[Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation

[andy]

Joanna wrote:
> Come on, you philosophes--------------kindly explain why this
> phrase makes no sense, or viprysasa-wise, how it does make
> sense(????)
> 
> "eating meat with non-attachment is preferable to being attached
> to vegetarianism.."
> 
> Precisely what is the point?
> IMO it's humbug.
> 
> I ask for comment because this list is ever in the habit of
> ignoring anything I say in response to various posts. Now,
> typically, you are all doing it again--paying attention only to
> what the men among us say.

Men?  What about the Redwoods?  I have been hesitant to enter on this 
discussion, since I really don't know what is at issue. One point is that the 
Redwoods are doomed anyway, so we need not feel so bad about their being 
turned in to decking for the petit bourgouisie. On the other hand, the 
violence done to any sentient being is a bad thing, in itself. 

But more importantly, why are we on Buddha-L discussing the Gita?   The idea 
that nothing has svabhava does not justify cutting Redwoods anymore than not 
cutting Redwoods.  Depends on the intention of the arguer?  And this is not 
particularly buddhist:  St. Augustine argues that the evil of war is not that 
people die, since they would die anyway, but the emotions that attend the 
conflict, a lust for domination, rebellion, and so forth. 

So eating meat is wrong if it  entails these emotions, but to stick to this as 
an absolute rule causes more suffering than not.  I have seen vegetarians 
refuse to eat vegetarian food that was on the same table as non-vegetarian 
food, causing much suffering in the process.  That is to say, when the rule 
becomes absolute, it forgets what its purpose was, and establishes a 
universalism which goes against its original purpose.  This is why "correct" 
Buddhism is not absolutely vegetarian.  

Once upon a time, at one of the East-West Philosopher's Conferences we hold on 
occasion in Hawaii, Hilary Putnam made the remark that relativism is not a 
position, it is a strategy.   I don't recall much else that he said, but the 
idea that we all agree to disagree is just to gain time to prove that our 
position is in fact correct.   The question that remains is exactly how we do 
that.   

And I want my goat back from Dan.  I promise not to eat it.  Unless it gets 
hit by a truck, since road-kill is allowed under Buddhism. 


-- 
James Andy Stroble, PhD
Lecturer in Philosophy
Department of Arts & Humanities
Leeward Community College
University of Hawaii

Adjunct Faculty 
Diplomatic and Military Studies
Hawaii Pacific University 

_________________

"The cyber world has grown out of control. State and national law enforcement 
mechanisms are not equipped to deal with the rapidly evolving threat. The 
complexity of information systems has far exceeded the ability to secure them, 
while reliance on these systems has only increased. HBGary has an intimate 
understanding of this problem; We know that understanding the attacker and his 
methods is the only way to defeat him. This is the core strength of HBGary and 
why our technology and services outperform the competition. To us, it's 
personal. 
And we would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for those meddling 
kids!!!"  February, 2011