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

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

The line that kept coming to my mind while reading the discussion is 
that 'the Buddha tought karma and its consequences'. This means that if 
you like to go to hell you can listen and learn, no hard feelings. Kill 
and have your chosen carreer. Which brings me to the conclusion that 
killing or eating meat is what you make of it. There are ontological 
veggies who think they can eat their tummies full and keep their noses 
clean. Become a veggie and thou shallt become no sin. Those are in the 
same category as the kosjer and hallal fans. There are the believers, 
who want to play the game of their belief (read group) according to the 
rules, just to be sure or for the fun of it. And there are the political 
veggies who boycot an industry which they object to. Nowhere does 
compassion come in. Why not? Because it is just an icing on the cake, a 
mere ornament, a way to feel good about yourself. But it is based on a 
view on nature that is derived from early child visits to the zoo. The 
pig that as been slaughtered could also be eaten by a pack of wolves or 
die in pain of old age. Nature is not mild or benign nor are 
slaughterhouses. But the fact remains that the production of cheese and 
yoghurt necessitate slaughter and that minced meat is even more animal 
friendly than bio-organic beef, because this is made from old milk cows. 
Even soyaproduction is not environment friendly these days. This is 
samsara, there's no place to hide.

erik

Op 13-07-11 14:48, Richard Hayes schreef:
>   On Jul 13, 2011, at 05:48 , L.S. Cousins wrote:
>
>> The following are to hand:
>>
>> See Abhidharma-dīpa p.127f.
>>
>> &  Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣya:
>> prajñaptisāvadyeṣvapi prakṛtisāvadyeṣviva tīvreṇa gauraveṇa
>> śikṣaṇādaṇumātreṣvavadyeṣu
>> bhayadarśī bhavati / samantāt paripūrṇa śikṣāmādāya śikṣate
>> śikṣāpadeṣvityucyate //
>>
>> Abhidharmakośabhāṣya:
>> p.214&  218f.
> Thank you, Lance. All these passages seem to be talking about what is blameworthy and frowned upon (sāvadya), which I take to be a rather different concept from prohibited (pratiṣedha). In English we might describe an action as disgusting or nasty or something of the like, but that is not quite the same as saying it is prohibited. Prohibition strikes me as more of a legal category. If one does a prohibited action, there will be penalties to pay and perhaps freedoms lost. If one does an action that others regard as contemptible (sāvadya), then one will be contemned, perhaps shunned. The point I have been trying to make is that the notion of prohibition, that is, the more legal notion of an action proscribed by law and accompanied by punishment if there is an infraction, is restricted to the vinaya, and whether one binds oneself by vinaya is a purely voluntary thing. It is not compulsory to renounce the householder's life and go forth into the homeless life.
> Nowhere in Buddhism, as far as I know from my very limited reading, is there anything quite like a divine commandment of the form "Thou shalt not...." That is really what I was thinking when I said there are no prohibited actions within Buddhism itself. (Of course, Buddhists are rarely encouraged to break civil laws, because breaking laws is frowned upon. Buddhists are for the most part not like Quakers in that respect. If one has not yet served time in jail, or at least been indicted for a breaking a human law that is perceived as incompatible with a higher law, then one has not yet earned one's salt as a Quaker.)
>
> By the way, Lance, at this year's seminar in Buddhism we were treated to a series of excellent presentations by your former student, Sarah Shaw. She captivated the students with some lively, informative and charming presentations on Buddhist meditation. People whose main orientation to Buddhism is Zen often know astonishingly little about the theory and practice of Buddhist meditation outside their own tradition, so even some of the experienced Zen practitioners learned a great deal from Sarah's presentations.
>
> Thank you again or the references. I shall study them and take them into account as I continue to come to terms with just what kind of an animal the Buddhist notion of śīla is.
>
> Richard
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>