[Buddha-l] Victimized Vegans?

[Joy Vriens]

>> With knowledge evolving, thanks to science, we lose our original  
>> innocence and what used to be non-volitional *could* no longer be  
>> considered as such since now we know. And when we know about "evil" or  
>> "harm" and don't act against it, we become guilty by affiliation or  
>> somesuch and the non-volitional becomes less non and more volitional. 
> 
>I agree with you. I'm currently slogging through the Vinaya (in  
>Horner's sprightly [not!] translation). What strikes me about the rules  
>and their evolution is how consistently they strive to apply the  
>principles of humility and non-harming to all the aspects of the monks'  
>lives, and yet how often they fail to accomplish this because they  
>often seem unaware of the sangha's interdependence with society and, in  
>fact, all beings.

Yes and I expect that something like Montesquieu's spirit of the laws was lacking or not stressed sufficiently in the Vinaya. It can be vaguely read between the lines IMO in suttas like the Monk with dysentery (Kucchivikara-vatthu) etc. I guess it has something to do with the practice of confession. If one introduces confession as a means to repair broken vows (a good thing since it gives one a second, a third, fourth etc chance), it also seems to imply that vows need to be kept entirely undamaged and this somehow absolutises them and stresses the letter rather than the spirit.   

> As you were saying, we know more now about the harm  
>we cause in every moment, on every level, both biologically and  
>socially. Seems to me, this "is" (knowing), leads to an "ought" (acting  
>responsibly). To take the obvious example, since we now understand how  
>markets function, we can any longer take seriously as a consistent  
>ethical position the practice of monks eating meat that was bought at  
>the grocery for them, but not slaughtered for them. 

Yes, and I would go even further and say that now we understand how markets function we can no longer condone markets ;-).
 
>> There seems to be no morality without hypocrisie (= intentional  
>> blindness, intentionally-not-wanting-to-know in order to save  
>> morality). 
 
>Bien entendu, so how far do we take this? The engaged Buddhism movement  
>has done a good deal of thinking on this sort of thing. Not so much the  
>meat market issue, but the capitalist market issue. I hope that work  
>will reshape the sangha, even in Asia. It is certainly reshaping the  
>sangha in convert Buddhist centers in the West. And yet I just ate a  
>salami sandwich. 

I think we should accept our hypocrisy to some degree, whilst trying to improve (going towards less harm). Food is a very complex matter. We don't eat only food when we eat. We eat affection, family and social links, national identity, religious identity (pasha, ganacakra, eucharist etc.). We eat as much links as food. And now with brands, we even consume food. So when we give up specific foods, we give up more those specific foods.  
 
>As for suicide, I think you see in the Vinaya rules the evolution you  
>mentioned. That suicide even appears as a possible option within the  
>texts, suggests the canonical view took a long time to clarify. So does  
>the view on everything worth discussing, no? 

Vinaya seems to be a bit like our current societies that produce more and more rules. Everything will be regulated in the end, but will we also end up living in a better society? It alsmost seems like the more rules, the less generosity, trust and sense of responsibility.

I think that suicide is a different matter for those who believe in the immortality of souls, in whatever forms or manners this idea expresses itself, as for those who don't and who can therefore only view it as a sort of escape, an act of cowardice. And texts like the Paramahamsa-Parivrajaka Upanishad, I quoted a while ago, anecdotes like the one about Calanos, some Cynics and Stoics etc. seem to suggest it was also considered as a sort of ascetism, self sacrifice.

Hypocritically yours,

Joy