Shaolin diet, vegetarianism and stuff

[Matthew]

Matthew, you are a bit too dogmatic and fundamentalist, not to mention long-winded, to respond to every point you are trying to make. But if you don't even have a basic understanding of the definition of Karma in Buddhism, then I don't think our discussion will be productive until you've studied a bit more on that subject.

Since the Chan school is basically stripped down Yogācāra philosophy, I would suggest reading Vasubandhu's Karma-siddhi-prakaraṇa (Discussion for the Demonstration of Karma).

Thanks for the suggestion

You'll learn from a Buddhist perspective that Karma, although divided into action of body, speech, and mind, is basically of one type. All such action is led by the intent, the 7th mental consciousness (manas-vijñāna/ 意), whether that manifests through external, visible (bodily), audible (speech), or internal (mind) action. It is all action of the intent.

In order for an action to accrue karmic debt, it must be led by the intent. Otherwise, the consciousness is not involved so how can it accrue such debt? For example, unknowingly stepping on a bug. To believe that will have negative karmic effects requires one to have a Hindu/Jain understanding of Karma as any action whatsoever, because the manas-vijñāna (thought consciousness/karma) is not involved.

This is not just my understanding, or my definition, this is the Buddhist teaching on Karma. I suggest you look into it.

The question then is begged- How is the consciousness Not involved in eating dead animals?

Surely the only case is as you mentioned with the ant- when one unintentionally "receives" the meat or dead animal (from another person Or if the animal is found dead of natural cause) -without originally intending to seek it out/purchase it/grow and kill it. In this case- I may see how the intent is not involved. I believe this is analogous to not knowing we step on an ant.

Since this is not the case in our lives- as we are not monks of olden day and we are instead modern layfolk.- I will ignore this case in the following questions- that is I will ignore the possibility that we are not aware of the animals death/intending for an animal to be dead.

Therefore my following questions already assume that we Have intent to consume dead animal which should be mathematically equivalent we Have intent for living animal to be dead for our purpose. I am concluding these are equivalent on the basis of 2 premises.

1) We intend to eat a dead animal.
2) Living animals must be killed for us to eat meat (As I just mentioned we are ignoring the above listed cases that are analogous to the stepping on an ant)

Conclusion: In eating a dead animal (meat)- we had intent for a living animal to be killed.

How is this not a defilement of the not-killing moral?

Also for further example- as you have shown yourself to be a proponent that meat-eating is in no way in violation of any of the Buddha's teaching-

To further understand where you fit into your own spectrum of disccusion- do you believe it is possible to justify the intent for a living being (animal) to be dead for us to eat as wishing to end suffering (compassion)?

[LFJ]

Therefore my following questions already assume that we Have intent to consume dead animal which should be mathematically equivalent we Have intent for living animal to be dead for our purpose. I am concluding these are equivalent on the basis of 2 premises.

1) We intend to eat a dead animal.
2) Living animals must be killed for us to eat meat (As I just mentioned we are ignoring the above listed cases that are analogous to the stepping on an ant)

Conclusion: In eating a dead animal (meat)- we had intent for a living animal to be killed.

How is this not a defilement of the not-killing moral?

I can grant you that intent as present for this discussion as it makes no difference, but I don't think it is necessarily true. Some people just view meat as a food source, and don't pay much mind to where it came from, much less do they have intent for animals to die when they sit down at the dinner table.

But granted that there is indeed such an intent, it is not a creation of the karma of killing, or breaking any non-harming moral. I'll explain:

Although karma is intentional action, there are certain factors that must be fulfilled in the accomplishment of karma beyond just the presence of intent. For example, for the karma of killing (or harming) to be completed there must be five requisite factors fulfilled. These are:

1) Presence of a living being
2) Knowledge of the living being
3) The intent to kill (harm)
4) The act of killing (harming)
5) The resultant death (injury)

If one of these factors is missing, the karma is not accomplished.

So for example, a hunter obviously has the intent to kill, but if in aiming his gun and firing at an animal he should miss, then factor #5 is not fulfilled and the karma of killing is not accomplished.

Although the hunter had an animal in sight, had the intent to kill, and even acted to kill, since he did not accomplish the task of the intent he did not create the karma of killing. However, he did have an unwholesome mental state (a potential to create negative karma), but created no negative karma from that.

Likewise, the reason unknowingly stepping on a bug is not a karma of killing is because not all five factors are present. Although there is an act of killing and a resulting death, there is no intent to kill and not even knowledge of a living being's presence. Therefore, no karma of killing is created.

So in the case of simply eating meat it is much less creating karma of killing or harming, because there is no living being present to begin with (#1), therefore no knowledge of a living being present (#2), no intent to kill (#3), no act of killing (#4), and of course no resulting death (#5).

So not a single requisite factor is present in the act of eating meat. That being so, meat eating can in no way entail the negative karma of killing or harming.

Even granting you that someone may for some strange reason intend for an animal to die when they sit down for dinner, none of the other factors are fulfilled. So there is no accomplishment of the task of the intent (causing death).

Therefore, no negative karma is created, just an unwholesome mental state which is only a potential to create negative karma, but not acted upon results in no karmic retribution.

Also for further example- as you have shown yourself to be a proponent that meat-eating is in no way in violation of any of the Buddha's teaching-

Slow down now, I didn't say that. Of course there are teachings throughout the Buddhist canon prohibiting meat eating for various reasons and to various followers. I'm not arguing that, but only that eating meat is creating a negative karma which will bear retributive results that bar one from enlightenment. It simply cannot have such an effect.

To further understand where you fit into your own spectrum of disccusion- do you believe it is possible to justify the intent for a living being (animal) to be dead for us to eat as wishing to end suffering (compassion)?

Of course not. But I'm not arguing for that. I'm only clarifying the topic of karma in regards to meat eating.

As I said, there are better and more accurate reasons to promote vegetarianism. Threats of karmic retribution is not one of them!

[LFJ]

In order for an action to accrue karmic debt, it must be led by the intent. Otherwise, the consciousness is not involved so how can it accrue such debt? For example, unknowingly stepping on a bug. To believe that will have negative karmic effects requires one to have a Hindu/Jain understanding of Karma as any action whatsoever, because the manas-vijñāna (thought consciousness/karma) is not involved.

That is one interpretation.

What sect is it that walks around sweeping in front of themselves with every step to make sure they don't inadvertently step on an insect?

Yes, that is the Buddhist interpretation.

The "sect" to which you refer is likely the Jains. Jainism is a separate religion, not a Buddhist sect.

Although there is nothing wrong with that, and their cautiousness and regard for life is commendable, from a Buddhist point of view their understanding of karma is just incorrect.

[Hendrik]

So for example, a hunter obviously has the intent to kill, but if in aiming his gun and firing at an animal he should miss, then factor #5 is not fulfilled and the karma of killing is not accomplished.

Although the hunter had an animal in sight, had the intent to kill, and even acted to kill, since he did not accomplish the task of the intent he did not create the karma of killing.

However, he did have an unwholesome mental state (a potential to create negative karma), but created no negative karma from that.

Karma of killing is completed as soon as one makes an intention. actually killing something is just increasing the intensity.

[LFJ]

Karma of killing is completed as soon as one makes an intention. actually killing something is just increasing the intensity.

You're welcome to have your point of view. But it is not Buddhist. I've already explained.

[Hendrik]

Yes, that is the Buddhist interpretation.

The "sect" to which you refer is likely the Jains. Jainism is a separate religion, not a Buddhist sect.

Although there is nothing wrong with that, and their cautiousness and regard for life is commendable, from a Buddhist point of view their understanding of karma is just incorrect.

Not true.


all those who has attain Arahat level walks without stepping on ground to avoid killing insect....etc.

[LFJ]

Not true.


all those who has attain Arahat level walks without stepping on ground to avoid killing insect....etc.

They fly? Okay...

[Hendrik]

You're welcome to have your point of view. But it is not Buddhist. I've already explained.

It is perfectly Buddhist.
In reality, If one dont repent or clear out the intention right there after one makes an intent of killing watch what one will get.

intention of Killing has violated Precept of killing whether one actually carry it out physically or not.

[Hendrik]

They fly? Okay...

In my word, Arahats exist and they walk levitated.

[RenDaHai]

I think both LFJ and Matt have good points here;

If we take already dead meat out of the stock, and we are aware of the meat industry, we have intent for that stock void to be filled.

But at the same time the world is now such a vast community, like never in previous history. Chaos and Cause and effect become extremely complicated. The classic butterfly flapping its wings causing a hurricane a year later accross the world does not induce Karmic debt for it. Unfortunately if we always apply the thinking above we become crippled and can no longer do anything. Should we donate all our money to charity. Should we never use electricity, never use oil. We are aware of global problems and wars caused by these things. Never buy Diamonds, gold.... Nike, etc. In fact every industry involves exploitation. We cannot avoid it.

So like the sect sweeping the ground in front of them. I don't think this is commendable behaviour as undoubtebly there are many other changes they could make in their life that would make the world a better place than wasting their effort on not killing bugs. They are fundamentalist trying to follow rules rather than understanding principles.

When I made the point about some animals being made for meat i was not being facetious. Its all about the potential of life forms. We shouldn't keep slaves because their potential is equal to our own. HOwever these animals have the potential to do nothing else. They have been selectively bred for 5000 or more years. They no longer have a habitat apart from the one we give them. They are utterly dependant and could not fulfill any other role in society. If we were plucking animals from the wild and eating them i would be wholly against it. But that is not the case for these animals nor could it be.

The answers are not so simple. YOu can't be vegitarian and act superior to Meat eaters as those meat eaters may have a greater good karmic influence on the world all things considered. In the current state of the world with the number of things we exploit eating meat is a much lesser vice than may of the other things we do daily. Buddhism was created in a different age. THe world is a more complex place now.

[Hendrik]

YOu can't be vegitarian and act superior to Meat eaters as those meat eaters may have a greater good karmic influence on the world all things considered.

In the current state of the world with the number of things we exploit eating meat is a much lesser vice than may of the other things we do daily.

Meat eaters have a greater good karmic influence?

When is last time you check on Green world information on Carbon....etc?

[RenDaHai]

Meat eaters have a greater good karmic influence?

When is last time you check on Green world information on Carbon....etc?

Thats not what I said. I said the world is so complex now you have no way of knowing the complete consiquence of your actions. Meat eating is just one of many many many bad effects we have on the world just by existing in our society. Its just one. SO if you are vegitarian you shouldn't consider yourself superior because you don't know what other things a meat eater might do that induces good karma. Comparing people over such a small thing is pointless.

[LFJ]

It is perfectly Buddhist.
In reality, If one dont repent or clear out the intention right there after one makes an intent of killing watch what one will get.

intention of Killing has violated Precept of killing whether one actually carry it out physically or not.

So one is convicted of thought crime unless they repent? Sounds very Christian.

Anyway, it has been thoroughly explained how this is not a Buddhist understanding of karma. Whatever understanding you have....

In my word, Arahats exist and they walk levitated.

Have you ever witnessed such a thing? Why would you say something like that?

Or did you mean to say "In my *world*"...?

[pazman]

In my word, Arahats exist and they walk levitated.

I was going to chime in on this thread, but now I can see that would be a lost cause.

[wenshu]

Yes, that is the Buddhist interpretation.

The "sect" to which you refer is likely the Jains. Jainism is a separate religion, not a Buddhist sect.

Although there is nothing wrong with that, and their cautiousness and regard for life is commendable, from a Buddhist point of view their understanding of karma is just incorrect.

No it is a buddhist sect. Chinese as a matter of fact, I just can't remember the name.