Does a Vegan Damaru exist anywhere?

[Budai]

When I go vegan I don’t even touch leather. When it comes to Buddhist practice I find that more important than dietary choices, and as I believe in the validity of Vajrayana Buddhism and the Teachings as an Emanation from Shakyamuni when given, practiced, and passed down properly, with His intent present in them, I believe that if one takes His approach when it comes to the substances, foods, and Samaya pills, one can make the right personal choices on how to practice. Vajrayana is not a cult. I believe vegans can practice Vajrayana Perfectly, and if they refuse this or that thing based on their diet and their own doubts make them think they did not receive the Empowerment, blessing, or benefit, then they are not a strong enough vegan that believes in their own ideals and are missing the point of veganism and it’s own Spiritual drive. We should respect our Teachers and work on them with who we are, and I think we will find that Buddhism has always moved towards non-violence, and if we have faith in that, we will understand it’s purpose. There is a Middle-Way even in diet, but the Middle-Way Teaches complete non-violence and we must remember that.

[climb-up]

Of course I have seen the opposite. At one ganapuja there was a fight and nastiness over the presence of meat and alcohol.

People objected to meat and alcohol in a feast offering? How did that play out exactly? Did they know anything about the ritual they were performing, or the vows they had taken?

The karmapa knows about his vows and the rituals he performs and still does not want meet at his ganapujas.

Although, tbf, that doesn’t sound like the situation here and I would suggest that any vegan who chooses to show up to a ganapuja and then flip out over meat is umm ...not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so to speak (not the freshest tofu in the fridge? Not the ripest berry in the bush?)

[Malcolm]

How come?

Because they represent the union of means and wisdom.

I think I understand (maybe).
Does having achieved puberty, and therefore being biologically an adult, then represent...
...I thought I had it, but it kind of fell apart.

Or is it a tsa, lung and tigle thing?

More of a thigle thing.

[Malcolm]

The karmapa knows about his vows and the rituals he performs and still does not want meet at his ganapujas.

He also wants to keep his myriad Chinese disciples around.

[Johnny Dangerous]

When I go vegan I don’t even touch leather. When it comes to Buddhist practice I find that more important than dietary choices, and as I believe in the validity of Vajrayana Buddhism and the Teachings as an Emanation from Shakyamuni when given, practiced, and passed down properly, with His intent present in them, I believe that if one takes His approach when it comes to the substances, foods, and Samaya pills, one can make the right personal choices on how to practice. Vajrayana is not a cult. I believe vegans can practice Vajrayana Perfectly, and if they refuse this or that thing based on their diet and their own doubts make them think they did not receive the Empowerment, blessing, or benefit, then they are not a strong enough vegan that believes in their own ideals and are missing the point of veganism and it’s own Spiritual drive. We should respect our Teachers and work on them with who we are, and I think we will find that Buddhism has always moved towards non-violence, and if we have faith in that, we will understand it’s purpose. There is a Middle-Way even in diet, but the Middle-Way Teaches complete non-violence and we must remember that.

Feeling yourself above touching the flesh of a dead animal is contrary to both Buddhism generally and to the Vajrayana. Not being willing to touch leather has nothing to do with non-violence, but with notions of substance purity that do not make sense to the Buddhist view. This is a thing pretty much only in Kriya Tantra, and even there it is an upaya.

This, well, purist attitude towards purity and impurity of substances contradicts the basic understanding of how Vajryana functions, which you could say is transformation of the mundane (all of it) into wisdom, including leather and stuff that's all grody to you. In fact, transformation of the grody stuff is pretty integral.

Now, a belief that your sangha simply shouldn't purchase meat is a different arm of that kind of debate, and that is more (in my experience) the rational end of the debate over using meat or not for Tsok, etc.

[Budai]

About the lightning strike thing, I don’t know anything about those drums and I’m sure as long it’s from a seemingly random lightning bolt (there is still consciousness behind the lightning strike, and that must be respected too, a negative sky spirit) and the body is handled with complete respect it can be considered okay and an honorable way to treat the deceased’s remains, but what I want to point out is that no one is an adult until they are at least eighteen years old and we cannot argue the matter, nor should such a self-evident truth be debated. Be reasonable. Thank you. .

[climb-up]

Because they represent the union of means and wisdom.

I think I understand (maybe).
Does having achieved puberty, and therefore being biologically an adult, then represent...
...I thought I had it, but it kind of fell apart.

Or is it a tsa, lung and tigle thing?

More of a thigle thing.

Ah! I see, thank you!
I knew there were these ideals for materials but wasn’t clear on specifically why.

[climb-up]

When I go vegan I don’t even touch leather. When it comes to Buddhist practice I find that more important than dietary choices, and as I believe in the validity of Vajrayana Buddhism and the Teachings as an Emanation from Shakyamuni when given, practiced, and passed down properly, with His intent present in them, I believe that if one takes His approach when it comes to the substances, foods, and Samaya pills, one can make the right personal choices on how to practice. Vajrayana is not a cult. I believe vegans can practice Vajrayana Perfectly, and if they refuse this or that thing based on their diet and their own doubts make them think they did not receive the Empowerment, blessing, or benefit, then they are not a strong enough vegan that believes in their own ideals and are missing the point of veganism and it’s own Spiritual drive. We should respect our Teachers and work on them with who we are, and I think we will find that Buddhism has always moved towards non-violence, and if we have faith in that, we will understand it’s purpose. There is a Middle-Way even in diet, but the Middle-Way Teaches complete non-violence and we must remember that.

Feeling yourself above touching the flesh of a dead animal is contrary to both Buddhism generally and to the Vajrayana. Not being willing to touch leather has nothing to do with non-violence, but with notions of substance purity that do not make sense to the Buddhist view. This is a thing pretty much only in Kriya Tantra, and even there it is an upaya.

This, well, purist attitude towards purity and impurity of substances contradicts the basic understanding of how Vajryana functions, which you could say is transformation of the mundane (all of it) into wisdom, including leather and stuff that's all grody to you. In fact, transformation of the grody stuff is pretty integral.

Now, a belief that your sangha simply shouldn't purchase meat is a different arm of that kind of debate, and that is more (in my experience) the rational end of the debate over using meat or not for Tsok.

I agree.
I don’t want to say too much (not because I’m trying to keep it secret, just because I’d probably get it wrong), but even if you aren’t ingesting it (I believe) you can use sensory contact to build positive connections.
I don’t always remember, but I try to practice offerings when I walk by the meat section in the grocery store.

[Budai]

When I go vegan I don’t even touch leather. When it comes to Buddhist practice I find that more important than dietary choices, and as I believe in the validity of Vajrayana Buddhism and the Teachings as an Emanation from Shakyamuni when given, practiced, and passed down properly, with His intent present in them, I believe that if one takes His approach when it comes to the substances, foods, and Samaya pills, one can make the right personal choices on how to practice. Vajrayana is not a cult. I believe vegans can practice Vajrayana Perfectly, and if they refuse this or that thing based on their diet and their own doubts make them think they did not receive the Empowerment, blessing, or benefit, then they are not a strong enough vegan that believes in their own ideals and are missing the point of veganism and it’s own Spiritual drive. We should respect our Teachers and work on them with who we are, and I think we will find that Buddhism has always moved towards non-violence, and if we have faith in that, we will understand it’s purpose. There is a Middle-Way even in diet, but the Middle-Way Teaches complete non-violence and we must remember that.

Feeling yourself above touching the flesh of a dead animal is contrary to both Buddhism generally and to the Vajrayana. Not being willing to touch leather has nothing to do with non-violence, but with notions of substance purity that do not make sense to the Buddhist view. This is a thing pretty much only in Kriya Tantra, and even there it is an upaya.

This, well, purist attitude towards purity and impurity of substances contradicts the basic understanding of how Vajryana functions, which you could say is transformation of the mundane (all of it) into wisdom, including leather and stuff that's all grody to you. In fact, transformation of the grody stuff is pretty integral.

Now, a belief that your sangha simply shouldn't purchase meat is a different arm of that kind of debate, and that is more (in my experience) the rational end of the debate over using meat or not for Tsok.

Some leather in America comes from bad places, such as factory farms, and humans are not different from an animals in their desire not to suffer. And they are more innocent than us.

In Vajrayana that is understood, and I’m glad that it’s respected to a large degree in the Tibetan tradition on how to treat the remains of certain beings, and malas and drums are made, and that is a good thing. I have no problems with such things and it fits my world view that it is an Upaya of the Buddha-field that if animals are respected and kept out of factory farms we can be their friends and respect their sacrifice. In America I almost never touch leather because I don’t think most of the animals would want me to, that is also why I rarely eat meat. But in Buddhism, the animals that died of old age or some other way to make a mala or drum would probably want me to achieve Enlightenment, so I would have, in Buddhism, an okay stance on touching leather and bone.

[climb-up]

The karmapa knows about his vows and the rituals he performs and still does not want meet at his ganapujas.

He also wants to keep his myriad Chinese disciples around.

Ah, well, could be.

[Johnny Dangerous]

When I go vegan I don’t even touch leather. When it comes to Buddhist practice I find that more important than dietary choices, and as I believe in the validity of Vajrayana Buddhism and the Teachings as an Emanation from Shakyamuni when given, practiced, and passed down properly, with His intent present in them, I believe that if one takes His approach when it comes to the substances, foods, and Samaya pills, one can make the right personal choices on how to practice. Vajrayana is not a cult. I believe vegans can practice Vajrayana Perfectly, and if they refuse this or that thing based on their diet and their own doubts make them think they did not receive the Empowerment, blessing, or benefit, then they are not a strong enough vegan that believes in their own ideals and are missing the point of veganism and it’s own Spiritual drive. We should respect our Teachers and work on them with who we are, and I think we will find that Buddhism has always moved towards non-violence, and if we have faith in that, we will understand it’s purpose. There is a Middle-Way even in diet, but the Middle-Way Teaches complete non-violence and we must remember that.

Feeling yourself above touching the flesh of a dead animal is contrary to both Buddhism generally and to the Vajrayana. Not being willing to touch leather has nothing to do with non-violence, but with notions of substance purity that do not make sense to the Buddhist view. This is a thing pretty much only in Kriya Tantra, and even there it is an upaya.

This, well, purist attitude towards purity and impurity of substances contradicts the basic understanding of how Vajryana functions, which you could say is transformation of the mundane (all of it) into wisdom, including leather and stuff that's all grody to you. In fact, transformation of the grody stuff is pretty integral.

Now, a belief that your sangha simply shouldn't purchase meat is a different arm of that kind of debate, and that is more (in my experience) the rational end of the debate over using meat or not for Tsok.

Some leather in America comes from bad places, such as factory farms, and humans are not different from an animals in their desire not to suffer. And they are more innocent than us.

In Vajrayana that is understood, and I’m glad that it’s respected to a large degree in the Tibetan tradition on how to treat the remains of certain beings, and malas and drums are made, and that is a good thing. I have no problems with such things and it fits my world view that it is an Upaya of the Buddha-field that if animals are respected and kept out of factory farms we can be their friends and respect their sacrifice. In America I almost never touch leather because I don’t think most of the animals would want me to, that is also why I rarely eat meat. But in Buddhism, the animals that died of old age or some other way to make a mala or drum would probably want me to achieve Enlightenment, so I would have, in Buddhism, an okay stance on touching leather and bone.

You really are not understanding Vajrayana.

The fact that such beings suffer with these things is the point, and exactly why thinking yourself somehow ‘above’ physical contact with them is contrary to Vajrayana.

In short, your avoiding the touching of leather is actually denying those beings your compassion, not showing it.

Better stick to Kriya practices with that attitude, if even those.

[Budai]

Feeling yourself above touching the flesh of a dead animal is contrary to both Buddhism generally and to the Vajrayana. Not being willing to touch leather has nothing to do with non-violence, but with notions of substance purity that do not make sense to the Buddhist view. This is a thing pretty much only in Kriya Tantra, and even there it is an upaya.

This, well, purist attitude towards purity and impurity of substances contradicts the basic understanding of how Vajryana functions, which you could say is transformation of the mundane (all of it) into wisdom, including leather and stuff that's all grody to you. In fact, transformation of the grody stuff is pretty integral.

Now, a belief that your sangha simply shouldn't purchase meat is a different arm of that kind of debate, and that is more (in my experience) the rational end of the debate over using meat or not for Tsok.

Some leather in America comes from bad places, such as factory farms, and humans are not different from an animals in their desire not to suffer. And they are more innocent than us.

In Vajrayana that is understood, and I’m glad that it’s respected to a large degree in the Tibetan tradition on how to treat the remains of certain beings, and malas and drums are made, and that is a good thing. I have no problems with such things and it fits my world view that it is an Upaya of the Buddha-field that if animals are respected and kept out of factory farms we can be their friends and respect their sacrifice. In America I almost never touch leather because I don’t think most of the animals would want me to, that is also why I rarely eat meat. But in Buddhism, the animals that died of old age or some other way to make a mala or drum would probably want me to achieve Enlightenment, so I would have, in Buddhism, an okay stance on touching leather and bone.

You really do not understand Vajrayana.

The fact that such beings suffer with these things is the point, and exactly why thinking yourself somehow ‘above’ physical contact with them is contrary to Vajrayana.

In short, your avoiding the touching of leather is actually denying those beings your compassion, not showing it.

I respect you. If you didn’t want me to use your remains for a sacred Tibetan bone mala it’s as simple as that, I would not. If you did want me to, even though you suffered greatly in life then I would respect your wishes. I am not above your wishes is what I want to say. May you not suffer or worry, may you live long, and get directly taken up into the Pure Land in your current form. With regards to the issue at hand though, do we have the right to choose what’s best for others? Sometimes, only if we are correct in our judgement and are not imposing on their Love, lifespan, freedom, and a myriad of other factors. I think I am thinking too much here though, and the direct Dharmic answer is best.

May you have a long and happy life.

[Malcolm]

Some leather in America comes from bad places, such as factory farms, and humans are not different from an animals in their desire not to suffer. And they are more innocent than us.

Leather does not suffer. So we should just waste all that material? Let them die for nothing?

[Budai]

Some leather in America comes from bad places, such as factory farms, and humans are not different from an animals in their desire not to suffer. And they are more innocent than us.

Leather does not suffer. So we should just waste all that material? Let them die for nothing?

The idea is if we stop taking they die less. Even one happy animal is worth more than a pile of leather. I don’t want to pursue a discussion on such a sad subject though. We don’t read books just so words won’t be wasted.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Sigh, just study the common Tantric Vows Konchok. Some teachers like the Karmapa have said that vegetarian substances are permissible, but their argument isn’t ‘meat is yucky’, and tends to be more nuanced.

Revulsion at substances really does seem to be a limiting factor, and honestly, you are just a practitioner, I do not believe you have siddhis to know what dead animals want you to do with their remains.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Some leather in America comes from bad places, such as factory farms, and humans are not different from an animals in their desire not to suffer. And they are more innocent than us.

Leather does not suffer. So we should just waste all that material? Let them die for nothing?

The idea is if we stop taking they die less. Even one happy animal is worth more than a pile of leather. I don’t want to pursue a discussion on such a sad subject though. We don’t read books just so words won’t be wasted.

They are already dead, you putting yourself above touching their remains does nothing but create separation. It has no effect on demand for leather.

Again, you should at least study the common vows you took via participation in an empowerment.

[Budai]

Leather does not suffer. So we should just waste all that material? Let them die for nothing?

The idea is if we stop taking they die less. Even one happy animal is worth more than a pile of leather. I don’t want to pursue a discussion on such a sad subject though. We don’t read books just so words won’t be wasted.

They are already dead, you putting yourself above touching their remains does nothing but create separation.

If this applied to people, no offense, how would you feel? Towards the end of Kali-Yuga it is predicted that it will get that bad. When the animal supply runs out, and if people are still hungry for meat....

Help them Avalokakitesvara. Om Mani Padme Hum.

There’s nothing wrong with respecting dead bodies, burying them, washing them, cremating them, the problem comes in when craving comes in for false use.

[Johnny Dangerous]

The idea is if we stop taking they die less. Even one happy animal is worth more than a pile of leather. I don’t want to pursue a discussion on such a sad subject though. We don’t read books just so words won’t be wasted.

They are already dead, you putting yourself above touching their remains does nothing but create separation.

If this applied to people, no offense, how would you feel? Towards the end of Kali-Yuga it is predicted that it will get that bad. When the animal supply runs out, and if people are still hungry for meat....

Help them Avalokakitesvara. Om Mani Padme Hum.

There’s nothing wrong with respecting dead bodies, burying them, washing them, cremating them, the problem comes in when craving comes in for false use.

Oh please, stop with that stuff and just study for once instead of making up your own doctrines all the time.

Do you know anything about Tibetan funerary rites, what about Indian ones? Do you know where how the early Buddhists might have gotten their robes? Do you know what Maranasati is? Do you feel those are somehow advocating violence? Apparently given the simple-minded claims here you would. Revulsion towards or attachment to dead stuff has nothing to do with what you are talking about, which is not destroying other beings.

Again, you just don't understand Vajrayana, and apparently haven't read the vows.

Here they are:
https://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-s ... ntric-vows

So you can see, there is room for different interpretations, room perhaps for vegetarianism, non-imbibing of alcohol, but revulsion at the substances, not so much, that is just neuroses. For some it may be fine, but for Vajrayana it is a particular issue, though I suppose if you stuck to peaceful Kriya practices you might be ok.

[Könchok Thrinley]

Oh yes, how horrible! What if somebody took human bones and did something with them. Disgraceful!

[Cinnabar]

This, well, purist attitude towards purity and impurity of substances contradicts the basic understanding of how Vajryana functions, which you could say is transformation of the mundane (all of it) into wisdom, including leather and stuff that's all grody to you. In fact, transformation of the grody stuff is pretty integral.

This isn't a challege of the use of traditional sayama substances. I use and consume them.

But one of the subtexts regarding samaya substances, and tantric imagery in general, is that it is somehow "transgressive". We are consuming things and engaging in imagery that is transgressive so that we can transcend our limitations by purifying appearances.

I guess that's fine and good if I came from a teetotaller vegetarian celebate spiritual background. Then if somebody gave me a plate of rare roast beef and a glass of 18 year old Glenmorangie single malt scotch I'd have to push beyond my conditioned experience. My preumptions of purity and impurity. Just basic innate physical revulsion.

For me in late 20th century early 21st century America-- it's a *shrug* in terms of working with transgression. Quite honestly if somebody served me roast beef and a glass of 18 year old Glenmorangie at a ganapuja, I wouldn't be working with revulsion in my mind. I'd be working with attachment. I wan't more scotch. I'd be working with peevishness if the choppon put ice in my glass. If I have a revulsion at ganapuja it's not about meat and alchohol. It's probably about a PopTart.

Of course there are very deep meanings related to having meat and alcohol and eating them in general.

But I'm not seeing the transgressiveness.

Maybe this is an issue for veg/vegan people because it truly *is* trangressive at some level. Which is why my veg/vegan friends who take samaya substances are generally really great practitioners. But what do I know.

On a personal level, it just seems my practice is bogus, as I've not gotten this transgression from the beginning.