Twilight wrote:I have just read B. Sujato case for vegetarianism and I do not agree with it. As expected, he is not stupid and makes a good case while also mentioning all the uncomfortable facts about his case. Problem is that kamma is not an ethical moral code. It has nothing to do with ethics, it is just a law that works like the law of gravity. For example kiling an animal produces negative kamma because it develops/strenthens a tendency in the human that does the killing. If one just eats meat without personally killing the animal, it brings no bad kamma to him.
Agree in essence. I'll just add that killing an animal produces negative kamma not because it strengthens the tendency to do so again in the future (which is more known as conditioning habits, or setting up the underlying tendency of the mind, which is closely related to kamma but not exactly the same thing), but because acting with the intention of causing pain returns to the 'sender' in the form of pain (however since the form in which you 'receive' the fruits of kamma that can be changed, it is not 1 for 1, but dependent on the current state of mind. The return of killing an animal can be experienced as hell for an eon, or as a headache).
Simillary, been a butcher is one of the worst jobs to have in terms of negative kamma. If kamma would have anything to do with ethics, this would not be so because the person just has a normal job that somebody has to do. But kamma is not an ethical code, it is just a law like the law of gravity. The person develops bad tendencies if he kills other living beings. Kamma is therefore unfair and unethical sometimes.
Agree again and I always use the simile of the law of gravity too.
The reason Buddha gave those rules for monks about trying not to step on insects etc. is for them to develop a tendency of caring about other beings. This produces good kamma/tendencies. They are not there as some rigid ethical rules. And that is why there is no rule about monks not eating meat. That would produce bad kamma/tendencies because of refusing a gift.
There are some things that the scriptures simply get wrong. The Suttas make no critique of slavery, for example, and yet for us this is one of the most heinous of all crimes.
I also smell some idealism in B. Sujato too giving this paragraph. I'm a little surprise giving his good understanding of dhamma.
So there are things I do not agree about Sujato too. And I also have things I don't agree with from B. Bhodi such as his involvement into politics. I am sure there are opinions of mine about wordly matters that many would disagree with. But I consider both B.Bhodi and B.Sujato very knowledgeable when it comes to the dhamma.
PS: An how can you, a fan of idealist Thanissaro be against this idealist position of Sujato ?
Let me just isolate one sentence here that is crucial to me:
is for them to develop a tendency of caring about other beings
This is where you and many others (including Bhikkhu Bodhi & Ven. Sujato) go into Mahayana mode. This is Mara talking. The Dhamma is not set up to care about other beings. In fact,
the destiny of others is a matter of indifference. If we can help others in the process, good. And by the way, the best way to help them is to show by example: which is why the Buddha always praised seclusion & living remotely, not entangled in wordly affairs. Remember that the Buddha praised a monk (forgot his name) that was practicing while the Buddha was dying. He praised seclusion & non-entanglement again and again and again..
Do you get it? Every time you 'buy into' the illusion that your senses offer, Mara has a grip. 'Caring about other beings' is buying into the illusion. The Buddha sets up all these rules not to care about other beings, but because causing bad kamma by killing insects and other things returns in the form of negative energy and that is a hindrance to liberation.
The main goal of the Dhamma is to
let go of the world. If my words are shocking, good! The True Dhamma goes against the stream of the world, the stream of craving.
I am not particularly a fan of Thanissaro, even though I usually agree with him more than with the Australian crew. I just think what he's pointing at (and what Gotama is pointing at) is misunderstood because it is intellectually extremely difficult to conceptualize anything outside of nama/rupa+consciousness. There's no way that Thanissaro 'believes' in the Eternal Self thing.
I will link again the discussion which is to me the highest intellectual exposition on Nibbana and vinnanam anidassam I've come across:
http://obo.genaud.net/dhammatalk/dhamma ... n-made.htm
