[Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism?

[Dan Lusthaus]

> Thanks for the links. Any references to texts in Sanskrit?

I haven't compiled a Skt reading list on the topic, and accessible, easily 
searchable Sanskrit resources are still lagging far behind East Asian and 
Tibetan sources (even the Pali Canon with some extra-canonical materials has 
been readily available for some years).

Here is one passage from the Bodhisattvabhumi -- rather a twisted ethical 
argument, which I have written on (essay is coming out in an edited volume 
on Levinas and Asian thought). Asanga is stirring dangerous waters. He is 
not defining the terms (he assumes we are familiar with them), but trying to 
more or less reverse or neutralize them. This passage played an important 
role in early Tibetan Buddhist history (used to justify the assassination of 
a king who was persecuting Buddhism), and was discussed in detail later on 
by the likes of Tsongkhapa:

asti ca kiṃcit prakṛti-sāvadyam api yad bodhisattvas 
tad-rūpeṇopāya-kauśalena samudācarati yenānāpattikaś ca bhavati bahu ca 
puṇyaṃ prasūyate| yathā 'pi tad bodhisattvaḥ coraṃ taskaraṃ 
prabhūtānāṃ prāṇiśatānāṃ mah'ātmanāṃ 
śrāvaka-pratyekabuddha-bodhisattvānāṃ vadhāyodyatam āmiṣa-kiṃcitka-hetoḥ 
prabhūt' ānantarya-karma-kriyā-prayuktaṃ paśyati| dṛṣṭvā ca punar evaṃ 
cetasā cittam abhisaṃskaroti| yady apy aham enaṃ prāṇinaṃ jīvitād 
vyaparopya narakeṣūpapadyeya| kāmaṃ bhavatu me narakopapattiḥ| eṣa ca 
sattva ānantaryaṃ karma kṛtvā mā bhūn naraka-parāyaṇa iti| evam-āśayo 
bodhisattvas taṃ prāṇinaṃ kuśala-citto 'vyākṛta-citto vā viditvā 
ṛtīyamānaḥ anukaṃpā-cittam ev' āyatyām upādāya jīvitād vyaparopayati| 
anāpattiko bhavati bahu ca puṇyaṃ prasūyate||

yathā 'pi tad bodhisattvaḥ ye sattvā rājāno vā bhavaṃti rāja-mahā-mātrā va 
adhimātra-raudrāḥ sattveṣu nirdayā ekāṃta-para-pīḍā-pravṛttāḥ| tāṃ 
satyāṃ śaktau tasmād rājy'aiśvary' ādhipatyāc cyāvayati yatra sthitās te 
tan-nidānaṃ bahv-apuṇyaṃ prasavaṃty anukaṃpācitto hita-sukh' āśayaḥ.

(Wogihara, p. 165-166; Wogihara Unrai, ed. (1971) Bodhisattvabhūmi. Tokyo: 
Sankibo Buddhist Book Store. Originally publ. 1930-36)

>There is nothing about ethics in the vinaya.

Yes and no. Lots of rules, true. The interesting "ethical reasoning" part is 
when the situations that lead to the formulation of the rule -- and the 
principles by which the rules are devised -- are provided.

>It's nothing but rules that one must adhere to if one expects to get alms 
>in fifth century BCE India.

I share that cynical view of a good chunk of it, such as the rules 
concerning 'meat' (aside from the prohibition on thigh soup). But some are 
more general, clear attempts at a middle way applied concretely (e.g., the 
height of a bed, type of robes, footwear, etc.). Concessions for the sake of 
alms demonstrates that the principles never violate what is practical and 
feasible, itself a very prudent principle. The rules on medicine and 
treating the sick, which trump most other rules (e.g., allowing women to 
interact with men on "off hours," and even touch men when ministering 
medicines and care; etc.) reinforce this. Rules against hunting on the 
"preserves" in which Buddhists dwell (like the Deer Park) also demonstrate a 
gentle way of pushing back against the cultural norm.

>It looks like an interesting distinction, sort of like a distinction 
>between something that one finds repugnant because it is toxic—people gag 
>when they smell rotten food to prevent them from eating something that 
>could kill them—and something that one has been taught to find repugnant 
>through religious indoctrination.

The 'natural crime' is not "naturized" that way. It is more along the lines 
of what we might consider generally or universally condemnable wrongdoing: 
murder, stealing, lying, and so on. Stuff that any culture, anywhere would 
condemn. This is what all humans, by virtue of having been born human, are 
obligated to adhere to (regardless of urges to do otherwise).

The violations of monastic codes are exactly that. Once one takes monastic 
vows one is obligated to follow those rules, recognized as above and beyond 
what humans are normally called upon to obey. Violating these rules can 
result in punishment and even expulsion, depending on the degree of severity 
of the transgression.

Point is, neither the 'natural crime' nor the 'monastic crime' involves 
"voluntary" adherence. For humans, the "human rules" are in effect, whether 
one likes them or not, or wants to follow them or not. One abstains from 
killing, not as an experiment in voluntary practice, but because it violates 
a natural law of sorts. One may or may not "volunteer" to become a monastic, 
but once one IS a monastic, the monastic codes are not voluntary, but 
compulsory and obligatory. Their compulsory nature and enforcement are not 
arbitrary.

>>> Just to be 100% accurate, it's accuracy that I take seriously, not
>>> "accuracy".
>>
>> Can I quote you on that? In quotes?
>
> Yes, of course.  Just remember to use single quotes inside the double 
> quotes.

perfect.

Dan