help critique Daniel Ingram's "hardcore dharma book"

[xabir2005]

Isn't it more accurate to say "you could if you wanted to, but you don't"?

More like 'you can't' than 'you don't'. Even if you wanted to, at that level you cannot give rise to Lust/anger/etc because the afflictions, fetters, defilements are removed.

Or let's say you had all of your best friends and family in front of you, and they were being systematically shot until you committed a small crime, just for the pleasure of the people doing it to make an "enlightened" being do something "unenlightened". Would you be physically incapable of committing whatever small crime and saving your family? Would you just say "well it's not me that's causing my family to be killed, I'm just going to chill and watch", because of your 'perfect actions'? Ironically this question is one that I thought of posing when I first got into Buddhism, but later realized it's probably not that important. However, now that you talk about "perfect action", I'm curious what you think.

They will use wisdom to save whoever there are but not cause harm to anyone.

 

I'm not sure what you have in mind but I think you'll be interested in this article: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/gettingmessage.html

Edited August 11, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

How would one go from Arahat to Buddhahood? =P. Does anyone know? Not that I have to worry about that at this moment...

The first thing is you have to generate a resolve and vow to attain Buddhahood for the sake of all sentient beings.

 

There is a scripture that states an occasion where the Mara wanted to meet the Buddha, but he could not do so. Manjusri told him if he wishes to meet the Buddha, he needs to first vow to attain Buddhahood. So the Mara contrives to lie about his creation of the intent; but the trick was on him - to even pretend to make a vow on Buddhahood, he has already planted an irreversible seed to attain Buddhahood.

 

So the seed is already there, but how long it takes is another matter and depends on the person's practice, level of aspiration, etc.

 

Apart from training to realize the twofold emptinesses, a Bodhisattva strives to develope bodhicitta, compassion, paramitas, etc.

 

Why don't you make a resolve now to attain Buddhahood for the sake of all sentient beings. It does not prevent you from attaining whatever there is to be attained in MCTB - only that your Buddhahood will be assured in the future. Also, according to various sutras, the attainment/realization/afflictions-removed in an Arhant can be compared to a 6th or 8th bhumi Bodhisattva.

Which insights? Anything you recommend reading?

Not elaborated much by Thusness. For instance I just wrote: However, there is still a further realization on ‘the arising and passing sensations are the very awareness itself’ that is sort of combining the first and second stanza into one (but this is not mentioned on that particular Thusness’s article). However, Richard has talked about it somewhere in his articles.

 

The 'On Anatta and Emptiness ...' article is a good read and covers many of the core insights and experiences.

Edited August 11, 2010 by xabir2005

[Pero]

Xabir, what stanzas are you talking about?

[xabir2005]

Xabir, what stanzas are you talking about?

See On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection

[Gerard]

Difficult to critique a practical work written by someone who is clearly a master of meditation. I don't believe anyone here is qualified.

 

Clap, clap, clap.

 

This thread is pointless.

 

Follow the path that Daniel has walked and then you will be qualified to make a critique.

[beoman]

More like 'you can't' than 'you don't'. Even if you wanted to, at that level you cannot give rise to Lust/anger/etc because the afflictions, fetters, defilements are removed.

They will use wisdom to save whoever there are but not cause harm to anyone.

 

I'm not sure what you have in mind but I think you'll be interested in this article: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/gettingmessage.html

 

I'm glad you linked that article, as I have a few issues with it. This discussion has renewed my interest in a topic which I forgot about. It's rather philosophical, but I want to see how Buddhism deals with them.

 

First, what I was getting to before, I was trying to rephrase an old philosophical question. You have 1000 people in a cave, including you. The cave begins to flood. In the panic, everyone runs to the only exit, a narrow cave mouth. However, the first person to get there is grotesquely obese, and promptly gets stuck (never mind how he managed to get in in the first place =P). There is no way to remove him without killing him (again, this is a bit contrived). So what do you do? Do you kill him to save the other 998 people, or let everybody die?

 

It's very contrived but you have two choices:

 

1) Do nothing. Start meditating, maybe. Tell everyone it'll be fine, they'll be reborn. Talk about how you should never kill anyone. Then all 1000 people die.

2) Kill the fat guy. 999 people survive.

 

Ok, it's unfair to pick on fat people, and I don't mean to be mean =P so replace "fat guy" with "average human being who unfortunately got stuck".

 

From the article you just linked, the answer is a resounding "don't kill him, never kill anyone". However, doing nothing in this case is also an action, and in this case, an action that inexorably leads to 999 people dying just as surely as plunging a large stake into the unfortunate vanguard would lead to him dying. So what do you do? It's easy to say "never kill" but in this case both action and inaction lead to death.

 

About it being contrived: there are more realistic moral gray areas in real life too. Like, do you test a drug on people that is potentially dangerous but if it works could save many more people? Anyway, that's not important.

 

======================

 

About the article. Alright, you should never kill or condone killing, and never steal or condone stealing, with the intent to do so.

 

So you should never kill a person. The article only talks about that. What about an animal? I think the Buddha himself mentioned not to kill animals. What about eating them? Many Buddhists are vegetarian but I believe the Buddha never said "never eat meat". But eating the animal is condoning its death. Forget that someone else had to kill it - that's kind of weaseling out of it, isn't it?

 

What about termites that infest your house? Do you kill them or just move? I guess just moving is the easy answer here.

 

What about when you're sick? If you're sick with a virus, technically the virus is just strands of DNA, so you're not killing anything. But a bacteria is a living being. Your body is constantly killing these to keep you alive. You can't say "kill if it keeps you alive," since that goes against the "never kill under any circumstances" idea, but here you don't have a choice, and I doubt most people would refuse penicillin at the risk of dying.

 

What about plants? They are also living beings, yet you eventually have to eat something! Why is killing them OK?

 

The only answer I can think of is to say it's OK to kill some things but not others, but then that runs into a host of other problems. So that's the issue I have with saying "never kill anything".

 

================

 

About never stealing or never lying: sometimes these things are ambiguous. I assume "never lie" means "never tell a lie when you know it is one", since you could just believe something untrue to be a fact. But what if telling the truth will directly lead to someone dying? Like you saw someone steal an apple, and the law catches him, but they didn't see him commit the act, so they call you as a witness. They ask "did he steal the apple?" If you say "yes" he gets executed. If you say "no" he is let go. If you say "I refuse to answer", well, maybe they kill him anyway, I don't know. So you won't have told a lie but he will die as a result.

 

==============

 

By now you can see where my arguments are going, so I'll stop here. It's maybe tangentially related to the action model of enlightenment, in the sense that sometimes it does seem impossible to know absolutely what the right action in a given situation is.

[beoman]

Clap, clap, clap.

 

This thread is pointless.

 

Follow the path that Daniel has walked and then you will be qualified to make a critique.

 

I'm glad I am derailing it in that case! Mostly I was looking for anything like "that man is a crackpot, and doing those things will cause you to go insane". But seeing as most of the replies here take it as a given that he is accomplished, a master of meditation, and that the book is a good guide to at least stream entry, I can see that won't happen. Thanks to all who replied! Now I just want to see how this right action discussion pans out.

[Gerard]

I understand your concerns, but also bear in mind that Buddhism has turned into a mockery: RELIGION.

 

Personally attend as many retreats as you in SE Asia that don't follow a guru and with no foreigners on sight, if possible. Otherwise make your own retreat -after you learn in the first one the fundamentals of Vipassana practice- alone in nature (take supplies along), which IMO is the best option.

 

You are on your own, and so are the Buddhas no matter in which infinite plane they are.

 

Good luck.

[xabir2005]

I'm glad you linked that article, as I have a few issues with it. This discussion has renewed my interest in a topic which I forgot about. It's rather philosophical, but I want to see how Buddhism deals with them.

 

First, what I was getting to before, I was trying to rephrase an old philosophical question. You have 1000 people in a cave, including you. The cave begins to flood. In the panic, everyone runs to the only exit, a narrow cave mouth. However, the first person to get there is grotesquely obese, and promptly gets stuck (never mind how he managed to get in in the first place =P). There is no way to remove him without killing him (again, this is a bit contrived). So what do you do? Do you kill him to save the other 998 people, or let everybody die?

 

It's very contrived but you have two choices:

 

1) Do nothing. Start meditating, maybe. Tell everyone it'll be fine, they'll be reborn. Talk about how you should never kill anyone. Then all 1000 people die.

2) Kill the fat guy. 999 people survive.

 

Ok, it's unfair to pick on fat people, and I don't mean to be mean =P so replace "fat guy" with "average human being who unfortunately got stuck".

 

From the article you just linked, the answer is a resounding "don't kill him, never kill anyone". However, doing nothing in this case is also an action, and in this case, an action that inexorably leads to 999 people dying just as surely as plunging a large stake into the unfortunate vanguard would lead to him dying. So what do you do? It's easy to say "never kill" but in this case both action and inaction lead to death.

 

About it being contrived: there are more realistic moral gray areas in real life too. Like, do you test a drug on people that is potentially dangerous but if it works could save many more people? Anyway, that's not important.

This is a controversial point. The classical Theravadin Buddhists hold tightly to their precepts and do not budge regardless of circumstances. Mahayana Buddhism emphasizes skillful means over strict adherence to precepts (but whether that particular action is truly 'skillful' is another matter of debate).

 

For example in Mahayana Buddhism, there is a story as such,

 

A wealthy merchant, who was a disciple of the Buddha, went with a very large caravan of other merchants and his servants to a certain island, to bring back for trade some of the gem stones for which this island was famous. On board ship, on the way back, the merchant learnt that another passenger on the boat intended to kill all the hundreds of people on board, in order to be able to steal the cargo of jewels.

 

The merchant knew the man, and knew that he was indeed capable of killing all those people, and he wondered what to do about it. In the end, despite the fact that he had taken a vow with the Buddha never to take the life of another being, he had no alternative but to kill the would-be robber.

 

He was very ashamed of what he had done, and as soon as he returned home he went to the Buddha to confess his bad action. But the Buddha told him he had not done wrong, because his intention had not been to take life, but to save life. Furthermore, since he had in fact saved the lives of hundreds of people, and had saved the robber from the very negative karma of killing hundreds of people and the inevitable consequences of such a bad action, the Buddha explained that the merchant had in fact done a good action.

 

~ Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche

About the article. Alright, you should never kill or condone killing, and never steal or condone stealing, with the intent to do so.

 

So you should never kill a person. The article only talks about that. What about an animal? I think the Buddha himself mentioned not to kill animals. What about eating them? Many Buddhists are vegetarian but I believe the Buddha never said "never eat meat". But eating the animal is condoning its death. Forget that someone else had to kill it - that's kind of weaseling out of it, isn't it?

 

What about termites that infest your house? Do you kill them or just move? I guess just moving is the easy answer here.

 

What about when you're sick? If you're sick with a virus, technically the virus is just strands of DNA, so you're not killing anything. But a bacteria is a living being. Your body is constantly killing these to keep you alive. You can't say "kill if it keeps you alive," since that goes against the "never kill under any circumstances" idea, but here you don't have a choice, and I doubt most people would refuse penicillin at the risk of dying.

 

What about plants? They are also living beings, yet you eventually have to eat something! Why is killing them OK?

 

The only answer I can think of is to say it's OK to kill some things but not others, but then that runs into a host of other problems. So that's the issue I have with saying "never kill anything".

I do not believe bacterias have consciousness. They are not sentient beings. And as far as I know, no bacterias have a nervous system. My Buddhist master told us that viruses and bacteria are 'fine to kill' because they are not sentient.

 

Similarly, plants do not have consciousness and are not sentient beings. Sure, it can be argued that plants have a form of intelligence or awareness (such as being aware of sunlight and growing towards them), but they do not have a nervous system, are not capable of thinking, or suffering, or hating, or being reborn.

 

That is why we can eat plants blamelessly. As for meat - Mahayana Buddhism encourages vegetarianism. Pali Buddhism says,

 

Buddha:

 

"Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you." [2]

 

Why three conditions? Because it reduces much of the karma involved, hence 'pure'.

Edited August 12, 2010 by xabir2005

[Gerard]

I do not believe bacterias have consciousness.

 

My Buddhist master told us that viruses and bacteria are 'fine to kill' because they are not sentient.

 

Similarly, plants do not have consciousness and are not sentient beings.

 

That is why we can eat plants blamelessly. As for meat - Mahayana Buddhism encourages vegetarianism. Pali Buddhism says,

 

Buddha:

 

"Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you."

 

Respectfully, your post is product of dogma.

 

To me, everything in Samsara has intrinsic consciousness, including Samsara itself.

 

In our astral plane: Bacteria, viruses, plants, rocks, mountains, trees, rivers, oceans, lakes, minerals, animals and humans have what is called the lifeforce or Qi in Chinese (prana in Hindu tradition), hence a spirit. Their conscious levels differs greatly to that of a high conscious level of a human but still they are conscious. Here is where my Taoist practice conflicts with my Buddhist approach to things but in this case after much observation I ignore what the Buddhist dogma has to say about the matter and follow Taoist energetics.

[xabir2005]

Respectfully, your post is product of dogma.

 

To me, everything in Samsara has intrinsic consciousness, including Samsara itself.

 

In our astral plane: Bacteria, viruses, plants, rocks, mountains, trees, rivers, oceans, lakes, minerals, animals and humans have what is called the lifeforce or Qi in Chinese (prana in Hindu tradition), hence a spirit. Their conscious levels differs greatly to that of a high conscious level of a human but still they are conscious. Here is where my Taoist practice conflicts with my Buddhist approach to things but in this case after much observation I ignore what the Buddhist dogma has to say about the matter and follow Taoist energetics.

As much as I respect your opinion on this matter, the view of universal awareness is not accepted by Buddhists throughout all the traditions.

 

For example, Shurangama Sutra states one of the Hindu false views as such:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Buddha

(44) Further, the good person has thoroughly seen the formations skandha as empty. He has already ended production and destruction, but he has not yet perfected the subtle wonder of ultimate serenity.

 

Based on his idea that there is universal awareness, he formulates a theory that all the plants and trees in the ten directions are sentient, not different from human beings. He claims that plants and trees can become people, and that when people die they again become plants and trees in the ten directions. If he considers this idea of unrestricted, universal awareness to be supreme, he will fall into the error of maintaining that what is not aware has awareness. Vasishtha and Sainika, who maintained the idea of comprehensive awareness, will become his companions. Confused about the Bodhi of the Buddhas, he will lose his knowledge and understanding.

 

This is the fourth state, in which he creates an erroneous interpretation based on the idea that there is a universal awareness. He strays far from perfect penetration and turns his back on the City of Nirvana, thus sowing the seeds of a distorted view of awareness.

Edited August 12, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

By the way, as I said, I do agree there is a form of intelligence (you can call it Qi) - but this intelligence is non-sentient in the sense it is incapable of thinking, suffering, being reborn, etc.

 

What Shurangama Sutra is arguing against is a view that insentient objects have a consciousness that suffers and is being reborn.

 

It does not deny the intelligence and vitality that spins the universe and grows your fingernails.

 

The lifeforce or 'Qi' you're talking about is not necessarily a personal consciousness or mindstream that makes karma and is being reborn. It is quite impersonal.

 

So on hindsight I do not think I am contradicting you after all.

Edited August 12, 2010 by xabir2005

[beoman]

This is a controversial point. The classical Theravadin Buddhists hold tightly to their precepts and do not budge regardless of circumstances. Mahayana Buddhism emphasizes skillful means over strict adherence to precepts (but whether that particular action is truly 'skillful' is another matter of debate).

 

For example in Mahayana Buddhism, there is a story as such,

 

A wealthy merchant, who was a disciple of the Buddha, went with a very large caravan of other merchants and his servants to a certain island, to bring back for trade some of the gem stones for which this island was famous. On board ship, on the way back, the merchant learnt that another passenger on the boat intended to kill all the hundreds of people on board, in order to be able to steal the cargo of jewels.

 

The merchant knew the man, and knew that he was indeed capable of killing all those people, and he wondered what to do about it. In the end, despite the fact that he had taken a vow with the Buddha never to take the life of another being, he had no alternative but to kill the would-be robber.

 

He was very ashamed of what he had done, and as soon as he returned home he went to the Buddha to confess his bad action. But the Buddha told him he had not done wrong, because his intention had not been to take life, but to save life. Furthermore, since he had in fact saved the lives of hundreds of people, and had saved the robber from the very negative karma of killing hundreds of people and the inevitable consequences of such a bad action, the Buddha explained that the merchant had in fact done a good action.

 

~ Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche

 

Well that directly answers my question! But it also directly contradicts what you (or maybe just the article) said earlier about "never killing." So there are indeed gray areas here, and it seems that to decide what to do you can just pick the tradition that goes with your views.

 

Why is that story only in Mahayana Buddhism actually? Does Theravada not recognize that that event between the merchant and the Buddha took place?

 

I do not believe bacterias have consciousness. They are not sentient beings. And as far as I know, no bacterias have a nervous system. My Buddhist master told us that viruses and bacteria are 'fine to kill' because they are not sentient.

 

Similarly, plants do not have consciousness and are not sentient beings. Sure, it can be argued that plants have a form of intelligence or awareness (such as being aware of sunlight and growing towards them), but they do not have a nervous system, are not capable of thinking, or suffering, or hating, or being reborn.

 

This makes sense. but then how do you define sentient? What about very undeveloped nervous systems like in worms? Fish can't even recognize themselves in the mirror (actually not many animals can).

 

Also by saying some beings are sentient and some are not, aren't you contradicting the idea of anatta that there is no self to be sentient? It's just a combination of perceptions, right? The plants just have a less complex combination of perceptions. At what point do you define a mass of perceptions to be "sentient"? This brings me to another question I have on anatta vs. free will, but I'll ask that in another topic.

 

That is why we can eat plants blamelessly. As for meat - Mahayana Buddhism encourages vegetarianism. Pali Buddhism says,

 

Buddha:

 

"Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you." [2]

 

Why three conditions? Because it reduces much of the karma involved, hence 'pure'.

 

Here I think is a big gray area, and perhaps a lack of understanding of economics. If there are a sufficient number of monks in any area, and they just buy meat without it having been on purpose killed from them, but just from general stores, then demand of meat will be increased because of the monks. This will cause an initial raise of prices. At this point, the meat producers will start producing more meat to make more money, leading to an increased supply of meat. So indirectly the animals are being killed for the monks. It's all just karma - cause and effect, just in this case there is less of a direct connection between the monks being there and more animals dying. Does that make it OK?

[xabir2005]

Well that directly answers my question! But it also directly contradicts what you (or maybe just the article) said earlier about "never killing." So there are indeed gray areas here, and it seems that to decide what to do you can just pick the tradition that goes with your views.

 

Why is that story only in Mahayana Buddhism actually? Does Theravada not recognize that that event between the merchant and the Buddha took place?

Yes as far as I know, the story is only in Mahayana Buddhism. From my discussions with Theravadin Buddhists, they are very strict on their precepts and generally want to abide by them faultlessly with no 'excuses', and their scriptures do not give examples of how 'skillful means' may override precepts. 'Skillful means' overriding precepts is a Mahayana development as far as I know.

This makes sense. but then how do you define sentient? What about very undeveloped nervous systems like in worms? Fish can't even recognize themselves in the mirror (actually not many animals can).

Do they have minds? Are they capable of thinking, suffering, being reborn, etc? Or do they simply react 'intelligently' but without such minds (like plants, bacterias, etc)?

 

Also by saying some beings are sentient and some are not, aren't you contradicting the idea of anatta that there is no self to be sentient? It's just a combination of perceptions, right? The plants just have a less complex combination of perceptions. At what point do you define a mass of perceptions to be "sentient"? This brings me to another question I have on anatta vs. free will, but I'll ask that in another topic.

It is not contradictory. Sentience means mental factors and consciousness. These mental factors and consciousness are also not self, not 'I', or 'mine'. Though conventionally speaking we talk about 'sentient beings', ultimately speaking there are only 'conglomerates of sentient phenomenas'.

Here I think is a big gray area, and perhaps a lack of understanding of economics. If there are a sufficient number of monks in any area, and they just buy meat without it having been on purpose killed from them, but just from general stores, then demand of meat will be increased because of the monks. This will cause an initial raise of prices. At this point, the meat producers will start producing more meat to make more money, leading to an increased supply of meat. So indirectly the animals are being killed for the monks. It's all just karma - cause and effect, just in this case there is less of a direct connection between the monks being there and more animals dying. Does that make it OK?

Actually in Theravada Buddhism which carries on the original tradition of the Buddha and his sangha, they receive meat from lay people, but they do not buy meat.

 

They simply receive whatever food the lay people give, on the condition that it is edible, that it fulfills the 3 conditions, etc. They don't want to be too picky and only demand vegetarian food. In some places, this is not feasible due to the vegetation of the region.

 

In Mahayana Buddhism however, all monks are vegetarians.

Edited August 12, 2010 by xabir2005

[beoman]

Do they have minds? Are they capable of thinking, suffering, being reborn, etc? Or do they simply react 'intelligently' but without such minds (like plants, bacterias, etc)?

Hmm so basically it's "don't cause suffering to things that can experience suffering" in Theravada, and in Mahayana it's the same except "skillful means" might prevail.

 

About something being capable of thinking, suffering, or being reborn - I don't know how to tell whether something can be reborn. I'd have to take it on others' words that we can be reborn into animals, but not plants. If the conglomeration of sentience that we are now can be reborn into a somewhat less sophisticated conglomeration of sentience (a gopher), then to me it seems it could be reborn into something that's just a conglomeration of general feelings of where sunlight is.

 

I also don't know how to tell something can think. Looking at a bacteria, it is easy enough to see it doesn't think - it just reacts to chemicals in its near vicinity. But it seems like that's how insects and fish also behave.. it's hard to tell whether a being is really sentient, and where do you draw the line? at what point do reactions to chemicals manifest as sentience? another philosophical question.. I guess it's best to err on the side of caution.

 

About it being capable of suffering - same thing. Maybe it reacts to pain, but is it just chemicals reacting, or does it "feel" pain?

 

Actually in Theravada Buddhism which carries on the original tradition of the Buddha and his sangha, they receive meat from lay people, but they do not buy meat.

 

They simply receive whatever food the lay people give, on the condition that it is edible, that it fulfills the 3 conditions, etc. They don't want to be too picky and only demand vegetarian food. In some places, this is not feasible due to the vegetation of the region.

 

That makes sense. Can't be picky when someone is giving you food. similar things apply if the people giving you meat bought it for you / for the monks, if they're particularly compassionate. It's just more complicated cause and effect.

 

I've heard heard karma is all about intent, so I guess even if someone kills an animal for you and gives it to you without saying so, it's not your fault? Then the problem arises of when do you not know something so it's not your fault, but when could you know something if you tried to learn about it better and it's your fault? You could physically ask the layperson where he got the meat, then go to the butcher, then go to the slaughterhouse, and watch the animals die, and then look at the piece of meat in your hand and be like "oh great..." not that the animal was killed for you in particular, so that doesn't change anything I suppose.

Edited August 12, 2010 by beoman

[xabir2005]

Hmm so basically it's "don't cause suffering to things that can experience suffering" in Theravada, and in Mahayana it's the same except "skillful means" might prevail.

Even "skillful means" is done with the same principle to prevent suffering.

About something being capable of thinking, suffering, or being reborn - I don't know how to tell whether something can be reborn. I'd have to take it on others' words that we can be reborn into animals, but not plants. If the conglomeration of sentience that we are now can be reborn into a somewhat less sophisticated conglomeration of sentience (a gopher), then to me it seems it could be reborn into something that's just a conglomeration of general feelings of where sunlight is.

Yes, plants do not have consciousness by birth. If, however, a spirit/ghost chooses to inhabit in a tree, they are known as tree-spirits. Such beings exist but not in all trees.

I also don't know how to tell something can think. Looking at a bacteria, it is easy enough to see it doesn't think - it just reacts to chemicals in its near vicinity. But it seems like that's how insects and fish also behave.. it's hard to tell whether a being is really sentient, and where do you draw the line? at what point do reactions to chemicals manifest as sentience? another philosophical question.. I guess it's best to err on the side of caution.

Insects, fish have nervous system and are capable of suffering, fear, emotions, attachments, thinking (though much less developed), etc.

About it being capable of suffering - same thing. Maybe it reacts to pain, but is it just chemicals reacting, or does it "feel" pain?

Since they have minds and afflictions, they will be in great suffering.

 

In Buddhism there are 6 realms of conscious beings. Three lower realms are Hell, Ghost, Animal. Three higher realms are Human, Asuras, Devas (celestial beings in heaven). These are the six destination that one may be reborn in according to karma.

That makes sense. Can't be picky when someone is giving you food. similar things apply if the people giving you meat bought it for you / for the monks, if they're particularly compassionate. It's just more complicated cause and effect.

 

I've heard heard karma is all about intent, so I guess even if someone kills an animal for you and gives it to you without saying so, it's not your fault?

If you have suspected that it is killed for you, then it is no longer 'pure meat'. Nevertheless if there is no reason to suspect, or you have not witnessed, nor asked for its killing, then the meat is permissible for consumption under the 3 conditions. That is, if you do not choose to be a vegetarian.

Then the problem arises of when do you not know something so it's not your fault, but when could you know something if you tried to learn about it better and it's your fault? You could physically ask the layperson where he got the meat, then go to the butcher, then go to the slaughterhouse, and watch the animals die, and then look at the piece of meat in your hand and be like "oh great..." not that the animal was killed for you in particular, so that doesn't change anything I suppose.

As long as the meat is not killed *for you* then it is permissible under the 3 conditions.

 

As a lay person, it is highly advisible to follow these 3 conditions to prevent creating bad karma.

 

Example of 'pure meat' are frozen meat, because even though it is killed by the butcher, you do not witness the killing, nor did you directly ask for its killing, nor do you suspect that the killing is done for you alone.

 

Example of 'impure meat' are live seafood - because when you order seafood from these restaurants, you are in fact asking those lives to be butchered for your food. Therefore the karma is much heavier due to the intention involved that led to the killings.

Edited August 12, 2010 by xabir2005

[Enishi]

Sometimes tree-spirits will inhabit an entire group of trees (usually from the same species). Some can be quite old and wise.

[Vajrahridaya]

Respectfully, your post is product of dogma.

 

To me, everything in Samsara has intrinsic consciousness, including Samsara itself.

 

In our astral plane: Bacteria, viruses, plants, rocks, mountains, trees, rivers, oceans, lakes, minerals, animals and humans have what is called the lifeforce or Qi in Chinese (prana in Hindu tradition), hence a spirit. Their conscious levels differs greatly to that of a high conscious level of a human but still they are conscious. Here is where my Taoist practice conflicts with my Buddhist approach to things but in this case after much observation I ignore what the Buddhist dogma has to say about the matter and follow Taoist energetics.

 

You consider it a dogma to make you feel better about rejecting it. But for those that truly understand it as insight, it is wisdom, not dogma.

 

EDIT: See, I can just as easily call the Taoist and Hindu idea that everything is consciousness a dogma and dismiss it. Which I actually do, but I only dismiss it because it assumes a conscious source to everything and that everything emanates from a single consciousness. For Buddhism, this is a high level delusion that affords great bliss and health, but not liberation from samsara.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Sometimes tree-spirits will inhabit an entire group of trees (usually from the same species). Some can be quite old and wise.

 

This is different. This is a mind-stream haunting a tree space and taking peace and abode through the space of the tree. This is not the tree itself, though the spirit may take the experience of the tree personally.

[beoman]

Sometimes tree-spirits will inhabit an entire group of trees (usually from the same species). Some can be quite old and wise.

 

Are they smart enough to not inhabit trees that will be cut down soon due to a logging operation? =P. And if the trees are cut down what happens to them? And also does it bring bad karma on anyone involved in the cutting, considering they probably didn't know the spirits were there?

[beoman]

You consider it a dogma to make you feel better about rejecting it. But for those that truly understand it as insight, it is wisdom, not dogma.

 

EDIT: See, I can just as easily call the Taoist and Hindu idea that everything is consciousness a dogma and dismiss it. Which I actually do, but I only dismiss it because it assumes a conscious source to everything and that everything emanates from a single consciousness. For Buddhism, this is a high level delusion that affords great bliss and health, but not liberation from samsara.

 

I think he meant "I dismiss what you say for certain reasons, which I list here, so I consider that you only believe that because it is dogma and you believe your dogma without looking more deeply into it." Which is what you're saying here, I think..

[Enishi]

Are they smart enough to not inhabit trees that will be cut down soon due to a logging operation? =P. And if the trees are cut down what happens to them? And also does it bring bad karma on anyone involved in the cutting, considering they probably didn't know the spirits were there?

 

In that case I'm not entirely sure. Back when I tried sensing and telepathically listening to them, I got the impression they can move on if they wish, though not without sadness.

[Gerard]

In that case I'm not entirely sure. Back when I tried sensing and telepathically listening to them, I got the impression they can move on if they wish, though not without sadness.

 

 

Trees are sentient beings, for sure. I also feel and communicate with them when I meditate in the forest and their auras can be easily seen during practice.

 

I don't care what a Buddhist "taliban" has to say about the matter.

[beoman]

Trees are sentient beings, for sure. I also feel and communicate with them when I meditate in the forest and their auras can be easily seen during practice.

 

I don't care what a Buddhist "taliban" has to say about the matter.

 

Ya that's my issue when I look at the proscribing-how-to-live-your-life side of Buddhism. You get into religious territory. And things not easy for regular people to verify, like "is it ok to eat a tree".

 

So what do trees say usually? I'm curious. Would they take a few hours to decide that Frodo is, indeed, a hobbit? =P.

[AugustLeo]

.

Edited August 25, 2011 by AugustLeo