Thats not how tsok works. Tsok is not some kind of eating powaSilenceMonkey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:24 pmIt seems to me like one would have to be a very good practitioner for one's prayers to send the deceased animals one is eating to a pure land...Queequeg wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:48 pm What I find curious is the way that the ritual rules around consuming meat seem to be presented in a way that conveniently justifies developed world consumer choices. I would expect that to really practice tsok, it really demands a very high degree of seriousness, and the casualness of picking out a weekday night dinner seems incongruent.
If You Eat Meat You Are Not a Kagyupa - Karmapas and strict vegetarianism
Re: If You Eat Meat You Are Not a Kagyupa - Karmapas and strict vegetarianism
Re: If You Eat Meat You Are Not a Kagyupa - Karmapas and strict vegetarianism
According to many sutras, the ability to benefit beings is not limited to great masters, or to tantric methods only.GrapeLover wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:31 pmI think this is along the lines of Chatral Rinpoche’s position, that it definitely is valid for siddhas to eat meat and do such things (just like some of the mahasiddhas could “get away with” directly killing fish and insects because they could liberate them thereby) but most ordinary practitioners don’t have any business thinking they’re doing enough good to offset the negativity of eating meat. Just the position of one teacher etc ofc. Personally I eat meat just because I am lazy, in the knowledge that I’m acting counter to Mahayana sutra in doing so.SilenceMonkey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:24 pmIt seems to me like one would have to be a very good practitioner for one's prayers to send the deceased animals one is eating to a pure land...Queequeg wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:48 pm What I find curious is the way that the ritual rules around consuming meat seem to be presented in a way that conveniently justifies developed world consumer choices. I would expect that to really practice tsok, it really demands a very high degree of seriousness, and the casualness of picking out a weekday night dinner seems incongruent.
Speaking about everyday meat eating as opposed to tsok
For example, in "The basket's display":
“Ten million tathāgatas reside in each pore of that noble son. Residing there they give their approval, saying, ‘Excellent, excellent, noble son! You have acquired such a wish-fulfilling jewel as this. Seven generations of your descendants will attain liberation.229 Noble son, even all the beings who live in your stomach will become irreversible bodhisattvas.
“All those who just touch that person with their clothing231 will become bodhisattvas in their last existence.
“Women, men, boys, and girls who just see that person, and even the deer, birds, oxen, donkeys, and so on, who see that person, will all become bodhisattvas in their last existence. They will not experience the suffering of birth, aging, sickness, death, and separation from the beloved. They will become inconceivable yogins.”
-
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2020 12:55 am
Re: If You Eat Meat You Are Not a Kagyupa - Karmapas and strict vegetarianism
Yes, I didn’t mean to argue that you need to be a siddha to benefit beings. However, you generally need to have some realisation in order to properly/safely perform what would otherwise be a negative deed (eg killing) in order to benefit beings. Various sutras establish eating meat as also being negative, eg the Nirvana Sutra:Aryjna wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:46 pmAccording to many sutras, the ability to benefit beings is not limited to great masters, or to tantric methods only.GrapeLover wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:31 pmI think this is along the lines of Chatral Rinpoche’s position, that it definitely is valid for siddhas to eat meat and do such things (just like some of the mahasiddhas could “get away with” directly killing fish and insects because they could liberate them thereby) but most ordinary practitioners don’t have any business thinking they’re doing enough good to offset the negativity of eating meat. Just the position of one teacher etc ofc. Personally I eat meat just because I am lazy, in the knowledge that I’m acting counter to Mahayana sutra in doing so.SilenceMonkey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:24 pm
It seems to me like one would have to be a very good practitioner for one's prayers to send the deceased animals one is eating to a pure land...
Speaking about everyday meat eating as opposed to tsok
For example, in "The basket's display":
“Ten million tathāgatas reside in each pore of that noble son. Residing there they give their approval, saying, ‘Excellent, excellent, noble son! You have acquired such a wish-fulfilling jewel as this. Seven generations of your descendants will attain liberation.229 Noble son, even all the beings who live in your stomach will become irreversible bodhisattvas.“All those who just touch that person with their clothing231 will become bodhisattvas in their last existence.
“Women, men, boys, and girls who just see that person, and even the deer, birds, oxen, donkeys, and so on, who see that person, will all become bodhisattvas in their last existence. They will not experience the suffering of birth, aging, sickness, death, and separation from the beloved. They will become inconceivable yogins.”
And the Lankavatara Sutra:Kāśyapa, from today I establish a precept restricting my disciples from eating all forms of meat. Kāśyapa, those who do partake of meat, whether they are walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, will produce an odor of meat that all living beings will smell and this inevitably creates a sense of fear in them. It is like a man who gets close to lions; a crowd that sees him do this will smell the odor of the lion on him afterward and become afraid.
[…]
For this reason, bodhisattvas do not customarily eat meat. They may manifest eating meat for purposes of saving living beings but although it appears that they are eating meat, in fact they are not. Good man, the pure eating of bodhisattvas is thus not eating, so how could they eat meat?
So, in this view, unless, like in the first citation, you are sufficiently realised that your pure eating is not eating at all, it’s not really your remit to be eating meat to benefit beings. There are various methods in sutra to benefit beings using their remains without eating them.There are countless reasons, Mahāmati, why it is not appropriate for a compassionate bodhisattva to eat any kind of meat
[…]
How, then, can it be appropriate for a bodhisattva, a great being, to eat the meat of any kind of being, creature, or living thing whatsoever, when he wants to relate to all living beings as if they were part of himself, and wants to practise the Buddha-Dharma? Mahāmati, even rākṣasas become protectors, develop compassion, and give up eating meat when they hear the excellent nature of the Dharma of the tathāgatas. Certainly then, people who yearn for the Dharma will do the same…
Last edited by GrapeLover on Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: If You Eat Meat You Are Not a Kagyupa - Karmapas and strict vegetarianism
I didn't actually say anything about vegetarianism there.Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:12 pmThere is no universal agreement amongst Mahayana practitioners or teachers on vegetarianism and the first precept. This doesn't even need to be debated, it is just fact.Queequeg wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:48 pm
I'm not aware of any question in Mahayana that eating meat involves taking life. By definition, meat is what's left over when a sentient being in either the human or animal realms dies. The distinctions come with the karma, the intentional activity, involved with the consumption of meat. Not taking life is one of those cardinal Mahayana precepts. There are considerations of necessity, also. But again, not interested in discussing the morality.
I agree. Which is why I didn't mention the V words in discussing Mahayana rules above.Actually, modern veganism and vegetarianism (at least as practiced in the frist world) are very much "developed world" consumer choices, and ones which are not always as harmless as they are sometimes presented.What I find curious is the way that the ritual rules around consuming meat seem to be presented in a way that conveniently justifies developed world consumer choices. I would expect that to really practice tsok, it really demands a very high degree of seriousness, and the casualness of picking out a weekday night dinner seems incongruent.
Stripped of the vajrayana skin, that's middle way.Sure of course, we do not just do whatever we want and should pay attention to our conduct, there's no need to bring up these hyperbolic examples. I also covered this question by saying that many Vajryana practitioners start with, and typically retain at least -some- of the common Mahayana viewpoint and teachings.That said, you seem to be suggesting that transforming one's existing lifestyle eliminates the necessity of considering the impact of one's activities. If we do it right, then raping and pillaging is just as valid a path, so long as its done in a manner that transforms it into dharma. Is there no compulsion toward the modification of behavior? Say an incantation, cast a spell, and the karma of a psychopathic serial killer becomes acts of kindness.
Here's a theoretical example that hopefully simplifies things:
...
That is an ultra simplified example, but an easy to follow one that illustrates how this concept plays out in daily life. There is no one set of circumstances for Dharma practice, and therefore no one argument that applies to all practitioners, certainly not on something as circumstance - dependent and complex as dietary choice in the modern world.
That's different than claiming that one does a slaughtered animal a favor by eating them.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Re: If You Eat Meat You Are Not a Kagyupa - Karmapas and strict vegetarianism
Of course killing animals to eat them is not good. But this is a different issue.GrapeLover wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:55 pm Yes, I didn’t mean to argue that you need to be a siddha to benefit beings. However, you generally need to have some realisation in order to properly/safely perform what would otherwise be a negative deed (eg killing) in order to benefit beings. Various sutras establish eating meat as negative, eg the Nirvana Sutra:
And the Lankavatara Sutra:Kāśyapa, from today I establish a precept restricting my disciples from eating all forms of meat. Kāśyapa, those who do partake of meat, whether they are walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, will produce an odor of meat that all living beings will smell and this inevitably creates a sense of fear in them. It is like a man who gets close to lions; a crowd that sees him do this will smell the odor of the lion on him afterward and become afraid.
[…]
For this reason, bodhisattvas do not customarily eat meat. They may manifest eating meat for purposes of saving living beings but although it appears that they are eating meat, in fact they are not. Good man, the pure eating of bodhisattvas is thus not eating, so how could they eat meat?So, in this view, unless, like in the first citation, you are sufficiently realised that your pure eating is not eating at all, it’s not really your remit to be eating meat to benefit beings. There are various methods in sutra to benefit beings using their remains without eating them.There are countless reasons, Mahāmati, why it is not appropriate for a compassionate bodhisattva to eat any kind of meat
[…]
How, then, can it be appropriate for a bodhisattva, a great being, to eat the meat of any kind of being, creature, or living thing whatsoever, when he wants to relate to all living beings as if they were part of himself, and wants to practise the Buddha-Dharma? Mahāmati, even rākṣasas become protectors, develop compassion, and give up eating meat when they hear the excellent nature of the Dharma of the tathāgatas. Certainly then, people who yearn for the Dharma will do the same…
-
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2020 12:55 am
Re: If You Eat Meat You Are Not a Kagyupa - Karmapas and strict vegetarianism
Yes, it’s a different negative deed… did you read the citations? Eating meat, according to sutra, isn’t a neutral deed like being seen or being touched (as you gave in your citations); it’s a negative deed like killing. Therefore it’s argued that some realisation is required before you decide to start eating meat to benefit the animals, instead of performing some other technique with the remains (eg use of the Akshobhya dharani).Aryjna wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:01 pmOf course killing animals to eat them is not good. But this is a different issue.GrapeLover wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:55 pmYes, I didn’t mean to argue that you need to be a siddha to benefit beings. However, you generally need to have some realisation in order to properly/safely perform what would otherwise be a negative deed (eg killing) in order to benefit beings. Various sutras establish eating meat as negative, eg the Nirvana Sutra:Aryjna wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:46 pm
According to many sutras, the ability to benefit beings is not limited to great masters, or to tantric methods only.
For example, in "The basket's display":
And the Lankavatara Sutra:Kāśyapa, from today I establish a precept restricting my disciples from eating all forms of meat. Kāśyapa, those who do partake of meat, whether they are walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, will produce an odor of meat that all living beings will smell and this inevitably creates a sense of fear in them. It is like a man who gets close to lions; a crowd that sees him do this will smell the odor of the lion on him afterward and become afraid.
[…]
For this reason, bodhisattvas do not customarily eat meat. They may manifest eating meat for purposes of saving living beings but although it appears that they are eating meat, in fact they are not. Good man, the pure eating of bodhisattvas is thus not eating, so how could they eat meat?So, in this view, unless, like in the first citation, you are sufficiently realised that your pure eating is not eating at all, it’s not really your remit to be eating meat to benefit beings. There are various methods in sutra to benefit beings using their remains without eating them.There are countless reasons, Mahāmati, why it is not appropriate for a compassionate bodhisattva to eat any kind of meat
[…]
How, then, can it be appropriate for a bodhisattva, a great being, to eat the meat of any kind of being, creature, or living thing whatsoever, when he wants to relate to all living beings as if they were part of himself, and wants to practise the Buddha-Dharma? Mahāmati, even rākṣasas become protectors, develop compassion, and give up eating meat when they hear the excellent nature of the Dharma of the tathāgatas. Certainly then, people who yearn for the Dharma will do the same…
Last edited by GrapeLover on Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: If You Eat Meat You Are Not a Kagyupa - Karmapas and strict vegetarianism
Yes, these sutras prohibit eating meat.GrapeLover wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:01 pmYes, it’s a different negative deed… did you read the citations?Aryjna wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:01 pmOf course killing animals to eat them is not good. But this is a different issue.GrapeLover wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:55 pm
Yes, I didn’t mean to argue that you need to be a siddha to benefit beings. However, you generally need to have some realisation in order to properly/safely perform what would otherwise be a negative deed (eg killing) in order to benefit beings. Various sutras establish eating meat as negative, eg the Nirvana Sutra:
And the Lankavatara Sutra:
So, in this view, unless, like in the first citation, you are sufficiently realised that your pure eating is not eating at all, it’s not really your remit to be eating meat to benefit beings. There are various methods in sutra to benefit beings using their remains without eating them.
Re: If You Eat Meat You Are Not a Kagyupa - Karmapas and strict vegetarianism
I think this is getting to the point of tension.
What I discern is one view that says, "Ah, damned if you do damned if you don't, so says these prayers over the food and you do you." This just condones anything.
There's another that evinces a more sensitive perspective. There ought to be ethics considered in the consumption of meat, but there a considerable degree of gray, as well as the possibility of redemption involved.
JD gave us an example of the latter above.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17092
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: If You Eat Meat You Are Not a Kagyupa - Karmapas and strict vegetarianism
Again if you want a simple way to look at it, merit is merit. So, I could just as easily say "you can't gain merit by saying prayers over your meat, so why bother". Two separate practices with separate explanations, but your objection to one appears to just be based on the fact that you don't practice it. You don't need to. The difference is one practice views itself as an antidote to the act, and one views it as a transformation of the act.Queequeg wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:57 pmI didn't actually say anything about vegetarianism there.Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:12 pmThere is no universal agreement amongst Mahayana practitioners or teachers on vegetarianism and the first precept. This doesn't even need to be debated, it is just fact.Queequeg wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:48 pm
I'm not aware of any question in Mahayana that eating meat involves taking life. By definition, meat is what's left over when a sentient being in either the human or animal realms dies. The distinctions come with the karma, the intentional activity, involved with the consumption of meat. Not taking life is one of those cardinal Mahayana precepts. There are considerations of necessity, also. But again, not interested in discussing the morality.
I agree. Which is why I didn't mention the V words in discussing Mahayana rules above.Actually, modern veganism and vegetarianism (at least as practiced in the frist world) are very much "developed world" consumer choices, and ones which are not always as harmless as they are sometimes presented.What I find curious is the way that the ritual rules around consuming meat seem to be presented in a way that conveniently justifies developed world consumer choices. I would expect that to really practice tsok, it really demands a very high degree of seriousness, and the casualness of picking out a weekday night dinner seems incongruent.
Stripped of the vajrayana skin, that's middle way.Sure of course, we do not just do whatever we want and should pay attention to our conduct, there's no need to bring up these hyperbolic examples. I also covered this question by saying that many Vajryana practitioners start with, and typically retain at least -some- of the common Mahayana viewpoint and teachings.That said, you seem to be suggesting that transforming one's existing lifestyle eliminates the necessity of considering the impact of one's activities. If we do it right, then raping and pillaging is just as valid a path, so long as its done in a manner that transforms it into dharma. Is there no compulsion toward the modification of behavior? Say an incantation, cast a spell, and the karma of a psychopathic serial killer becomes acts of kindness.
Here's a theoretical example that hopefully simplifies things:
...
That is an ultra simplified example, but an easy to follow one that illustrates how this concept plays out in daily life. There is no one set of circumstances for Dharma practice, and therefore no one argument that applies to all practitioners, certainly not on something as circumstance - dependent and complex as dietary choice in the modern world.
That's different than claiming that one does a slaughtered animal a favor by eating them.
All that's necessary to know is that you can generate merit in some sense from mundane activity like eating of meat, if you can accept that then there is no argument, and no need for detailed explanation of the mechanics or justification of this or that practice.
Exluding some kind of....Glutton-Siddha, then the idea that some are just sitting there gorging on meat while claiming to benefit beings is also just a black and white caricature, not a real thing that I have ever seen.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Re: If You Eat Meat You Are Not a Kagyupa - Karmapas and strict vegetarianism
The quotations by GrapeLover are relevant of course. But, I think we come back to what I said (at least I think I said) earlier: Mahayana is about intention. Some sutras say you should not eat meat, which makes perfect sense, when you suspect you may be responsible for the death of the animals or somehow aid in perpetuating the breeding animals for meat. You are at a party and there is a plate of ground meat on the table.Queequeg wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:07 pmI think this is getting to the point of tension.
What I discern is one view that says, "Ah, damned if you do damned if you don't, so says these prayers over the food and you do you." This just condones anything.
There's another that evinces a more sensitive perspective. There ought to be ethics considered in the consumption of meat, but there a considerable degree of gray, as well as the possibility of redemption involved.
JD gave us an example of the latter above.
There are a few options:
1. You do not eat any meat because you think it's wrong and/or because it says so in the Nirvana sutra. But, the animal (or many different animals as it's minced meat) are already dead. They are simply going on to another animal existence and later to hell.
2. You take some and blow on it, say mantras, hoping to benefit them without eating.
3. You do the same while eating some.
2 and 3 are better than 1. With 2, you at best benefit the animal as much as you do with 3. With 3, you may benefit the animal a lot more as the connection is stronger, What is the motivation for choosing 2 over 3? To benefit the animal or to benefit oneself?
Re: If You Eat Meat You Are Not a Kagyupa - Karmapas and strict vegetarianism
In common Mahayana you should at least be vegetarian. This is not controversial. So, this is exactly why the sutras say these things. And if you practice common Mahayana, you should follow what the sutras say, and what your teacher say.GrapeLover wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:55 pmYes, I didn’t mean to argue that you need to be a siddha to benefit beings. However, you generally need to have some realisation in order to properly/safely perform what would otherwise be a negative deed (eg killing) in order to benefit beings. Various sutras establish eating meat as negative, eg the Nirvana Sutra:Aryjna wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:46 pmAccording to many sutras, the ability to benefit beings is not limited to great masters, or to tantric methods only.GrapeLover wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:31 pm
I think this is along the lines of Chatral Rinpoche’s position, that it definitely is valid for siddhas to eat meat and do such things (just like some of the mahasiddhas could “get away with” directly killing fish and insects because they could liberate them thereby) but most ordinary practitioners don’t have any business thinking they’re doing enough good to offset the negativity of eating meat. Just the position of one teacher etc ofc. Personally I eat meat just because I am lazy, in the knowledge that I’m acting counter to Mahayana sutra in doing so.
Speaking about everyday meat eating as opposed to tsok
For example, in "The basket's display":
“Ten million tathāgatas reside in each pore of that noble son. Residing there they give their approval, saying, ‘Excellent, excellent, noble son! You have acquired such a wish-fulfilling jewel as this. Seven generations of your descendants will attain liberation.229 Noble son, even all the beings who live in your stomach will become irreversible bodhisattvas.“All those who just touch that person with their clothing231 will become bodhisattvas in their last existence.
“Women, men, boys, and girls who just see that person, and even the deer, birds, oxen, donkeys, and so on, who see that person, will all become bodhisattvas in their last existence. They will not experience the suffering of birth, aging, sickness, death, and separation from the beloved. They will become inconceivable yogins.”
And the Lankavatara Sutra:Kāśyapa, from today I establish a precept restricting my disciples from eating all forms of meat. Kāśyapa, those who do partake of meat, whether they are walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, will produce an odor of meat that all living beings will smell and this inevitably creates a sense of fear in them. It is like a man who gets close to lions; a crowd that sees him do this will smell the odor of the lion on him afterward and become afraid.
[…]
For this reason, bodhisattvas do not customarily eat meat. They may manifest eating meat for purposes of saving living beings but although it appears that they are eating meat, in fact they are not. Good man, the pure eating of bodhisattvas is thus not eating, so how could they eat meat?So, in this view, unless, like in the first citation, you are sufficiently realised that your pure eating is not eating at all, it’s not really your remit to be eating meat to benefit beings. There are various methods in sutra to benefit beings using their remains without eating them.There are countless reasons, Mahāmati, why it is not appropriate for a compassionate bodhisattva to eat any kind of meat
[…]
How, then, can it be appropriate for a bodhisattva, a great being, to eat the meat of any kind of being, creature, or living thing whatsoever, when he wants to relate to all living beings as if they were part of himself, and wants to practise the Buddha-Dharma? Mahāmati, even rākṣasas become protectors, develop compassion, and give up eating meat when they hear the excellent nature of the Dharma of the tathāgatas. Certainly then, people who yearn for the Dharma will do the same…
But in uncommon Mahayana, i.e., Vajrayana and Dzogchen, you don't have to be vegetarian. And as for citations from sutra, there are various tantras and commentaries that explains exactly why a practitioner can eat meat. Different methods for different practitioners on different paths.
And as for the methods found in the tantras, they are much more efficient than those found in sutra.
Then it's also worth considering the following:
"If one asks what are the sutras of definitive meaning and what are the sutras of provisional meaning, those sutras which are taught in order that one might enter the path are called the provisional meaning, and those sutras which are taught in order that one might enter the result are called the definitive meaning. Those sutras which teach of self, sentient beings, life itself, creatures, individuals, personalities, personal selves, actors, subjects of sensation, explanations according to diverse terms, and of that which is not a possessor as a possessor, are called the provisional meaning. The sutras which teach of emptiness, of that which is signless, aspirationless, not manifestly conditioned, uncreated, unoriginated, insubstantial, without self, without sentient beings, without life itself, without individuals, without a possessor, and without any properties even as far as the approach to liberation, are called the definitive meaning. This text is said to rely on the sutras of definitive meaning, but not to rely on the sutras of provisional meaning."
-- Akshayamati-nirdesha sutra
and:
"Do not rely on the person, rely on the teaching, do not rely on the words, rely on the meaning, do not rely on the provisional, rely on the definitive, do not rely on consciousness (vijnana), rely on pristine consciousness (jnana)"
-- Akshayamati-nirdesha sutra.
From the point of view of Vajrayana and Dzogchen, sutra is provisional, it is lower, not higher. This then means that the tantras of Vajrayana and Dzogchen takes precedence over the sutras when it comes to certain things.
We all practice according to the paths that we are on, according to the teachings we've received from our teachers, and how everything is according to its core texts, how things are according to its view, its meditation, and its conduct. We do all this due to our karma, our merit, our dependent origination, and our capacity.
Re: If You Eat Meat You Are Not a Kagyupa - Karmapas and strict vegetarianism
I get it.Aryjna wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:16 pm The quotations by GrapeLover are relevant of course. But, I think we come back to what I said (at least I think I said) earlier: Mahayana is about intention. Some sutras say you should not eat meat, which makes perfect sense, when you suspect you may be responsible for the death of the animals or somehow aid in perpetuating the breeding animals for meat. You are at a party and there is a plate of ground meat on the table.
There are a few options:
1. You do not eat any meat because you think it's wrong and/or because it says so in the Nirvana sutra. But, the animal (or many different animals as it's minced meat) are already dead. They are simply going on to another animal existence and later to hell.
2. You take some and blow on it, say mantras, hoping to benefit them without eating.
3. You do the same while eating some.
2 and 3 are better than 1. With 2, you at best benefit the animal as much as you do with 3. With 3, you may benefit the animal a lot more as the connection is stronger, What is the motivation for choosing 2 over 3? To benefit the animal or to benefit oneself?
BTW, nothing you or anything anyone else wrote is surprising. This is how I've always understood meat consumption and my background is not Tibetan Vajrayana. I've also never found it particularly compelling. No judgement. I eat meat daily.
Good for the Karmapa, though, to steer the direction of his community.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
-
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2020 12:55 am
Re: If You Eat Meat You Are Not a Kagyupa - Karmapas and strict vegetarianism
Just to note that I entered this conversation citing Chatral Rinpoche’s view, not simply to promote a sutric viewpoint. Views within Vajrayana and Dzogchen aren’t uniformly that every ordinary practitioner can eat meat outside of tsok without fault. But of course there are many teachers and lineages with different views on the matter (and again I eat meat, in case people think I’m coming with a bias)
Re: If You Eat Meat You Are Not a Kagyupa - Karmapas and strict vegetarianism
I think it makes sense to decide against meat in the monasteries. Saying that anyone who eats meat is not a part of the school/lineage not so much, but apparently that is not what he said.Queequeg wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:38 pmI get it.Aryjna wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:16 pm The quotations by GrapeLover are relevant of course. But, I think we come back to what I said (at least I think I said) earlier: Mahayana is about intention. Some sutras say you should not eat meat, which makes perfect sense, when you suspect you may be responsible for the death of the animals or somehow aid in perpetuating the breeding animals for meat. You are at a party and there is a plate of ground meat on the table.
There are a few options:
1. You do not eat any meat because you think it's wrong and/or because it says so in the Nirvana sutra. But, the animal (or many different animals as it's minced meat) are already dead. They are simply going on to another animal existence and later to hell.
2. You take some and blow on it, say mantras, hoping to benefit them without eating.
3. You do the same while eating some.
2 and 3 are better than 1. With 2, you at best benefit the animal as much as you do with 3. With 3, you may benefit the animal a lot more as the connection is stronger, What is the motivation for choosing 2 over 3? To benefit the animal or to benefit oneself?
BTW, nothing you or anything anyone else wrote is surprising. This is how I've always understood meat consumption and my background is not Tibetan Vajrayana. I've also never found it particularly compelling. No judgement. I eat meat daily.
Good for the Karmapa, though, to steer the direction of his community.
Re: If You Eat Meat You Are Not a Kagyupa - Karmapas and strict vegetarianism
Not so, one has to be in relationship with a true lineage holder.SilenceMonkey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:24 pmIt seems to me like one would have to be a very good practitioner for one's prayers to send the deceased animals one is eating to a pure land...Queequeg wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:48 pm What I find curious is the way that the ritual rules around consuming meat seem to be presented in a way that conveniently justifies developed world consumer choices. I would expect that to really practice tsok, it really demands a very high degree of seriousness, and the casualness of picking out a weekday night dinner seems incongruent.
Re: If You Eat Meat You Are Not a Kagyupa - Karmapas and strict vegetarianism
I think it goes without saying that monastics and lay people have different requirements.
I read the links posted above.
My understanding has always been that the climate of the Tibetan plateau makes maintaining a vegetarian diet very difficult. Allowing meat would be a fair adaptation to the circumstances. Now that its reasonably convenient to maintain a vegetarian diet thanks to the wonders of international commerce no matter where you are, perhaps that presents new circumstances that require another adaptation. That seems to be at least one factor in the Karmapa's position.
Someone referred to the vinaya rules - above - one of the reasons for the Vinaya is to encourage and inspire the broader community. These days I think there is a widespread movement toward ethical ideals regarding dietary choices. It might well be that what is served in the dining hall to the monks at meal time affects the perception of the sangha. Abstaining from meat might well be one of those kinds of factors. Its admirable that the Karmapa has taken these kinds of steps against what I imagine was and has been significant resistance.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Re: If You Eat Meat You Are Not a Kagyupa - Karmapas and strict vegetarianism
No resistance. Everyone agreed. And then don’t do it for different reasons They will all start “ next year”.
-
- Posts: 1448
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:54 am
Re: If You Eat Meat You Are Not a Kagyupa - Karmapas and strict vegetarianism
Doesn’t it work like prayers do? I’d imagine that the prayers of a bad practitioner wouldn’t be nearly as effective as those of a great practitioner... for example, if the practitioner hasn’t kept their vows.Tata1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:36 pmThats not how tsok works. Tsok is not some kind of eating powaSilenceMonkey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:24 pmIt seems to me like one would have to be a very good practitioner for one's prayers to send the deceased animals one is eating to a pure land...Queequeg wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:48 pm What I find curious is the way that the ritual rules around consuming meat seem to be presented in a way that conveniently justifies developed world consumer choices. I would expect that to really practice tsok, it really demands a very high degree of seriousness, and the casualness of picking out a weekday night dinner seems incongruent.
So qualities like faith, samadhi or bodhicitta in one’s mind at the time of tsok have nothing to do with it?Giovanni wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 10:10 pmNot so, one has to be in relationship with a true lineage holder.SilenceMonkey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:24 pm
It seems to me like one would have to be a very good practitioner for one's prayers to send the deceased animals one is eating to a pure land...
Re: If You Eat Meat You Are Not a Kagyupa - Karmapas and strict vegetarianism
I think this is absolutely the point - of course it's both. Plus feeding pretas and all the rest. Bodhicitta means: liberate 100% sentient beings from samsara, 100% of the time. I don't think anyone is arguing: the only kind of beings I will liberate are those on my plate.Könchok Thrinley wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 12:48 pm Okay, sure since we are doing this I have to ask. Since meat being eaten by a tantrika can give causes for liberation of the animal, why not just go to a local pasture and recite mani to animals? Or go to a local hill and put namgyalma mantra there, etc.? We have many methods to ensure liberation upon hearing, seeing, touch, etc. why be so set on eating them and calling vegetarians not compassionate because of it?
Re: If You Eat Meat You Are Not a Kagyupa - Karmapas and strict vegetarianism
Yes, to be honest I think there is a very big difference between the sentiments of a five year old and the actual realisations of mahakaruna. There is nothing is secretive about this, it is actually a matter of humility to recognise that having bodhicitta properly take stock in our mindstream is an incredible accomplishment. And it is rare. And it is all to easy to conflate this with mere virtuous sentiments and wishful thinking.Queequeg wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 4:46 pmmy five year old daughter doesn't want to eat meat because she just thinks its mean. if equanimity, kindness and great compassion are all that different from that, then I think something has gone wrong.tobes wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 11:36 pm I also want to grant, that if one abstains from eating meat on the genuine basis of equanimity, kindness and great compassion to all beings, then this is incredibly noble.
But, it is also incredibly rare.
Moreover, the nobility is in the mindstream one abides in; the action/non-action is merely a little expression of this.
At this point in life, it just seems people overthink things. maybe I've devolved into a simpleton. maybe I need to learn the great thaumatological secrets.
frankly, your way seems too complicated.