Shaolin diet, vegetarianism and stuff

[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.

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.

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!

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!

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.

[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.