[Buddha-l] "Nature" and eating meat

[Joy Vriens]

curt wrote:

>> Yes humanism, the Human project is a project. We can't judge the whole 
>> project on the basis of somme rotten pears (as the Curt doctrine would 
>> require us to do). ;-)

> I wonder what is motivating you to say such an unpleasant thing?

It wasn't meant to be unpleasant, sorry for that, but it was my 
understanding that you
based your assessment of a religion, not on its self proclaimed
objectives and methods, but on how (some) influencial Buddhists put
their religion into practice, and especially politically. I already
mistrust the Buddhism of Buddhists in high power positions, especially
in the times when conquering power really meant that: conquering power.
A very naive view if this were a forum on political science, but on a
Buddhist forum I have a right to judge (predemocratic) politics
(guided, misguided or not guided by religious principles) from a
(intimate) religious point of view.

> My 
> psychic powers are extremely limited - but if I try to read your mind it 
> seems to me that you misunderstood what I said during the discussion 
> concerning pacifism (and if that is the case, then I must first blame 
> myself). To clarify very briefly: I never intended that Buddhism should 
> be judged by "rotten pears" - in particular I do not consider the first 
> 13 Dalai Lamas, nor King Asoka nor the less well known Sosan Taesa to 
> have been "rotten" at all - merely counter-examples to the claim that 
> Buddhism is inherently pacifist. I hold all of them in the highest 
> regard (well, alright - I don't know that much about each and every 
> Dalai Lama - but I am more than willing to give them the benefit of the 
> doubt). I regret that I expressed myself so poorly as to lead to such a 
> misunderstanding.

You expressed yourself quite clearly, and your explanation above leaves 
no doubt. The misunderstanding was partly intentional on my part in that 
it was a caricature of your position, but there was a part of 
misunderstanding too, which you have now clarified. There is still one 
more thing I would like to clarify. It isn't very reasonable and 
equitable (of me) to want to judge Buddhist rulers of the past by the 
standards of today's political tendancies. But it is my conviction that 
one doesn't end up in a power position without having fought for it and 
having wanted it very hard. A Buddhist fighting for power in order to 
then be able to impose Buddhist values, a Dharmaraja, doesn't make any 
sense to me. Buddhism is not something that can be imposed through force 
and laws etc. I don't believe the Buddhist legends about its Dharmarajas 
and don't trust the motivations of the latter. But my conception of 
Buddhism is one with a very individual approach and I can imagine that 
other conceptions that are more society-based are possible too. So in my 
politically very naive view of Buddhist rulers, those mighty ones can 
only be "rotten pears" (caricaturised). One doesn't use Buddhism on 
others, one can only use it on oneself.

> But on the subject of "nature": I know it is something of a truism, but 
> I also think that it may be at least in part true, that Buddhism's 
> attitude toward nature changed as it moved out of India, and especially 
> as it moved North and East.

Nature being the physical, the corporal, the "animal" in us?

> But even in India the later development of 
> Tantric Buddhism also represents a more "positive" view of nature than 
> that found in early Buddhism.

Yes one of the qualities of Tantrism IMO was that it revalorised the 
body and human needs. Initially by transmuting it, which is still a form 
of refusal, but it's a more balanced view of the physical.

> In the case of Chinese Buddhism a lot of 
> mileage has been gotten out of ideas about Taoist influences making 
> Buddhism more natural and earthy and so forth. I think there is some 
> truth to that - but there must have been something in Buddhism that was 
> able to adapt to that different intellectual environment - I don't think 
> it was just a matter of rank opportunism.

No, I don't think so either. Mixtures happen naturally, out of a need. 
They aren't planned. There can be reinterpretations of course. Look at 
what happens to Western Buddhism.

> The situation in Central Asia 
> is even more interesting and messy - where the interpenetration of  
> Buddhism and Shamanism has been quite deep.

One needs to feed, one's whole being, all aspects of it. Or rather one 
shouldn't let any aspects starve purposely IMO.