the great vegetarian debate

[Sonrisa]

I am also against abortion for spiritual reasons. I think it also harms the mother very much. However, at the same time, I think "Who am I to tell a woman what she cant and cannot do with her body". So that is why I keep out of it.

[ronnewmexico]

That is the issue and is always the issue..

what gives a government the right to prohibit such a thing?
WE as buddhist oppose such things personally sure.

To extend it to others and demand they adopt our way of thinking and disregard other consequential result of such actions by government, by force of government???

Might as well legislate against the rain. People are going to do this thing, women have always, regardless of law against, and many have died as result. To manage it correctly it must be allowed...from there it can be managed correctly as the Netherlands attests with education other means to prevent conception..... and then rates will decline.

Outlawing it with blanket law against and enforcement against...sheer idiocy. WHO attests....law outlawing simply does not work to intended consequence.
Outlawing to my view expressing the absolutists view on how things are done..by force this thing may be stopped, completely disregarding the human experience and historic context of this thing, which shows in pragmatic fashion such force may do no such thing.
But the ideologs want no such example to be explored nor affirmed, regarless of which side they may lie, The outlawing like a 55 MPH law on a wide open freeway of six lanes does not a bit stop such law from being broken and such occuring. Only a fool anicipates it will.
Fools unfortunately abound, no dearth nor lacking of that commodity ever found.

[Will]

Murder, theft, and animal torture have always and will always occur, maybe we should drop legal strictures against them?

Murder Management - a new career field!

There is no need to throw pregant women in jail, but what is wrong with a stiff fine for the abortionist & her? No, I do not mean for any pregnancy. If rape, incest or danger to the physical life of the mother exists, then no punishment by the state. Making adoption easier will help too.

[ronnewmexico]

Get this straight and completely straight with no exception...

rules against this thing do not significantly stop this thing. The rates in countries.... determined largly by medical complications resulting in the death or serious impairment of women of certain age groups(since strict measurement of a illegal activity are not measurable in conventional sense).....state that where illegal they occur at approximate the same rates as to where they are legal. In some nations they comprise the second leading cause of death in those nations for that gender and age grouping.
Who the world health organization not a pro abortion group states that.

So this is simply not comparable to murder and all the rest. Rules against murder and such things, though murders still occur believe you me....they do not occur at anywhere close to the levels they would occur if there were no governmental laws against them. Try a hundred or a thousand times the present amounts if murder were not illegal. maybe hundreds of thousands of times the amounts. Sans legality, abortion.. it will still occur and many womens deaths or impairments must be added to the totals.

So it makes no sense.

Jail the providers...that's exactly how it was prior in many states to supreme court decision. The intervention was not called abortion it was called a form of hysterectomy, for the mothers health if she had the money for a doc. If not...wire coat hanger and with or without assistance. Or if not allowed in one area relocate to another. Essentially every forth or fifth family doc became a abortion provider of sorts rather than a relative small small proportion of present. Don't have one that dose they refer you to one that does. Who exactly is present in a operating or examining room to determine what constitutes a partially performed hysteroctomy or a abortion...the local sheriff. I think they have other things to do. What of native american reservations soverign nations considered.... would your law then apply to them....and if not would all abortions then just be provided like gambleing being exempt from local laws against...then done all on indian reservations? Would you then deny indian soverign status they now hold?

Unenforceable, completely totally unenforceable. Ideologs never want pragmaticism they want theory.

A law so we may feel good about ourselves to no practical effect....absurd a exercise in absurdity.

The culture of abortion started with roe v wade....check your history nothing of the sort is true.

The very sad part of this thing the unintended consequence of stupid actions which stupid peoples are inclinded to do.....abolition....led directly to the rise of organized crime in america a network which still stands today and has outreaches into various endeavors such as the drug trade. The 55 MPH speed limit virtually everyone became a outlaw and speed infractions were completely totally the part and parcel of revenue enhancement of local law enforcement. The result of that....hard to measure, due to increased drivership, but total disregard of traffic enforcement validity consequently drunk driving and all the rest some very good inforcements lumped in with the unenforceable illegitimate ones.
Drug laws such a one passed in NY state in the seventies....the same result... people in jail with no parole due to minor offense resulting in much perception of illigitimicy of the legal system which persists today in the drug enforcement area.

And on and on....you want a bad result...pass a unenforceable law. Guaranteed to bring bad result. Abortion law is exactly that. Any law enforcement official would laugh at you if you intended to suggest that thing is in any manner shape or form enforceable. The person with the coat hanger in the backroom hall... they'd catch that person rest assured, one out of a hundred of them that is. The doc the family doc performing a procedure in a examination room....never not a one. Never did in the bad old days and never would now.

[Will]

What I am getting straight, with no exceptions, is that you do not read closely or understand what I wrote. You go zooming off into conventional social policy, generalizing and poofing up straw men in bunches.

Abortion is murder, the karmic effect of destroying a human being's opportunity to find or practice the Dharma or even balance out their karma from past lives is bad. The effect can be mitigated by the reluctance of the woman or the abortionist to do the killing. It will be worsened by a callous attitude to the act. Later in life, certain practices of saving animal lives or working against abortions will also help reduce the bad karma.

[Bodhi]

I believe this is by Shifu Jian Hu on abortion.

Generally, there is consciousness after conception, so willful abortion is considered killing. This issue is to be taken seriously.

However, we live in a world where often a clear-cut right-or-wrong decision is not possible. One needs to consider individual circumstances and make the decisions carefully.

There is no highest decision body in Buddhism that dictates what stance to take on these complicated issues. Instead, we aim to make people understand the karma consequences involved in each decision. For example, if a woman were raped and became pregnant, if she can, through her Buddhist practice, let go of her anger, keep and raise the child in peace, then this would be the best situation where she managed to turn “bad karma” into “good karma.” If she were unable to do this and went through with the abortion, she should seek refuge in the Buddha’s teachings, learn of ways to pacify herself and quench the enmity the aborted child would have toward her.

We should also look deeper into the causes of these problems: delusion, lust, disrespect, and anger, and work on transforming these mental-tendencies in each one of us into wisdom, discipline, respect, and compassion.

[ronnewmexico]

Yes Bodhi

no mention is made of creating nor enforceing laws that prohibit such, by this master. To reference the context perhaps...... Will is certainly correct Hsuan Hua made that statement initially quoted. Hsuan Hua a great master could be said to verse the very conservative side of Buddhism stateing on homosexality for instance that this predisposes one to a rebirth in the lower realms and it should be discouraged as it would lead to the extinction of the human race. So Hsuan Hua made the statement to the inverse, he was certainly a lineage holder in that form of chinese buddhism and a great leader of buddhism's introduction to the west. However as indicated by your post and lineage holder there is a disparity of views on very many specific issues in Buddhism at the present time. Hsuan Hua could be appropriately described to represent the conservative side of things in Buddhism being associated with George Bush to a degree as per another example, another abortion opponant.

So context is provided as there are two opposing views expressed by two lineage holders. One more conserative one more liberal.

All know abortions are negative to include the woman who has such, most assuredly. But like war may be considered murder and is negative and other means must certainly be employed, no law there is against war as some circumstance can cause its occurance. If as in the sudan or serbia or bosnia or ruwanda a government declares war and genocide against its peoples.....military force may be the only last resort to stop the practice from occuring.

certainly all other means must be employed first preferable, but we are all human and thusly make mistakes...so sometimes we must take these actions as negative, as they are,.... as the master explains, but take remedial action as consequence.

All three children starve or one is killed prior to being born that is the most extreem example but in many situations it is the choice. Usually it is gradient of that choice.


W..you just keep repeating abortion is murder...there is really no sense talking to you on this.

[Will]

Will: you just keep repeating abortion is murder...there is really no sense talking to you on this.

You represent many, so I respond to the idea, not you personally Ron.

What percentage of abortions are accidental or spontaneous - very small I bet. So if the intent is to kill and the abortion of the baby is done, that is murder. If one intends to kill a puppy or a kitty and does so, is that not murder too? Is not a baby in womb at least equal to a small animal?

[ronnewmexico]

Well I think everyone gets it...you think abortion is murder. You say it in about every response and with slight variation it comprises the content of all your posts.

Your lineage teacher states the same thing putting that in the catagory of automatic result karmic events.

That's fine for you to believe, nothing wrong with that.

Other forms of Buddhism do not as the quote above mentioned and I may mention....most forms of Tibetan Buddhism do not have abortion as in the catagory of automatically damning actions. By extension some teachers may but some may not. I can quote those if necessary.

So it is a thing with much variation of opinion in the Buddhist world. Some nations with majority populations of Buddhists such as Sri Lanka, and Burma strictly oppose any forms of abortion. Others do not, Viet Nam has one of the worlds highest rates yet by population is majority Buddhist. Countries such as Bhutan, Cambodia.....they fall somewhere in between. Cambodia yes, Bhutan no.
So it varies, India and China...yes. Singapore, Taiwan, yes but with qualification.


It surprise me little that you little like my pragmatic view of this thing. People who base ways of doing things and laws and such strictly on a ideological basis never entertain the practicality of doing those things. It violates their envisionings of such things.

Pragmatically practically....outlawing abortions does not work. The furthur we get away from rememberances of how bad it was years and years ago and loose that collective knowledge as had occured with the death penalty, the closer the US is to seeing that become law. So it will eventually become law and the death penalty given enough time will again not be law.

When such becomes law and the rich and insured become able to have them and the poor and uninsured(yes uninsured there is no universal health care in the us) become only able to have backroom abortions....given enought time that again will be legalized. It will become quite obviously detrimental to the economically disadvantaged and minority populations... with time.

Alcohole is a bad thing. American tried to outlaw alcohol but since it can be brewed in a bathtub....it did not work. It would be nice to think we can outlaw all bad things such as hatred anger and such but though laws could certainly be passed there is no reasonable way of enforceing those things.

Abortion is exactly similiar. The rich....the docs perform them for untaxed revenue amounts and no one is the wiser. The poor....backroom abortions with complication in about one out of every ten or so. As clinic can not provide them legally.
So eventually society again gets the message.....this is worse than that.

And they are again legalized. But in the intrium there are the abortions continuing and the deaths and impariments of the women having them performed in illicit fashion to add.

It never fails to surprise me how uninformed abortion opponants are, to the global and american history of this thing, even when I know it is the ideal or ideology of the thing, not the thing itself, that they solely consider.

[Bodhi]

Generally we need to consider the circumstance. Because this is an extremely complicated issue. There so many factors to consider because it is not simple as in either black or white issue so it is best, in my opinion, to refrain from quick judgment. For me, abortion is something i dont support because it is indeed killing but i am not against it either because there are many exceptions that it is not just about killing the fetus because the force behide all karma are intention.

To make it easier to understand, it is the same with Emperor Liang who asked Bodhidharma how much merits he had earned but to get a respond from Bodhidhadma that he had earned none because his good deeds were from selfish intention. It is important to be open and considerate when we discuss these type of topics.

Peace in Chan

[ronnewmexico]

B

You will find on one here nor pretty much anywhere that states abortion is a good thing.

That just is not being stated by anyone, check the posts....

I will not deny Hsuan Hua was a great teacher and master but his words are his words and they state as will quotes and You-Bin Chen states... the Buddha states..."If one deliberately has an abortion and the fetus dies, one commits 'an offense that cannot be repented of.'"

That is pretty unequivocal. Others in Buddhism state otherwise. Who is wrong or right.....that is a personal decision.

The subject of this thread(the quote), combined with the title..no killing...makes a statement. That statement is.....this is prohibited in Buddhism.....Yes, I take exception to that statement and verse argument opposeing.

It's certainly fine to hold view personally, to combine personal view with lineage holders opinion on that thing and post such not in a place only for lineage holders of Chan but in a general Mahayana place....that may be opposed in general Mahayana contexts...which it is.

If this is moved to Chan view holders only place....I withdraw all comments. Till then I remain with opposition.

[Bodhi]

B

You will find on one here nor pretty much anywhere that states abortion is a good thing.

That just is not being stated by anyone, check the posts....

I will not deny Hsuan Hua was a great teacher and master but his words are his words and they state as will quotes and You-Bin Chen states... the Buddha states..."If one deliberately has an abortion and the fetus dies, one commits 'an offense that cannot be repented of.'"

That is pretty unequivocal. Others in Buddhism state otherwise. Who is wrong or right.....that is a personal decision.

The subject of this thread(the quote), combined with the title..no killing...makes a statement. That statement is.....this is prohibited in Buddhism.....Yes, I take exception to that statement and verse argument opposeing.

It's certainly fine to hold view personally, to combine personal view with lineage holders opinion on that thing and post such not in a place only for lineage holders of Chan but in a general Mahayana place....that may be opposed in general Mahayana contexts...which it is.

If this is moved to Chan view holders only place....I withdraw all comments. Till then I remain with opposition.

Ron, please do not find this to be offensive, but I haven't have a clue on what you are saying. Sorry I'm not clearly understanding what you are trying to say, if you agree with my post or disagree or something else? But I will try to reply either way.

My post was to generally stating my opinion, and it wasn't specifically directed to anyone at all. And as a Mahayana Buddhist, specifically, Chan Buddhist, I tend to have a more liberal stance on this, but this is not true for all Chan Buddhist.

Concerning Ven. Master Hsuan Hua, he has his opinion on certain issue as well such as this but it is totally up to you to accept it or not. Sometimes his views are more conservative and traditional because it might had been directed to a group of people of different time so therefore it was more appropriate to take a conservative approach but then I will not argue on such point because it doesn't matter to me. I am sure that his intention was for the benefits of others like all other masters. But different masters have different ideas and opinions on things.

Right or wrong sometimes are conditioned. Like I had stated, there are many factors that are involved so it is not easy to just say "that is wrong" or "That is right" on certain things. For example, in many cultures back then, marriage between an adult man with a child or someone underage was acceptable and was seen as normal. However now in U.S., there are legal age and illegal age and sexual involvement with someone underage would be illegal, therefore a violation of the 3rd precept; Sexual Misconduct. However there are also exception.

The Buddha had stated that we are to not accept and believe things just because we read it from somewhere or was taught by a great master. We ought to reason it out with logic by ourselves as well.

It is also important to know that Buddhism is not a dogmatic religion, therefore it is flexible and can adapt to different environment of different times without losing its true essence. Like the willow of Guan Shi Yin Pu Sa, it is unbreakable even though it is flexible, but a dry stiff branch will snap when bent. However, this is not to say everything goes and there shouldn't be no rule of conduct. This is why we must take the Middle Way.

Peace in Chan

[Will]

The only thing about Karma that is "automatic" is that there will be an effect. How strong or weak or when or what exactly we cannot know. So when Master Hua says "deliberately" that means with forethought and planning and intent. If an abortion is not done eagerly, but reluctantly, and with much remorse, then the bad effect will be much less.

[ronnewmexico]

Sorry Bodhi, no....."will find on one here nor pretty much anywhere that states abortion is a good thing.

That just is not being stated by anyone, check the posts...."

the middle ground is already firmly established and taken in this thing....so you may also hold to it or claim a part to it, but personal understanding or not....it is quite taken(good try though).

That aside I will now make a statement of sorts which is touched upon in part by Bodhi, but elaborate upon.

To clarify I am not establishing myself as a expert in Chan, neither a practitioner of Chan nor even faintly qualified to speak of Master Hua, I may be qualified to be a flea upon his sandle if he were still here. I am not even necessarily a Buddhist.

So feel free to ask moderator to delete this post as R in NM does not know anything about what he speaks...

Master Hua made statements to my knowledge comparing American ability to learn dharma to a roosters ability to lay eggs. Master Hua made statements to the effect of finding the Buddha to state...abortion is a karmically determined event of certain result. Master Hua made statements to the effect of....homosexuals should not endeavor in that practice because it may eliminate the human race.

Now Master Hua is about as close to enlightened a person as any of us are inclined to meet. Those things found after his death...perhaps they speak to that. His words certainly may.

Now can we take a Buddhas words literally....well generally all Mayahanan schools agree...the Buddha spoke to individuals and groups in differing ways depending on tendency. So generally we may not.

So we have american adherants to the school claiming.... well....we can literally interpret this on abortion but pick and choose and disregard what Master Hua said about roosters laying eggs, we don't like that part but like this....

So we adopt this and disregard that.

Now did not Master Hua living largly in California at times not know the human race was not expanding from 5 to 6 billion at that time and little in chance of extinction by homosexual dilliances.....I would suspect so.

So...in Buddhism when presented with a thing that does not in any manner make sense we must qualify the statement.
Well...the buddha stated by example.... mt Sumuru is the center of the universe.. either the Buddha was full of crap or our mistaken notions of how he was speaking were full of crap. I tend towards the latter.
The Buddha was speaking to that audience for particular purpose specific to that audience and it was true but not in a literally interpretable sense.

So why did Master Hua state american can learn dharma as easily as a rooster lays eggs...well....I take that as a literal statement applied to americans literally....because they take things literally.

Someone contends Master Hua is stateing literal things on abortion and the buddhas statements on abortion and relatedly perhaps.... homosexuality, when quite obviously the context suggests no literal statement was intended.

At what place and time could abortions of needed children and homosexuality present a threat to the very existance of the dharma...now present time???....I don't think so.
When a quarter of males became monks and the theists were propogating like rabbits and land was at risk and religion was at risk because if these things occurred the dharma, (abortions homosexuality), would in that area certainly end. So doing such things was equilivent to creating a schism in the dharma as such a thing would quite likely end the sanga and consequently the dharma. So if performed in that context...then it had known immediate karmic effect for those in that particular circumstance who performed things in that fashion. Ending dharma it would have known irredeemable karmic effect..that action.

So by that interpretation Master Hua could be allowing for statements on such things as the buddha has been know to make statements on those thngs yet not be advocating for specific interpretations of those things in todays world in the americas by the literal.

So someone quoting and making absolute inferral by quote and interpretation of quote may be quite...mistaken, as we already know americans like roosters trying to lay eggs may be, inclinded to be, taking literally things that are not intended to be. Similiar to the americans taking their bible literally at times resulting in almost half not knowing the truth of evolution...belief they call it. Roosters laying eggs I call it(borrowing a term). American seem likely to take all sorts of things literally, when it serves their purpose.


So that probably is my final statement on this. Have it Deleted it if you want, I don't care.

[Bodhi]

the middle ground is already firmly established and taken in this thing....so you may also hold to it or claim a part to it, but personal understanding or not....it is quite taken(good try though).

I really do not know what you are saying, I didn't claim anything, I just simply stated my belief and understanding. Sorry Ron, I seem to have a huge problem trying to understand you. It feels like when i use google translator to translate foreign language into English text and all I get is a vague idea, but really not clear on it.

[ronnewmexico]

Well Bodhi

You are claiming the middle ground in this discusion. That is fine to do but first you must show my position as dogmatic or not middle. I contend my position is middle....abortion is harmful negative but circumstances sometimes dictate its employement, thusly it is not always the absolutely worst choice in a spiritual context, bad choice it always is.

So you may add to, as in claiming to be middle, also, but to address me and reference dogmaticism...you must first prove or show such to be so....and then claim middle ground.
To simply address me, make statement and then claim the middle in a discussion..no, sorry things in discussion or debate do not work in that fashion.

To clarify. Prove my position isn't middle by pointing to flaws in my logic and hence the presence of dogmaticism, to simply state such....is not proving point.

So I reject your claim... this, what I support.... is not middle ground and thusly offer counter and await response...
Seems fairly clear.

[Bodhi]

Well Bodhi

You are claiming the middle ground in this discusion. That is fine to do but first you must show my position as dogmatic or not middle. I contend my position is middle....abortion is harmful negative but circumstances sometimes dictate its employement, thusly it is not always the absolutely worst choice in a spiritual context, bad choice it always is.

So you may add to, as in claiming to be middle, also, but to address me and reference dogmaticism...you must first prove or show such to be so....and then claim middle ground.
To simply address me, make statement and then claim the middle in a discussion..no, sorry things in discussion or debate do not work in that fashion.

To clarify. Prove my position isn't middle by pointing to flaws in my logic and hence the presence of dogmaticism, to simply state such....is not proving point.

So I reject your claim... this, what I support.... is not middle ground and thusly offer counter and await response...
Seems fairly clear.

Okay that did not help, it still doesn't make any sense of what you are saying. I didnt have any reference to dogmaticism, and therefore got nothing to prove, overall, even thought I gave a reply to you because you replied to me, it was mainly stating my opinion generally and it is not to argue or debate with you. Even though I didn't understand what you said the whole time in this discussion but I believe your stance on abortion is not much different from me, so I do not understand or know what you are talking about. Maybe you are misunderstanding me. But my point as I had said, to that reply earlier, It wasn't directed toward you AT ALL, it was directed at no one but you gave me a reply as if it was directed to you. So i am not interested at all in a debate with you whatsoever. I think you just misunderstood me or maybe in debate mood and can't clearly see what I am saying. So we can end this here, I won't reply anymore, I stated what I believed so Im retrieving from this because I am not interested in a debate as I have said, you can accept it or not, same for everybody.

Amituofo

[ronnewmexico]

Well good..... then we agree!!

Have a nice night.

[sangyey]

Hi, I just have a quick question I was hoping someone could answer. I've decided to not consume dairy anymore and I was wondering if Tomato Sauce contains any dairy products? Thank you. ~Sangyey

[ronnewmexico]

Most commonly yes, your standard supermartket brand. They add cheese to them and occasionally some have creams.

YOu have to check the label.

Be particularly careful with chips many contain whey which is a dairy product..