凸 囧 凸
Or one can plagiarize and repost all the blog posts one wants. . .Originally Posted by Hendrik
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..
Registered User
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
Last edited by Hendrik; 07-23-2011 at 03:51 PM.
Registered User
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".
Last edited by Hendrik; 07-23-2011 at 03:53 PM.
Registered User
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.
Registered User
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.
Last edited by Hendrik; 07-23-2011 at 05:37 PM.
Registered User
Maybe in your own mind, but not to those on the outside looking in!
You will enjoy the consequences of the path you have chosen for yourself and others will enjoy the consequences of theirs.
Registered User
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.
Last edited by Hendrik; 07-24-2011 at 05:29 PM.
Registered User
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.
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.
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
Please provide any thoughts you have regarding my understanding- be it incomplete or inadequate either in a Buddhist or non-buddhist viewpoint.
Registered User
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:
Right, but the text doesn't support the claims made by Hendrik here.
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."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 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.
You've made a huge mistake here in equating meat eating with the karma of killing. It is not, and cannot be so.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.
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.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).
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.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.
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.
Last edited by LFJ; 08-09-2011 at 08:26 PM.
Registered User
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.Hi Matthew,
But first:
Right, but the text doesn't support the claims made by Hendrik here.
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.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.
"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.
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.
Registered User
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
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).
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."
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.
(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.
the ass assassin
this weak pacifist nonsense is why half of india is now muslim and called pakistan.
Honorary African American
grandmaster instructor of Wombat Combat The Lost Art of Anal Destruction™®LLC .
Senior Business Director at TEAM ASSHAMMER consulting services ™®LLC
Registered User
Of course it is, but not because it creates negative karma.
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.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.
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..."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.
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.To understand the combination of Buddhism (Chan 禅)..... Martial Movement 武 (which is impeded in progress by meat consumption-
Did not your quote from them say "whether or not they are sick, they should refrain from these foods"??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.
The cop-out I expected above. "Well, they don't have to be students here, so we aren't really forcing them".We must understand that no one is being forced to do anything- people entering ChanWuYi school are willingly doing so.
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!
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.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.
Registered User
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.
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.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.
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]".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.......
"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 said it is like gravity in that it is a natural law, not something that can have "exceptions for certain circumstances".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.
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?
Killing and eating are not at all of similar natures. That is ridiculous.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.
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.
Registered User
@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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote