend and talk like a skandhas breaker who do not cling.

Maybe in your own mind, but not to those on the outside looking in!


One can realize they too might be able to be a millionaire in their mind, without taking any action , that is billions of mile away from being a millionaire.

We can talk about clinging, realization.....etc as much as we want, but a stronger caugh medicine will knock us out. So what good is all those talk?

Shao lin diet is for Skandha breaking preparation. that is what it is.

You will enjoy the consequences of the path you have chosen for yourself and others will enjoy the consequences of theirs. :)

[Hendrik]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3nI7riB49Y&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G6hz7MZqig&NR=1

all these Shao lins are skandha breakers. These are mystics.

Cant fight them because they live in a dimension larger then ours, when we dont have the degree of freedom they can access to other degree of freedom.

[Matthew]

Although this is about Standing Strength exercises, this discussion in context of ChanWuYi, Shi De Jian, and Buddhism may be important from a historical and contextual understanding of why they practice their Zhuang Gong they way they do.


It is not standard Mahāyāna Buddhism if the Sūtras don't make that claim.

I am therefore not finding fault in the Mahāyāna teachings, but pointing out where some fanatics are claiming false teachings to promote their ideals.

The Lankavatara Sutra gives us insight from a standard Mahayana Buddhist view of Meat eating- the link I have provided gives supporting commentary from the ChanWuYi branch of Shaolin's viewpoint on how important it is.

"But for people in the practice of Chanwuyi, whether or not they are sick, they should refrain from these foods [meat and hot and spicy foods] because they are harmful to the mind; it creates greed, anger, and desire, which are detrimental to practicing and meditation. The Buddha has indicated this in the Lankavatara Sutra.”

The book (which is freely available at the link at the bottom of this page) then provides part of the sutra in translated english.


As for enlightenment, it is not taught in Buddhist teachings that vegetarianism is vital for reaching that state.

Also the Buddha laid before us both the 8 fold path including Right Action (and several others arguably-that Killing would violate) and the derived 5 Precepts which involve not doing harm. Seeking enlightment while eating meat would be a direct contradict these core teachings (with possible exceptions- in which I have no interest in partaking anyway- would be if the animal died of natural causes and you found the body) of being responsible for the animal's death.

We understand this from basic causality- being the cause of the Butcher's knife dropping or harming the animal ourself to eat the meat should implicate negative results upon us- thus collecting negative karma and prolonging our stay in lower realms (away from enlightenment).

Obviously aside from natural animal death- if the human (in our case- us) cannot survive via sustained agriculture/plant eating where they live- they may also have an exception to eating meat. As this is not the case with nearly 99% of the modern world- we would not then be an exception.



Sure, if that is their culture... but my beef (;)) is with the dishonest way of forcing vegetarianism- by claiming it is vital for enlightenment, and essential for the highest levels of gongfu.

It's simply dishonest. A better way would be to say they prefer followers in their school adopt vegetarianism, or simply say that is a requirement they have chosen to set in their school.


As they claim the highest levels of gongfu are ChanWuYi in the ShaoLin tradition (Chan Buddhism, Martial Moves for practicing the body and teaching potential attackers that fighting is not what they'd like to do (and there is further literature I can point to that indicates more reasons why studying the meridians/qi flow is vital importance), and Yi for healing others and self (which also requires some understanding of qi flow/meridians).

Further the Meat is known from western empiricism to stay in the intestines as long as 30 days and nearly literally rot away at 98+ degree body temperatures.

Not only from a western standpoint does this leave toxins in our blood and stagnate movement in the intestines- from their Shaolin Viewpoint according to the link I have provided below- Wu (Martial Movement Practice) standpoint it reduces our ability to store and move qi effectively in and out of the main DanTian to further understand our body, from an Yi (Chinese/Shaolin Medicine) standpoint it causes stagnant fire in our intestines- which can be released through emotional issues such as those listed at the link I provide below from Shi De Jian's student's elaboration on this exact topic.

ChanWuYi (Shaolin Buddhist) vegetarian guidelines (http://www.chanwuyi.org/showroom/model/T0137/templateCustomWebPage.do?webId=1233929329351&editCurrentLanguage=1235069892126&customWebPageId=1285147851750356729)

Please provide any thoughts you have regarding my understanding- be it incomplete or inadequate either in a Buddhist or non-buddhist viewpoint.

[LFJ]

Hi Matthew,

I can appreciate your intentions, and I agree with the vegetarian diet wherever applicable and feasible. However, with that said, there are better reasons to support vegetarianism than the skewed version of Buddhist doctrine you have outlined below.

But first:


The Lankavatara Sutra gives us insight from a standard Mahayana Buddhist view of Meat eating- the link I have provided gives supporting commentary from the ChanWuYi branch of Shaolin's viewpoint on how important it is.

Right, but the text doesn't support the claims made by Hendrik here.


"But for people in the practice of Chanwuyi, whether or not they are sick, they should refrain from these foods [meat and hot and spicy foods] because they are harmful to the mind; it creates greed, anger, and desire, which are detrimental to practicing and meditation. The Buddha has indicated this in the Lankavatara Sutra.”

This is a very dangerous and irresponsible teaching! "Whether or not they are sick" means regardless of a student's physical and medical situation they still require a certain strict form of diet.

This display of poor education and attachment to religious belief is dangerous. Fortunately there haven't been any cases of people going to study with them with a certain medical situation and taking their word over common sense and knowing their own medical history and dietary needs.


Also the Buddha laid before us both the 8 fold path including Right Action (and several others arguably-that Killing would violate) and the derived 5 Precepts which involve not doing harm. Seeking enlightment while eating meat would be a direct contradict these core teachings (with possible exceptions- in which I have no interest in partaking anyway- would be if the animal died of natural causes and you found the body) of being responsible for the animal's death.

You've made a huge mistake here in equating meat eating with the karma of killing. It is not, and cannot be so.

An animal would have been killed and it's consciousness departed from its meat long before it arrives on one's plate. One's decision to eat that meat can in no way cause a death that has already taken place.

The fact is a present cause (eating meat) cannot manifest a past effect (animal killed).

That is a violation of even mundane cause & effect, so there is no way the karma of killing can be acquired from eating meat.


We understand this from basic causality- being the cause of the Butcher's knife dropping or harming the animal ourself to eat the meat should implicate negative results upon us- thus collecting negative karma and prolonging our stay in lower realms (away from enlightenment).

This has absolutely no scriptural support whatsoever.

A butcher kills. He creates the negative karma of killing. Eating meat doesn't mean one has committed the killing. That is completely asinine.

The least you can say is that one also creates negative karma if one asks a butcher to kill for them. In today's society however, that rarely happens. The meat that comes to one's plate has been absent of consciousness long before the desire to eat meat arose. Choosing to partake of that meat in no way creates negative karma.


Obviously aside from natural animal death- if the human (in our case- us) cannot survive via sustained agriculture/plant eating where they live- they may also have an exception to eating meat. As this is not the case with nearly 99% of the modern world- we would not then be an exception.

Yet another mistake you make here is that there can be exceptions in karma. That is altering karma into some sort of punishment or reward dealt out by a higher power who can decide based on certain circumstances whether or not to make exceptions for someone.

That completely violates the law of karma. If you maintain that eating meat is equivalent to killing in terms of karma (which it is certainly not) then that is so regardless of circumstance. Just like intentionally killing in any case will accrue its karmic debt, without exception.

Karma, being a natural law, cannot be altered to accommodate different circumstances. Gravity has never made an exception for anything either.

The Buddha made exceptions to allow meat eating for certain followers precisely because simply eating meat in no way creates negative karma. Otherwise it would have been terribly irresponsible of him to allow this of his followers.

The Buddha forbade meat eating to other followers also not because of issues of karma, but because vegetarianism is conducive to the compassionate mind they are cultivating.

[Matthew]

Hi Matthew,

But first:

The Lankavatara Sutra gives us insight from a standard Mahayana Buddhist view of Meat eating- the link I have provided gives supporting commentary from the ChanWuYi branch of Shaolin's viewpoint on how important it is."

Right, but the text doesn't support the claims made by Hendrik here.


I am unaware of Hendrik's claims- and my discussion is focused not on anything about Hendrik, but on the Shaolin Buddhist viewpoint ChanWuYi (in the context of the book linked) of Meat Eating and the greater Buddhist viewpoint of Meat Eating. By extension my discussion is about whether or not it is of importance in Buddhism to not eat meat.




But for people in the practice of Chanwuyi, whether or not they are sick, they should refrain from these foods [meat and hot and spicy foods] because they are harmful to the mind; it creates greed, anger, and desire, which are detrimental to practicing and meditation. The Buddha has indicated this in the Lankavatara Sutra.”

This is a very dangerous and irresponsible teaching! "Whether or not they are sick" means regardless of a student's physical and medical situation they still require a certain strict form of diet.


I would first say that abstaining from eating meat has been shown through empirical research in the west to reduce and more importantly prevent a wide range of diseases, illnesses, and common ailments. Further it is not recommended in Buddhism to eat meat for a variety of reasons which it may take a separate thread on this forum to address as it is a fairly large discussion involving a variety of sutras and teachings in Buddhism. Further- you are implying this teaching is forcing students not to eat meat- when it is the other way around. Humans who wish to be students of this Buddhist school refrain from eating such things voluntarily because of their understanding of the suffering that meat eating causes.

"Master Dejian said that in order to learn Chanwuyi, one first needs to adopt a vegetarian diet."
In other words- it is not possible to understand Chan Wu Yi if you are a meat eater. It is not to force anyone to not eat meat. To understand the combination of Buddhism (Chan 禅) (which recommends not eating meat in various texts for a variety of reasons which we can discuss, if you wish, in a separate thread), Martial Movement 武 (which is impeded in progress by meat consumption- as I have even mentioned why even in western standards meat consumption is bad for physical health- and by simple math we can equate that not optimal health is equal to not optimal learning in martial movement), and Medicinal Theory "Yi" 医 (in ShaoLin and Chinese context. This is an important part of this entire conversation that it seems you may be overlooking.)

Part of the crux of the the understanding in Yi (医) is that Meat has immense negative outcomes. From potential emotional issues such as anger or greed, (which is also mentioned from the Chan Buddhist perspective in the Lankavatara Sutra) to potential health issues (I reiterate- from the Shaolin and Chinese medicine theory which is part of what we are dicussing in ChanWuYi ) such as problems with digestion, qi storage/flow/stagnation, and by extrapolation problems with Yi 意- mind intent.

You have stated it is dangerous teaching to require people to eat a certain way. I would agree in some situations. In this case- there is no requirement of people to eat anything. As far as the book goes- Shi De Jian (the ChanWuYi lineage holder the book is written about) has never and never seems to have intent to "require" people to eat anything. If he forced people (which he does not) beyond their will to eat something that could be dangerous to eat- such as American culture indirectly forcing people to eat more meat than we need (which has had profound issues from Cancer and Heart Related illnesses at staggeringly high rates for consumers) - then I would agree that it is dangerous dogmatic thinking. Instead anyone who wishes to become a student of Chan Wu Yi will understand from 3 different points of view why eating certain things will not enable them to learn ChanWuYi (Refer again the the previous paragraph in which I outline reasons from all 3 points of view - Chan, Wu, and Yi).

We must understand that no one is being forced to do anything- people entering ChanWuYi school are willingly doing so. The authors choosing of the "required" is misleading in this quote's singular context. To more fully understand what she meant by the word "required"- we need to read further into the book that this thread is about (that I also provided a link to in my last post), if you don't wish to read further into it you can read the above paragraph relating the basics of what it says from the viewpoints of Chan, wu, and yi.




This display of poor education and attachment to religious belief is dangerous. Fortunately there haven't been any cases of people going to study with them with a certain medical situation and taking their word over common sense and knowing their own medical history and dietary needs.


Infact- if you read the book you will find the opposite. The book was written by Agnes Chan- trained in western scientific methods- who herself followed the Harvard guidelines for healthy vegetarianism. She found through Shi De Jian that her diet had large errors from the point of Yi (医 Chinese Medicine Theory), Chan Buddhism (禅 - i.e. our discussion of lankavatara sutra and other texts which we can discuss in another thread), and in Wu (武 which was not a complete practice in large part by errors by her lack of understanding the other two- Chan and Yi).

While it is not fully necessary to write- I feel for clarification purpose I should state that it is up to every human to determine their own medical situation before doing anything. That includes before eating anything realistically speaking. As far as your saying goes that attachment to religious belief and poor education can be dangerous- we must understand that our own knowledge is also bound by limitation. You should clarify what "Poor education" is- as many of us today have not spent time looking into research that has not been pursued to do corporate blocking/what research has been published that we have not been told about. Science has limitations such as who is funding research, and how much publicity the media and society will get based on what interests are behind it. For example- (in my theoretical case that our own "science" in effect is also limited) We have bodies of research that tell us relatively high cancer risks related to dairy consumption (and biologically how dairy does not improve "calcium" in bones as the corporations say), we have bodies of research that detail the dangers of eating meat in any amount, and on the contrary how immensely beneficial plant based diets are. Despite this- our society continues in much the dogmatic dangerous way you suggest that "poor education and religious belief" lead to.

This above paragraph is not to prove a point on American life- it is just to examine what issues in validity there may be with your statement "This display of poor education and attachment to religious belief is dangerous." and it's implication that knowledge outside of the ChanWuYi tradition (that we only know from this book- not from our own experience) is much more vast and is more well educated and less religious/dogmatic.

[Matthew]

You've made a huge mistake here in equating meat eating with the karma of killing. It is not, and cannot be so.

As we are discussing Buddhism and eating meat- it is first important to note whether or not you are recognizing the Lankavatara Sutra as a teaching of the Buddha or not. If you are, as most Buddhists would, then it follows that meat eating is entirely related to the negative outcome (as it is negative "karma" or negative action) and therefore contradictory to seeking enlightenment.
Here is the widely accepted and utilized translation by Suzuki of the Lankavatara Sutra (http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-nondiacritical.htm)

The Buddha tells us that eating meat keeps away good Merits and brings many evils.
"When I teach to regard food as if it were eating the flesh of one's own child, or taking a drug, how can I permit my disciples, Mahamati, to eat food consisting of flesh and blood, which is gratifying to the unwise but is abhorred by the wise, which brings many evils and keeps away many merits; and which was not offered to the Rishis and is altogether unsuitable?"


Yo I am highlighting the Lankavatara Sutra as it is of both general Buddhist importance and has specific importance to the Chan school (in this case in our discussion of ChanWuYi understanding of meat consumption).



An animal would have been killed and it's consciousness departed from its meat long before it arrives on one's plate. One's decision to eat that meat can in no way cause a death that has already taken place.

The fact is a present cause (eating meat) cannot manifest a past effect (animal killed).

That is a violation of even mundane cause & effect, so there is no way the karma of killing can be acquired from eating meat.

This has absolutely no scriptural support whatsoever.


I hope that you are detached to that last statement-In the Lankavatara Sutra- the Buddha tells us directly about karmic effects of eating meat.

"It is not true, Mahamati, that meat is proper food and permissible for the Sravaka when [the victim] was not killed by himself, when he did not order others to kill it, when it was not specially meant for him. Again, Mahamati, there may be some unwitted people in the future time, who, beginning to lead the homeless life according to my teaching, are acknowledged as sons of the Sakya, and carry the Kashaya robe about them as a badge, but who are in thought evilly affected by erroneous reasonings. They may talk about various discriminations which they make in their moral discipline, being addicted to the view of a personal soul. Being under the influence of the thirst for [meat-] taste, they will string together in various ways (254) some sophistic arguments to defend meat-eating. They think they are giving me an unprecedented calumny when they discriminate and talk about facts that are capable of various interpretations. Imagining that this fact allows this interpretation, [they conclude that] the Blessed One permits meat as proper food, and that it is mentioned among permitted foods and that probably the Tathagata himself partook of it. But, Mahamati, nowhere in the sutras is meat permitted as something enjoyable, nor it is referred to as proper among the foods prescribed [for the Buddha's followers].... (255) In the canonical texts here and there the process of discipline is developed in orderly sequence like a ladder going up step by step, and one joined to another in a regular and methodical manner; after explaining each point meat obtained in these specific circumstances is not interdicted.1 Further, a tenfold prohibition is given as regards the flesh of animals found dead by themselves. But in the present sutra all [meat-eating] in any form, in any manner, and in any place, is unconditionally and once for all, prohibited for all. Thus, Mahamati, meat-eating I have not permitted to anyone, I do not permit, I will not permit. Meat-eating, I tell you, Mahamati, is not proper for homeless monks. There may be some, Mahamati, who would say that meat was eaten by the Tathagata thinking this would calumniate him. Such unwitted people as these, Mahamati, will follow the evil course of their own karma-hindrance, and will fall into such regions where long nights are passed without profit and without happiness."



A butcher kills. He creates the negative karma of killing. Eating meat doesn't mean one has committed the killing. That is completely asinine.

The least you can say is that one also creates negative karma if one asks a butcher to kill for them. In today's society however, that rarely happens. The meat that comes to one's plate has been absent of consciousness long before the desire to eat meat arose. Choosing to partake of that meat in no way creates negative karma.

Yet another mistake you make here is that there can be exceptions in karma. That is altering karma into some sort of punishment or reward dealt out by a higher power who can decide based on certain circumstances whether or not to make exceptions for someone.

That completely violates the law of karma. If you maintain that eating meat is equivalent to killing in terms of karma (which it is certainly not) then that is so regardless of circumstance. Just like intentionally killing in any case will accrue its karmic debt, without exception.

Karma, being a natural law, cannot be altered to accommodate different circumstances. Gravity has never made an exception for anything either.


I do not know of a sutra that mentions karma is a law like gravity- instead it is simply a word used to represent a Deed or Action that has a result.

Even thoughts are a type of Karma. In this case- Although every action/deed/karma is different-related Actions/Deeds/Karma have related Effects/results/vipaka.

Further I believe you are bending my words- I did not say Eating meat is killing the animal- but as they are actions/deeds/karma of similar natures (related via causality) and thus have similar and related effects/results/vipaka.



The Buddha made exceptions to allow meat eating for certain followers precisely because simply eating meat in no way creates negative karma. Otherwise it would have been terribly irresponsible of him to allow this of his followers.

The Buddha forbade meat eating to other followers also not because of issues of karma, but because vegetarianism is conducive to the compassionate mind they are cultivating.

(From the Buddha as quoted in Lankavatara Sutra)
"nowhere in the sutras is meat permitted as something enjoyable, nor it is referred to as proper among the foods prescribed [for the Buddha's followers]"

The Buddha further- directly and without question, tells us of the negative outcome of our negative karmic action meat eating..
"10. One who eats flesh, trespassing against the words of the Muni, is evil-minded; he is pointed out in the teachings of the Sakya as the destroyer of the welfare of the two worlds.
11. Those evil-doers go to the most horrifying hell; meat-eaters are matured in the terrific hells such as Raurava, etc.
12. There is no meat to be regarded as pure in three ways: not premeditated, not asked for, and not impelled; therefore, refrain from eating meat.
1 Brumi, instead of bruhi as in the text.
2 Unintelligible as far as the translator can see.
13. Let not the Yogin eat meat, it is forbidden by myself as well as by the Buddhas; those sentient beings who feed on one another will be reborn among the carnivorous animals.
14. [The meat-eater] is ill-smelling, contemptuous, and born deprived of intelligence; (258) he will be born again and again among the families of the Candala, the Pukkasa, and the Domba.
15. From the womb of Dakini he will be born in the meat-eaters' family, and then into the womb of a Rakshasi and a cat; he belongs to the lowest class of men.
16. Meat-eating is rejected by me in such sutras as the Hastikakshya, the Mahamegha, the Nirvana, the Anglimalika, and the Lankavatara.
17. [Meat-eating] is condemned by the Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and Sravakas; if one devours [meat] out of shamelessness he will always be devoid of sense.
18. One who avoids meat, etc., will be born, because of this fact, in the family of the Brahmins or of the Yogins, endowed with knowledge and wealth.
19. Let one avoid all meat-eating [whatever they may say about] witnessing, hearing, and suspecting; these theorisers born in a carnivorous family understand this not.
20. As greed is the hindrance to emancipation, so are meat-eating, liquor, etc., hindrances.
21. There may be in time to come people who make foolish remarks about meat-eating, saying, "Meat is proper to eat, unobjectionable, and permitted by the Buddha."
22. Meat-eating is a medicine; again, it is like a child's flesh; (259) follow the proper measure and be averse [to meat, and thus] let the Yogin go about begging.
23. [Meat-eating] is forbidden by me everywhere and all the time for those who are abiding in compassion; [he who eats meat] will be born in the same place as the lion, tiger, wolf, etc.
24. Therefore, do not eat meat which will cause terror among people, because it hinders the truth of emancipation; [not to eat meat—] this is the mark of the wise."

Again to all, your thoughts regarding my understanding are welcome- from both Buddhist and Non-Buddhist views.

[bawang]

this weak pacifist nonsense is why half of india is now muslim and called pakistan.

[LFJ]

I am unaware of Hendrik's claims- and my discussion is focused not on anything about Hendrik, but on the Shaolin Buddhist viewpoint ChanWuYi (in the context of the book linked) of Meat Eating and the greater Buddhist viewpoint of Meat Eating. By extension my discussion is about whether or not it is of importance in Buddhism to not eat meat.

Of course it is, but not because it creates negative karma.


Further- you are implying this teaching is forcing students not to eat meat- when it is the other way around. Humans who wish to be students of this Buddhist school refrain from eating such things voluntarily because of their understanding of the suffering that meat eating causes.

When it is one of the school requirements, it is forcing students by saying if you don't adopt vegetarianism, you can't join our school.


"Master Dejian said that in order to learn Chanwuyi, one first needs to adopt a vegetarian diet."
In other words- it is not possible to understand Chan Wu Yi if you are a meat eater. It is not to force anyone to not eat meat.

Just by setting up this premise by which vegetarianism is required for proper learning, it is a sly way to force students to adopt vegetarianism if they want to learn your art. I would call that forcing. But you will argue that one does not have to be a student there...


To understand the combination of Buddhism (Chan 禅)..... Martial Movement 武 (which is impeded in progress by meat consumption-

I don't think this has been established, that progress in martial arts is impeded by meat consumption, nor that one needs to adhere to a certain diet to understand Chan.


You have stated it is dangerous teaching to require people to eat a certain way. I would agree in some situations. In this case- there is no requirement of people to eat anything.

Did not your quote from them say "whether or not they are sick, they should refrain from these foods"??


We must understand that no one is being forced to do anything- people entering ChanWuYi school are willingly doing so.

The cop-out I expected above. "Well, they don't have to be students here, so we aren't really forcing them".

Whether or not students willingly accept the training requirements, they are still the requirements. Which means no one can become a student without adopting them.

I also understand they are not just "requirements" for no reason, but I don't accept the reason as being based on truth. I in fact think they are demonstrably false!


You should clarify what "Poor education" is- as many of us today have not spent time looking into research that has not been pursued to do corporate blocking/what research has been published that we have not been told about.

The fact that in some cases adopting a vegetarian diet may be detrimental to a person's health, and that some need medicinal doses of meat in their diet.

[LFJ]

As we are discussing Buddhism and eating meat- it is first important to note whether or not you are recognizing the Lankavatara Sutra as a teaching of the Buddha or not.

It is pretty obvious the text was pieced together from various Buddhist traditions. It has bits of Tathāgathagarbha doctrine, some Yogācāra, etc.. A lot of texts translated into new cultures, such as China, underwent rewritings to strengthen the position of those people. The position against meat eating is one such topic that has been treated very well by the Chinese authors.

The Chinese have fabricated many false scriptures. For example, there is one text attributed to Bodhidharma which is verses of commentary on the Heart Sutra. The only problem is that the Chinese version of the Heart Sutra used was written by Xuanzang about 100 years after Bodhidharma's time! Oops!

So, I wouldn't say I am as easily dogmatic or fundamentalist as you. Although I do agree with what the text says regarding vegetarianism. I only disagree that it is saying what you purport it to be saying.


If you are, as most Buddhists would, then it follows that meat eating is entirely related to the negative outcome (as it is negative "karma" or negative action) and therefore contradictory to seeking enlightenment.

I don't think it is negative karma, but as the text states, greed for meat flavor may lead to negative states of mind and actions, thus leading one to create negative karma. But the simple act of eating something being negative karma? No.


I hope that you are detached to that last statement-In the Lankavatara Sutra- the Buddha tells us directly about karmic effects of eating meat.

"It is not true, Mahamati, that meat is proper food and permissible for the Sravaka when [the victim] was not killed by himself, when he did not order others to kill it, when it was not specially meant for him. Again, Mahamati, there may be some unwitted people in the future time, who.......

This is an example of what I mentioned above. Whenever you see a previous teaching contradicted in a later text and it says "some unwitted people in the future time".... it's basically an attempt to discredit the texts that don't agree with the authors' ideals by saying people in the future will "string together in various ways some sophistic arguments to defend [XYZ doctrine we don't like]".

"Imagining that this fact allows this interpretation, [they conclude that] the Blessed One permits meat as proper food, and that it is mentioned among permitted foods and that probably the Tathagata himself partook of it."

Unfortunately he did, in much older and more reliable texts than this.

More examples of attempts to stamp out previous teachings the authors don't agree with:

"In the canonical texts here and there the process of discipline is developed in orderly sequence like a ladder going up step by step, and one joined to another in a regular and methodical manner; after explaining each point meat obtained in these specific circumstances is not interdicted.1 Further, a tenfold prohibition is given as regards the flesh of animals found dead by themselves. But in the present sutra all [meat-eating] in any form, in any manner, and in any place, is unconditionally and once for all, prohibited for all."


I do not know of a sutra that mentions karma is a law like gravity- instead it is simply a word used to represent a Deed or Action that has a result.

I said it is like gravity in that it is a natural law, not something that can have "exceptions for certain circumstances".

Also the definition as "Deed or Action that has a result" is a Hindu, or even Jain definition. The Buddha used the term but qualified it as intentional action. Not just any action.

That emphasizes the intent over just bodily actions. That is why unknowingly stepping on a bug is not a negative karma of killing, because it is unintentional. Likewise, simply eating meat does not necessarily involve an intent for the death of animals. It may just be for health or a meal.

So how can you say it is negative karma, if you are using the Buddha's definition of the word, rather than a Hindu definition?


Further I believe you are bending my words- I did not say Eating meat is killing the animal- but as they are actions/deeds/karma of similar natures (related via causality) and thus have similar and related effects/results/vipaka.

Killing and eating are not at all of similar natures. That is ridiculous.

Karma is not deterministic like that. You do not inherit karma based on a causal link in your meal to an animal having been killed. That's very curse-like.

Karma is intentional action. In the simple act of eating meat there is no intent to kill or harm any living being. There is only the intent to fill one's stomach as with any other food on the plate.

Again, I agree with many of the reasons to avoid meat eating outlined in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, but I don't agree that meat eating is negative karma related to killing. That is not supported in the texts either.

[rett]

@LFJ

I've had this question open in the back of my mind while reading other things.

From what I've been reading, it appears that the view that meat and certain other foods yield "dirtier" qi, and therefore lead to greater emotional instability and difficulty in meditation is widespread in qigong circles regardless of scriptural references. It's more of an empirical result of centuries of practice and experimentation.

If this is so, the scriptural explanations could have been added after the fact. It's not really the primary source, more a way of providing justification with a high level of authority.

Whatever your opinion is on that, I don't think it's fair to single out a school for repeating very widely held beliefs and claiming it's using dirty tricks or deception to try to hook students.

[rett]

Karma is intentional action. In the simple act of eating meat there is no intent to kill or harm any living being. There is only the intent to fill one's stomach as with any other food on the plate.

I agree with you about this and am happy to find someone here with IMO a high level of understanding of Buddhist ethical concepts.

For that reason I believe you will appreciate that there still is a real ethical question here. In a modern context, if we purchase meat at the store, we are performing an intentional action AND we know that the meat was produced in an industrial fashion. By buying the meat we intentionally help to perpetuate that industry, meaning that our action leads to more animals being raised under miserable conditions and killed. It's not the same as just eating meat that happened to fall into one's begging bowl.

I'm as guilty of this as anyone.

[LFJ]

Hi rett,

I think for example the claim that meat eating impedes progress in martial movement is already demonstrably false, so holding onto such a belief is either a result of poor education or dishonesty, and requiring it of others regardless of their medical history and actual dietary needs is irresponsible and dangerous.

I think there are better reasons to support vegetarianism than claiming it improves martial arts or enlightenment- things like recognizing the unethical treatment and suffering of animals, or recognizing one's reason for eating meat perhaps only being for attachment to the taste. That realization was in fact a part of what stopped me from eating meat, when I really looked into "why", since I could live without it. So I give credit to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra there nonetheless....

As for meat eating in general, especially by means of today's society, I don't think it is a good thing. I agree with the arguments against it in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra for example, and as stated previously in this thread, I've been on the vegetarian diet for many years myself. So all I'm clarifying is that simply eating meat is not a negative karma of killing or necessarily a related mental state. I don't find that it is supported by the scriptures to be so either. Although, greed and attachment to meat flavor can lead to negative mental states and accomplishment of unwholesome karma- even to the extent of hunting.

[Scott R. Brown]

this weak pacifist nonsense is why half of india is now muslim and called pakistan.

Ouch!
______________

An animal eaten is prey in the wild and in captivity. If the animal had not been cared for and eaten by man, it would have been uncared for and eaten in the wild by a meat eating animal.

Prey was designed by Tao to be eaten by meat eaters. Just about everything is eaten by something else. Tabooes concerning what is appropriate to eat and what is not are socially determined including some poisonous substances.

The human body is designed to eat meat. The intake of grains is fairly recent in human history/evolution to the point that some researchers claim up to 80% of humans have some sort of grain allergy.

There is nothing especially holy about not eating an animal that is designed to be eaten.

One of the reasons Buddha frowned upon the killing of animals was a reaction to the wanton and needless killing and torturing of animals as part of the Vedic sacrafices 2500 years ago. Jainism also frowned upon the the practice.

If someone wants to be a veggie, good for them, but to think one is holier or more special because of it is just another form of clinging which will create karma in and of itself!

Negative Spiritual Karma does not occur due to ones actions, but ones attitudes that motivated those actions.

[rett]

holding onto such a belief is either a result of poor education or dishonesty, and requiring it of others regardless of their medical history and actual dietary needs is irresponsible and dangerous.

I don't see anyone requiring it of others in the context where this question came up. It's completely voluntary to study at a school that expects that you follow a certain diet. There are plenty of kungfu schools to choose from around DengFeng where they eat fried fatty meat and go into town for beer and massage every weekend. Given how common that is, it's refreshing that there are places that try to uphold the traditional ethical underpinnings of their tradition. Also, last time I was in a vegetarian teaching environment, I noticed they had begun serving boiled eggs sometimes. There seems to be more of an openness to new empirical results and different diet needs for different people in those environments than you are giving them credit for. In any case, if a student feels they really must have some meat they just buy it in town.

[LFJ]

holding onto such a belief is either a result of poor education or dishonesty, and requiring it of others regardless of their medical history and actual dietary needs is irresponsible and dangerous.I don't see anyone requiring it of others in the context where this question came up.

Earlier the quote came from a book here (http://www.chanwuyi.org/showroom/model/T0137/templateCustomWebPage.do?webId=1233929329351&editCurrentLanguage=1235069892126&customWebPageId=1285147851750356729) that stated;

"But for people in the practice of Chanwuyi, whether or not they are sick, they should refrain from these foods [meat and hot and spicy foods] because they are harmful to the mind; it creates greed, anger, and desire, which are detrimental to practicing and meditation. The Buddha has indicated this in the Lankavatara Sutra.”


It's completely voluntary to study at a school that expects that you follow a certain diet. There are plenty of kungfu schools to choose from around DengFeng where they eat fried fatty meat and go into town for beer and massage every weekend.

Right it is voluntary, however this is the Wu Gulun lineage. It is a unique lineage in Shaolin and students are not allowed to learn it without adopting a vegetarian diet for the reasons they state, which I think are false.

Eating meat creates greed, anger, and desire? Are there any studies that prove this to be true? Besides it is attachment to meat flavor that causes greed, desire for meat, and anger (attacks on prey).

Is it possible to eat meat without attachment to its flavor?

Yes! Of course. Many bodybuilders look at it as protein and don't care what it is, where it came from, or what it tastes like. They don't add seasoning or anything.

I would not say they have greed, anger, or desire from eating meat. They don't have thoughts of killing or commit acts of killing. They are simply feeding their bodies what it needs to grow.

So unless this is actually proven, then it's an empty statement, and not one I think the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra makes.

[rett]

this weak pacifist nonsense is why half of india is now muslim and called pakistan.

Same weak pacifist nonsense as freed India from Britain?

[rett]

"But for people in the practice of Chanwuyi, whether or not they are sick, they should refrain from these foods [meat and hot and spicy foods] because they are harmful to the mind; it creates greed, anger, and desire, which are detrimental to practicing and meditation. The Buddha has indicated this in the Lankavatara Sutra.”

As I've mentioned, this is a very common viewpoint among Chinese Mahayana Buddhists. Monks at normal temples are also expected to eat vegetarian. Expecting people to adhere to this in a Mahayana Buddhist school is a traditional approach. There's nothing especially odd about it. No one is forced to go to such a school (except maybe a juvenile delinquent or spoiled rich kid whose parents are losing hope and put him there to learn discipline). And even having said all that, it's important to remember that there is a certain amount of leeway in practice. As you know doubt know, Buddhist ethics are about training guidelines and ideals to strive for more than absolute prohibitions or "sins". (Apart from the parajika violations for monks).

[rett]

Is it possible to eat meat without attachment to its flavor?

Yes! Of course. Many bodybuilders look at it as protein and don't care what it is, where it came from, or what it tastes like. They don't add seasoning or anything.

Well they clearly have major attachment to their bodies, since they want to sculpt their muscles to look beautiful.

The Buddhist guidelines about eating with non-attachment are specific about not attaching to taste, but also about not attaching to building up one's body. I'm sure you remember that, if you think back to last time you studied vinaya.

So maybe this example isn't so good.

Training martial arts will always involve some compromises with traditional Buddhist tradition. That's pretty self-evident, I think. But people like Dejian are living proof that you can have a strong body without eating meat.

[LFJ]

As I've mentioned, this is a very common viewpoint among Chinese Mahayana Buddhists. Monks at normal temples are also expected to eat vegetarian. Expecting people to adhere to this in a Mahayana Buddhist school is a traditional approach. There's nothing especially odd about it.

That's because Chinese monks also take the Bodhisattva precepts, which prohibit meat eating, as part of their ordination. There is no expectation for those who have not taken such precepts. Although it is encouraged, no one will be turned away from a Buddhist center for not adopting vegetarianism- unlike what seems to be the case at this martial arts school.

But here we're not even talking about entering a monastic lifestyle. We're talking about a martial arts school that is open to laity and non-Buddhists from anywhere in the world to come and train.


Well they clearly have major attachment to their bodies, since they want to sculpt their muscles to look beautiful.

Competitive bodybuilding is not about attachment to looking beautiful. It's a sport like any other. Developing the muscle to a certain standard is just part of the sport. I don't think you can make character assessments on someone based on their sport.


The Buddhist guidelines about eating with non-attachment are specific about not attaching to taste, but also about not attaching to building up one's body. I'm sure you remember that, if you think back to last time you studied vinaya.

That's really beside the point. The point being that meat can be eaten without attachment to its flavor. And therefore meat eating does not necessarily result in greed, anger, or desire as has been claimed, unless there have been actual studies that prove this.

Vinaya restrictions are made for monastics, not laity, and so apply even less to non-Buddhists.

[rett]

Well, it is very common for lay buddhists to be vegetarian in China as well. This is just tradition.


Although it is encouraged, no one will be turned away from a Buddhist center for not adopting vegetarianism- unlike what seems to be the case at this martial arts school....We're talking about a martial arts school that is open to laity and non-Buddhists from anywhere in the world to come and train.

Which martial arts school, exactly, are you referring to? Location and teacher. Do you have personal experience of that school?

I get the feeling you are thinking at the level of speculation. You are making a huge amount about one statement on a website written by a follower in Hong Kong.

[LFJ]

If you've been following the thread, it's not at all about one statement by one individual. In fact, Matthew just came on here and brought up a new statement I also took issue with, about requiring a certain diet for all students regardless of their individual medical situations.

My response has been to Hendrik, Matthew, and to various statements attributed to Shi Dejian and Wu Nanfang and his school the Shaolin Wu Gulun Academy outside Dengfeng. I've not speculated anything beyond what has been presented from them.

[rett]

As far as I know San Huang Zhai is not a school that is open to anyone to just come and train martial arts. It's more "invite only" so to speak, or involves developing a good relationship with the teacher and being accepted as a disciple. So there's really nothing to argue there. The chance of someone like us being allowed to train there is close to nil whatever we eat.

I am certain you could train at the Deng Feng school without swearing off meat (if you were a meat eater). You won't get served meat at the school (but you might get hard boiled egg) and you will be encouraged not to eat meat in town. But noone will throw you out if you pop into KFC once in a while.

My point is just that in practice people are more considerate and accepting than the impression you might get from some statements.

[rett]

Competitive bodybuilding is not about attachment to looking beautiful. It's a sport like any other. Developing the muscle to a certain standard is just part of the sport. I don't think you can make character assessments on someone based on their sport.


Well if we're going to pick nits. I said they had attachment to their bodies, not attachment to looking beautiful. The sculpting part was support to the first statement.

Competetive sports involve (by definition) attachment to winning, and the standard of winning in body building is to have the most impressive looking muscles in the room that day.

I'm not putting it down. By all means, body builders, go for it. My point is just that their attitude toward meat eating (as raw material for building their bodies) directly contravenes the view that monks are supposed to take of food. The monks are to view food as just to still feelings of hunger and keep them going. Not to satisfy taste desire and build up the body.

[RenDaHai]

Wow!

You guys have a huge amount of information on something which is a minor part of practice.

The world has changed a great deal in 2500 years. Many animals have been selectively bred for being eaten over the millenia. If the world stopped eating meat now their numbers would shrink massively and some would become extinct, not being able to function properly in the wild (and we would not keep them as we would have no use). Many would not get the chance to live. Is this really better for them?

What I'm saying is the concept of Karma is very complicated. If a child is drowning should we adopt the policy of inaction and leave him? If we save him and he grows up to become a mass murderer is our karma then effected? It is far too complicated, the only way we can measure it is through INTENT. When you are wiser you can be more aware of the consiquences of your actions and this then effects your intent.

No rules are absolute. Rules are simply exist for those who don't understand them. If you understand a rule and its purpose (in this case to deter someone from evil intent) then the rule itself is worthless as you can understand its principle, its formula.

SO it is needless to argue so much about a rule. What is important is the deeper purpose of the rule (absolutely no rules are absolute). The benefits of Vegitarianism are many, and it is refreshing that the counter argument is being posted by LFJ who is himself vegitarian.

Personally I like to focus on my physical training and meditation... But I love to go to Dicos for some chicken nuggets and french fries occasionally (Dicos is a Fried chicken place in dengfeng). In fact I'm gonna go there right after writing this. However if i was in the situation where I had to kill and prepare all the meat I eat, I think i would quickly become vegitarien.


P.s @ rett, As soon as people start going into detail about 'dirty qi' and such it is time to stop listening.

[rett]

P.s @ rett, As soon as people start going into detail about 'dirty qi' and such it is time to stop listening.

I'm rather skeptical about that stuff, but I'm interested in learning what the standard kinds of beliefs are. It's useful background I think.

One very real issue that I'm sure you've noticed is just that the months around July it's much more likely you'll get diarrhea from meat dishes than from vegetables. Just because of the heat and how fast bacteria grow. If you have limited time there to train, it can be a good idea to eat vegetarian just to avoid a time-wasting bout of a bad stomach. (of course if you live there long term... losing 3-5 days isn't the end of the world)

[LFJ]

rett,

Claims were made that I think are even demonstrably false, and ridiculously so. Whatever the situation of their school, or non-school, they have made themselves and their views public. So they are open to criticism.

I don't need direct experience with them to disagree with the claims they've made, or to require validation. The issue is with the claims themselves, and not so much on whether or not they'll kick someone out.

Maybe in China it's okay and acceptable to say something without being challenged on it, but they've made it public to the world, although they probably haven't been met with real challenge on it where they have to substantiate their claims.

[LFJ]

Well if we're going to pick nits. I said they had attachment to their bodies, not attachment to looking beautiful. The sculpting part was support to the first statement.

Competetive sports involve (by definition) attachment to winning, and the standard of winning in body building is to have the most impressive looking muscles in the room that day.

Have you met any competitive bodybuilders? I've met plenty who are enthusiastic about their sport, not just their bodies (although obviously this is one sport where ego is easy to develop). But winning is just the goal of the sport, like football. That does not necessarily involve attachment. Otherwise you are judging everyone who steps on to the field to play the game by the mere fact that they are playing the game.

What's your view on Shaolin Soccer by the way? ;)


My point is just that their attitude toward meat eating (as raw material for building their bodies) directly contravenes the view that monks are supposed to take of food. The monks are to view food as just to still feelings of hunger and keep them going. Not to satisfy taste desire and build up the body.

So what? They aren't monks, and not even necessarily Buddhists.

That is all beside the point I was making- that meat eating can in fact be done without attachment to flavor. If other foods gave the same high grade benefits, competitive bodybuilders would be eating that. They don't care what it is or where it comes from.

So the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra makes no point on the simple act of eating meat being a negative karma, or even necessarily leading to unwholesome mental states.

[rett]

@LFJ To me, at the end of the day, the Dharma isn't science. It's all about expedient means. Teachers I respect a LOT often say stuff I don't agree with from a scientific point of view. Doesn't bother me. My attitude is usually just to fast forward or skip that chapter or think about something else till they move to the next point. As long as they're getting the Dharma across to people in the language that reaches them, then great, go for it.

By that I don't mean you shouldn't criticize it. I just don't see anything sinister about those views, or that there's some sectish attempt to make followers feel bad about themselves.

[rett]

That is all beside the point I was making- that meat eating can in fact be done without attachment to flavor.

I don't disagree with you there. As I said, I realize I was picking way into the nits.

For the record, when I eat meat it is mostly because of attachment to flavor. I literally get a craving for the flavor of a certain dish (or even something about the sauce) and mostly I beat it down but sometimes it is stronger than my will to be a vegetarian. Occasionally I also get the idea that I'm getting weak or my body is wearing down from just veggies.

Funny that a non-vegetarian is defending vegetarianism and a vegetarian is defending meat-eating.

[LFJ]

The topic of diet and martial arts really has little to do with Dharma or any religious point of view, as you mentioned earlier. So when one makes a sort of claim that appears to be scientific, there shouldn't be a lack of scientific evidence to support it.

In regards to Dharma, if you want to use a certain scripture to support your view, then it must be shown that it actually does support it. Otherwise it should just be presented as your view, and not that of any certain scripture.

Is it wrong to require honesty and substantiation in these cases? :confused:

[LFJ]

Funny that a non-vegetarian is defending vegetarianism and a vegetarian is defending meat-eating.

Yes :p But I'm not really defending meat-eating. I'm just discussing the topic of karma and meat-eating, and what I believe to be a wrong understanding there.

When I looked for a good reason for my meat-eating, all I really saw was flavor, and found that to be incredibly selfish and insentient to the suffering of animals.

There was nothing I needed from meat that I couldn't obtain from other sources, so I stopped.

[Matthew]

rett,

Claims were made that I think are even demonstrably false, and ridiculously so. Whatever the situation of their school, or non-school, they have made themselves and their views public. So they are open to criticism.

I don't need direct experience with them to disagree with the claims they've made, or to require validation. The issue is with the claims themselves, and not so much on whether or not they'll kick someone out.


You have not, as far as I have read, invalidated anything they have said (assuming it is still on topic and related to vegetarianism). In fact- you have disregarded my several mentions of the meat eating being shown in Western scientific research to have immense negative health effects.

There are very few reasons for needing to eat meat- and even fewer people who have related illnesses that depend on it. Further, meat is related to a host of sicknesses/diseases/illnesses- from higher induced cancer risks, bone degeneration, heart risks, etc that are much reduced from a plant based-diet.

So you are correct that you "don't need direct experience with them to disagree with the claims they've made," but you do, if you wish to provide useful constructive conversation in the forum, need to provide sound reasoning as to why your statement has validity (your statement that they have made demonstrably false statements.)



When it is one of the school requirements, it is forcing students by saying if you don't adopt vegetarianism, you can't join our school.


You should note whether or not you are leaving your original position that they were dangerously forcing students (with implication that it was against their will) to eat something the students were not voluntarily and independently eating. If you are leaving your original argument- it will be constructive to note for this thread so that we can make an agreement that they are not Forcing anyone to eat anything- they are having it as a requirement for understanding what they teach. (Also Note: They are not martial arts students- they are Buddhist students using Wu, and Yi as part of a vehicle to improve their health and thus their ability to be compassionate in Buddhist context.)

I am not the best at making mathematically equivalent analogues, but here is what I believe to be a near exact situation. If someone required you to read a certain book before you entered their classroom- they are not forcing you to read the book- they are saying if you wish to join the classroom that the book reading is part of a requirement to be a part of the class



Just by setting up this premise by which vegetarianism is required for proper learning, it is a sly way to force students to adopt vegetarianism if they want to learn your art. I would call that forcing. But you will argue that one does not have to be a student there...


You have not understood what the "Art" is you speak of. It is part of the definition of what ChanWuYi is. It is like asking me to teach mathematics without the use of values, asking me to teach physics without mathematics, asking me to teach physical chemistry without physics... .etc etc- vegetarian is an intrinsic part of what they are teaching.

Also please do not bend the above words I have typed-I am Not equating the "scientific validity" of plant-based diet eating with mathematics (that can be another thread if you wish so that we have room for discussing scientific entries/journals). The point of the analogue as outlined is to detail that if something has a tangible definition (which in this case ChanWuYi has vegetarianism as part of it's very definition)- we cannot logically say they (or in my example a Physics class teacher) are forcing people to learn or do something (become vegetarian- learn math). Obviously you have pointed out there are Rare health issues that eating small amounts of meat may be beneficial for. I would point to a much wide range of health issues that would be more detrimented by meat eating- including people looking to Prevent disease (cancer, bone degeneration, heart issues, etc etc) which is Another crux of Yi (Chinese Medicine) theory.

I will not for this case argue one does not have to be a student there- you did not understand my post on Page 7 that outlined from the book we have been discussing- Agnes Chan's ChanWuYi book. I will attempt to help you understand which I have already stated- that vegetarian is not a premise required for "proper learning", but an intrinsic part of all 3- Chan, [Chan]Wu, and [Chan]Yi. If you have argument with this- quote my page 7 post and clearly state your logical digression instead of misunderstanding. Again- just as math is an intrinsic part of physics, vegetarianism is an intrinsic part of the combination of Chan, Wu, and Yi.



To understand the combination of Buddhism (Chan 禅) (which recommends not eating meat in various texts for a variety of reasons which we can discuss, if you wish, in a separate thread), Martial Movement 武 (which is impeded in progress by meat consumption- as I have even mentioned why even in western standards meat consumption is bad for physical health- and by simple math we can equate that not optimal health is equal to not optimal learning in martial movement), and Medicinal Theory "Yi" 医 (in ShaoLin and Chinese context. This is an important part of this entire conversation that it seems you may be overlooking.)

Part of the crux of the the understanding in Yi (医) is that Meat has immense negative outcomes. From potential emotional issues such as anger or greed, (which is also mentioned from the Chan Buddhist perspective in the Lankavatara Sutra) to potential health issues (I reiterate- from the Shaolin and Chinese medicine theory which is part of what we are dicussing in ChanWuYi ) such as problems with digestion, qi storage/flow/stagnation, and by extrapolation problems with Yi 意- mind intent.

Yes we can further outline why Meat eating is detrimental to health from a Western scientific standpoint. Look into some reputable online science journal resources for information on Meat consumption and it's well known negative health side effects. Logically it follows from this that I previously stated above "we can equate that not optimal health is equal to not optimal learning in martial movement." This is only even a single point on Wu (Martial movement) that you have not refuted despite saying many times "claims were made that I think are even demonstrably false, and ridiculously so."

Please provide evidence- or there is no content for which this discussion to have any real grounding beyond your speculation.



The cop-out I expected above. "Well, they don't have to be students here, so we aren't really forcing them".

Whether or not students willingly accept the training requirements, they are still the requirements. Which means no one can become a student without adopting them.

I also understand they are not just "requirements" for no reason, but I don't accept the reason as being based on truth. I in fact think they are demonstrably false!

Again- see the definition of requirements in my discussion of "Teaching physics without requiring math". If it is an intrinsic part of the study of the school (as we have seen from the ChanWuYi book that vegetarian is)- then it is by definition a requirement, not something anyone is forcing anyone to do. If I don't wish to do mathematics- I cannot hope to learn physics.



The fact that in some cases adopting a vegetarian diet may be detrimental to a person's health, and that some need medicinal doses of meat in their diet.


There are extremely few cases in which doing many things would be dangerous to a person's health. You are making an argument here that I will attempt to clarify:

Your Premise1: ChanWuYi study (which intrinsically requires vegetarian eating as part of it's definition) is somehow forcing people to involuntarily eat meat (flawed premise)

Your Premise2: Some people have disorders or rare diseases in which they need to eat meat for their health

Your Conclusion: ChanWuYi study is dangerous because those people could be hurt from not eating meat

This is a Flawed Premise-if my brain (analogous the persons body) could not understand math (they cannot have a plant-based diet)- of course I cannot move on to learning physics (they cannot move onto ChanWuYi). We can definitively say that these are both intrinsic health conditions that are rare- and if the person cannot eat meat- they by definition of a what a ChanWuYi practitioner is- cannot be a ChanWuYi practitioner. It is like to say that vegetarianism forces people not to eat meat -obviously it is self evident in both the definition of Vegetarianism in the definition of ChanWuYi

If people have health issues with not eating meat- then of course they should eat it. should I say that Meat-atarianism forces people to eat meat and that is dangerous because some people have health issues that meat will exacerbate and illnesses it will cause? Of course not- it would be the same erroneous logic.

[Matthew]

It is pretty obvious the text was pieced together from various Buddhist traditions. It has bits of Tathāgathagarbha doctrine, some Yogācāra, etc.. A lot of texts translated into new cultures, such as China, underwent rewritings to strengthen the position of those people. The position against meat eating is one such topic that has been treated very well by the Chinese authors.

The Chinese have fabricated many false scriptures. For example, there is one text attributed to Bodhidharma which is verses of commentary on the Heart Sutra. The only problem is that the Chinese version of the Heart Sutra used was written by Xuanzang about 100 years after Bodhidharma's time! Oops!

So, I wouldn't say I am as easily dogmatic or fundamentalist as you. Although I do agree with what the text says regarding vegetarianism. I only disagree that it is saying what you purport it to be saying.


For my argument from Lankavatara Sutra I was using a sutra that is critical to the Chan school- of which the discussion is primarily about. If it is a requirement of their school not to eat meat (independent of Lankavatara Sutra's origins)- then it follows that one cannot learn what they expound while eating meat Just as the example of learning math to learn physics. Questioning the validity of their belief in the Lankavatara Sutra or buddhist teaching is different from questioning whether or not they are harming people through teaching not to eat meat. We are following your argument that they were dangerously forcing people to do something- Again as I asked in the previous post- Please state whether or not you are leaving this position that they are dangerously forcing anyone to do anything- it will be beneficial in discovering if we have agreement on why they do not eat meat and if we agree that no human was forced to not eat meat.

For futher discussion we can start another thread on validity of sutras- I believe this is the first valid point you have raised with well reasoned thought- We should examine validity of texts and their relation to the Buddha.

Through other translations (many of Chinese origin) into english we can also see the effects of meat eating from the Surangama mantra, some Chinese derived texts, some Tibetan derived (and likely closely preserved) and beyond. In any case I believe you are using twisted logic to defend meat eating. As Buddhism is about ending all suffering- your direct purchase of meat (whether or not it is a cause Directly or Indirectly onto the demand of meat) has at the least an indirect connection to the continued killing of animals. That is from basic tenet understanding- definitely not compassion. That is to say- if everyone did not buy meat- the companies would have no reason to kill animals. Of course this will not happen- it is to say there is a causal relationship between animals being harmed for human meat consumption.



Karma is intentional action.

The reason we must use the indian definition- is because that is where the word originates. Karma is defined as a Deed or Action- that the Buddha outlines even thoughts are deeds. To take your definition - a fairly common translated version in Buddhist context- let us examine the Meat industry you mentioned.

If we do not require meat eating to sustain ourselves, then we have the ability to intentionally not eat meat. We further have the ability to not support animal harming industries. By supporting them we are at the Least indirectly intending that they use our money to continue their harming of animals. Therefore choosing the most compassionate option we are able to is to be of the better karma and in this case that we do not need to eat meat. By eating meat and doing the aforementioned (not displaying compassion) we are definitely not experiencing the same positive karmic outcome of intending for the meat-animal harming industry to be supported. This is especially true (of intentional action) if we read into, watch video, and converse with people who have been associated with/educated about how bad the Western Factory Farming is (and in Buddhist viewpoint- any harming of animals or any being is causing suffering- so even non Factory Farming would be by compassionate definition having negative intentional action- negative karma.)

It should also be clarified for the discussion that ChanWuYi (according to that book and Shi De Jian) is not a martial arts school. He is a Buddhist monk that teaches buddhism through the context of Wu, Yi, and Chan buddhist canon, not a martial arts teacher requesting people to become Buddhist.

[GeneChing]

When the buying stops, the killing can too.

[RenDaHai]

When the buying stops, the killing can too.

Yeah, but then if we stopped farming meat, we wouldn't need the billions of animals we keep. And we would stop breeding and nuturing them. SO is a life of suffering better than no chance to live at all?

[GeneChing]

You could use an argument like that to justify slavery. Actually, I think you just did. :rolleyes:

[RenDaHai]

Its more complicated than that,

If the choice was keep people as slaves or let their entire race die, thats an easy choice. Most of the animals we keep are completely reliant. If we don't need them were not gonna keep them alive to do nothing.

Human slaves have the same potential as their keepers so could fulfill other roles, animals do not. So we wouldn't bother.

[bawang]

eating vitamin b12 pills for the rest of your life is way more unnatural than eating meat.

[rett]

Yeah, but then if we stopped farming meat, we wouldn't need the billions of animals we keep. And we would stop breeding and nuturing them. SO is a life of suffering better than no chance to live at all?

Petting farms. Millions of petting farms. A happier world. Problem solved :)

[rett]

eating vitamin b12 pills for the rest of your life is way more unnatural than eating meat.

Yeast flakes.

[bawang]

eating fermentation vat grown microorganisms, much more natural.

you eat mycoprotein too?

[rett]

eating fermentation vat grown microorganisms, much more natural.

you eat mycoprotein too?

I don't actually eat yeast flakes. But "natural" doesn't mean a whole lot in this context. Farmed vegetables aren't "natural" by your definition. Agriculture is already culture. So yeast flakes aren't that different.

Nor is eating factory-farmed meat natural. Maybe if you chase down a frog with your bare hands and eat it raw. Then you can talk about natural.

[bawang]

ive slaughtered pigs on a farm, and its the same as factory farming, except they kill a lot at the same time.

personally i find their screams soothing.

[rett]

ive slaughtered pigs on a farm, and its the same as factory farming, except they kill a lot at the same time.

personally i find their screams soothing.

Well it's not more natural than growing yeast in a vat.

[bawang]

but yeast cant scream out in pain and agony.

[rett]

In a vat no one can hear you scream.

[Matthew]

eating vitamin b12 pills for the rest of your life is way more unnatural than eating meat.
It seems eating meat as we know it in the west is already majorly unnatural- too late for eating natural on that account.

"However we know that modern farming methods require farmers to inject B12 (90% of the world’s production of Vitamin B12 is for farm animals)."
http://www.b12d.org/book/export/html/38 ("Where is B12 from?" at B12d.org)

From some common reading on the topic (I will quote admittedly without searching highly regarded scientific journals)- as I believe what I have read and will quote here from "www.webmd.com" is considered as common knowledge and could be derived from basic understanding in any biochemistry book.

Deficiency issues, it says, are more due to inability to absorb the vitamin. (although obviously we need some amount of it in diet.)

"Vitamin B12 deficiency anemia usually happens when the digestive system is not able to absorb the vitamin. This can happen if:

You have pernicious anemia. In this anemia, your body destroys the cells in your stomach that help you absorb vitamin B12.
You have had surgery to remove part of the stomach or the last part of your small intestine, called the ileum . This includes some types of surgery used to help very overweight people lose weight.
You have problems with the way your body digests food, such as sprue (also called celiac disease), Crohn's disease, bacteria growth in the small intestine, or a parasite."

While vegetarians should consume some level of b12- it usually comes in the form of a combination of things- For instance I drink Soy Milk that has it in it, as well as eat cereals that have it in it. For this discussion sake in ChanWuYi and Shi De Jian- they grow nearly everything they eat and consume at SanHuang Village- since B12 is derived from bacteria that are in soil (that plants will have on it- undoubtably the natural source for cows having it in the first place)- unwashed and even semi-washed vegetables will contain some amounts of it.

When the vegetables are grown by yourself (such as I know many non-meat eaters to do), you can control whether or not your soil and growing is organic/safe to eat without washing.

As my parents always said- a little dirt never hurt anybody.

Add:
As any one should do: a proper diet takes a lot of reading, learning, discussing, preparation, and oversight. From where the food comes from, how it is grown there and in what conditions with what chemicals added (and the effects of those chemicals), to how it is processed (and if!), to how it is cooked/prepared. From the effects of each step along the way on our body, including before and after cooking. also understanding the effect of different cooking methods is important (boiling vs. steaming vs. baking vs. frying with oils vs. simmering.... etc etc etc.

My point: Any human needs to plan extremely well what they put in their body- (including plant based eaters).

[Hendrik]

Nori / laver for Vitamine B12.

[bawang]

all that meticulously vain "planning" is the result of a post modern matriarchal society. the new america where the omega male is king.

[GeneChing]

I discussed pig slaughter at Shaolin in my book Shaolin Trips (http://www.amazon.com/Shaolin-Trips-Gene-Ching/dp/1424308976). :cool: I discuss vegetarianism in there too.

[RenDaHai]

My point: Any human needs to plan extremely well what they put in their body- (including plant based eaters).

Its a fair point, but there is something to be said for winging it. I'm a firm believer that the body craves foods that contain the nutrients it needs. I also believe that the body takes more from foods it enjoys and less from food it hates.

If you eat something you hate you will get indigestion, if you eat something you really enjoy, you can relax and digest more of it. Just a theory but I think happiness and well being are related, and that extends to enjoyment of foods and wellness.

I say eat happy! and do 8 hours of Kung Fu a day.... Then you won't have problems.

[rett]

I discussed pig slaughter at Shaolin in my book Shaolin Trips (http://www.amazon.com/Shaolin-Trips-Gene-Ching/dp/1424308976). :cool: I discuss vegetarianism in there too.

Shameless plug:p

(I ordered the book btw, so kaching for you... and it looks like it's going to be a good read)

[wenshu]

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-mBu0Ak9qAqY/TR9353_QJUI/AAAAAAAABZQ/heDUuWFWPtE/s800/not-capable-of-cooking.jpg

[wenshu]

Ronald McDonald creates no bad karma.

[David Jamieson]

I am not fully vegetarian yet, but getting there.

Quite frankly, large meaty protein intakes do nothing for my health and fitness.

I eat meat once a week or so, maybe twice.

When I make the final leap to no more meat, I think I'll go with the Lacto-ovarian type of vegetarianism so I could have a bit of cheese or an egg now and then.

probably won't be for a little while yet. But I can see it happen as I age. Meat burns your body out just digesting the stuff!

red is the worst. You can actually burn more calories digesting it than what you'll get out of it!

bird meat and cheese is next

and
fish is the most efficient type of meat as far as the digestion process goes.

so' Ill offset that by bunging myself up with cheddar and Brie!

I think the hardest Vegan diet to adhere to would be that of the Jains.
No tubers, no legumes, no byproducts of animals and definitely never eat anything that had parents or a face.

[bawang]

you guys are out of your dam minds.


when my family could only afford meat once a month, i dreamed of meat. you guys are just bored gluttons.

[Hendrik]

take a look

5.55---->

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BARJ-6K9yRQ&feature=related

[wenshu]

i love meat. all kinds. birds, cows, fish, dogs, amphibians, reptiles, felines, elk, deer, buffalo, moose...you name it, i'll eat it. except monkey/primates and humans...unless i have to for survival of course. i really dont see whats wrong with it. i have a lot of vegan friends but i just remind them that they continually slaughter my plant friends and oppress them in green houses and structured garden farms. for some reason not that many people look at plants the same way they do animals...its all alive, right? just because you cant hear a plant scream, doesnt mean it should die any more or less than a screaming cow. i guess some people dont kill the plants, but hey it cant feel good to have your arms ripped off either.

What about all the bacteria and fungus and insects in the soil and on the plant life that vegetarians eat?

Do we create bad karma when we take antibiotics and kill off all the flora in the digestive tract? I don't necessarily know for a fact that bacteria and viruses are not sentient.

[rett]

Would you jerks :)kindly go back to the main showboat forum where you belong?

Thanks.

[Lucas]

What about all the bacteria and fungus and insects in the soil and on the plant life that vegetarians eat?

Do we create bad karma when we take antibiotics and kill off all the flora in the digestive tract? I don't necessarily know for a fact that bacteria and viruses are not sentient.

you know i always wondered that too. for me i just have to treat all life equal or im a hypocrite. i dont see plants any different than animals personally. i like trees just as much as i like rabbits. i love hot human chicks tho and i eat them all the time!! :eek:

[Lucas]

Would you jerks :)kindly go back to the main showboat forum where you belong?

Thanks.

:eek: omg im a jerk! i have to go cry now. ok you can have your thread back. you must not like people who think differently than you.

[wenshu]

when my family could only afford meat once a month, i dreamed of meat. you guys are just bored gluttons.

We can't all be upwardly mobile peasants.

[rett]

:eek: omg im a jerk! i have to go cry now. ok you can have your thread back. you must not like people who think differently than you.

That is correct. I don't like people who think differently than I do.

[Lucas]

That is correct. I don't like people who think differently than I do.

Thats really cool. I'm happy for you!

[rett]

Thats really cool. I'm happy for you!

Lucas go away. There are plenty of other threads for you to play romper room in.

[LFJ]

The reason we must use the indian definition- is because that is where the word originates. Karma is defined as a Deed or Action- that the Buddha outlines even thoughts are deeds. To take your definition - a fairly common translated version in Buddhist context-

Matthew, you are a bit too dogmatic and fundamentalist, not to mention long-winded, to respond to every point you are trying to make. But if you don't even have a basic understanding of the definition of Karma in Buddhism, then I don't think our discussion will be productive until you've studied a bit more on that subject.

Since the Chan school is basically stripped down Yogācāra philosophy, I would suggest reading Vasubandhu's Karma-siddhi-prakaraṇa (Discussion for the Demonstration of Karma).

You'll learn from a Buddhist perspective that Karma, although divided into action of body, speech, and mind, is basically of one type. All such action is led by the intent, the 7th mental consciousness (manas-vijñāna/ 意), whether that manifests through external, visible (bodily), audible (speech), or internal (mind) action. It is all action of the intent.

In order for an action to accrue karmic debt, it must be led by the intent. Otherwise, the consciousness is not involved so how can it accrue such debt? For example, unknowingly stepping on a bug. To believe that will have negative karmic effects requires one to have a Hindu/Jain understanding of Karma as any action whatsoever, because the manas-vijñāna (thought consciousness/karma) is not involved.

This is not just my understanding, or my definition, this is the Buddhist teaching on Karma. I suggest you look into it.

[rett]

For example, unknowingly stepping on a bug. To believe that will have negative karmic effects requires one to have a Hindu/Jain understanding of Karma as any action whatsoever, because the manas-vijñāna (thought consciousness/karma) is not involved.

This answers Wenshu's facetious question, btw.

[Lucas]

Lucas go away. There are plenty of other threads for you to play romper room in.

I'm sorry. I have a disorder. You were right to insult me and call me a name. I will go away now, unless you quote me again. Its a disorder.

[wenshu]

This answers Wenshu's facetious question, btw.

I wasn't being facetious. Your presumptuousness belies your ego. I have been a strict vegetarian for 3 years.

[wenshu]

In order for an action to accrue karmic debt, it must be led by the intent. Otherwise, the consciousness is not involved so how can it accrue such debt? For example, unknowingly stepping on a bug. To believe that will have negative karmic effects requires one to have a Hindu/Jain understanding of Karma as any action whatsoever, because the manas-vijñāna (thought consciousness/karma) is not involved.

That is one interpretation.

What sect is it that walks around sweeping in front of themselves with every step to make sure they don't inadvertently step on an insect?

[Matthew]

Matthew, you are a bit too dogmatic and fundamentalist, not to mention long-winded, to respond to every point you are trying to make. But if you don't even have a basic understanding of the definition of Karma in Buddhism, then I don't think our discussion will be productive until you've studied a bit more on that subject.

Since the Chan school is basically stripped down Yogācāra philosophy, I would suggest reading Vasubandhu's Karma-siddhi-prakaraṇa (Discussion for the Demonstration of Karma).

Thanks for the suggestion


You'll learn from a Buddhist perspective that Karma, although divided into action of body, speech, and mind, is basically of one type. All such action is led by the intent, the 7th mental consciousness (manas-vijñāna/ 意), whether that manifests through external, visible (bodily), audible (speech), or internal (mind) action. It is all action of the intent.

In order for an action to accrue karmic debt, it must be led by the intent. Otherwise, the consciousness is not involved so how can it accrue such debt? For example, unknowingly stepping on a bug. To believe that will have negative karmic effects requires one to have a Hindu/Jain understanding of Karma as any action whatsoever, because the manas-vijñāna (thought consciousness/karma) is not involved.

This is not just my understanding, or my definition, this is the Buddhist teaching on Karma. I suggest you look into it.

The question then is begged- How is the consciousness Not involved in eating dead animals?

Surely the only case is as you mentioned with the ant- when one unintentionally "receives" the meat or dead animal (from another person Or if the animal is found dead of natural cause) -without originally intending to seek it out/purchase it/grow and kill it. In this case- I may see how the intent is not involved. I believe this is analogous to not knowing we step on an ant.

Since this is not the case in our lives- as we are not monks of olden day and we are instead modern layfolk.- I will ignore this case in the following questions- that is I will ignore the possibility that we are not aware of the animals death/intending for an animal to be dead.

Therefore my following questions already assume that we Have intent to consume dead animal which should be mathematically equivalent we Have intent for living animal to be dead for our purpose. I am concluding these are equivalent on the basis of 2 premises.

1) We intend to eat a dead animal.
2) Living animals must be killed for us to eat meat (As I just mentioned we are ignoring the above listed cases that are analogous to the stepping on an ant)

Conclusion: In eating a dead animal (meat)- we had intent for a living animal to be killed.

How is this not a defilement of the not-killing moral?

Also for further example- as you have shown yourself to be a proponent that meat-eating is in no way in violation of any of the Buddha's teaching-

To further understand where you fit into your own spectrum of disccusion- do you believe it is possible to justify the intent for a living being (animal) to be dead for us to eat as wishing to end suffering (compassion)?

[LFJ]

Therefore my following questions already assume that we Have intent to consume dead animal which should be mathematically equivalent we Have intent for living animal to be dead for our purpose. I am concluding these are equivalent on the basis of 2 premises.

1) We intend to eat a dead animal.
2) Living animals must be killed for us to eat meat (As I just mentioned we are ignoring the above listed cases that are analogous to the stepping on an ant)

Conclusion: In eating a dead animal (meat)- we had intent for a living animal to be killed.

How is this not a defilement of the not-killing moral?

I can grant you that intent as present for this discussion as it makes no difference, but I don't think it is necessarily true. Some people just view meat as a food source, and don't pay much mind to where it came from, much less do they have intent for animals to die when they sit down at the dinner table.

But granted that there is indeed such an intent, it is not a creation of the karma of killing, or breaking any non-harming moral. I'll explain:

Although karma is intentional action, there are certain factors that must be fulfilled in the accomplishment of karma beyond just the presence of intent. For example, for the karma of killing (or harming) to be completed there must be five requisite factors fulfilled. These are:

1) Presence of a living being
2) Knowledge of the living being
3) The intent to kill (harm)
4) The act of killing (harming)
5) The resultant death (injury)

If one of these factors is missing, the karma is not accomplished.

So for example, a hunter obviously has the intent to kill, but if in aiming his gun and firing at an animal he should miss, then factor #5 is not fulfilled and the karma of killing is not accomplished.

Although the hunter had an animal in sight, had the intent to kill, and even acted to kill, since he did not accomplish the task of the intent he did not create the karma of killing. However, he did have an unwholesome mental state (a potential to create negative karma), but created no negative karma from that.

Likewise, the reason unknowingly stepping on a bug is not a karma of killing is because not all five factors are present. Although there is an act of killing and a resulting death, there is no intent to kill and not even knowledge of a living being's presence. Therefore, no karma of killing is created.

So in the case of simply eating meat it is much less creating karma of killing or harming, because there is no living being present to begin with (#1), therefore no knowledge of a living being present (#2), no intent to kill (#3), no act of killing (#4), and of course no resulting death (#5).

So not a single requisite factor is present in the act of eating meat. That being so, meat eating can in no way entail the negative karma of killing or harming.

Even granting you that someone may for some strange reason intend for an animal to die when they sit down for dinner, none of the other factors are fulfilled. So there is no accomplishment of the task of the intent (causing death).

Therefore, no negative karma is created, just an unwholesome mental state which is only a potential to create negative karma, but not acted upon results in no karmic retribution.


Also for further example- as you have shown yourself to be a proponent that meat-eating is in no way in violation of any of the Buddha's teaching-

Slow down now, I didn't say that. Of course there are teachings throughout the Buddhist canon prohibiting meat eating for various reasons and to various followers. I'm not arguing that, but only that eating meat is creating a negative karma which will bear retributive results that bar one from enlightenment. It simply cannot have such an effect.


To further understand where you fit into your own spectrum of disccusion- do you believe it is possible to justify the intent for a living being (animal) to be dead for us to eat as wishing to end suffering (compassion)?

Of course not. But I'm not arguing for that. I'm only clarifying the topic of karma in regards to meat eating.

As I said, there are better and more accurate reasons to promote vegetarianism. Threats of karmic retribution is not one of them!

[LFJ]

In order for an action to accrue karmic debt, it must be led by the intent. Otherwise, the consciousness is not involved so how can it accrue such debt? For example, unknowingly stepping on a bug. To believe that will have negative karmic effects requires one to have a Hindu/Jain understanding of Karma as any action whatsoever, because the manas-vijñāna (thought consciousness/karma) is not involved.That is one interpretation.

What sect is it that walks around sweeping in front of themselves with every step to make sure they don't inadvertently step on an insect?

Yes, that is the Buddhist interpretation.

The "sect" to which you refer is likely the Jains. Jainism is a separate religion, not a Buddhist sect.

Although there is nothing wrong with that, and their cautiousness and regard for life is commendable, from a Buddhist point of view their understanding of karma is just incorrect.

[Hendrik]

So for example, a hunter obviously has the intent to kill, but if in aiming his gun and firing at an animal he should miss, then factor #5 is not fulfilled and the karma of killing is not accomplished.

Although the hunter had an animal in sight, had the intent to kill, and even acted to kill, since he did not accomplish the task of the intent he did not create the karma of killing.

However, he did have an unwholesome mental state (a potential to create negative karma), but created no negative karma from that.





Karma of killing is completed as soon as one makes an intention. actually killing something is just increasing the intensity.

[LFJ]

Karma of killing is completed as soon as one makes an intention. actually killing something is just increasing the intensity.

You're welcome to have your point of view. But it is not Buddhist. I've already explained.

[Hendrik]

Yes, that is the Buddhist interpretation.

The "sect" to which you refer is likely the Jains. Jainism is a separate religion, not a Buddhist sect.

Although there is nothing wrong with that, and their cautiousness and regard for life is commendable, from a Buddhist point of view their understanding of karma is just incorrect.


Not true.


all those who has attain Arahat level walks without stepping on ground to avoid killing insect....etc.

[LFJ]

Not true.


all those who has attain Arahat level walks without stepping on ground to avoid killing insect....etc.

They fly? Okay... :rolleyes:

[Hendrik]

You're welcome to have your point of view. But it is not Buddhist. I've already explained.


It is perfectly Buddhist.
In reality, If one dont repent or clear out the intention right there after one makes an intent of killing watch what one will get.

intention of Killing has violated Precept of killing whether one actually carry it out physically or not.

[Hendrik]

They fly? Okay... :rolleyes:


In my word, Arahats exist and they walk levitated.

[RenDaHai]

I think both LFJ and Matt have good points here;

If we take already dead meat out of the stock, and we are aware of the meat industry, we have intent for that stock void to be filled.

But at the same time the world is now such a vast community, like never in previous history. Chaos and Cause and effect become extremely complicated. The classic butterfly flapping its wings causing a hurricane a year later accross the world does not induce Karmic debt for it. Unfortunately if we always apply the thinking above we become crippled and can no longer do anything. Should we donate all our money to charity. Should we never use electricity, never use oil. We are aware of global problems and wars caused by these things. Never buy Diamonds, gold.... Nike, etc. In fact every industry involves exploitation. We cannot avoid it.

So like the sect sweeping the ground in front of them. I don't think this is commendable behaviour as undoubtebly there are many other changes they could make in their life that would make the world a better place than wasting their effort on not killing bugs. They are fundamentalist trying to follow rules rather than understanding principles.

When I made the point about some animals being made for meat i was not being facetious. Its all about the potential of life forms. We shouldn't keep slaves because their potential is equal to our own. HOwever these animals have the potential to do nothing else. They have been selectively bred for 5000 or more years. They no longer have a habitat apart from the one we give them. They are utterly dependant and could not fulfill any other role in society. If we were plucking animals from the wild and eating them i would be wholly against it. But that is not the case for these animals nor could it be.

The answers are not so simple. YOu can't be vegitarian and act superior to Meat eaters as those meat eaters may have a greater good karmic influence on the world all things considered. In the current state of the world with the number of things we exploit eating meat is a much lesser vice than may of the other things we do daily. Buddhism was created in a different age. THe world is a more complex place now.

[Hendrik]

YOu can't be vegitarian and act superior to Meat eaters as those meat eaters may have a greater good karmic influence on the world all things considered.

In the current state of the world with the number of things we exploit eating meat is a much lesser vice than may of the other things we do daily.



Meat eaters have a greater good karmic influence?

When is last time you check on Green world information on Carbon....etc?

[RenDaHai]

Meat eaters have a greater good karmic influence?

When is last time you check on Green world information on Carbon....etc?

Thats not what I said. I said the world is so complex now you have no way of knowing the complete consiquence of your actions. Meat eating is just one of many many many bad effects we have on the world just by existing in our society. Its just one. SO if you are vegitarian you shouldn't consider yourself superior because you don't know what other things a meat eater might do that induces good karma. Comparing people over such a small thing is pointless.

[LFJ]

It is perfectly Buddhist.
In reality, If one dont repent or clear out the intention right there after one makes an intent of killing watch what one will get.

intention of Killing has violated Precept of killing whether one actually carry it out physically or not.

So one is convicted of thought crime unless they repent? Sounds very Christian.

Anyway, it has been thoroughly explained how this is not a Buddhist understanding of karma. Whatever understanding you have....


In my word, Arahats exist and they walk levitated.

Have you ever witnessed such a thing? Why would you say something like that?

Or did you mean to say "In my *world*"...?

[pazman]

In my word, Arahats exist and they walk levitated.

:(

I was going to chime in on this thread, but now I can see that would be a lost cause.

[wenshu]

Yes, that is the Buddhist interpretation.

The "sect" to which you refer is likely the Jains. Jainism is a separate religion, not a Buddhist sect.

Although there is nothing wrong with that, and their cautiousness and regard for life is commendable, from a Buddhist point of view their understanding of karma is just incorrect.

No it is a buddhist sect. Chinese as a matter of fact, I just can't remember the name.

[Hendrik]

Thats not what I said. I said the world is so complex now you have no way of knowing the complete consiquence of your actions.



Meat eating is just one of many many many bad effects we have on the world just by existing in our society. Its just one.

SO if you are vegitarian you shouldn't consider yourself superior because you don't know what other things a meat eater might do that induces good karma.

Comparing people over such a small thing is pointless.





Karma is complex since the begining of life. there are intertwin between the past and present, who can see it clear? almost none. however

The chinese said, never do any small evil even it is tiny, always do any small good even it is tiny.

because tiny things will snow balling to big deal.

There is nothing to do with superiority. it got to do with doing what it needs to walk a proper path.


Vegitarian is not a small thing, your body is what you eat.

[Hendrik]

So one is convicted of thought crime unless they repent? Sounds very Christian.

Anyway, it has been thoroughly explained how this is not a Buddhist understanding of karma. Whatever understanding you have....



Have you ever witnessed such a thing? Why would you say something like that?

Or did you mean to say "In my *world*"...?


I am curious about you.


Are you a practice Buddhist?
have you taken refuge ?
Have you take precepts?
What dharma door have you practice?
What level of samadhi have you attained?


Or you are one of those scholar who read books and argue with in their thinking mind realm like playing video games in a cyber world within the computer?

[Hendrik]

But granted that there is indeed such an intent, it is not a creation of the karma of killing, or breaking any non-harming moral. I'll explain:

Although karma is intentional action, there are certain factors that must be fulfilled in the accomplishment of karma beyond just the presence of intent. For example, for the karma of killing (or harming) to be completed there must be five requisite factors fulfilled. These are:

1) Presence of a living being
2) Knowledge of the living being
3) The intent to kill (harm)
4) The act of killing (harming)
5) The resultant death (injury)

If one of these factors is missing, the karma is not accomplished....




So, if one kill in one's dream is that consider a killing?



For me,

The above type of Thinking mind theory is dangerous and misleading because the person who postulate these taking Thinking Mind / reasoning realm is the master realm of all.
where in fact, Thinking Mind realm are just a small part of the reality and it is the based of dellusion which cause one to reincarnate over and over.

Thinking Mind is the poison which rob one's buddha nature as the Zen practice put it. Knock this Thinking Mind bondage is the first step of the practice of Zen.




Killing is Killing with or without physical. one makes an intention, one has done it. physical or non physical both are within Non dual. Thus, the Buddha teaches " do good never do bad, always clean out one's intention, that is the teaching of the Buddhas".

The above type of theory is not clean out one's intention, instead, keep playing lawyer to defend one's distorted and poisoned intention. or trying to walking in the gray zone, in fact there is no gray zone, either one intended or not?
you raise a killing intention, you have stored it. you are going to attrack killing. there is a killing consequence, unless you clean it. The Buddha nature doesnt care about killer or victim, one sets an intention of killing it is consider done. Mind is just a creating instrument, what you store in it, it manifest.

[bawang]

this is why the tang emperor purged bddhism from china and permanently crippling its influence.

its the perfect mind control device for psychological warfare, prepareing chinese people for invasion and subjugation.

i thank grandfather sky that today the chinese people are not under the poison fog of the bald donkeys. the evil tentacles of the golden fat idol cannot hurt us.

[wenshu]

physical or non physical both are within Non dual.

Ummmmm . . .

[Hendrik]

Ummmmm . . .


So, is a karmic offended in your dream a karmic offend?

[Scott R. Brown]

Even the Shaolin fighting monks ate meat because they understood that eating meat was necessary in order to make them stronger and better fighters!


Read: The Shaolin Monastery: History, Religion, and the Chinese Martial Arts, by Meir Shahar

[Hendrik]

Even the Shaolin fighting monks at meat because they understood that eating meat was necessary in order to make them stronger and better fighters!


Read: The Shaolin Monastery: History, Religion, and the Chinese Martial Arts, by Meir Shahar



you rather believe Shahar who is a book reader and writting book then ChanWuYi practitoners who live in Shao lin teaching for generations?

[Hendrik]

Do you know why Chan is the first only Wu comes later?

Because if Chan is not first all these monks has already violating their Precept of Not Killing. Chan is clearing out the Killing or hurting or damaging intention when they practice martial art.


Every intention count, even worst, if one makes an intention and then forget about it, that means that intention get kick into the background and still running that become the subsconcious. Unless one has the samadhi to sort these background running programs one is always sleep with lots of "time bombs".


A good thing about not eating meat is to help one to easier notice these "time bombs" before they are triggle.


one can argue how it is killing karma or not killing karma..... all the logic all the intellectual.....etc. all sounds excellent.

but wait a minute, those type of activity doesnt even know what is a "time bomb" , "time bomb" embeded, remove of "time bomb".

So, what good is all these intellectual speculation and theory which in fact cant do a thing in the real life.

One needs samadhi, to get to samadhi one needs to take every possible cleaning one could, and then one sees the time bomb. and then one can do something with the time bombs. Without these type of capability, there is no point to be a buddhist because there is no way out.

[Scott R. Brown]

you rather believe Shahar who is a book reader and writting book then ChanWuYi practitoners who live in Shao lin teaching for generations?

What I would rather do is believe ANYONE, but you!

For your information there is also a looooong history of violence among so called Buddhists monks as well!

But go ahead and live in your spinning, robot, rainbow, unicorn world!

I understand its your happy place!

[Scott R. Brown]

Do you know why Chan is the first only Wu comes later?

Because if Chan is not first all these monks has already violating their Precept of Not Killing. Chan is clearing out the Killing or hurting or damaging intention when they practice martial art.


Every intention count, even worst, if one makes an intention and then forget about it, that means that intention get kick into the background and still running that become the subsconcious. Unless one has the samadhi to sort these background running programs one is always sleep with lots of "time bombs".

Hmmmm, you are behind the times. I already posted this! But in a much simpler form. Try to keep up!

[pazman]

Hedrik believes in levitation, his argument is invalid.

[Lucas]

Even the Shaolin fighting monks ate meat because they understood that eating meat was necessary in order to make them stronger and better fighters!


Read: The Shaolin Monastery: History, Religion, and the Chinese Martial Arts, by Meir Shahar

Almost all warriors in all time will devour meat. Generally it is a necessity, especially in the past when on long campaigns, vegiterianism simply would not be feasable under these conditions. In the case of the Shaolin warrior monks, the offset of the moral implications would be the position of 'good' deeds that the monks find themselves in the order of performing. Saving the emperor and all that wonderful business, protecting the temple, and the monks living in. It, at that point, becomes a 'necessary evil'.

[wenshu]

this is why the tang emperor purged bddhism from china and permanently crippling its influence.

its the perfect mind control device for psychological warfare, prepareing chinese people for invasion and subjugation.

i thank grandfather sky that today the chinese people are not under the poison fog of the bald donkeys. the evil tentacles of the golden fat idol cannot hurt us.

I like your style son. Except shi jia mo ni fo wasn't fat, he was manorexic.

Brilliant idea for a fad diet actually. One grain of rice a day, skinny *****es will eat that **** up. So to speak.

[Hendrik]

Hedrik believes in levitation, his argument is invalid.


I dont believes in levitation. I know levitation exist within the Buddhist monks or the Arhats.
So, there is no arguement. it is not for arguement. It is simply it is in the world of Buddhist cultivators where siddhi is natural. They dont show if off, but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist.


There is no point to talk vegitarian diet....etc if one do not know the world of samadhi and siddhi exist.

for most of us,
keep drink beer and watch tv and pretend to be some warrior and waiting for someday to die since we all will; let those life style control you because that is the world you choose to live in.

[David Jamieson]

No it is a buddhist sect. Chinese as a matter of fact, I just can't remember the name.

Buddhism and Jainism are separate but both spring from the same belief system
Jainism is Indian though.

Vedic (Hindu) Buddhist and Jain all share at the same philosophical stream and are all from India.

[David Jamieson]

this is why the tang emperor purged bddhism from china and permanently crippling its influence.

its the perfect mind control device for psychological warfare, prepareing chinese people for invasion and subjugation.

i thank grandfather sky that today the chinese people are not under the poison fog of the bald donkeys. the evil tentacles of the golden fat idol cannot hurt us.

hilarious.

It was the tang dynasty that saw the great rise of Buddhism in China. Particularly the Mahayana form of it.

Chinese Buddhism since became very unique and quite different from it's Indian roots.

[wenshu]

Buddhism and Jainism are separate but both spring from the same belief system
Jainism is Indian though.

Vedic (Hindu) Buddhist and Jain all share at the same philosophical stream and are all from India.

Look at Jamieson tryin' to know something.

Again, for the third time I am referring to a BUDDHIST sect. I know what Jainism is jimsomweed.

[wenshu]

hilarious.

It was the tang dynasty that saw the great rise of Buddhism in China. Particularly the Mahayana form of it.

Chinese Buddhism since became very unique and quite different from it's Indian roots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Wuzong_of_Tang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Anti-Buddhist_Persecution

http://books.google.com/books?id=IYh9-Yl3cTkC&pg=PA306&lpg=PA306&dq=emperor+wuzong+buddhism&source=bl&ots=VYUeRgYhpd&sig=s_a83HsMy7_90oOM4Kd3AE27yh8&hl=en&ei=2OsQTaLvFcWVnAfPysjSDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&sqi=2&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=emperor%20wuzong%20buddhism&f=false

[David Jamieson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Wuzong_of_Tang

http://books.google.com/books?id=IYh9-Yl3cTkC&pg=PA306&lpg=PA306&dq=emperor+wuzong+buddhism&source=bl&ots=VYUeRgYhpd&sig=s_a83HsMy7_90oOM4Kd3AE27yh8&hl=en&ei=2OsQTaLvFcWVnAfPysjSDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&sqi=2&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=emperor%20wuzong%20buddhism&f=false

He was 1 emperor from the dynasty who ruled for 6 years. :rolleyes:
He persecuted Buddhism because it was at it's peak, and it's temples were becoming fabulously wealthy, were tax free and landowners would make deals on the side etc etc.

so, anyway, this 1 emperor with a 6 year reign is a blip.

I find it interesting that despite these facts you would make futile attempts at refuting my incredible storehouse of knowledge.

I'll forgive you your ignorance because you in particular have good control of the english language and have shown some worthy wit along the way.

:D

[wenshu]

He was 1 emperor from the dynasty who ruled for 6 years. :rolleyes:
He persecuted Buddhism because it was at it's peak, and it's temples were becoming fabulously wealthy, were tax free and landowners would make deals on the side etc etc.

so, anyway, this 1 emperor with a 6 year reign is a blip.

I find it interesting that despite these facts you would make futile attempts at refuting my incredible storehouse of knowledge.

I'll forgive you your ignorance because you in particular have good control of the english language and have shown some worthy wit along the way.

:D

I will not forgive this impertinence.


According to the report prepared by the Board of Worship, there were 4,600 monasteries, 40,000 hermitages (places of retreat), 260,500 monks and nuns. The emperor issued edicts that Buddhist temples and shrines be destroyed, that all monks (desirables as well as undesirables) be defrocked, that the property of the monasteries be confiscated, and that Buddhist paraphernalia be destroyed.[10] An edict providing that foreign monks be defrocked and returned to their homelands resulted in Ennin's expulsion from China.[11] By the edict of AD 845 all the monasteries were abolished with very few exceptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Anti-Buddhist_Persecution

[LFJ]

But granted that there is indeed such an intent, it is not a creation of the karma of killing, or breaking any non-harming moral. I'll explain:

Although karma is intentional action, there are certain factors that must be fulfilled in the accomplishment of karma beyond just the presence of intent. For example, for the karma of killing (or harming) to be completed there must be five requisite factors fulfilled. These are:

1) Presence of a living being
2) Knowledge of the living being
3) The intent to kill (harm)
4) The act of killing (harming)
5) The resultant death (injury)

If one of these factors is missing, the karma is not accomplished....So, if one kill in one's dream is that consider a killing?

Can requisite #1 be established in a dream, that a living being is actually present? If not, then there's nothing more to talk about.

If you think killing in one's dream is karmically negative (because to you it doesn't matter if the killing physical happens or not), from a Buddhist point of view, you're plain wrong.

If even dreams produce negative karma, who has hope of escaping Saṃsāra?


For me,

The above type of Thinking mind theory is dangerous and misleading because the person who postulate these taking Thinking Mind / reasoning realm is the master realm of all.
where in fact, Thinking Mind realm are just a small part of the reality and it is the based of dellusion which cause one to reincarnate over and over.

Thinking Mind is the poison which rob one's buddha nature as the Zen practice put it. Knock this Thinking Mind bondage is the first step of the practice of Zen.

Killing is Killing with or without physical. one makes an intention, one has done it. physical or non physical both are within Non dual. Thus, the Buddha teaches " do good never do bad, always clean out one's intention, that is the teaching of the Buddhas".

The above type of theory is not clean out one's intention, instead, keep playing lawyer to defend one's distorted and poisoned intention. or trying to walking in the gray zone, in fact there is no gray zone, either one intended or not?
you raise a killing intention, you have stored it. you are going to attrack killing. there is a killing consequence, unless you clean it. The Buddha nature doesnt care about killer or victim, one sets an intention of killing it is consider done. Mind is just a creating instrument, what you store in it, it manifest.

Little do you know, what you are arguing against is even from Pali Canon/ Theravada roots. It's the most basic Buddhist understanding of karma taught by the Buddha, yet you are attacking it.

As I said, you're welcome to have your own view, but don't try presenting it as Buddhist.

[LFJ]

Killing is Killing with or without physical. one makes an intention, one has done it.

Are you actually a Christian?

As in; "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

Fortunately, karma in Buddhism doesn't work like that, and the Buddha is not a celestial judge, jury, and executioner convicting people of thought crime.

[Hendrik]

Buddhism and Jainism are separate but both spring from the same belief system
Jainism is Indian though.

Vedic (Hindu) Buddhist and Jain all share at the same philosophical stream and are all from India.



“Bodhisattvas and bhikshus who practice purity will not
even step on grass in the pathway; even less will they pull it up
with their hand. How can one with great compassion pick up
the flesh and blood of living beings and proceed to eat his fill? ----- Shurangama sutra


It is not a philosophy. it is a practice.

[David Jamieson]

“Bodhisattvas and bhikshus who practice purity will not
even step on grass in the pathway; even less will they pull it up
with their hand. How can one with great compassion pick up
the flesh and blood of living beings and proceed to eat his fill? ----- Shurangama sutra


It is not a philosophy. it is a practice.

There is NO practice without underlying philosophy of why to do so.

[LFJ]

“Bodhisattvas and bhikshus who practice purity will not
even step on grass in the pathway; even less will they pull it up
with their hand. How can one with great compassion pick up
the flesh and blood of living beings and proceed to eat his fill? ----- Shurangama sutra


It is not a philosophy. it is a practice.

Ha! So this is where you got the idea that they levitate themselves and fly around over the grass! :D

[Hendrik]

Can requisite #1 be established in a dream, that a living being is actually present? If not, then there's nothing more to talk about.

If you think killing in one's dream is karmically negative (because to you it doesn't matter if the killing physical happens or not), from a Buddhist point of view, you're plain wrong.


If even dreams produce negative karma, who has hope of escaping Saṃsāra?



Your view is your view, it is not " a Buddhist point of view".

I dont think. I am telling you the fact which I learn from the teaching of the Buddha.

Yes, even in dreams produce negative karma , dream and awake has no different. you make an intention you make an intention.

if you cannot handle your dream, you can not even handle your daily emotion, you cannot handle Bardo state; and thus you can not escape samsara or your own reincarnation.


Your theory is sound but it cant do anything toward escape samasara ; because ; that is not the teaching of Buddha but your own theory based on you logic.

you keep arguing is going to get you even more into deep trap. If you dont even know about the samadhi to handle your dream and Brado, your journey in Buddhism is not even begin yet.





Little do you know, what you are arguing against is even from Pali Canon/ Theravada roots. It's the most basic Buddhist understanding of karma taught by the Buddha, yet you are attacking it.

As I said, you're welcome to have your own view, but don't try presenting it as Buddhist.



I am talking Bottom line.

You dont even know one can handle dream, how can you handle mara?
how can you handle your own brado state?



you are doing philosophy study which is limited to your thinking mind activity; and not practicing Buddhism.

So how can you call those stuffs you post Buddhist point of view?

using your view to argue against Shurangama sutra and Shao Lin Chan is totally off mark.


Chan can penetrate Bardo because Chan has the same power as the Maha mudra. Chan penetrate beyond Thinking Mind and Mara. Thus, it is called the practice of Varja sword.
Does one has the Varja Sword? Have one ever see one even if one doenst have it?

It is totally ignorance to read a few books and sutras, inteplating them as one wants and call that Buddhist point of view. If it is that simple, the Second Patriach of Shao Lin, doesnt have to kneeling in the snow and beg Damo.

[Hendrik]

Ha! So this is where you got the idea that they levitate themselves and fly around over the grass! :D


What is so surprise that Arahat levitate?
Didnt Damo did that to cross the river?

[Hendrik]

There is NO practice without underlying philosophy of why to do so.

even without human philosophy, the whole universe exist , running perfectly, and the animal live as they are; careless of what human reasoning and philosophy is about.

Buddhism is not a philosophy.
In one's brado state, there is no philosophy but can one see throught the illusion. when one faces to select to be reborn into different realm, even the mind set is totally twisted. how can one handle that? if one cant then one get trap.

eating meat become a loading when one cultivating Samadhi. Chan Wu Yi is based on Samadhi and Sidhi. it is not a sport or physical exercise as most think.

[LFJ]

I dont think. I am telling you the fact which I learn from the teaching of the Buddha.

Yes, even in dreams produce negative karma , dream and awake has no different. you make an intention you make an intention.

Citation please? Before you make up anything else and attribute it to the Buddha, please provide the reference from which you get these ideas.


So how can you call those stuffs you post Buddhist point of view?

It's present even in Theravāda commentaries, besides Mahāyāna sources.

Hammalawa Saddhatissa, Buddhist Ethics. Wisdom Publications, 1997, pages 60, 159.


using your view to argue against Shurangama sutra and Shao Lin Chan is totally off mark.

I wasn't arguing against either. I was arguing against your understanding of them, and not just with my view but with Buddhist sources.


It is totally ignorance to read a few books and sutras, inteplating them as one wants and call that Buddhist point of view.

So stop doing it.

[wenshu]

What is so surprise that Arahat levitate?
Didnt Damo did that to cross the river?

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6872/facepalm1f.jpg

[LFJ]

My sentiments exactly, wenshu... :confused:

[Hendrik]

Citation please? Before you make up anything else and attribute it to the Buddha, please provide the reference from which you get these ideas.



It's present even in Theravāda commentaries, besides Mahāyāna sources.

Hammalawa Saddhatissa, Buddhist Ethics. Wisdom Publications, 1997, pages 60, 159.



I wasn't arguing against either. I was arguing against your understanding of them, and not just with my view but with Buddhist sources.



So stop doing it.



Who do you study Buddhism with?

[LFJ]

Who do you study Buddhism with?

Not your teacher.

[Hendrik]

Not your teacher.

hahaha dont be shy.

[Hendrik]

Sight and hearing are like an illusory covering.
The Triple Realm, a vision of flowers in space.


When purity is ultimate, the light is penetrating.
A stillness shines and includes within it
all of emptiness.
Looking at the world from this point of view,
Everything that happens is just like a dream.
Matangi’s daughter, too, is part of the dream.
Who was able, then, to physically detain you? ------- Shurangama sutra



http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/Shurangama/ps.ss.02.v5.020526.screen.pdf

[LFJ]

hahaha dont be shy.

Don't be evasive.

[Hendrik]

Don't be evasive.

Ok, I go direct.

Looks like you
are not a Buddhist but some one who read some books?


with your theory you have posted, those cant even get one to handle one's emotion.
it is thus, millions miles away from ending reicarnation or samsara.

it is hopeless to even use to select one's next rebirth. encounter the Bardo states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bardo

[LFJ]

Hendrik,

Do you have any citation whatsoever for the statement you made that negative karma is produced in dreams, or that the negative karma of killing is created by intention alone without any physical act of killing?

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, even though you are clearly superstitious and believe people can fly. But you maintain that your view is taught by the Buddha and mine is not, so I'm asking for your citation. Do you have one, or not?

[Hendrik]

Hendrik,

Do you have any citation whatsoever for the statement you made that negative karma is produced in dreams, or that the negative karma of killing is created by intention alone without any physical act of killing?

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, even though you are clearly superstitious and believe people can fly. But you maintain that your view is taught by the Buddha and mine is not, so I'm asking for your citation. Do you have one, or not?


Read the Shurangama and Bardo sutra above.

Also, you are certainly not a practice Buddhist, because practice Buddhist has to hold their precepts even in their dream... and thus they will not asking what you are asking.

Not to mention, even for the Theravada Buddhist who has attained Samadhi, they too know, Dream and awake are a like.


Simply put, lost in the dream means lost samadhi , means turn by the illusion.
makes an intention of Killing in the dream means one has lost samadhi and further evoke a killing intention.


similarly, when you have a wet dream, is that real?



As for the supertitious part, that is your view because you are a scholar not a practice Buddhist. as in today, there are Arahats monks in the world, as close as in california. People just dont show off. but Buddhist cultivators know who they were. that is reality. unless you passed your boundary of thinking mind, you would not be able to end samsara.

[LFJ]

It says; "Looking at the world from this point of view,
Everything that happens is just like a dream."

"Like a dream". Clearly there is a distinction between sleep and wakefulness here.

This is only likening our wakeful experience to a dream from the point of view of enlightened experience, in that our ordinary views are illusory, not what they seem. Just like a dream is not real to a person who is awake.

This in no way supports your statement that negative karma is created in actual unconscious dreams of a person in a sleeping state.

[LFJ]

Also stop editing posts after 10 minutes. If you want to make a new point, make a new post. This will keep the continuity of the discussion going without confusion or deception through editing.

[Hendrik]

This in no way supports your statement that negative karma is created in actual unconscious dreams of a person in a sleeping state.




you need to read the whole shurangama sutra.



also,
as I ask you when you have a wet dream, is that real?

[Hendrik]

Also stop editing posts after 10 minutes. If you want to make a new point, make a new post. This will keep the continuity of the discussion going without confusion or deception through editing.


ok. will do.

[Hendrik]

Buddha Shakyamuni often told his disciples to regard all phenomena as dreams. He used many examples, like an echo, a city in the clouds or a rainbow to illustrate the illusory nature of the phenomenal world.


Dreams represent just one type of illusion. The whole universe arises and dissolves like a mirage. Everything about us, even the most enlightened qualities, are also dreamlike phenomena. T

here's nothing that is not encompassed within the dream of illusory being; so in going to sleep, you're just passing from one dream state to another

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_yoga

[LFJ]

you need to read the whole shurangama sutra.

also,
as I ask you when you have a wet dream, is that real?

I've told you before this is one of the main sūtras I've studied in great detail over the years. I'm familiar with what it says. It just doesn't say what you read it to say.

As for a wet dream;

Just because something can have an effect doesn't make it real. For example, a tiger chasing you in a dream, you're running and running. Suddenly you wake up and are still very frightened.

That was a real effect. But does that make the tiger real? Was there really a tiger present? Of course not!

[Hendrik]

I've told you before this is one of the main sūtras I've studied in great detail over the years. I'm familiar with what it says. It just doesn't say what you read it to say.

As for a wet dream;

Just because something can have an effect doesn't make it real. For example, a tiger chasing you in a dream, you're running and running. Suddenly you wake up and are still very frightened.

That was a real effect. But does that make the tiger real? Was there really a tiger present? Of course not!



Awake is just another "dream" state . dream is just another "dream" state.

Either you intentionally create a karma in awake dream state or dream dream state what is the different?



If you study Shurangama as you said, then what is real?

[Hendrik]

The Buddha in Shurangama sutra has give the instruction very clearly.

Disregards of any "dream" states, be it in awake, and different skanda states, one must keep one clean. Different skanda states lead to different Demonic consequence.

So, as soon as one give raise to an intention. disregards of which state one is in there is a consequence.



The Bardo teaching has make it clear. in the Bardo state when one has die, no longer has a physical body. at that instant, one will see a couple is having sex. at that instant, if one choose to replace the male to have sex with the female one becomes the son of the couple. if one choose to replace the female to participate in that sexual act, one becomes the daugther of the couple.


So, Wet dream. killing dream..... etc. the buddha said watch out for your intention because you have to pay for your intention.



also, in
Buddha Pronounces the Sūtra of the Great Cundī Dhāraṇī

http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra02.html

it says

“If one has recited this dhāraṇī mantra 100,000 times, one will see in one’s dreams Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, voice-hearers, or Pratyekabuddhas, and see oneself vomit black things. "


So, dream state is just another state, as in Shurangama sutra. committing offense in any state has a consequence, in fact as in the Shurangama sutra, committing offense in the advance state in meditation is even dangerous and serious.



The Buddhist knows if they cant hold their precepts in their dream, their practice is not rooted.
If one is keeping the Wet dream , that has said, in the Bardo state one will reincarnate attract helplessly by whatever one meet similar to when one watching porno movie.


Eating meat is problem because meat eating can easily cause one to lost awareness awake or in the dream.

to say whatever commit in the dream has no consequence is just an irresponsible act. one can playing lawyer to arque but the consequence one needs to face is always there, dream or awake.



finally,

Those who study and practice Buddhism with the real Buddhist monks disregards of Mahayana or Therevada are super precaution on their precepts holding. Anyone who follow a Arahat type of Monk teachers know, as soon as one makes a false thought one can expect the monk teacher right away staring at one. These masters aware even one's false thought, they are nice to every one who is not their students, but if one is their student, then expect to get extremely strict threatment. Buddhism practice is not something fun but something which can penetrate life and death. it is certainly not those stuffs one read in philosophical books or new age relax entertainment. In that world, yes, Arahats levitate.

[Scott R. Brown]

It is very simple:

Since everything is a dream, Hendrik is a dream and thus not something or someone to take seriously. Because dreams are illusory, Hendrik is illusory, and whatever he says are the rantings of an illusion.

THERE.....problem solved!

Oh Yeah, The Shurangangbangmangamara Sutra is NOT the only Buddhist teaching there is! Teachings are merely expedient means and not to be taken as ABSOLUTES!

Buddha also VEHEMENTLY taught that we must all work it out for ourselves, except for Henrik who apparently must work it all out for everyone else too!:p

[Hendrik]

It is very simple:

Since everything is a dream, Hendrik is a dream and thus not something or someone to take seriously. Because dreams are illusory, Hendrik is illusory, and whatever he says are the rantings of an illusion.

THERE.....problem solved!

Oh Yeah, The Shurangangbangmangamara Sutra is NOT the only Buddhist teaching there is! Teachings are merely expedient means and not to be taken as ABSOLUTES!

Buddha also VEHEMENTLY taught that we must all work it out for ourselves, except for Henrik who apparently must work it all out for everyone else too!:p



If you are correct, can you end life and death at this instant?
If you are wrong, then stop misleading others to get trap in the hell.

you can offend me, that is ok. I hope you delete your making joke on sutra. just no point to create bad karma for a discussion.

[LFJ]

Awake is just another "dream" state . dream is just another "dream" state.

Either you intentionally create a karma in awake dream state or dream dream state what is the different?

What you fail to see is the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness in states of wakefulness or sleeping.

It is true from an enlightened perspective of a Buddha or Bodhisattva, even what ordinary beings take as "real" in a wakeful state is illusory. That just means their cognition is faulty.

But you must acknowledge that what appears in an unconscious dream is absolutely unreal. What appears in a conscious state of wakefulness for an ordinary being is just skewed by their delusion.

Suggested study material for you, Hendrik:

1) The Eight Layers of Consciousness
2) The Three Natures

These are taught in Yogācāra scriptures, but also found in scriptures adopted by the Chan school- such as the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra.

If you have a thorough understanding of these two subjects, you will not make the mistakes you are currently making.

[LFJ]

the buddha said watch out for your intention because you have to pay for your intention.

AN 2.23 Abhasita Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.023.than.html): What was not said

"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata. And he who explains what was said or spoken by the Tathagata as not said or spoken by the Tathagata. These are two who slander the Tathagata."


Intent informs your actions. Karma is action led by intent, i.e. karma is intentional action. It is not just action, and not just intent.

Furthermore, there are several requisite factors in the completion of karma, to bear retribution. These have already been outlined.


Eating meat is problem because meat eating can easily cause one to lost awareness awake or in the dream.

That is a lie.

[Hendrik]

1, what mistake I am making?

2, What is the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness in states of wakefulness or sleeping? what are they?

3, What is
1) The Eight Layers of Consciousness
2) The Three Natures






What you fail to see is the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness in states of wakefulness or sleeping.

It is true from an enlightened perspective of a Buddha or Bodhisattva, even what ordinary beings take as "real" in a wakeful state is illusory. That just means their cognition is faulty.

But you must acknowledge that what appears in an unconscious dream is absolutely unreal. What appears in a conscious state of wakefulness for an ordinary being is just skewed by their delusion.





Tell that to your bardo state and see if it cares on what you think or understand.

[Hendrik]

Eating meat is problem because meat eating can easily cause one to lost awareness awake or in the dream.



That is a lie.


is it a lie?

http://www.celestialhealing.net/mentalveg2.htm

[LFJ]

1, what mistake I am making?

2, What is the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness in states of wakefulness or sleeping? what are they?

3, What is
1) The Eight Layers of Consciousness
2) The Three Natures

Look into 3 and you'll find the answers to 1 and 2.

I've already explained them to you.

Without understanding the intricate workings of consciousness in Mahāyāna, you can't have a thorough understanding of what karma is.

If you don't even know the difference between mundane consciousness vs unconsciousness, it's impossible to have a conversation on this topic with you. You are not ready for it yet.

The Eight Layers of Consciousness is found in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, the single sūtra that Bodhidharma taught from. So if you want to understand Chan, you should study the basics of the Yogācāra consciousness system.

Many of your questions will be answered after you study the Eight Layers of Consciousness and the Three Natures.

[LFJ]

Hendrik,

You just edited your last post after a full 27 minutes.

I would appreciate it if you stop lying to me:



Also stop editing posts after 10 minutes. If you want to make a new point, make a new post. This will keep the continuity of the discussion going without confusion or deception through editing.ok. will do.

[LFJ]

Now I have you quoted saying something that you have completely erased a half hour later!

How dishonest do you have to be?!

I'm done with you.

[Hendrik]

Now I have you quoted saying something that you have completely erased a half hour later!

How dishonest do you have to be?!

I'm done with you.



read it again.

BTW. edit and rearrange things with the same content is not dishonest or lie.

[Hendrik]

If you don't even know the difference between mundane consciousness vs unconsciousness, it's impossible to have a conversation on this topic with you. You are not ready for it yet.




I love your answer.

in your wet dream are you conscious or unconscious?



The Eight Layers of Consciousness is found in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, the single sūtra that Bodhidharma taught from. So if you want to understand Chan, you should study the basics of the Yogācāra consciousness system.

Many of your questions will be answered after you study the Eight Layers of Consciousness and the Three Natures.


So how are these stuffs above provide answer to is your wet dream conscious or unconscious?

[Scott R. Brown]

If you are correct, can you end life and death at this instant?
If you are wrong, then stop misleading others to get trap in the hell.

you can offend me, that is ok. I hope you delete your making joke on sutra. just no point to create bad karma for a discussion.

That life is HELL is just a view you are attached too! Once you stop thinking of illusion as HELL it is no longer HELL!

You are confusing yourself with illusory views!

[Hendrik]

The Eight Layers of Consciousness is found in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, the single sūtra that Bodhidharma taught from. So if you want to understand Chan, you should study the basics of the Yogācāra consciousness system.

Many of your questions will be answered after you study the Eight Layers of Consciousness and the Three Natures.




Chan is to know not to understand.

Let see what happen with the Eight Layers of Consciousness.




platform sutra


Bhikshu Chih T’ung, a native of An Feng in Shao Chou,
had read the Lankavatara Sutra over a thousand times
but still did not understand the three bodies and the four
wisdoms......



The wisdom of the great, perfect mirror
Is your clear, pure nature.
The wisdom of equal nature
Is the mind without disease.
Wonderfully observing wisdom
Is seeing without effort.
Perfecting wisdom is
The same as the perfect mirror.


Five, eight, six, seven–
Effect and cause both turn;
Merely useful names:
They are without real nature.


If, in the place of turning,
Emotion is not kept,
You always and forever dwell
In Naga concentration.



They are merely useful names. They are without real nature.

The issue is can one have the Kung fu of forever dwell in Naga concentration. otherwise, it is just all words as Hui Neng put it.


A wet dream is a wet dream, one needs to take full responsibility to it be it conscious or unconcious. No words or thinking or understanding of philosophy could help one unless one has the samadhi meaning No wet dream and that is practice not argue in philosophy and not taking responsibility just because one is sleeping.

[Scott R. Brown]

They are merely useful names. They are without real nature

As are the Sutras and HELL and everything else you are saying!

When one stops seeing things as things and concepts as concepts then freedom results!

As long as one sees things as things and concepts as concepts they are trapped by their own mind! Let them go and you are free, spontaneously!

[LFJ]

Chan is to know not to understand.

Let see what happen with the Eight Layers of Consciousness.

Unfortunately what you are talking about is a system which you do not understand, and until now did not even know exists, yet is at the very foundation of the Chan school.

"Bhikshu Chih T’ung, a native of An Feng in Shao Chou, had read the Lankavatara Sutra over a thousand times but still did not understand the three bodies and the four wisdoms......"

The Three Bodies and Four Wisdoms relate directly to the Eight Layers of Consciousness and Three Natures.

"The wisdom of the great, perfect mirror is your clear, pure nature. The wisdom of equal nature is the mind without disease. Wonderfully observing wisdom is seeing without effort. Perfecting wisdom is the same as the perfect mirror."

It is the Eight Layers of Consciousness that are transformed into these Four Wisdoms.


They are merely useful names. They are without real nature.

Yet, you are unaware of their usefulness, since you just now heard about them, and already refuse to learn. You are not interested in learning.

But I will still provide you, and our readers, with some suggested reading should you change your mind: Transformation of Consciousness (http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/Yogacara/TRANSFORMATION%20OF%20CONSCIOUSNESS.htm)

[Scott R. Brown]

Personally I don't care about the 8 layers of Consciousness or the Four Wisdoms or a lot of other doctrinal concepts.

If they help someone, good for them, but they become as much of a trap as everything else. They are merely one description of Consciousness and Wisdom and are tools for ones benefit, but once they become anchors to one's ignorance and confusion, they become useless.

Direct perception of life is what has value, not direct perception filtered through someone else's, including Buddha's, descriptions.

It is like accepting another person's description of the taste of an orange. as the only valid and acceptable description. If you limit your own experience to the description of someone else, your experience is not your own, but an illusion created by your acceptance of someone else's experience. Not every has an identical experience of the taste of an orange. Some like the taste, some do not. Not everyone would describe their experience of the taste of an orange in the same manner, using the same words and descriptive metaphors. Why should anyone expect a description of Realization to be the same for all who experience it.

That is why all teachings are expedient means, because teachings are transient words meant guide others towards a direct experience for themselves. If someone conforms their experience to the words or teaching of another, they have not had their own experience, but an experience filtered through another's. They cannot speak with an authority of their own, but only through the authority of another.

This is why Buddha taught that each person needs to work it out for themselves. Then their experience is their own, and no one else's!

[LFJ]

If they help someone, good for them, but they become as much of a trap as everything else. They are merely one description of Consciousness and Wisdom and are tools for ones benefit, but once they become anchors to one's ignorance and confusion, they become useless.

Direct perception of life is what has value, not direct perception filtered through someone else's, including Buddha's, descriptions.

You repeat this same sort of talk no matter the topic. I think it's a little overkill. We get it. :)


That is why all teachings are expedient means, because teachings are transient words meant guide others towards a direct experience for themselves. If someone conforms their experience to the words or teaching of another, they have not had their own experience, but an experience filtered through another's.

This is true, but why assume when someone refers to an already formulated teaching they must only be conforming to those words and don't have their own personal experience of its truth and need to hear this warning?

If you don't assume that, then why do you always repeat this "expedient means" and "direct experience" admonition everywhere you pop up?

If it's just because it bears repeating in every situation, then just enter a ;) in an otherwise empty post. We'll know what you're gonna say. Your 2¢ will be counted.

[rett]

I wasn't being facetious. Your presumptuousness belies your ego. I have been a strict vegetarian for 3 years.

I apologize, I really thought you were joking (after a few beers). The picture I got was like some c++ programmers going into the Python subforum and making wisecrack. As you said, it was my perception.

[Scott R. Brown]

I do say it because it does bears repeating. I say it often because I consider it of value! I do not presume that everyone repsonding are the only ones reading.

If you find it tedious to read over and over again, feel free to ignore my posts. That is what I do!

Just about what everyone has been posting here is old hat arguments as well. With your attitude why would anyone post anything at any time for any reason? These are all old/ancient arguments. They spring eternal because every person has their own experiences that are valid for them.

Most people post their thoughts because it is enjoyable and they gain some benefit from the interaction with others, even if the interaction is an argument.

Why would you want to rob me of my enjoyment and others of some small benefit just because you find my posts redundant and tedious?

I haven't attempted to shush you because I find your comments tedious or Hendrik because I find his comments silly!

Regardless of any criticism or comments I make concerning the opinions of others on these type of topics, I continue to reconize the value of the interplay of ideas, regardless of who is sharing them! :)

I enjoy and value your thoughts AND Hendrik's thoughts as much as my own.;)

[rett]

I am curious about you.

...

What dharma door have you practice?
What level of samadhi have you attained?


From what I understand, it's not proper to ask these two questions of someone. This kind of question should be between student and teacher.

[rett]

So for example, a hunter obviously has the intent to kill, but if in aiming his gun and firing at an animal he should miss, then factor #5 is not fulfilled and the karma of killing is not accomplished.

I agree, but the karma of intending to kill and "pulling the trigger" so to speak is a pretty strong thought-karma in itself.

An example would be intending to kill one's parents. If you tried to do it, but killed the wrong people by mistake, and fled believing you had succeeded, that would still be a very, very heavy karma. Even though factor 5 isn't present.

So if I buy meat. I know the animal was killed to be sold. I am implicit in this for the simple reason that my mind registers it and remembers it. The mind is where karma is stored and where it operates. This habitual action will have some effect in my life.

[rett]

Not true.


all those who has attain Arahat level walks without stepping on ground to avoid killing insect....etc.

I don't think so. In Buddha's time they had to dig latrines at the forest retreat center. Some monks asked for Buddha's advice because small creatures were harmed by the digging. Buddha advised them to do the job at hand without intending harm to the small bugs.

Levitating is not required. That is the sort of exaggeration that is added to hagiographies over the years.