Shaolin Zhan Zhaung

[LFJ]

@Hendrik

Shakyamuni ate meat and his monks were allowed to eat meat. The Vinaya Pitaka is very clear about that. He was fully enlightened and he had many enlightened disciples.

If meat eating was such a grave sin, as Hendrik makes it out to be, it would have made it into the Vinayapiṭaka. Yet he brushes it off with this;

since Shao lin is Chan school
let see what the Shurangama sutra said

Still, the part he quoted says;

"Therefore, Ananda, if cultivators of Ch’an samadhi do not
cut off killing, they are like one who stops up his ears and calls
out in a loud voice, expecting no one to hear him. It is to wish to
hide what is completely evident."

The entire section is about cutting off killing. Eating meat is not killing. As I said in my last post;

Present actions cannot be causes for effects that take place in the past.

That means someone's present choice to eat meat cannot be the cause for the animal being killed, when it had long since been dead before the desire to eat meat arose.

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。

is a proper teaching. we might not be able to do it. but we must not over write it with our own self - agenda reason to break the proper teaching.

No one is trying to "overwrite it with our own self-agenda reason to break proper teaching". As I have been saying, I've in fact been on a vegetarian diet for many years.

The problem here is that you have not met your burden of proof, yet expect people to accept your claims without sufficient evidence.

[Hendrik]

That is not my empty talk, it is Śākyamuni Buddha's famous "empty and misleading talk" from the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. .

believe all you like that is fine with me.

[YouKnowWho]

Eating meat is not killing.

When you live in the wildness, if you want to eat meat, you have to kill yourself. That's called hunting or fishing.

[Hendrik]

If meat eating was such a grave sin, as Hendrik makes it out to be, it would have made it into the Vinayapiṭaka. Yet he brushes it off with this;



Still, the part he quoted says;

"Therefore, Ananda, if cultivators of Ch’an samadhi do not
cut off killing, they are like one who stops up his ears and calls
out in a loud voice, expecting no one to hear him. It is to wish to
hide what is completely evident."

The entire section is about cutting off killing. Eating meat is not killing. As I said in my last post;

you missed out this part of the sutra


After my extinction, how can those who
eat the flesh of living beings be called the disciples of Shakya?

[Hendrik]

If we compare the following 2 types of ZZ, we can see a big difference there.

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/8412/13taibo.jpg

one needs to know what are those things for.

[LFJ]

When you live in the wildness, if you want to eat meat, you have to kill yourself. That's called hunting or fishing.

But killing is killing. Eating is eating.

Killing carries the karma of killing. Eating does not.

you missed out this part of the sutra

After my extinction, how can those who
eat the flesh of living beings be called the disciples of Shakya?

Again, you must take it its full context. It is talking about people who have thoughts of killing, commit the act of killing, and then eat what they have killed.

[Hendrik]

But killing is killing. Eating is eating.

Killing carries the karma of killing. Eating does not.

Again, you must take it its full context. It is talking about people who have thoughts of killing, commit the act of killing, and then eat what they have killed.

After my extinction, how can those who
eat the flesh of living beings be called the disciples of Shakya?

clearly state the Buddha's teaching.

[LFJ]

Dude, you can't extract a sentence from its context and hope to make a point.

Can you answer why meat eating is not restricted in the Vinayapiṭaka?

Also, regardless, lest we forget, this conversation is about the claim made in the article on the Shaolin Wu Gulun website that says enlightenment cannot be reached if you eat meat.

Where is this claim supported in Buddhist scripture?

[Hendrik]

Also, regardless, lest we forget, this conversation is about the claim made in the article on the Shaolin Wu Gulun website that says enlightenment cannot be reached if you eat meat.

Where is this claim supported in Buddhist scripture?

Shurangama sutra:

You should know that these people who eat meat may gain
some awareness and may seem to be in samadhi, but they are all
great rakshasas.

When their retribution ends, they are bound to
sink into the bitter sea of birth and death.

They are not disciples of the Buddha.

Such people as these kill and eat one another in a never-ending cycle.

How can such people transcend the Triple
Realm?

[LFJ]

Hendrik- I'm not sure if you're just ignoring my posts, or choosing not to acknowledge them...

"Such people as these kill and eat one another in a never-ending cycle."

You think this section is talking about anyone who eats meat? So anyone who eats meat is guilty of killing? Can you explain how so?

I've already said;

Present actions cannot be causes for effects that take place in the past.

That means someone's present choice to eat meat cannot be the cause for the animal being killed, when it had long since been dead before the desire to eat meat arose.

Furthermore, creating the karma of killing requires five conditions;

1) a being

2) awareness of the being

3) intention of killing

4) effort to kill

5) consequent death

This means if someone is target shooting outdoors for sport, and the bullet strikes and kills an animal in the distance, not all five conditions are present. No awareness of the being, no intent to kill, no effort to kill. So the shooter does not acquire the karma of killing in the accidental death of the animal.

Likewise, if a hunter is actively searching for animals, locates an animal, and intending to kill it makes an effort by firing their gun at the animal, but misses... then although he had unwholesome mental states, he did not commit the karma of killing because there was no accomplishment in the task. He did not kill.

Now in the case of eating meat....,

In having meat on your plate and eating it, the animal which provided that meat has long since been dead and the meat no longer has a mind-stream. In the act of eating the meat there is no 1) being (no mind-stream), which means conditions 2 through 5 cannot be present. There is no intent to kill, effort to kill, or consequent death.

So in the section of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, "these people who eat meat" refers to "Such people as these kill and eat one another in a never-ending cycle".

That means those who "kill and have thoughts of killing" and then eat what they've killed (refer to the five conditions for the karma of killing), not just anyone who eats meat.

This section of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra is only about ceasing 3 actions;

1) lusting

2) killing

3) stealing

Vegetarianism is prescribed as an antidote for those who "kill and have thoughts of killing". Killing and thoughts of killing keep one from attaining Bodhi. Simply eating meat is not an act of killing, nor a thought of killing. (refer once again to the 5 conditions for completing the karma of killing)

So why is it said in the article on the Shaolin Wu Gulun website that enlightenment is unattainable by meat eaters (not those who eat what they've personally killed)? Where is it supported in Buddhist scripture?

[Hendrik]

Shurangama sutra: the 52 demonic states.


He will slander the holding of
precepts, calling it a ‘Small Vehicle Dharma.’

He will say,
‘Since Bodhisattvas have awakened to emptiness, what is there
to hold or violate?’

This person, in the presence of his faithful
danapatis, will often drink wine, eat meat, and engage in
wanton lust. The power of the demon will keep his followers
from doubting or denouncing him.

After the ghost has
possessed him for a long time, he may consume excrement and
urine, or meat and wine, claiming that all such things are
empty. He will break the Buddha’s moral precepts and mislead
people into committing offenses. Lacking proper samadhi, he
will certainly fall.


http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhis...526.screen.pdf




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。

is a proper teaching. we might not be able to do it. but we must not over write it with our own self - agenda reason to break the proper teaching and get ourself into trouble.

[Hendrik]

Chapter 28: Be Wary of the Unbridled Mind
The Buddha said, “Be wary of trusting your own mind, for it is
deceptive. Be wary of situations that may incite lust, for those
will lead to disaster. Once you have attained arhatship, you can
trust your own mind.”

http://www.buddhagate.org/Teachings/...sutra_v1.3.pdf

Hendrik- I'm not sure if you're just ignoring my posts, or choosing not to acknowledge them...

"Such people as these kill and eat one another in a never-ending cycle."

You think this section is talking about anyone who eats meat? So anyone who eats meat is guilty of killing? Can you explain how so?

I've already said;

Present actions cannot be causes for effects that take place in the past.

That means someone's present choice to eat meat cannot be the cause for the animal being killed, when it had long since been dead before the desire to eat meat arose.

Furthermore, creating the karma of killing requires five conditions;

1) a being

2) awareness of the being

3) intention of killing

4) effort to kill

5) consequent death

This means if someone is target shooting outdoors for sport, and the bullet strikes and kills an animal in the distance, not all five conditions are present. No awareness of the being, no intent to kill, no effort to kill. So the shooter does not acquire the karma of killing in the accidental death of the animal.

Likewise, if a hunter is actively searching for animals, locates an animal, and intending to kill it makes an effort by firing their gun at the animal, but misses... then although he had unwholesome mental states, he did not commit the karma of killing because there was no accomplishment in the task. He did not kill.

Now in the case of eating meat....,

In having meat on your plate and eating it, the animal which provided that meat has long since been dead and the meat no longer has a mind-stream. In the act of eating the meat there is no 1) being (no mind-stream), which means conditions 2 through 5 cannot be present. There is no intent to kill, effort to kill, or consequent death.

So in the section of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, "these people who eat meat" refers to "Such people as these kill and eat one another in a never-ending cycle".

That means those who "kill and have thoughts of killing" and then eat what they've killed (refer to the five conditions for the karma of killing), not just anyone who eats meat.

This section of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra is only about ceasing 3 actions;

1) lusting

2) killing

3) stealing

Vegetarianism is prescribed as an antidote for those who "kill and have thoughts of killing". Killing and thoughts of killing keep one from attaining Bodhi. Simply eating meat is not an act of killing, nor a thought of killing. (refer once again to the 5 conditions for completing the karma of killing)

So why is it said in the article on the Shaolin Wu Gulun website that enlightenment is unattainable by meat eaters (not those who eat what they've personally killed)? Where is it supported in Buddhist scripture?

[LFJ]

Yes, eating meat in general is not a pure act for a Buddhist. But it is not the karma of killing, as has been demonstrated. Having no such unwholesome karmic result, the simple act of eating meat cannot be an obstruction to enlightenment. Hence it is not restricted in the Vinayapiṭaka.

You have not demonstrated how or why eating meat might block one from attaining enlightenment. You've quoted on killing and thoughts of killing obstructing enlightenment- with vegetarianism as an antidote, and you have quoted on meat eating being impure.

None of this is support for your claim.

[Hendrik]

Clearly address in Shurangama Sutra:


“After my extinction, in the Dharma-ending Age, these
hordes of ghosts and spirits will abound, spreading like wildfire
as they argue that eating meat will bring one to the Bodhi Way.

“You should know that these people who eat meat may gain
some awareness and may seem to be in samadhi, but they are all
great rakshasas. When their retribution ends, they are bound to
sink into the bitter sea of birth and death. They are not disciples
of the Buddha. Such people as these kill and eat one another in
a never-ending cycle. How can such people transcend the Triple
Realm?

“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?

“Bhikshus who do not wear silk, leather boots, furs, or down
from this country or consume milk, cream, or butter can truly
transcend this world. When they have paid back their past
debts, they will not have to re-enter the Triple Realm.

“Why? It is because when one wears something taken from
a living creature, one creates conditions with it, just as when
people eat the hundred grains, their feet cannot leave the earth.
Both physically and mentally one must avoid the bodies and the
by-products of living beings, by neither wearing them nor
eating them. I say that such people have true liberation.

“Both physically and mentally one must avoid the bodies
and by-products of living beings, by neither wearing them nor
eating them.”

“What I have said here is the Buddha’s teaching. Any
explanation counter to it is the teaching of Papiyan.



http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhis...526.screen.pdf

Yes, eating meat in general is not a pure act for a Buddhist. But it is not the karma of killing, as has been demonstrated. Having no such unwholesome karmic result, the simple act of eating meat cannot be an obstruction to enlightenment. Hence it is not restricted in the Vinayapiṭaka.

You have not demonstrated how or why eating meat might block one from attaining enlightenment. You've quoted on killing and thoughts of killing obstructing enlightenment- with vegetarianism as an antidote, and you have quoted on meat eating being impure.

None of this is support for your claim.

[LFJ]

If you're going to do nothing more than repeat the same quote which does nothing to prove your point, and add nothing new to it, nor address the points I've made... then I take that as conceding the debate.