Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 10:33 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3669 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95 ... 184  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 6:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:18 pm
Posts: 139
Namdrol wrote:
The five outer course elements are made out of the five lights of the wisdom of rigpa. Everything (all sentient beings including their consciousness as well as everything we consider inanimate) is made out of the five elements.


Ha! I just read the chapter on the "Five Pure Lights" in Tenzin Wangyal's "Wonders of the Natural Mind" where he goes a little bit in the details on how the five elements, five sense consciousnesses, five sense organs, five sense objects, etc. arise from the five lights ('od lnga).

BTW, is there any book by ChNN where he's explaining the five lights?


PS: Sorry for being :offtopic: as well...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2012 11:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:28 am
Posts: 272
Location: Dover, NJ
It seems alot of people here are using a fundamentalist Buddhist approach to justify meat eating. You can always use excuses to not be more compassionate or ethical and one of those excuses can be "this sect, this past practitioner" ate meat, so I can too. Tibet in 1950 when China invaded barely had barely more than 3 million(or even less according to other estimates) people spread over 2.5 million square kilometers.[1] So we are talking about a place that was only marginally inhabitable before modern technology, I don't think you can impute that ossifying and following their diet advice or ethics on meat is to be recommended or laudable for people living in much more inhabitable regions.

Now is not the past. We have new technology like railroads, semi-haul, trucks, refrigeration, we have unlocked the energy potential of oil. What does this mean? People can eat more meat, more often. So what we mean by eating meat has changed. My grandmother almost never ate meat and she lived to 98, but she was a poor Peloponnesian farmer. But now that is not the case, even the poorest can become gluttons of meat. Meat used to be something the majority of settled people could only eat on special occasions, mostly during winter feasts, when it would not spoil quickly. Now in the United states it seems every meal is centered on meat or eggs(the period of a chicken). Alot of countries with high consumption of animal fats have large a population that looks like non-competing sumo wrestlers.

[1] landmass: http://tibetoffice.org/tibet-info/tibet-at-a-glance
population: http://books.google.com/books?id=Ep5l6J ... on&f=false


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2012 11:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Thrasymachus wrote:
It seems alot of people here are using a fundamentalist Buddhist approach to justify meat eating.


No. Not at all. As with everything, there are a number of views about meat-eating in Buddhism. In my case, it has nothing to do with the traditional diet of Tibetans.

N

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 12:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:28 am
Posts: 272
Location: Dover, NJ
You can always make excuses to not move to be more ethical and one of them can be tradition and Buddhism and that is what I see you are doing. A better approach is if would you want to ever be treated as fodder animals for slaughter are or see your mother treated like that. What you are trying to argue is that ethical approaches are ossified in time and we should look into what past Buddhist schools wrote and codified for ethics on meat. But to me ethics should be part of a teleological movement always evolving and improving. Now that we have oil the illusion we need to enslave animals to maintain our way of life or maintain our population levels should have abated if ethics mattered. However money and gluttony matter more.

You search for manipulated facts to make meat eating more acceptable. For example earlier you railed on soy, citing this article: http://civileats.com/2009/01/27/a-vegan ... rspective/
But that article itself mentioned most soy, 80%, goes to feed livestock. Then you try to mention bugs being killed and that vegans are not ethical, when far more bugs are killed for meat, because instead of feeding huge steers which will shit and piss and expend calories just moving or on their metabolism, you can feed much smaller humans, using much less grain and resources. So even on your bugs and micro-organisms reductionist argument abstaining from meat is still superior.

You also mentioned Polyface farms of Joel Salatin popularized by Michael Pollan, but on pages 222-5 of his book the The Omnivore's Dilemma, Pollan, says that of the 100 acres of Polyface, the adjacent 450 acres of forest are essential to the health and productivity of the actual farm. So counting the forest so essential to this "ideal" meat eating enterprise, you can only feed about 2 people per 10 acres. In other words, most the world would starve using the model of the this much lionized livestock farm.
See: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/0 ... 641159.php


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 1:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm
Posts: 2755
Thrasymachus,

I would appreciate if you stopped insulting others by saying they are making excuses or using Buddhist fundamentalist approaches and actually read what they say.
You are free to disagree, but not to attack others calling their arguments mere excuses or fundamentalism when these arguments are well explained. Counter the argument, not the intentions you believe are behind it.

Get down from your high horse, if you please. I won't allow such line of argumentation.

Thank you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 1:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Posts: 2845
Thrasymachus wrote:
It seems alot of people here are using a fundamentalist Buddhist approach to justify meat eating.


People may try to justify eating meat or not eating meat.
The purpose of any method of justification is ego clinging.
That's all being right is about.
Eating meat or not eating meat may be good or bad things to do for a variety of valid reasons.
But if it is not about liberation from samsara.
for others as well as for oneself,
then it's just more running around in circles.
Unless one sees their own true nature, eating meat and not eating meat both take you back to the same corner.
you'll be dead before this issue is ever resolved.
When it is your time to be the meat, what will your opinion be?
.
.
:sage: "When you can snatch the cheeseburger from my palm, it will be time for you to leave"

.

_________________
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 1:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:28 am
Posts: 272
Location: Dover, NJ
The argument that equates being vegetarian to making insects and micro-organisms suffer and die is moot. You could hypothetically only move by crawling with a magnifying glass to your eye, but even then you would fail at that and you would be paralyzed. We can never see and perceive on that microscopic level. Those who come the closest are Jainists. But you we are physiologically and ethically capable of extending compassion to animals by not killing many animals by refusing meat. You can view this disturbing non-safe for work Filipino Pig Slaughter video and clearly notice the animal crying out in pain, fidgeting to get free, in distress. But you cannot notice most bugs and all bacteria(and killing bad bacteria is just self defense done by the immune system) due to physiological scale -- the best you can do on that is kill yourself. Comparing the two thus seems dis-ingenious no matter who does it.

@DechenNorbu:
I don't see how it is an ad-hominem or insulting, infact earlier there was much invective against vegetarians and vegans. You can use everything to be more ethical or less ethical, the choice is up to you, not any tradition or text. It is a simple truth. To me and perhaps others arguably, putting the onus and responsibility on your teacher or a tradition is fundamentalism.

@PadmaVonSamba:
I don't think if any food animal would be capable of human language, that they would narrowly equate eating their mothers and sisters with just the egos of the followers of carnism whose plate they would end up on. Nor would they care if you can become enlightened either way. Thus it has bigger consequences than just ego.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 2:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Thrasymachus wrote:

You search for manipulated facts to make meat eating more acceptable. For example earlier you railed on soy, citing this article: http://civileats.com/2009/01/27/a-vegan ... rspective/
But that article itself mentioned most soy, 80%, goes to feed livestock.



I do not eat industrially produced meat for environmental as well as ethical reasons. I made that clear.

Quote:
So counting the forest so essential to this "ideal" meat eating enterprise, you can only feed about 2 people per 10 acres.


Where do you derive this figure from?

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 2:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Thrasymachus wrote:
But you we are physiologically and ethically capable of extending compassion to animals by not killing many animals by refusing meat.



I don't agree with this perspective. When a practitioner eats meat with presence and awareness, there is a connection made with that sentient being that serves to benefit that animal.

You do not have to accept this point of view for yourself, but it is my point of view.

N

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 3:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:28 am
Posts: 272
Location: Dover, NJ
Namdrol wrote:
Where do you derive this figure from?


Lierre Keith in her anti-vegetarian, poorly researched screed, The Vegetarian Myth, falsely states that Joel Salatin's farm, can support 9 people in ten acres:
Image

Here is the exact page in Pollan's book, where he states that the 450 acres of forest is essential to his 100 acre, idyllic, organic, grass feed meat enterprise:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Tu_2B0 ... st&f=false
This just shows how unfeasible the organic, grass feed utopia is.

Namdrol wrote:
I don't agree with this perspective. When a practitioner eats meat with presence and awareness, there is a connection made with that sentient being that serves to benefit that animal.


That is typical win(for the practicer of carnism) and lose(for the dead animal). I don't see it like that at all. Why would a being that died for your food care about how enlightened, present or aware you are or aren't, what religion or doctrine you follow? The only doctrine they would care about is that which benefits them also -- and not just you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 4:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Posts: 2845
Thrasymachus wrote:

@PadmaVonSamba:
I don't think if any food animal would be capable of human language, that they would narrowly equate eating their mothers and sisters with just the egos of the followers of carnism whose plate they would end up on. Nor would they care if you can become enlightened either way. Thus it has bigger consequences than just ego.


1.Why would they need language to equate anything to anything else?

2. Gaining the approval of animals is not the point of dharma practice, so whether they care about if I "can become enlightened" is irrelevant.

3. Just to clarify a term, "ego" in Buddhist usage is more than just some sense of "inflated ego" or whatever. It goes beyond even a conscious awareness. it is the experience of continuous being that arises.

I am not disagreeing with you that killing animals to eat them causes them suffering. Anybody can see that. When I took 5 precepts, after being a vegetarian for some 16 years, my teacher explained that if I ate meat or something with meat in it, this is not breaking that precept. But i cannot order something to be killed. I can''t go to a lobster restaurant and pick out a live one and tell them to cook it for me. So, since this forum is about Buddhism, and not just about whatever ethics for whatever reason, that is why i am bringing that up.

Of course there is plenty of suffering that comes from butchering animals. And of course, if people keep buying meat, people will continue to make it available. That is an important concern. But it is not the main point of concern for the purpose of practicing dharma. A person might say, "because I am a Buddhist, I choose not to eat meat, or wear leather, or maintain my existence in any way from the suffering of others, as much as possible" and this is very commendable. But this is only the way Buddhism inspires you to live your life. Aside from that nice inspiration, it is not the point of Buddhism.

A lot of people, especially people who have migrated to Buddhism from one religion or another, are looking for some moral high ground. they want to be good people, and they want Buddhism to be the thing that makes them good people. but in many ways, this is just transferring a religious value system onto Buddhism. They want eating meat to be a sin. they basically feel it is a sin to eat meat. But buddhism doesn't have sins. there is no judge that you will stand before, after you die who will look at all the good and bad things you did. That's not Buddhism, and that's not even what karma is about.

The reason for doing and not doing things in buddhism, things such as killing, and so forth, is not to keep something from dying or even from suffering. Everything dies. All beings suffer. This is the first teaching of the buddha. All beings are suffering. Yes, it is important not to cause suffering. but there is no way around it. All beings are suffering.

If you kill a being, you are directly instigating a chain of events. You yourself are causing the separation of the aggregates (components) of the body (and also the mind) of that being to begin the process of separation. So, whatever karma is coming to fruition in that being's life, which resulted in that being's composites being together at that moment, you are just cutting into that. It's like you are stopping the movie right in the middle. And that action carries a lot of weight. That is why killing is prohibited, but eating meat which is offered to you is not prohibited.

That is the fine line of distinction. It's not saying that eating meat is good, or that not eating meat is stupid. The Buddha laid down rules to keep people on the path to liberation from suffering. That's all. they are like hand-rails on a narrow footbridge over a deep valley. It's not "wrong" to let go, but if you fall off and die it will be very hard to climb back up again.

So the purpose of "right and wrong" in Buddhism isn't about how you perceive the suffering of others. You know, it's terrible to kill a pig but okay for your white blood cells to attack a bacteria? Why don't we cry when we see movies about microbes? It is all a matter of perception. It is subjective choosing on our part. Maybe the agony of the microbes is greater than the pig. But we don't know.

I have seen a lot of disturbing things in movies. The impact of the movie in my memory lasts even longer than the animal would have lived! It's great when seeing the suffering of others motivates people to try to end that suffering. That is probably how human civilization progressed this far.
But the Buddha dharma goes beyond that.

If you say, "I will never eat meat because it is morally wrong to eat meat" then this is just copping a moral attitude in order to solidify your own ego trip. "look at what a good person I am, how purely I live or try to live!" and then, what often follows is denouncing those who are not as pure! Or, somebody works very hard to make meal for somebody, and that somebody turns their nose up at it. "I can't eat that. The pan it was cooked in still had some bacon grease in it." And now everybody suffers.

When monks beg, they have to take whatever food is offered to them. They have to leave all their attitudes behind, and just suck it up and be grateful for the generosity of the giver. So, the problem arises when people interject a second set of moral values, because they have been inspired by Buddhism to lead a compassionate and mindful life, and they stop there.

If you don't realize your own true mind, it doesn't matter what goes into your belly or where it came from. You may save a herd of cattle in this lifetime, and that will be a very good thing, but that will be all you save.

You might enjoy reading "The Zen Teachings Of Bodhidharma" translated by Red Pine.
He talks about this very thing.
.
.
.

_________________
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 6:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm
Posts: 860
Quote:
If you say, "I will never eat meat because it is morally wrong to eat meat" then this is just copping a moral attitude in order to solidify your own ego trip.


the only problem with this all too common ad hominem argument of buddhist carnivors is that they must direct it against the Dalai Lama, Karmapa, Chatral Rinpoche, and all others who advocate for not eating meat. Is it because HHDL is on an "ego trip"? Or maybe its that Karmapa too stupid to understand that if you didnt stand in front of the tank and point to the lobster then you are karmically uninvolved with the killing? if its so buddhistically clear that eating meat is ok if you didnt "pull the trigger", then why do they bother babbling about such things?

_________________
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 6:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 5:48 pm
Posts: 130
gad rgyangs wrote:
Quote:
If you say, "I will never eat meat because it is morally wrong to eat meat" then this is just copping a moral attitude in order to solidify your own ego trip.


the only problem with this all too common ad hominem argument of buddhist carnivors is that they must direct it against the Dalai Lama, Karmapa, Chatral Rinpoche, and all others who advocate for not eating meat. Is it because HHDL is on an "ego trip"? Or maybe its that Karmapa too stupid to understand that if you didnt stand in front of the tank and point to the lobster then you are karmically uninvolved with the killing? if its so buddhistically clear that eating meat is ok if you didnt "pull the trigger", then why do they bother babbling about such things?


Clearly HHDL, HH Karmapa, Chatral Rinpoche, etc. are just practicing at a lower level than those who facilitate the killing of sentient beings "out of compassion"... :quoteunquote:

_________________
One should do nothing other than benefit sentient beings either directly or indirectly - Shantideva


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 7:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:28 am
Posts: 272
Location: Dover, NJ
PadmaVonSamba,
You wrote so much, but here are some general observations:
-- Saying the goal of life is to only become enlightened is reductionist and even that statement, does not make the goal closer to happening. If by pursuing enlightenment you mean that you have to eat meat, I don't see that. To me thinking you can actually become enlightened is hubris, it is just an ideal. Just because one pursuses enlightenment, how does that make it ethical to eat meat? I can understand why since there are certain ideals about compassion, some create justifications for their carnism in a dharma context.
-- Everything suffers, this is true, but there is a difference between contributing to alleviating suffering and contributing to suffering. Where carnism, the ideology behind eating meat falls into this is obvious.
-- You cannot compare your immune system automatically killing microbes which you cannot stop even if you wished it, to killing a pig because you like the taste, that is just beyond ridiculous. It is wrong on so many levels. But one level, is that no pacifist in history is totally against violence even for legitimate self-defense, and that is what your immune system does. I think this kind of awkward reaching hints that you try to defend what cannot be defended.
-- "But the Buddha dharma goes beyond that." I don't think so, ideals are just ideals and doctrines are just doctrines. It is up to you continually strive to be more compassionate and more ethical and not less. You can always stop and say here is telos, here is the end of movement, the end of history, the end of ethics, etc. You can attribute it to Jesus, Christianity, Hinduism or dharma, it is all the same.
-- Not eating meat is more than just an ego trip. It really contributes to prevent suffering and makes others around you realize that carnism is not the only way, that the shrink wrapped meat they never saw alive, once had a face, once had a family. It is not a theoretical position that just makes you feel good. Infact in most countries where people have both the high internet availability and the English skills needed to post here, it results in social ostracization.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 9:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:11 am
Posts: 460
Location: South Africa
"My meat eating is actually a very compassionate, advanced practice"

"Invading Iraq and Afghanistan brought so much benefit to those people"

"Not investing in Africa will actually help those people without food, in the long run"

"The death penalty prevents crime"

Sloganizing one-self into peace of mind. A very advanced practice.

_________________
As bad as bad becomes its not a part of you

Talk Talk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 11:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:02 pm
Posts: 409
Location: Reading MI USA
Through my studies I have learned that we must have compassion for all beings. (this also means accepting people for who they are and the choices they make) We can only lead by example, if we're happy, than others want to find out why we're like we are.
Now choosing to be a vegetarian is no cure all for saving lives so you can eat guilt free.
No matter what we eat something will die in it's production. No question there

But if we are thankful and appreciate the living beings for giving their lives for ours to continue, so we don't starve, than we are doing the best thing we can do.

I guess each has their own reason for what they choose to eat and that's fine. It's their choice not ours.


Kindest wishes, Dave

_________________
Everyday problems teach us to have a realistic attitude.
They teach us that life is what life is; flawed.
Yet with tremendous potential for joy and fulfillment.
~Lama Surya Das~

If your path teaches you to act and exert yourself correctly and leads to spiritual realizations such as love, compassion and wisdom then obviously it's worthwhile.
~Lama Thubten Yeshe~

One whose mind is freed does not argue with anyone, he does not dispute with anyone. He makes use of the conventional terms of the world without clinging to them
~The Buddha~


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
gad rgyangs wrote:
the Dalai Lama...


HH Dalai Lama is not a vegetarian.

N

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 1:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Thrasymachus wrote:

Namdrol wrote:
I don't agree with this perspective. When a practitioner eats meat with presence and awareness, there is a connection made with that sentient being that serves to benefit that animal.


That is typical win(for the practicer of carnism) and lose(for the dead animal). I don't see it like that at all. Why would a being that died for your food care about how enlightened, present or aware you are or aren't, what religion or doctrine you follow? The only doctrine they would care about is that which benefits them also -- and not just you.


Well, you are not a Dzogchen practitioner presumably, so I guess you perhaps do not understand the function of rtsal. Everything is connected through rtsal, plants, animals, rocks, people and so on. Since there is benefit to practitioners, there is also benefit to the animals. But not of course, if you eat in a state of ignorance and lack of attention.

The same goes for eating a tomato, or a piece of lettuce, one has to be aware of the sentient beings who died bringing that peice of food to your plate-- whether one eats the flesh an animal or the flesh of a tomato one must eat with presence and awareness.

practitioner wrote:
Clearly HHDL, HH Karmapa, Chatral Rinpoche, etc. are just practicing at a lower level than those who facilitate the killing of sentient beings "out of compassion"...


Now, as I said, I do not object to people who wish to follow a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle for health, political, environmental, or spiritual reasons. I do not object to people who wish to follow common Mahāyāna. But as I mentioned, one who is going to follow common Mahāyāna must also eschew garlic, onion, alchohol and so on.

And as I mentioned above, His Holiness The Dalai Lama is not a vegetarian -- though in Dharmasala he maintains a vegetarian kitchen. He has also scolded people for bringing him vegetarian dishes while he is on the road, and he eats meat for his health, according to the instructions of his Tibetan doctors.

Niether the Karmapa nor Chatral Rinpoche are gurus of mine. My guru is Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. I follow his teachings on this subject and no one else's. You may not like him, you may not agree with him, but what I have said is basically his point of view on the subject. He considers the compassion argument for vegetarianism a "miserable compassion". He is quite emphatic on this point and brings it up at nearly every retreat.

N

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 1:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:23 pm
Posts: 1967
I have also read that the Dalai Lama supports vegetarianism but feels he cannot be vegetarian due to his health.

Namdrol - are you saying that he does or does not understand and practice Dzogchen?

You are also seemingly dodging the obvious difference between being mindful that to bring you your tomato, beings MAY have died, unintentionally, and being mindful that beings CERTAINLY died for you to eat meat, and that arguably you are the direct cause of that .

I also believe you cannot ignore the simple forces of the market. Those eating meat at the forthcoming Olympics in the UK can be certain that the caterers requested their suppliers to grow a specific number of cows, sheep and pigs and to slaughter them at exaclty the right time to meet the demand. I know this to be so.

If ChNNR teaches about vegetarianism as you have described, I do not regard that as in any way superior to Mahayana or Vajrayana teachers who advise a vegetarian diet; quite the reverse.

_________________
Left


Last edited by Blue Garuda on Sun May 13, 2012 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 1:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Blue Garuda wrote:
I have also read that the Dalai Lama supports vegetarianism but feels he cannot be vegetarian due to his health.

namdrol - are you saying that he does or does not understand and practice Dzogchen?


I am quite certain HHDL understands and pratices Dzogchen. I am certain it is his primary practice.

N

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3669 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95 ... 184  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LastLegend, Saoshun and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group