I'm not sure what you mean by "being hard to look after". Do you mean harder for the monks? Harder for the laypeople giving alms? It seems to me the reference and negative effects would be the same as being a "cause to kill". There is Kammavipakka involved when one becomes a cause to kill.Cittasanto wrote: Can you reference where and what the negative effects are?
to my memory, the restrictions of the threefold rule are are nothing to do with Kammavipakka but rather todo with being hard to look after as beggars can not be choosers.
Kind Rgards
Cittasanto.
the great vegetarian debate
Re: the great vegetarian debate
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: the great vegetarian debate
OK, so you weren't referring to some explanation, but to the (obviously) implied result of being a cause to kill.seeker242 wrote:Cittasanto wrote: Can you reference where and what the negative effects are?
to my memory, the restrictions of the threefold rule are are nothing to do with Kammavipakka but rather todo with being hard to look after as beggars can not be choosers.
Kind Rgards
Cittasanto.Both.I'm not sure what you mean by "being hard to look after". Do you mean harder for the monks? Harder for the laypeople giving alms?
It seems to me the reference and negative effects would be the same as being a "cause to kill". There is Kammavipakka involved when one becomes a cause to kill.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Re: the great vegetarian debate
What explanation were you referring to? Do you remember where you read that is has nothing to do with Kammavipakka?Cittasanto wrote:OK, so you weren't referring to some explanation, but to the (obviously) implied result of being a cause to kill.seeker242 wrote:Cittasanto wrote: Can you reference where and what the negative effects are?
to my memory, the restrictions of the threefold rule are are nothing to do with Kammavipakka but rather todo with being hard to look after as beggars can not be choosers.
Kind Rgards
Cittasanto.Both.I'm not sure what you mean by "being hard to look after". Do you mean harder for the monks? Harder for the laypeople giving alms?
It seems to me the reference and negative effects would be the same as being a "cause to kill". There is Kammavipakka involved when one becomes a cause to kill.
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: the great vegetarian debate
Hiseeker242 wrote:What explanation were you referring to? Do you remember where you read that is has nothing to do with Kammavipakka?Cittasanto wrote: OK, so you weren't referring to some explanation, but to the (obviously) implied result of being a cause to kill.
It is how the rule came about/the meat being received being blameless. The origin being a false accusation from the Jains of the time, who had been the sole receivers of General Siha's alms previously. The Kammavipakka, although an aspect to consider when understanding the rule, it is not the instigating factor of the Jains spreading rumors.
Kind Regards
Cittasanto
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Re: the great vegetarian debate
You mean to say the Buddha instituted the rule to appease the Jains? Or, to dissuade Jains from spreading rumors? And the eating of meat, when it is seen, heard or suspected by a bhikkhu, that an animal was specifically killed for that bhikkhu, is actually blameless too?Cittasanto wrote:Hiseeker242 wrote:What explanation were you referring to? Do you remember where you read that is has nothing to do with Kammavipakka?Cittasanto wrote: OK, so you weren't referring to some explanation, but to the (obviously) implied result of being a cause to kill.
It is how the rule came about/the meat being received being blameless. The origin being a false accusation from the Jains of the time, who had been the sole receivers of General Siha's alms previously. The Kammavipakka, although an aspect to consider when understanding the rule, it is not the instigating factor of the Jains spreading rumors.
Kind Regards
Cittasanto
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: the great vegetarian debate
Both could have been factors, there were ten possible reasons rules could have been put in place. two of which are to "inspire faith in the faithless", and "protect the sanghas reputation". As this rule came about due to a rumour mill and involved the Buddha directly I find these the most likely.seeker242 wrote: You mean to say the Buddha instituted the rule to appease the Jains? Or, to dissuade Jains from spreading rumors?
As that never happened in the Origin Story and is opposed to the rule, no.And the eating of meat, when it is seen, heard or suspected by a bhikkhu, that an animal was specifically killed for that bhikkhu, is actually blameless too?
Kind Regards
Cittasanto
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Jivaka Sutta
Hi guys,
In this Sutta Buddha says there are three conditions meat can be eaten:
1. When the animals are not seen to have been killed for oneself
2. When someone is not told by other people that an animal has been killed for himself
3. When one does not suspect an animal has been killed for oneself
What if someone heard an animal was screaming when that particular meat is prepared, is this included in three conditions above or not?
Thanks.
In this Sutta Buddha says there are three conditions meat can be eaten:
1. When the animals are not seen to have been killed for oneself
2. When someone is not told by other people that an animal has been killed for himself
3. When one does not suspect an animal has been killed for oneself
What if someone heard an animal was screaming when that particular meat is prepared, is this included in three conditions above or not?
Thanks.
Re: Jivaka Sutta
You have misunderstood "has been killed for oneself"; it means the case where if the animal has been killed specifically for a person, then he cannot eat the meat.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Jivaka Sutta
Also, keep in mind to whom these three point were directed.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Jivaka Sutta
Yes hence the question.paul wrote:it means the case where if the animal has been killed specifically for a person, then he cannot eat the meat.
Does heard here mean heard the scream of animal or heard because someone is told by other people that animal is slaughtered for him?
For monks, but I think eat "pure meat" is good too if adopted by lay people. Meat, I think can only be eaten if they're pure.tiltbillings wrote:Also, keep in mind to whom these three point were directed.
-
- Posts: 1087
- Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 7:59 pm
Re: Jivaka Sutta
Did the Buddha specified anywhere in the Suttas that is better to be a vegetarian?tiltbillings wrote:Also, keep in mind to whom these three point were directed.
Even if the flesh & blood in my body dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, I will use all my human firmness, human persistence and human striving. There will be no relaxing my persistence until I am the first of my generation to attain full awakening in this lifetime. ed. AN 2.5
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Jivaka Sutta
Probably, but I think we must be careful not to try to bhikkhu-fy lay-practice.D1W1 wrote:
For monks, but I think eat "pure meat" is good too if adopted by lay people. Meat, I think can only be eaten if they're pure.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Jivaka Sutta
Not that I know.dhammarelax wrote:Did the Buddha specified anywhere in the Suttas that is better to be a vegetarian?tiltbillings wrote:Also, keep in mind to whom these three point were directed.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Jivaka Sutta
Hello all,
This is interesting:
Why Buddhists should be vegetarian. By Sujato Bhikkhu
https://sujato.wordpress.com/2012/01/28 ... xtra-cute/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
With metta,
Chris
This is interesting:
Why Buddhists should be vegetarian. By Sujato Bhikkhu
https://sujato.wordpress.com/2012/01/28 ... xtra-cute/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
With metta,
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
-
- Posts: 1087
- Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 7:59 pm
Re: Jivaka Sutta
Question: is it true or not that adopting a vegetarian diet requires a suplement of B12 vitamin?cooran wrote:Hello all,
This is interesting:
Why Buddhists should be vegetarian. By Sujato Bhikkhu
https://sujato.wordpress.com/2012/01/28 ... xtra-cute/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
With metta,
Chris
Even if the flesh & blood in my body dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, I will use all my human firmness, human persistence and human striving. There will be no relaxing my persistence until I am the first of my generation to attain full awakening in this lifetime. ed. AN 2.5