[Buddha-l] Victimized vegans

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

Richard Hayes schreef:
> On Friday 11 May 2007 10:27, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:
>
>   
>> With all respect, but the Lanka itself is not a consistent text written by
>> one author, let alone that it contains words of the historical Buddha.
>>     
>
> Surely nothing could be less relevant than the authorship of a text. What 
> matters is whether the text gives good advice for the elimination of 
> eliminable forms of suffering and offers cogent reasons in favour of its 
> conclusions. The Lankavatara does offer some good advice on some points and 
> offers some conclusions without good arguments in their support. It deserves 
> criticism, but surely it deserves more intelligent criticism than that it was 
> not the word of the Buddha. 
>
> Mind you, Erik, you can ignore this entire message, since it is not the word 
> of the Buddha and may well be inconsistent. And, if momentariness is true, it 
> was not even the work of a single author. 
>
>   
Generally spoken you're absolutely right as usual, but in this case I 
was just following the thread. The quote from the Lanka was used as a 
counter argument for my suggestion that the Buddha only prohibited 
eating meat in case the animal was slaughtered just for the meal.
But I'd like to take up another aspect. You suggest that the value of a 
text depends solely on it's interpretation. So do you deny the relevance 
of historical data, like Richard Rorty ? If a text falls apart and 
children sample the pages which are not numbered and put them together 
in a new order, which allowes another consistent reading, would you 
consider this text or the voice in it an authority on the subject?


Erik


www.xs4all.nl/~jehms
weblog http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950
products: http://stores.lulu.com/jehmsstudio