Dear All,

I uploaded a pdf e-book entitled "Where Is the Buddha?" written by
Ven. Dr. K. Sri Nayaha Maha Thera you may want to download and read.
It's located in the Files section in the folder "Files and
Meditations." I hope you find it an interesting and helpful read.

May all be at peace.

John

OOPS!

I deleted the file since I just realized it's already available in the
Files section and want to save space. Guess that what I get for not
checking carefully (LOL).

May all be at peace.

John

I've been reading a lot of the works written by HHDL.  He often states
that you shouldn't avoid those in need - like the sick or poor.

Isn't someone who has an anger/patience problem in need?  I would tend
to believe so.

Is it wrong to avoid this person with the anger problem?  She has a
tendency to take out her frustration/anger/bitterness on my husband and
once on my children.  I tend to stay away from her unless my husband
wants to visit (she's his mother).

How do you practice your patience meditation when it comes to people?
Is it better to avoid people who are bitter/frustrated?

Thanks,
Cara :)

Jeremy,

The absence of a doctrinaire vegetarianism doesn't mean that Tibetan
Buddhists are necessarily carnivores.  Tibetan Buddhism doesn't condemn
or rigidly prescribe any behavior at all.  It merely counsels that
actions have karmic consequences.  And killing or harming another
sentient being, even to satisfy hunger, can have such consequences.  But
everyone's always free to do what they want.

I don't have a sense of what you mean by "animalitarian" unless it's
supposed to be like humanitarian, just including more/all animal
species... yes?

"Nonsense" can and generally does have a charged, pejorative meaning,
but it also can be and is used in a neutral sense.  For example, one of
Merleau-Ponty's collection of essays on perception was translated (from
the French) as _Sense_and_Nonsense_.  It must be one of those words
which both the reader and writer can lend their own significance to.


On 02/28/2007 04:39 PM somebody named Ellis Nelson wrote:
> Tibetan Buddhists aren't vegetarians.
>
>   It's hard to have a conversation when you start out talking about what you
term 'nonsense'.
>
>   Laura
>
> Jeremy <jezzur@...> wrote:
>           I have found that my own beliefs are mirrored somewhat in what I
> understand of buddhism. There are some exceptions
>
> Two questions
>
> First, why is it necessary to not eat meat?
>
> Second, i find it very hard to belief that any person can lay claim to
> knowledge about afterlife or circle of life ideas. How can any
> beliefs of this nature be held to be true?
>
> I guess what I am saying is that I am mostly concerned with humans and
> this life. I find it difficult to believe the nonsense. I do not
> mean that as an insult - I just do find it to be nonsense, and
> somewhat unnecessary nonsense.
>
> Mainly the second point I am concerned with. I could be vegetarian
> just on animalitarian (yes I made it up) bases.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Never miss an email again!
> Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>


--
"Genius might be described as a supreme capacity for getting its
possessors into trouble of all kinds."
	 -- Samuel Butler

The Tibetan diet has always relied on the yak and the cultivation of barley
(with Chinese occupation, movement to wheat caused mass starvation in a land
that never knew it).  When Buddhism spread from India to Tibet, it took on a
Tibetan nature (as Buddhism always does in a new land).  At high altitude with
little abilty to cultivate other products, Tibetans retained their traditional
diet as they embraced the new, practical religion.  Generally, a small
population of Muslims has been involved in butchering meat, leaving the Tibetan
Buddhists free from the karmic implications. Most Westerners are indeed shocked
by the lack of vegetarianism in old Tibet.

   I can't remember the title of a book I read, where there's an account of a
western journalist who took several lamas to dinner repeatedly and they
invariably chose steak houses for these meetings. He was really shocked.

   Laura



ken <gebser@...> wrote:
           Jeremy,

The absence of a doctrinaire vegetarianism doesn't mean that Tibetan
Buddhists are necessarily carnivores. Tibetan Buddhism doesn't condemn
or rigidly prescribe any behavior at all. It merely counsels that
actions have karmic consequences. And killing or harming another
sentient being, even to satisfy hunger, can have such consequences. But
everyone's always free to do what they want.

I don't have a sense of what you mean by "animalitarian" unless it's
supposed to be like humanitarian, just including more/all animal
species... yes?

"Nonsense" can and generally does have a charged, pejorative meaning,
but it also can be and is used in a neutral sense. For example, one of
Merleau-Ponty's collection of essays on perception was translated (from
the French) as _Sense_and_Nonsense_. It must be one of those words
which both the reader and writer can lend their own significance to.

On 02/28/2007 04:39 PM somebody named Ellis Nelson wrote:
> Tibetan Buddhists aren't vegetarians.
>
> It's hard to have a conversation when you start out talking about what you
term 'nonsense'.
>
> Laura
>
> Jeremy <jezzur@...> wrote:
> I have found that my own beliefs are mirrored somewhat in what I
> understand of buddhism. There are some exceptions
>
> Two questions
>
> First, why is it necessary to not eat meat?
>
> Second, i find it very hard to belief that any person can lay claim to
> knowledge about afterlife or circle of life ideas. How can any
> beliefs of this nature be held to be true?
>
> I guess what I am saying is that I am mostly concerned with humans and
> this life. I find it difficult to believe the nonsense. I do not
> mean that as an insult - I just do find it to be nonsense, and
> somewhat unnecessary nonsense.
>
> Mainly the second point I am concerned with. I could be vegetarian
> just on animalitarian (yes I made it up) bases.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Never miss an email again!
> Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
"Genius might be described as a supreme capacity for getting its
possessors into trouble of all kinds."
-- Samuel Butler





---------------------------------
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Laura,

Thanks for that information.  I'll have to remember that before I go to
Tibet.  Meat is a very small part of my diet and some time ago used to
have no part in my diet at all.  Not being doctrinaire can make it
somewhat easier to get along with others.

I wouldn't think that merely avoiding the act of killing and butchering
an animal would absolve a person of responsibility.  In paying for meat
aren't we simply hiring someone else to do the killing for us, thereby
making us complicit in the act?


On 03/01/2007 03:08 PM somebody named Ellis Nelson wrote:
> The Tibetan diet has always relied on the yak and the cultivation of
> barley (with Chinese occupation, movement to wheat caused mass
> starvation in a land that never knew it).  When Buddhism spread from
> India to Tibet, it took on a Tibetan nature (as Buddhism always does
> in a new land).  At high altitude with little abilty to cultivate
> other products, Tibetans retained their traditional diet as they
> embraced the new, practical religion.  Generally, a small population
> of Muslims has been involved in butchering meat, leaving the Tibetan
> Buddhists free from the karmic implications. Most Westerners are
> indeed shocked by the lack of vegetarianism in old Tibet.
>
> I can't remember the title of a book I read, where there's an account
> of a western journalist who took several lamas to dinner repeatedly
> and they invariably chose steak houses for these meetings. He was
> really shocked.
>
> Laura
>
>
>
> ken <gebser@...> wrote: Jeremy,
>
> The absence of a doctrinaire vegetarianism doesn't mean that Tibetan
> Buddhists are necessarily carnivores. Tibetan Buddhism doesn't
> condemn or rigidly prescribe any behavior at all. It merely counsels
> that actions have karmic consequences. And killing or harming another
>  sentient being, even to satisfy hunger, can have such consequences.
> But everyone's always free to do what they want.
>
> I don't have a sense of what you mean by "animalitarian" unless it's
> supposed to be like humanitarian, just including more/all animal
> species... yes?
>
> "Nonsense" can and generally does have a charged, pejorative meaning,
>  but it also can be and is used in a neutral sense. For example, one
> of Merleau-Ponty's collection of essays on perception was translated
> (from the French) as _Sense_and_Nonsense_. It must be one of those
> words which both the reader and writer can lend their own
> significance to.
>
> On 02/28/2007 04:39 PM somebody named Ellis Nelson wrote:
>> Tibetan Buddhists aren't vegetarians.
>>
>> It's hard to have a conversation when you start out talking about
>> what you term 'nonsense'.
>>
>> Laura
>>
>> Jeremy <jezzur@...> wrote: I have found that my own beliefs
>> are mirrored somewhat in what I understand of buddhism. There are
>> some exceptions
>>
>> Two questions
>>
>> First, why is it necessary to not eat meat?
>>
>> Second, i find it very hard to belief that any person can lay claim
>> to knowledge about afterlife or circle of life ideas. How can any
>> beliefs of this nature be held to be true?
>>
>> I guess what I am saying is that I am mostly concerned with humans
>> and this life. I find it difficult to believe the nonsense. I do
>> not mean that as an insult - I just do find it to be nonsense, and
>> somewhat unnecessary nonsense.
>>
>> Mainly the second point I am concerned with. I could be vegetarian
>> just on animalitarian (yes I made it up) bases.


--
"Genius might be described as a supreme capacity for getting its
possessors into trouble of all kinds."
	 -- Samuel Butler

Apparently, not in the Tibetan mind.

   From what I've read about current conditions in Tibet, there is a lot of
Chinese influence and the Chinese out number Tibetans, so you should have a wide
offering of Chinese food. I think that would make it fairly easy to eat
vegetarian if you want to. When are you going?

   Laura



ken <gebser@...> wrote:

Laura,

Thanks for that information. I'll have to remember that before I go to
Tibet. Meat is a very small part of my diet and some time ago used to
have no part in my diet at all. Not being doctrinaire can make it
somewhat easier to get along with others.

I wouldn't think that merely avoiding the act of killing and butchering
an animal would absolve a person of responsibility. In paying for meat
aren't we simply hiring someone else to do the killing for us, thereby
making us complicit in the act?

On 03/01/2007 03:08 PM somebody named Ellis Nelson wrote:
> The Tibetan diet has always relied on the yak and the cultivation of
> barley (with Chinese occupation, movement to wheat caused mass
> starvation in a land that never knew it). When Buddhism spread from
> India to Tibet, it took on a Tibetan nature (as Buddhism always does
> in a new land). At high altitude with little abilty to cultivate
> other products, Tibetans retained their traditional diet as they
> embraced the new, practical religion. Generally, a small population
> of Muslims has been involved in butchering meat, leaving the Tibetan
> Buddhists free from the karmic implications. Most Westerners are
> indeed shocked by the lack of vegetarianism in old Tibet.
>
> I can't remember the title of a book I read, where there's an account
> of a western journalist who took several lamas to dinner repeatedly
> and they invariably chose steak houses for these meetings. He was
> really shocked.
>
> Laura
>
>
>
> ken <gebser@...> wrote: Jeremy,
>
> The absence of a doctrinaire vegetarianism doesn't mean that Tibetan
> Buddhists are necessarily carnivores. Tibetan Buddhism doesn't
> condemn or rigidly prescribe any behavior at all. It merely counsels
> that actions have karmic consequences. And killing or harming another
> sentient being, even to satisfy hunger, can have such consequences.
> But everyone's always free to do what they want.
>
> I don't have a sense of what you mean by "animalitarian" unless it's
> supposed to be like humanitarian, just including more/all animal
> species... yes?
>
> "Nonsense" can and generally does have a charged, pejorative meaning,
> but it also can be and is used in a neutral sense. For example, one
> of Merleau-Ponty's collection of essays on perception was translated
> (from the French) as _Sense_and_Nonsense_. It must be one of those
> words which both the reader and writer can lend their own
> significance to.
>
> On 02/28/2007 04:39 PM somebody named Ellis Nelson wrote:
>> Tibetan Buddhists aren't vegetarians.
>>
>> It's hard to have a conversation when you start out talking about
>> what you term 'nonsense'.
>>
>> Laura
>>
>> Jeremy <jezzur@...> wrote: I have found that my own beliefs
>> are mirrored somewhat in what I understand of buddhism. There are
>> some exceptions
>>
>> Two questions
>>
>> First, why is it necessary to not eat meat?
>>
>> Second, i find it very hard to belief that any person can lay claim
>> to knowledge about afterlife or circle of life ideas. How can any
>> beliefs of this nature be held to be true?
>>
>> I guess what I am saying is that I am mostly concerned with humans
>> and this life. I find it difficult to believe the nonsense. I do
>> not mean that as an insult - I just do find it to be nonsense, and
>> somewhat unnecessary nonsense.
>>
>> Mainly the second point I am concerned with. I could be vegetarian
>> just on animalitarian (yes I made it up) bases.

--
"Genius might be described as a supreme capacity for getting its
possessors into trouble of all kinds."
-- Samuel Butler





---------------------------------
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Jeremy et. al.

I'm attaching several articles which may be of interest regarding the
current discussion of eating meat and vegetarianism. All words are
those of the cited authors.

May all be at peace.

John

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What the Buddha Said About Eating Meat
Ajahn Brahmavamso


     Since the very beginning of Buddhism over 2500 years ago, Buddhist
monks and nuns have depended on almsfood. They were, and still are,
prohibited from growing their own food, storing their own provisions
or cooking their own meals. Instead, every morning they would make
their day's meal out of whatever was freely given to them by lay
supporters. Whether it was rich food or coarse food, delicious or
awful tasting it was to be accepted with gratitude and eaten regarding
it as medicine. The Buddha laid down several rules forbidding monks
from asking for the food that they liked. As a result, they would
receive just the sort of meals that ordinary people ate - and that was
often meat.

     Once, a rich and influential general by the name of Siha (meaning
'Lion') went to visit the Buddha. Siha had been a famous lay supporter
of the Jain monks but he was so impressed and inspired by the
Teachings he heard from the Buddha that he took refuge in the Triple
Gem (i.e. he became a Buddhist). General Siha then invited the Buddha,
together with the large number of monks accompanying Him, to a meal at
his house in the city the following morning. In preparation for the
meal, Siha told one of his servants to buy some meat from the market
for the feast. When the Jain monks heard of their erstwhile patron's
conversion to Buddhism and the meal that he was preparing for the
Buddha and the monks, they were somewhat peeved:

         "Now at the time many Niganthas (Jain monks), waving their
arms, were moaning from carriage road to carriage road, from cross
road to cross road in the city: 'Today a fat beast, killed by Siha the
general, is made into a meal for the recluse Gotama (the Buddha), the
recluse Gotama makes use of this meat knowing that it was killed on
purpose for him, that the deed was done for his sake'..." [1].

     Siha was making the ethical distinction between buying meat
already prepared for sale and ordering a certain animal to be killed,
a distinction which is not obvious to many westerners but which recurs
throughout the Buddha's own teachings. Then, to clarify the position
on meat eating to the monks, the Buddha said:

         "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]

     There are many places in the Buddhist scriptures which tell of the
Buddha and his monks being offered meat and eating it. One of the most
interesting of these passages occurs in the introductory story to a
totally unrelated rule (Nissaggiya Pacittiya 5) and the observation
that the meat is purely incidental to the main theme of the story
emphasizes the authenticity of the passage:

     Uppalavanna (meaning 'she of the lotus-like complexion') was one
of the two chief female disciples of the Buddha. She was ordained as a
nun while still a young woman and soon became fully enlightened. As
well as being an arahant (enlightened) she also possessed various
psychic powers to the extent that the Buddha declared her to be
foremost among all the women in this field. Once, while Uppalavanna
was meditating alone in the afternoon in the 'Blind-Men's Grove', a
secluded forest outside of the city of Savatthi, some thieves passed
by. The thieves had just stolen a cow, butchered it and were escaping
with the meat. Seeing the composed and serene nun, the chief of the
thieves quickly put some of the meat in a leaf-bag and left it for
her. Uppalavanna picked up the meat and resolved to give it to the
Buddha. Early next morning, having had the meat prepared, she rose
into the air and flew to where the Buddha was staying, in the Bamboo
Grove outside of Rajagaha, over 200 kilometres as the crow (or nun?)
flies! Though there is no specific mention of the Buddha actually
consuming this meat, obviously a nun of such high attainments would
certainly have known what the Buddha ate.

     Towards the end of the Buddha's life, his cousin Devadatta
attempted to usurp the leadership of the Order of monks. In order to
win support from other monks, Devadatta tried to be more strict than
the Buddha and show Him up as indulgent. Devadatta proposed to the
Buddha that all the monks should henceforth be vegetarians. The Buddha
refused and repeated once again the regulation that he had established
years before, that monks and nuns may eat fish or meat as long as it
is not from an animal whose meat is specifically forbidden, and as
long as they had no reason to believe that the animal was slaughtered
specifically for them.

     The Vinaya, then, is quite clear on this matter. Monks and nuns
may eat meat. Even the Buddha ate meat. Unfortunately, meat eating is
often seen by westerners as an indulgence on the part of the monks.
Nothing could be further from the truth - I was a strict vegetarian
for three years before I became a monk. In my first years as a monk in
North-East Thailand, when I bravely faced many a meal of sticky rice
and boiled frog (the whole body bones and all), or rubbery snails,
red-ant curry or fried grasshoppers - I would have given ANYTHING to
be a vegetarian again! On my first Christmas in N.E. Thailand an
American came to visit the monastery a week or so before the 25th. It
seemed too good to be true, he had a turkey farm and yes, he quickly
understood how we lived and promised us a turkey for Christmas. He
said that he would choose a nice fat one especially for us... and my
heart sank. We cannot accept meat knowing it was killed especially for
monks. We refused his offer. So I had to settle for part of the
villager's meal - frogs again.

     Monks may not exercise choice when it comes to food and that is
much harder than being a vegetarian. Nonetheless, we may encourage
vegetarianism and if our lay supporters brought only vegetarian food
and no meat, well... monks may not complain either!

     May you take the hint and be kind to animals.

     References:

         [1] Book of the Discipline, Vol. 4, p. 324
         [2] ibid, p. 325

     Ajahn Brahmavamso

     (Newsletter, April-June 1990, Buddhist Society of Western Australia.)


---------------------------------------


Are all Buddhists vegetarians?
From John Kahila (talk.religion.buddhism newsgroup):

     No. The First Precept admonishes us to refrain from killing, but
meat eating is not regarded as an instance of killing, and it is not
forbidden in the scriptures. (We are speaking here mainly of the Pali
scriptures. Some of the Mahayana scriptures, notably the Lankavatara
Sutra, take a strong position in favor of vegetarianism. Also see Note
below)

     As recorded in the Pali scriptures, the Buddha did not prohibit
consumption of meat, even by monks. In fact, he explicitly rejected a
suggestion from Devadatta to do so. In modern Theravada societies, a
bhikkhu who adheres to vegetarianism to impress others with his
superior spirituality may be committing an infringement of the
monastic rules.

     On the other hand, the Buddha categorically prohibited consumption
of the flesh of any animal that was "seen, heard or suspected" to have
been killed specifically for the benefit of monks (Jivaka Sutta,
Majjhima Nikaya 55). This rule technically applies only to monastics,
but it can be used as a reasonable guide by devout lay people.

     To understand this "middle path" approach to meat-eating, we have
to remember that there were no "Buddhists" in Shakyamuni's time. There
were only mendicants of various kinds (including the Buddha's
disciples), plus lay people who gave them alms out of respect without
necessarily worrying about the brand name of the teachings.

     If meat was what a householder chose to offer, it was to be
accepted without discrimination or aversion. To reject such an
offering would be an offense against hospitality and would deprive the
householder of an opportunity to gain merit -- and it could not
benefit the animal, because it was already dead. Even the Jains may
have had a similar outlook during the same period of history, despite
the strict doctrine of ahimsa.

     Vegetarianism could not become a source of serious controversy in
the bhikkhu sangha until the rise of fixed-abode monastic communities
in which the monks did not practice daily alms-round. Any meat
provided to such a community by lay people would almost certainly have
been killed specifically for the monks. That may be one reason for the
difference in Mahayana and Theravada views on meat eating -- the
development of monastic communities of this type occurred principally
within Mahayana.

     The issue of meat eating raises difficult ethical questions. Isn't
the meat in a supermarket or restaurant killed "for" us? Doesn't meat
eating entail killing by proxy?

     Few of us are in a position to judge meat eaters or anyone else
for "killing by proxy." Being part of the world economy entails
"killing by proxy" in every act of consumption. The electricity that
runs our computers comes from facilities that harm the environment.
Books of Buddhist scriptures are printed on paper produced by an
industry that destroys wildlife habitat. Worms, insects, rodents and
other animals are routinely killed en masse in the course of producing
the staples of a vegetarian diet. Welcome to samsara. It is impossible
for most of us to free ourselves from this web; we can only strive to
be mindful of entanglement in it. One way to do so is to reflect on
how the suffering and death of sentient beings contributes to our
comfort. This may help us to be less inclined to consume out of mere
greed.

     All of that having been said, it cannot be denied that the
economic machine which produces meat also creates fear and suffering
for a large number of animals. It is useful to bear this in mind even
if one consumes meat, to resist developing a habit of callousness.
Many Buddhists (especially Mahayanists) practice vegetarianism as a
means of cultivating compassion.

     The Jivaka Sutta hints that one could also make a good case for
vegetarianism starting from any of the other brahmaviharas
(loving-kindness, sympathetic joy, equanimity). Interestingly, it is
loving-kindness rather than compassion that is mentioned first in the
Jivaka Sutta.

     If you are considering trying out vegetarianism for the first
time, we suggest discussing it with someone who has experience. There
are a few issues that ought to be considered regarding balanced diet, etc.

     Note (by Binh Anson): The Lankavatara Sutra, although recorded the
Buddha's teaching in Lanka (Sri Lanka), is essentially a product of
later Mahayana development. According to H. Nakamura (Indian Buddhism,
1987), there are several versions of this sutra, one fairly different
in content from the other. Most scholars concluded that this sutra was
likely compiled in 350-400 CE. In addition, according the the popular
Zen master D.T. Suzuki (The Lankavatara Sutra - A Mahayana Text,
1931), the chapter dealing with meat eating was indeed added much
later in subsequent versions. He also agreed that this sutra was not
the authentic words by the Buddha, but was compiled much later by
unknown authors following Mahayana's philosophy.


------------------------------------

Vegetarianism
From Ven. S. Dhammika (Australian BuddhaNet):

     There are differences of opinion between Buddhists on this issue
so we will attempt to present the arguments of those who believe that
vegetarianism is necessary for Buddhists and those who do not.

     Vegetarianism was not a part of the early Buddhist tradition and
the Buddha himself was not a vegetarian. The Buddha got his food
either by going on alms rounds or by being invited to the houses of
his supporters and in both cases he ate what he was given. Before his
enlightenment he had experimented with various diets including a
meatless diet, but he eventually abandoned them believing that they
did not contribute to spiritual development.

     However, Buddhists gradually came to feel uncomfortable about meat
eating. In 257 BC King Asoka said that in contrast to before, only two
peacocks and a deer were killed to provide food in the royal kitchens
and that in time even this would be stopped. By the beginning of the
Christian era meat eating had become unacceptable, particularly
amongst the followers of the Mahayana although the polemics against it
in works like the Lankavatara Sutra indicates that it was still
widespread or a least a point of controversy.

    Tantric text dating from the 7th and 8th centuries onward,
frequently recommend both drinking alcohol and eating meat and both
are considered fit to offer to gods. This was probably as much an
expression of the freedom from convention which Tantra taught as it
was a protest against Mahayanists to whom practices like abstaining
from drink and meat had become a substitute for genuine spiritual change.

     Today it is often said that Mahayanists are vegetarian and
Theravadins are not. However the situation is a little more complex
than that. Generally Theravadins have no dietary restrictions although
it is not uncommon to find monks and lay people in Sri Lanka who are
strict vegetarians. Others abstain from meat while eating fish.
Chinese and Vietnamese monks and nuns are strictly vegetarian and the
lay community try to follow their example although many do not.
Amongst Tibetans and Japanese Buddhists, vegetarianism is rare.

     Buddhists who insist on vegetarianism have a simple and compelling
argument to support their case. Eating meat encourages an industry
that causes cruelty and death to millions of animals and a truly
compassionate person would wish to mitigate all this suffering. By
refusing to eat meat one can do just that.

     Those who believe that vegetarianism is not necessary for
Buddhists have equally compelling although more complex arguments to
support their view: (1) If the Buddha had felt that a meatless diet
was in accordance with the Precepts he would have said so and in the
Pali Tipitaka at least, he did not. (2) Unless one actually kills an
animal oneself (which seldom happens today) by eating meat one is not
directly responsible for the animal's death and in this sense the non-
vegetarian is no different from the vegetarian. The latter can only
eat his vegetables because the farmer has ploughed his fields (thus
killing many creatures) and sprayed the crop (again killing many
creatures). (3) While the vegetarian will not eat meat he does use
numerous other products that lead to animals being killed (soap,
leather, serum, silk etc.) Why abstain from one while using the
others? (4) Good qualities like understanding, patience, generosity
and honesty and bad qualities like ignorance, pride, hypocrisy,
jealousy and indifference do not depend on what one eats and therefore
diet is not a significant factor in spiritual development.

     Some will accept one point of view and some another. Each person
has to make up his or her own mind.

     REFERENCES:
     (1) Ruegg, D.S. "Ahimsa and Vegetarianism in the History of
Buddhism" in Buddhist Studies in Honour of Walpola Rahula. S.
Balasooriya,(et.al) London, 1980;
     (2) P. Kapleau, To Cherish All Life, London, 1982.

-------------------------------------



Is there something spiritually wholesome about being a vegetarian?
From Samanera Kumara Liew ( dhamma-list@..., 06 June 1999)

     I'm aware there are some people whom are vegetarians here. Being
somewhat health conscious myself, I'm almost one too. However, I can
see that there are some seem to hold a view that I think they might
like to reconsider -- i.e. the view that there is something
spiritually wholesome about being a vegetarian.

     As the suttas (discourses) clearly shows, the Buddha himself --
with his great wisdom -- did not ask his disciples, renunciate or lay,
to be vegetarians. And so, you might like to reconsider that view that
there is something spiritually wholesome about being a vegetarian.

     The Buddha himself was not a vegetarian. And so, you might like to
reconsider that view that there is something spiritually wholesome
about being a vegetarian.

     Some may argue that somewhere along the line someone might have
modified the suttas. It would seem quite unlikely, as the Suttas (of
the Theravada tradition at least) are brought to the present by a very
large group of monks, not individuals. As such they can check each
other for deviations. One person can't change anything without the
agreement from others. For about 500 years the purity of the suttas
was maintained by the oral tradition by large groups of chanting
monks. When it eventually had to be put into writing in the first
century due to wars, the monks who have such faith and respect for the
Buddha would certainly have made much effort to ensure accuracy.

     Assuming that despite all that, some people did attempt to modify
the suttas, it wound have been quite impossible as there's *not* even
a *single* trace in the voluminous Tipitika (the Vinaya, Sutta, and
Abhidhamma Pitakas) which even suggests that the Buddha advised on
being vegetarians. And so, you might like to reconsider that view that
there is something spiritually wholesome about being a vegetarian.

     Even if the above cannot convince you, try asking yourself this:
"Why do I consider being a vegetarian to be spiritually wholesome?"
You may say that "If I eat meat, I would be indirectly encouraging
killing of animals"; or that, "If I eat meat, I would be indirectly a
killer"; or that "If I'm a vegetarian, it would mean that less animals
will be killed."

     Noble considerations, I must admit. But let's examine this further
to gain a better perspective. Try asking yourself this: "Where do my
vegetables come from?" "From farms," you might say. To prepare the
soil for cultivation, wouldn't it have to be tilled? And when the
plants are grown, wouldn't pesticides have to be sprayed? Wouldn't all
that kill lots of animals, though they may be smaller and seem
insignificant to humans? Don't they suffer too?

     Some may still continue to argue that one should get one's
vegetables from hydroponic farms. A good argument, I must admit. But
let's examine this further to gain a better perspective. Such farms
use much water -- for the sake of the plants, for the sake of washing
things, for the sake of keeping the place clean, and others. Wouldn't
such use of water kill lots of animals too, though they may be smaller
and seem insignificant to humans? Don't they suffer too?

     And let's consider the boxes and pipes in which such farming is so
dependent upon, and also the materials to built the green houses. They
need to be manufactured. And so indirectly factories are needed; and
so lands need to be cleared. Wouldn't all that kill lots of animals
too, though they may be smaller and seem insignificant to humans?
Don't they suffer too?

     The machines and equipment needed by the factories too needs to be
manufactured. And so indirectly more factories are needed; and so more
lands need to be cleared. Wouldn't all that kill lots of animals too,
though they may be smaller and seem insignificant to humans? Don't
they suffer too?

     Let's also further consider the supply of electricity, water,
telecommunication services, and other infrastructures. Just consider
all that needs to be done to supply those things. Wouldn't all that
kill lots of animals too, though they may be smaller and seem
insignificant to humans? Don't they suffer too?

     And consider all those transporting this and that here and there
that goes about to set up the factories and the factories for the
factories, the infrastructures for all those factories, so that
materials can be supplied to them, so that the boxes and pipes and the
material to build the green houses can be made for the hydroponic
farms, and that they may be sent to the farms, so that hydroponic
vegetables can be cultivated, so that you may buy and eat them.
Wouldn't all that kill even lots more animals, though they may be
smaller and seem insignificant to humans? Don't they suffer too?

     Wouldn't it then be proper to consider that "If I eat only
vegetables I too would be indirectly encouraging killing of animals;"
or that, "If I don't eat meat, I would be indirectly a killer too;" or
that "If I don't eat meat, it wouldn't mean that less animals will be
killed. And in fact perhaps more are killed."

     I could go on and on, but I should assume that you should get the
message by now. And so, you might like to reconsider that view that
there is something spiritually wholesome about being a vegetarian. We
must understand: We live in 'samsara'; and it's not called 'samsara'
for no reason. In this world, there IS suffering. That the Buddha has
declared. Its cause too has been declared. So has its end. And so has
the way to the end of sufferings.

     Having drawn such reasonable arguments, some may *still* insist on
arguing further that eating meat may reduce our craving (tanha), and
so there must be something spiritually wholesome about being a
vegetarian. I'd ask: "Who says meat tastes better than vegetables?"
Have you tasted meat without any additives before? A raw carrot would
taste much better. I myself can easily have more craving for
chocolates than meat. I'd say durian (a local fruit) tastes much
better. So it would not be proper to say that eating meat may reduce
our craving. Besides, having aversion over a neutral thing such as
meat seems quite unnecessary and even obstructive to one's spiritual
progress. And so, you might like to reconsider that view that there is
something spiritually wholesome about being a vegetarian.

     Consider what the Buddha said: "Action (kamma) is intention
(cetana)." When we eat meat we do not think: "Oh, may they kill more
animals so that I may have more meat to eat. Never mind if being have
to suffer and die." When we eat vegetables, fruits and other non-meat
food, we do not think: "Oh, may they plant more of such food. Never
mind if beings have to suffer and die." When we eat, our intention is
to eat.

     However, we may try practicing a few things:

         - We may be moderate with our intake. Not indulge more than
what we really need. That's what the Buddha advised, and there is
something spiritually wholesome about this; and not simply not eat meat.

         - We may choose to eat only "at the right time" (dawn to
noon). This is encouraged even for lay people on certain days. That's
what the Buddha advised, and there is something spiritually wholesome
about this; and not simply not eat meat.

         - When we eat we may eat mindfully, chew mindfully, taste
mindfully and swallow mindfully. This would then help us eat without
craving and strengthen our mindfulness. That's what the Buddha
advised, and there is something spiritually wholesome about this; and
not simply not eat meat.

     If you choose to be a vegetarian, well go ahead. Do check with
other knowledgeable vegetarians about having a balanced vegetarian
diet. You need to make sure that you have adequate protein, B12, and zinc.

     But for your own sake, do not hold to that view that there is
something spiritually wholesome about being a vegetarian. Also, it
would certainly not be wise to think oneself superior due to one's
choice of food. Check yourself whenever you see others eat meat.
Furthermore, it would be definitely improper to impose such wrong view
upon others.

     This message has been written to inform, and not criticize or
offend. Hope it has been regarded in proper light.

     Samanera Kumara Liew
     06 June 1999

Vegetarianism is more of the Chinese Buddhist tradition.

Yun Xing

       净心园
Jing Xin Yuan

www.jingxinyuan.com
http://www.freewebs.com/yunxingpai/index.htm





----- Original Message ----
From: ken <gebser@...>
To: Buddhism_101@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2007 3:49:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Buddhism_101] Hello everybody, I am new here













             Jeremy,



The absence of a doctrinaire vegetarianism doesn't mean that Tibetan

Buddhists are necessarily carnivores.  Tibetan Buddhism doesn't condemn

or rigidly prescribe any behavior at all.  It merely counsels that

actions have karmic consequences.  And killing or harming another

sentient being, even to satisfy hunger, can have such consequences.  But

everyone's always free to do what they want.



I don't have a sense of what you mean by "animalitarian" unless it's

supposed to be like humanitarian, just including more/all animal

species... yes?



"Nonsense" can and generally does have a charged, pejorative meaning,

but it also can be and is used in a neutral sense.  For example, one of

Merleau-Ponty' s collection of essays on perception was translated (from

the French) as _Sense_and_Nonsense _.  It must be one of those words

which both the reader and writer can lend their own significance to.



On 02/28/2007 04:39 PM somebody named Ellis Nelson wrote:

> Tibetan Buddhists aren't vegetarians.

>

>   It's hard to have a conversation when you start out talking about what you
term 'nonsense'.

>

>   Laura

>

> Jeremy <jezzur@yahoo. com> wrote:

>           I have found that my own beliefs are mirrored somewhat in what I

> understand of buddhism. There are some exceptions

>

> Two questions

>

> First, why is it necessary to not eat meat?

>

> Second, i find it very hard to belief that any person can lay claim to

> knowledge about afterlife or circle of life ideas. How can any

> beliefs of this nature be held to be true?

>

> I guess what I am saying is that I am mostly concerned with humans and

> this life. I find it difficult to believe the nonsense. I do not

> mean that as an insult - I just do find it to be nonsense, and

> somewhat unnecessary nonsense.

>

> Mainly the second point I am concerned with. I could be vegetarian

> just on animalitarian (yes I made it up) bases.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ------------ --------- --------- ---

> Never miss an email again!

> Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

>

>

>

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>



--

"Genius might be described as a supreme capacity for getting its

possessors into trouble of all kinds."

	 -- Samuel Butler












<!--

#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;
}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;
}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;
font-family:Verdana;
font-size:77%;
margin:0;
}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding:0 1px;
}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear:both;
margin:25px 0;
white-space:nowrap;
color:#666;
text-align:right;
}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float:left;
white-space:nowrap;
}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family:Verdana;
font-size:77%;
padding:15px 0;
}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family:verdana;
font-size:77%;
border-top:1px solid #666;
padding:5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom:10px;
}

#ygrp-vital{
background-color:#e0ecee;
margin-bottom:20px;
padding:2px 0 8px 8px;
}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size:77%;
font-family:Verdana;
font-weight:bold;
color:#333;
text-transform:uppercase;
}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding:0;
margin:2px 0;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type:none;
clear:both;
border:1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight:bold;
color:#ff7900;
float:right;
width:2em;
text-align:right;
padding-right:.5em;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight:bold;
}
#ygrp-vital a {
text-decoration:none;
}

#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;
}

#ygrp-sponsor #hd{
color:#999;
font-size:77%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov{
padding:6px 13px;
background-color:#e0ecee;
margin-bottom:20px;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
padding:0 0 0 8px;
margin:0;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
list-style-type:square;
padding:6px 0;
font-size:77%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
text-decoration:none;
font-size:130%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #nc {
background-color:#eee;
margin-bottom:20px;
padding:0 8px;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad{
padding:8px 0;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
font-family:Arial;
font-weight:bold;
color:#628c2a;
font-size:100%;
line-height:122%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
text-decoration:none;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
margin:0;
}
o {font-size:0;}
.MsoNormal {
margin:0 0 0 0;
}
#ygrp-text tt{
font-size:120%;
}
blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
.replbq {margin:4;}
-->









________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com.  Try it now.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Cara,

One does not have to respond to anger with anger but since this your
mother-in-law it poses a most difficult problem. Realize the Buddha
did not mean we should be whimpy when confronted with hostile and
hutful words.

When I'm confronted with similar family situations I try to avoid
confrontations. I try to keep things "light and fluffy" in order to
avoid conflict -- especially topics which have proven to be irritating
in the past. Hopefully your husband has spoken with her about this and
how hurtful it is to you and you family. You may want to view her as
being your teacher since she is, hopefully, teaching you patience.

Here is a suttra about a similar situation that may help with your
problem.

Akkosa Sutta
Insult

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near
Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels' Sanctuary. Then the
brahman Akkosaka1 Bharadvaja heard that a brahman of the Bharadvaja
clan had gone forth from the home life into homelessness in the
presence of the Blessed One. Angered and displeased, he went to the
Blessed One and, on arrival, insulted and cursed him with rude, harsh
words.

When this was said, the Blessed One said to him: "What do you think,
brahman: Do friends and colleagues, relatives and kinsmen come to you
as guests?"

"Yes, Master Gotama, sometimes friends and colleagues, relatives and
kinsmen come to me as guests."

"And what do you think: Do you serve them with staple and non-staple
foods and delicacies?"

"Yes, sometimes I serve them with staple and non-staple foods and
delicacies."

"And if they don't accept them, to whom do those foods belong?"

"If they don't accept them, Master Gotama, those foods are all mine."

"In the same way, brahman, that with which you have insulted me, who
is not insulting; that with which you have taunted me, who is not
taunting; that with which you have berated me, who is not berating:
that I don't accept from you. It's all yours, brahman. It's all yours.

"Whoever returns insult to one who is insulting, returns taunts to one
who is taunting, returns a berating to one who is berating, is said to
be eating together, sharing company, with that person. But I am
neither eating together nor sharing your company, brahman. It's all
yours. It's all yours."

"The king together with his court know this of Master Gotama � 'Gotama
the contemplative is an arahant' � and yet still Master Gotama gets
angry."2

[The Buddha:]

Whence is there anger
for one free from anger,
	 tamed,
	 living in tune �
one released through right knowing,
	 calmed
	 and Such.

You make things worse
when you flare up
at someone who's angry.
Whoever doesn't flare up
at someone who's angry
	 wins a battle
	 hard to win.

You live for the good of both
	 � your own, the other's �
when, knowing the other's provoked,
	 you mindfully grow calm.

When you work the cure of both
	 � your own, the other's �
those who think you a fool
know nothing of Dhamma.

When this was said, the brahman Akkosaka Bharadvaja said to the
Blessed One, "Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent! Just as if he
were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden,
to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark
so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has Master
Gotama � through many lines of reasoning � made the Dhamma clear. I go
to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the community of
monks. Let me obtain the going forth in Master Gotama's presence, let
me obtain admission."

Then the brahman Akkosaka Bharadvaja received the going forth & the
admission in the Blessed One's presence. And not long after his
admission � dwelling alone, secluded, heedful, ardent, and resolute �
he in no long time reached and remained in the supreme goal of the
holy life, for which clansmen rightly go forth from home into
homelessness, knowing and realizing it for himself in the here and
now. He knew: "Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done.
There is nothing further for the sake of this world." And so Ven.
Bharadvaja became another one of the arahants.

Note

1. = "Insulter."

2. Akkosaka thinks that the Buddha is cursing him � and thus angry �
when actually the Buddha is simply stating a fact in line with the law
of kamma.

Cara, granted this was not a family member of the Buddha but I think
the essence is the same.

I do wish you well in this difficult situation.

May all be at peace.

John

i think the issue goes beyond religion at this point. has anyone ever read
"beyond beef" by jeremy rifkin?
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Beef-Cattle-Culture-Plume/dp/0452269520/sr=1-1/qid=\
1172795015/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5486771-4275822?ie=UTF8&s=books
it's just common sense. Buddhists should be humanitarians and environmentalists.
-dwain



Self-Esteem, n. An erroneous appraisement.
-Ambrose Bierce



----- Original Message ----
From: John Pellecchia <pellejf@...>
To: Buddhism_101@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2007 1:38:44 PM
Subject: [Buddhism_101] Eating Meat and Vegetarianism: a few articles

Dear Jeremy et. al.

I'm attaching several articles which may be of interest regarding the
current discussion of eating meat and vegetarianism. All words are
those of the cited authors.

May all be at peace.

John

++++++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++

What the Buddha Said About Eating Meat
Ajahn Brahmavamso

Since the very beginning of Buddhism over 2500 years ago, Buddhist
monks and nuns have depended on almsfood. They were, and still are,
prohibited from growing their own food, storing their own provisions
or cooking their own meals. Instead, every morning they would make
their day's meal out of whatever was freely given to them by lay
supporters. Whether it was rich food or coarse food, delicious or
awful tasting it was to be accepted with gratitude and eaten regarding
it as medicine. The Buddha laid down several rules forbidding monks
from asking for the food that they liked. As a result, they would
receive just the sort of meals that ordinary people ate - and that was
often meat.

Once, a rich and influential general by the name of Siha (meaning
'Lion') went to visit the Buddha. Siha had been a famous lay supporter
of the Jain monks but he was so impressed and inspired by the
Teachings he heard from the Buddha that he took refuge in the Triple
Gem (i.e. he became a Buddhist). General Siha then invited the Buddha,
together with the large number of monks accompanying Him, to a meal at
his house in the city the following morning. In preparation for the
meal, Siha told one of his servants to buy some meat from the market
for the feast. When the Jain monks heard of their erstwhile patron's
conversion to Buddhism and the meal that he was preparing for the
Buddha and the monks, they were somewhat peeved:

"Now at the time many Niganthas (Jain monks), waving their
arms, were moaning from carriage road to carriage road, from cross
road to cross road in the city: 'Today a fat beast, killed by Siha the
general, is made into a meal for the recluse Gotama (the Buddha), the
recluse Gotama makes use of this meat knowing that it was killed on
purpose for him, that the deed was done for his sake'..." [1].

Siha was making the ethical distinction between buying meat
already prepared for sale and ordering a certain animal to be killed,
a distinction which is not obvious to many westerners but which recurs
throughout the Buddha's own teachings. Then, to clarify the position
on meat eating to the monks, the Buddha said:

"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]

There are many places in the Buddhist scriptures which tell of the
Buddha and his monks being offered meat and eating it. One of the most
interesting of these passages occurs in the introductory story to a
totally unrelated rule (Nissaggiya Pacittiya 5) and the observation
that the meat is purely incidental to the main theme of the story
emphasizes the authenticity of the passage:

Uppalavanna (meaning 'she of the lotus-like complexion') was one
of the two chief female disciples of the Buddha. She was ordained as a
nun while still a young woman and soon became fully enlightened. As
well as being an arahant (enlightened) she also possessed various
psychic powers to the extent that the Buddha declared her to be
foremost among all the women in this field. Once, while Uppalavanna
was meditating alone in the afternoon in the 'Blind-Men's Grove', a
secluded forest outside of the city of Savatthi, some thieves passed
by. The thieves had just stolen a cow, butchered it and were escaping
with the meat. Seeing the composed and serene nun, the chief of the
thieves quickly put some of the meat in a leaf-bag and left it for
her. Uppalavanna picked up the meat and resolved to give it to the
Buddha. Early next morning, having had the meat prepared, she rose
into the air and flew to where the Buddha was staying, in the Bamboo
Grove outside of Rajagaha, over 200 kilometres as the crow (or nun?)
flies! Though there is no specific mention of the Buddha actually
consuming this meat, obviously a nun of such high attainments would
certainly have known what the Buddha ate.

Towards the end of the Buddha's life, his cousin Devadatta
attempted to usurp the leadership of the Order of monks. In order to
win support from other monks, Devadatta tried to be more strict than
the Buddha and show Him up as indulgent. Devadatta proposed to the
Buddha that all the monks should henceforth be vegetarians. The Buddha
refused and repeated once again the regulation that he had established
years before, that monks and nuns may eat fish or meat as long as it
is not from an animal whose meat is specifically forbidden, and as
long as they had no reason to believe that the animal was slaughtered
specifically for them.

The Vinaya, then, is quite clear on this matter. Monks and nuns
may eat meat. Even the Buddha ate meat. Unfortunately, meat eating is
often seen by westerners as an indulgence on the part of the monks.
Nothing could be further from the truth - I was a strict vegetarian
for three years before I became a monk. In my first years as a monk in
North-East Thailand, when I bravely faced many a meal of sticky rice
and boiled frog (the whole body bones and all), or rubbery snails,
red-ant curry or fried grasshoppers - I would have given ANYTHING to
be a vegetarian again! On my first Christmas in N.E. Thailand an
American came to visit the monastery a week or so before the 25th. It
seemed too good to be true, he had a turkey farm and yes, he quickly
understood how we lived and promised us a turkey for Christmas. He
said that he would choose a nice fat one especially for us... and my
heart sank. We cannot accept meat knowing it was killed especially for
monks. We refused his offer. So I had to settle for part of the
villager's meal - frogs again.

Monks may not exercise choice when it comes to food and that is
much harder than being a vegetarian. Nonetheless, we may encourage
vegetarianism and if our lay supporters brought only vegetarian food
and no meat, well... monks may not complain either!

May you take the hint and be kind to animals.

References:

[1] Book of the Discipline, Vol. 4, p. 324
[2] ibid, p. 325

Ajahn Brahmavamso

(Newsletter, April-June 1990, Buddhist Society of Western Australia.)

------------ --------- --------- ---------

Are all Buddhists vegetarians?
From John Kahila (talk.religion. buddhism newsgroup):

No. The First Precept admonishes us to refrain from killing, but
meat eating is not regarded as an instance of killing, and it is not
forbidden in the scriptures. (We are speaking here mainly of the Pali
scriptures. Some of the Mahayana scriptures, notably the Lankavatara
Sutra, take a strong position in favor of vegetarianism. Also see Note
below)

As recorded in the Pali scriptures, the Buddha did not prohibit
consumption of meat, even by monks. In fact, he explicitly rejected a
suggestion from Devadatta to do so. In modern Theravada societies, a
bhikkhu who adheres to vegetarianism to impress others with his
superior spirituality may be committing an infringement of the
monastic rules.

On the other hand, the Buddha categorically prohibited consumption
of the flesh of any animal that was "seen, heard or suspected" to have
been killed specifically for the benefit of monks (Jivaka Sutta,
Majjhima Nikaya 55). This rule technically applies only to monastics,
but it can be used as a reasonable guide by devout lay people.

To understand this "middle path" approach to meat-eating, we have
to remember that there were no "Buddhists" in Shakyamuni's time. There
were only mendicants of various kinds (including the Buddha's
disciples), plus lay people who gave them alms out of respect without
necessarily worrying about the brand name of the teachings.

If meat was what a householder chose to offer, it was to be
accepted without discrimination or aversion. To reject such an
offering would be an offense against hospitality and would deprive the
householder of an opportunity to gain merit -- and it could not
benefit the animal, because it was already dead. Even the Jains may
have had a similar outlook during the same period of history, despite
the strict doctrine of ahimsa.

Vegetarianism could not become a source of serious controversy in
the bhikkhu sangha until the rise of fixed-abode monastic communities
in which the monks did not practice daily alms-round. Any meat
provided to such a community by lay people would almost certainly have
been killed specifically for the monks. That may be one reason for the
difference in Mahayana and Theravada views on meat eating -- the
development of monastic communities of this type occurred principally
within Mahayana.

The issue of meat eating raises difficult ethical questions. Isn't
the meat in a supermarket or restaurant killed "for" us? Doesn't meat
eating entail killing by proxy?

Few of us are in a position to judge meat eaters or anyone else
for "killing by proxy." Being part of the world economy entails
"killing by proxy" in every act of consumption. The electricity that
runs our computers comes from facilities that harm the environment.
Books of Buddhist scriptures are printed on paper produced by an
industry that destroys wildlife habitat. Worms, insects, rodents and
other animals are routinely killed en masse in the course of producing
the staples of a vegetarian diet. Welcome to samsara. It is impossible
for most of us to free ourselves from this web; we can only strive to
be mindful of entanglement in it. One way to do so is to reflect on
how the suffering and death of sentient beings contributes to our
comfort. This may help us to be less inclined to consume out of mere
greed.

All of that having been said, it cannot be denied that the
economic machine which produces meat also creates fear and suffering
for a large number of animals. It is useful to bear this in mind even
if one consumes meat, to resist developing a habit of callousness.
Many Buddhists (especially Mahayanists) practice vegetarianism as a
means of cultivating compassion.

The Jivaka Sutta hints that one could also make a good case for
vegetarianism starting from any of the other brahmaviharas
(loving-kindness, sympathetic joy, equanimity). Interestingly, it is
loving-kindness rather than compassion that is mentioned first in the
Jivaka Sutta.

If you are considering trying out vegetarianism for the first
time, we suggest discussing it with someone who has experience. There
are a few issues that ought to be considered regarding balanced diet, etc.

Note (by Binh Anson): The Lankavatara Sutra, although recorded the
Buddha's teaching in Lanka (Sri Lanka), is essentially a product of
later Mahayana development. According to H. Nakamura (Indian Buddhism,
1987), there are several versions of this sutra, one fairly different
in content from the other. Most scholars concluded that this sutra was
likely compiled in 350-400 CE. In addition, according the the popular
Zen master D.T. Suzuki (The Lankavatara Sutra - A Mahayana Text,
1931), the chapter dealing with meat eating was indeed added much
later in subsequent versions. He also agreed that this sutra was not
the authentic words by the Buddha, but was compiled much later by
unknown authors following Mahayana's philosophy.

------------ --------- --------- ------

Vegetarianism
From Ven. S. Dhammika (Australian BuddhaNet):

There are differences of opinion between Buddhists on this issue
so we will attempt to present the arguments of those who believe that
vegetarianism is necessary for Buddhists and those who do not.

Vegetarianism was not a part of the early Buddhist tradition and
the Buddha himself was not a vegetarian. The Buddha got his food
either by going on alms rounds or by being invited to the houses of
his supporters and in both cases he ate what he was given. Before his
enlightenment he had experimented with various diets including a
meatless diet, but he eventually abandoned them believing that they
did not contribute to spiritual development.

However, Buddhists gradually came to feel uncomfortable about meat
eating. In 257 BC King Asoka said that in contrast to before, only two
peacocks and a deer were killed to provide food in the royal kitchens
and that in time even this would be stopped. By the beginning of the
Christian era meat eating had become unacceptable, particularly
amongst the followers of the Mahayana although the polemics against it
in works like the Lankavatara Sutra indicates that it was still
widespread or a least a point of controversy.

Tantric text dating from the 7th and 8th centuries onward,
frequently recommend both drinking alcohol and eating meat and both
are considered fit to offer to gods. This was probably as much an
expression of the freedom from convention which Tantra taught as it
was a protest against Mahayanists to whom practices like abstaining
from drink and meat had become a substitute for genuine spiritual change.

Today it is often said that Mahayanists are vegetarian and
Theravadins are not. However the situation is a little more complex
than that. Generally Theravadins have no dietary restrictions although
it is not uncommon to find monks and lay people in Sri Lanka who are
strict vegetarians. Others abstain from meat while eating fish.
Chinese and Vietnamese monks and nuns are strictly vegetarian and the
lay community try to follow their example although many do not.
Amongst Tibetans and Japanese Buddhists, vegetarianism is rare.

Buddhists who insist on vegetarianism have a simple and compelling
argument to support their case. Eating meat encourages an industry
that causes cruelty and death to millions of animals and a truly
compassionate person would wish to mitigate all this suffering. By
refusing to eat meat one can do just that.

Those who believe that vegetarianism is not necessary for
Buddhists have equally compelling although more complex arguments to
support their view: (1) If the Buddha had felt that a meatless diet
was in accordance with the Precepts he would have said so and in the
Pali Tipitaka at least, he did not. (2) Unless one actually kills an
animal oneself (which seldom happens today) by eating meat one is not
directly responsible for the animal's death and in this sense the non-
vegetarian is no different from the vegetarian. The latter can only
eat his vegetables because the farmer has ploughed his fields (thus
killing many creatures) and sprayed the crop (again killing many
creatures). (3) While the vegetarian will not eat meat he does use
numerous other products that lead to animals being killed (soap,
leather, serum, silk etc.) Why abstain from one while using the
others? (4) Good qualities like understanding, patience, generosity
and honesty and bad qualities like ignorance, pride, hypocrisy,
jealousy and indifference do not depend on what one eats and therefore
diet is not a significant factor in spiritual development.

Some will accept one point of view and some another. Each person
has to make up his or her own mind.

REFERENCES:
(1) Ruegg, D.S. "Ahimsa and Vegetarianism in the History of
Buddhism" in Buddhist Studies in Honour of Walpola Rahula. S.
Balasooriya, (et.al) London, 1980;
(2) P. Kapleau, To Cherish All Life, London, 1982.

------------ --------- --------- -------

Is there something spiritually wholesome about being a vegetarian?
From Samanera Kumara Liew ( dhamma-list@ quantrum. com.my, 06 June 1999)

I'm aware there are some people whom are vegetarians here. Being
somewhat health conscious myself, I'm almost one too. However, I can
see that there are some seem to hold a view that I think they might
like to reconsider -- i.e. the view that there is something
spiritually wholesome about being a vegetarian.

As the suttas (discourses) clearly shows, the Buddha himself --
with his great wisdom -- did not ask his disciples, renunciate or lay,
to be vegetarians. And so, you might like to reconsider that view that
there is something spiritually wholesome about being a vegetarian.

The Buddha himself was not a vegetarian. And so, you might like to
reconsider that view that there is something spiritually wholesome
about being a vegetarian.

Some may argue that somewhere along the line someone might have
modified the suttas. It would seem quite unlikely, as the Suttas (of
the Theravada tradition at least) are brought to the present by a very
large group of monks, not individuals. As such they can check each
other for deviations. One person can't change anything without the
agreement from others. For about 500 years the purity of the suttas
was maintained by the oral tradition by large groups of chanting
monks. When it eventually had to be put into writing in the first
century due to wars, the monks who have such faith and respect for the
Buddha would certainly have made much effort to ensure accuracy.

Assuming that despite all that, some people did attempt to modify
the suttas, it wound have been quite impossible as there's *not* even
a *single* trace in the voluminous Tipitika (the Vinaya, Sutta, and
Abhidhamma Pitakas) which even suggests that the Buddha advised on
being vegetarians. And so, you might like to reconsider that view that
there is something spiritually wholesome about being a vegetarian.

Even if the above cannot convince you, try asking yourself this:
"Why do I consider being a vegetarian to be spiritually wholesome?"
You may say that "If I eat meat, I would be indirectly encouraging
killing of animals"; or that, "If I eat meat, I would be indirectly a
killer"; or that "If I'm a vegetarian, it would mean that less animals
will be killed."

Noble considerations, I must admit. But let's examine this further
to gain a better perspective. Try asking yourself this: "Where do my
vegetables come from?" "From farms," you might say. To prepare the
soil for cultivation, wouldn't it have to be tilled? And when the
plants are grown, wouldn't pesticides have to be sprayed? Wouldn't all
that kill lots of animals, though they may be smaller and seem
insignificant to humans? Don't they suffer too?

Some may still continue to argue that one should get one's
vegetables from hydroponic farms. A good argument, I must admit. But
let's examine this further to gain a better perspective. Such farms
use much water -- for the sake of the plants, for the sake of washing
things, for the sake of keeping the place clean, and others. Wouldn't
such use of water kill lots of animals too, though they may be smaller
and seem insignificant to humans? Don't they suffer too?

And let's consider the boxes and pipes in which such farming is so
dependent upon, and also the materials to built the green houses. They
need to be manufactured. And so indirectly factories are needed; and
so lands need to be cleared. Wouldn't all that kill lots of animals
too, though they may be smaller and seem insignificant to humans?
Don't they suffer too?

The machines and equipment needed by the factories too needs to be
manufactured. And so indirectly more factories are needed; and so more
lands need to be cleared. Wouldn't all that kill lots of animals too,
though they may be smaller and seem insignificant to humans? Don't
they suffer too?

Let's also further consider the supply of electricity, water,
telecommunication services, and other infrastructures. Just consider
all that needs to be done to supply those things. Wouldn't all that
kill lots of animals too, though they may be smaller and seem
insignificant to humans? Don't they suffer too?

And consider all those transporting this and that here and there
that goes about to set up the factories and the factories for the
factories, the infrastructures for all those factories, so that
materials can be supplied to them, so that the boxes and pipes and the
material to build the green houses can be made for the hydroponic
farms, and that they may be sent to the farms, so that hydroponic
vegetables can be cultivated, so that you may buy and eat them.
Wouldn't all that kill even lots more animals, though they may be
smaller and seem insignificant to humans? Don't they suffer too?

Wouldn't it then be proper to consider that "If I eat only
vegetables I too would be indirectly encouraging killing of animals;"
or that, "If I don't eat meat, I would be indirectly a killer too;" or
that "If I don't eat meat, it wouldn't mean that less animals will be
killed. And in fact perhaps more are killed."

I could go on and on, but I should assume that you should get the
message by now. And so, you might like to reconsider that view that
there is something spiritually wholesome about being a vegetarian. We
must understand: We live in 'samsara'; and it's not called 'samsara'
for no reason. In this world, there IS suffering. That the Buddha has
declared. Its cause too has been declared. So has its end. And so has
the way to the end of sufferings.

Having drawn such reasonable arguments, some may *still* insist on
arguing further that eating meat may reduce our craving (tanha), and
so there must be something spiritually wholesome about being a
vegetarian. I'd ask: "Who says meat tastes better than vegetables?"
Have you tasted meat without any additives before? A raw carrot would
taste much better. I myself can easily have more craving for
chocolates than meat. I'd say durian (a local fruit) tastes much
better. So it would not be proper to say that eating meat may reduce
our craving. Besides, having aversion over a neutral thing such as
meat seems quite unnecessary and even obstructive to one's spiritual
progress. And so, you might like to reconsider that view that there is
something spiritually wholesome about being a vegetarian.

Consider what the Buddha said: "Action (kamma) is intention
(cetana)." When we eat meat we do not think: "Oh, may they kill more
animals so that I may have more meat to eat. Never mind if being have
to suffer and die." When we eat vegetables, fruits and other non-meat
food, we do not think: "Oh, may they plant more of such food. Never
mind if beings have to suffer and die." When we eat, our intention is
to eat.

However, we may try practicing a few things:

- We may be moderate with our intake. Not indulge more than
what we really need. That's what the Buddha advised, and there is
something spiritually wholesome about this; and not simply not eat meat.

- We may choose to eat only "at the right time" (dawn to
noon). This is encouraged even for lay people on certain days. That's
what the Buddha advised, and there is something spiritually wholesome
about this; and not simply not eat meat.

- When we eat we may eat mindfully, chew mindfully, taste
mindfully and swallow mindfully. This would then help us eat without
craving and strengthen our mindfulness. That's what the Buddha
advised, and there is something spiritually wholesome about this; and
not simply not eat meat.

If you choose to be a vegetarian, well go ahead. Do check with
other knowledgeable vegetarians about having a balanced vegetarian
diet. You need to make sure that you have adequate protein, B12, and zinc.

But for your own sake, do not hold to that view that there is
something spiritually wholesome about being a vegetarian. Also, it
would certainly not be wise to think oneself superior due to one's
choice of food. Check yourself whenever you see others eat meat.
Furthermore, it would be definitely improper to impose such wrong view
upon others.

This message has been written to inform, and not criticize or
offend. Hope it has been regarded in proper light.

Samanera Kumara Liew
06 June 1999






________________________________________________________________________________\
____
The fish are biting.
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi,
I have a Mom like that.  I tend to not want to be around her because she pushes
my hot buttons and I try so hard not to let her.  But she's 2,000 miles away now
so I don't see her very often.
thanks
Lauren
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Cara
   To: Buddhism_101@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:54 AM
   Subject: [Buddhism_101] confused?


   I've been reading a lot of the works written by HHDL. He often states
   that you shouldn't avoid those in need - like the sick or poor.

   Isn't someone who has an anger/patience problem in need? I would tend
   to believe so.

   Is it wrong to avoid this person with the anger problem? She has a
   tendency to take out her frustration/anger/bitterness on my husband and
   once on my children. I tend to stay away from her unless my husband
   wants to visit (she's his mother).

   How do you practice your patience meditation when it comes to people?
   Is it better to avoid people who are bitter/frustrated?

   Thanks,
   Cara :)






------------------------------------------------------------------------------


   No virus found in this incoming message.
   Checked by AVG Free Edition.
   Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.5/707 - Release Date: 3/1/2007 2:43
PM


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

...when we ask, what is the substantial cause of the material universe way
back in the early history of the universe, we trace it back to the space
particles which transform into the elements of this manifest universe. And
then we can ask whether those space particles have an ultimate beginning.
The answer is no. They are beginningless. Where other philosophical systems
maintain that the original cause was God, Buddha suggested the alternative
that there aren't any ultimate causes. The world is beginningless. Then the
question would be: Why is it beginningless? And the answer is, it is just
nature. There is no reason. Matter is just matter.

Now we have a problem: What accounts for the evolution of the universe as we
know it? What accounts for the loose particles in space forming into the
universe that is apparent to us? Why did it go through orderly processes of
change? Buddhists would say there is a condition which makes it possible,
and we speak of that condition as the awareness of sentient beings.

--from "Consciousness at the Crossroads: Conversations with the Dalai Lama
on Brain Science and Buddhism" edited by Zara Houshmand, Robert B.
Livingston, and B. Alan Wallace, published by Snow Lion Publications

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You can think of the nature of mind like a mirror, with five different
powers or �wisdoms.� Its openness and vastness is the �wisdom of
all-encompassing space,� the womb of compassion. Its capacity to reflect in
precise detail whatever comes before it is the �mirrorlike wisdom.� Its
fundamental lack of any bias toward any impression is the �equalizing
wisdom.� Its ability to distinguish clearly, without confusing in any way
the various different phenomena that arise, is the �wisdom of discernment.�
And its potential of having everything already accomplished, perfected, and
spontaneously present is the �all-accomplishing wisdom.�



Sogyal Rinpoche

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For meditation to happen, calm and auspicious conditions have to be created.
Before we have mastery over our minds, we need first to calm their
environment.
At the moment, our minds are like a candle flame: unstable, flickering,
constantly changing, fanned by the violent winds of our thoughts and
emotions. The flame will burn steadily only when we can calm the air around
it; so we can only begin to glimpse and rest in the nature of mind when we
have stilled the turbulence of our thoughts and emotions. On the other hand,
once we have found a stability in our meditation, noises and disturbances of
every kind will have far less impact.



Sogyal Rinpoche




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The beginner�s mind is an open mind, an empty mind, a ready mind, and if we
really listen with a beginner�s mind, we might really begin to hear. For if
we listen with a silent mind, as free as possible from the clamor of
preconceived ideas, a possibility will be created for the truth of the
teachings to pierce us, and for the meaning of life and death to become
increasingly and startlingly clear.

My master Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche said: �The more and more you listen, the
more and more you hear; the more and more you hear, the deeper and deeper
your understanding becomes.�



Sogyal Rinpoche


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gradually, as you remain open and mindful, and use a technique to focus your
mind more and more, your negativity will slowly be defused; you begin to
feel well in your own skin, or, as the French say, �tre bien dans sa peau
(�well in your own skin�). From this comes release and a profound ease. I
think of this practice as the most effective form of therapy and
self-healing.


Sogyal Rinpoche

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Every single negative thing we have ever thought or done has ultimately
arisen from our grasping at a false self, and our cherishing of that false
self, making it the dearest and most important element in our lives. All
those negative thoughts, emotions, desires, and actions that are the cause
of our negative karma are engendered by self-grasping and self-cherishing.
They are the dark, powerful magnet that attracts to us, life after life,
every obstacle, every misfortune, every anguish, every disaster, and so they
are the root cause of all the sufferings of samsara.


Sogyal Rinpoche

_________________________________________________________________
Get MSN Messenger emoticons and display pictures here!
http://ilovemessenger.msn.com/?mkt=en-sg

All depend on all. All do not need to depend. Need is depending.

  Anger, Happiness, Love, Hate, etc... all of these are dependant on its opposite
for it to be of itself.
Anyone in these minds in its extreme can be perceived of as "needing help".

Avoiding anything shines a light on what you need to experience. What you are
receiving is exactly what you should be getting.
That which one experiences and does not like, is that which one must accept.
Avoidance only brings it closer and closer.
Because there is a belief that there is need for patience to be practiced, there
will be the manifestation
of that which patience is practiced for.


Amituofo

  Yun Xing



       净心园
Jing Xin Yuan

www.jingxinyuan.com
http://www.freewebs.com/yunxingpai/index.htm





----- Original Message ----
From: Lauren Merryfield <lauren1@...>
To: Buddhism_101@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2007 3:51:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Buddhism_101] confused?













             Hi,

I have a Mom like that.  I tend to not want to be around her because she pushes
my hot buttons and I try so hard not to let her.  But she's 2,000 miles away now
so I don't see her very often.

thanks

Lauren

   ----- Original Message -----

   From: Cara

   To: Buddhism_101@ yahoogroups. com

   Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:54 AM

   Subject: [Buddhism_101] confused?



I've been reading a lot of the works written by HHDL. He often states

   that you shouldn't avoid those in need - like the sick or poor.



Isn't someone who has an anger/patience problem in need? I would tend

   to believe so.



Is it wrong to avoid this person with the anger problem? She has a

   tendency to take out her frustration/ anger/bitterness on my husband and

   once on my children. I tend to stay away from her unless my husband

   wants to visit (she's his mother).



How do you practice your patience meditation when it comes to people?

   Is it better to avoid people who are bitter/frustrated?



Thanks,

   Cara :)



------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -



No virus found in this incoming message.

   Checked by AVG Free Edition.

   Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.5/707 - Release Date: 3/1/2007 2:43
PM



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]














<!--

#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;
}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;
}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;
font-family:Verdana;
font-size:77%;
margin:0;
}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding:0 1px;
}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear:both;
margin:25px 0;
white-space:nowrap;
color:#666;
text-align:right;
}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float:left;
white-space:nowrap;
}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family:Verdana;
font-size:77%;
padding:15px 0;
}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family:verdana;
font-size:77%;
border-top:1px solid #666;
padding:5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom:10px;
}

#ygrp-vital{
background-color:#e0ecee;
margin-bottom:20px;
padding:2px 0 8px 8px;
}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size:77%;
font-family:Verdana;
font-weight:bold;
color:#333;
text-transform:uppercase;
}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding:0;
margin:2px 0;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type:none;
clear:both;
border:1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight:bold;
color:#ff7900;
float:right;
width:2em;
text-align:right;
padding-right:.5em;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight:bold;
}
#ygrp-vital a {
text-decoration:none;
}

#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;
}

#ygrp-sponsor #hd{
color:#999;
font-size:77%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov{
padding:6px 13px;
background-color:#e0ecee;
margin-bottom:20px;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
padding:0 0 0 8px;
margin:0;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
list-style-type:square;
padding:6px 0;
font-size:77%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
text-decoration:none;
font-size:130%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #nc {
background-color:#eee;
margin-bottom:20px;
padding:0 8px;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad{
padding:8px 0;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
font-family:Arial;
font-weight:bold;
color:#628c2a;
font-size:100%;
line-height:122%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
text-decoration:none;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
margin:0;
}
o {font-size:0;}
.MsoNormal {
margin:0 0 0 0;
}
#ygrp-text tt{
font-size:120%;
}
blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
.replbq {margin:4;}
-->









________________________________________________________________________________\
____
The fish are biting.
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Friends

Awareness (Sati) is the Essential Key to Mental Progress:

Well-Established, Well-Assured, & Well-Founded should Awareness be!
Even as the foundation of the Himalaya mountains is quite deep dug in
underground and all immovable… Such imperturbable awareness makes
illuminating insight arise, since whatever subject mind is directed to,
pays attention to, reflects on, is conscious of, investigates or reviews,
then this will appear to one as assured & ascertained, all laid plain open,
wholly disclosed & entirely revealed. Such exact & lucid mental clarity is
due to acute & undistracted awareness, that descends into the object,
drills into & penetrates it completely. Exactly so does any object appear
as obvious, as the other worlds do to one possessing the divine eye...

Source: The Path of Purification: Visuddhimagga. 5th century AC.
http://www.pariyatti.com/book.phtml?prod_id=771100

On the Divine Eye (Dibba-Cakkhu):
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/b_f/dibba_cakkhu.htm


  Friendship is the Greatest :-)
  Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon *
  http://What-Buddha-Said.net
  http://groups.google.com/group/Buddha-Direct
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/What_Buddha_Said





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Is it wrong to avoid this person with the anger problem? She has a
tendency to take out her frustration/anger/bitterness on my husband and
once on my children. I tend to stay away from her unless my husband
wants to visit (she's his mother)
-------------------------------
Cara, I've started to respond to your email several times but it is a
complicated situation, complicated in that there are several ways to
view the situation.

First from a psychological perspective, your husband's possible problem
with his mother is his to address and to resolve or not.  I understand
your feeling protective of him.

Of course there is the option of staying away from her but perhaps that
is not realistic if your husband desires to have contact with her.

Always underneath anger is fear of one sort or another.  You can
probably figure out what that fear is.  Does she fear she is no longer
important to anyone for example.  To understand fear and anger, you only
have to look within yourself and see how it operates to then transfer
that to your understanding of her.

Bottom line is always that we each do as well as we can given our level
of development.  We all want the same thing...peace and contentment.  It
rarely is personal about us, that is, how others react to us, but has to
do with the needs of the other person.
If you could reach some detachment and see her anger as belonging to
her.  You observe many facets about her, such as her size, color of hair
etc. and probably have no reaction.  It is possible to observe she is an
angry woman and have little to no reaction to that.

Judy

Greetings All,

  I have been working on a CHinese English website the last few days.

  Here it is.  Enjoy!

  http://www.freewebs.com/jingxinyuan/index.htm


  Peace,
  Aiwei


       净心园
Jing Xin Yuan

www.jingxinyuan.com
http://www.freewebs.com/yunxingpai/index.htm









________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Now that's room service!  Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Yun Xing,

Interesting thought -- interdependency and duality of emotions. Great
topic for meditation.

BTW checked your website earlier -- very professional. I didn't get to
check all of it so will be re-visiting later.

May all be at peace.

John

--- In Buddhism_101@yahoogroups.com, Yun Xing <yunxingpai@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>   All depend on all. All do not need to depend. Need is depending.
>
>  Anger, Happiness, Love, Hate, etc... all of these are dependant on
its opposite for it to be of itself.
> Anyone in these minds in its extreme can be perceived of as "needing
help".
>
> Avoiding anything shines a light on what you need to experience.
What you are receiving is exactly what you should be getting.
> That which one experiences and does not like, is that which one must
accept. Avoidance only brings it closer and closer.
> Because there is a belief that there is need for patience to be
practiced, there will be the manifestation of that which patience is
practiced for.
>
>
> Amituofo
>
>  Yun Xing

Hi John,

  Thanks for checking the website. It was something really simple to put
together. All credit goes to the website company

    Interdependancy is in everyhting. How attached one is to it dictates how
"free" from conditional living they are.Though conditions and
dependancy on all levels are within the same ocean, it is the heaviness of the
karma, wether good or bad, and one's attachment to them which dictates their
experiences. Unless they are awakened, experiencing anything will be the
conditions which cause more, deeper, stronger need for them.

  I have a student who said to me that he wanted to be the most independant being
on this planet. I said no problem. He smiled, and asked how to do it. hahahahaha
I said, you are needing me to tell you? When will you start being the most
independant person in the world, and do it yourself?
He smiled embarrassed, and said its not what he meant. I knew what he meant, and
so I smiled back and pointed to his bed sheets. I asked him if he knew what
those are, and he replied...sheets. I said very good. Now take these sheets, and
go find yourself a forest, wrap your body in them, and sit in meditation till
your karma is no more , and you will be the most independant being in this world
system. Can you do that? He tried to argue midly that he meant somehting else,
but it didn't hold.
   THen I asked him if he had a business that he wanted successful,will he need
some workers to help him? He said yes. I said, if it were products you were
selling, or a service you wereproviding, wouldn't you need customers/consumers
to buy your product and hire you/your workers for your services? He said yes. I
then asked, how will you become the most independant person in the world if you
are relying on all those people, workers and consumers/customers, for help and
money?
   Independancy is a perception of mind given the conditions of the myriad
situations we create. Where is your mind...once you know, there will be an
independance that is far greater than being successful. Financial indpendance is
not relying on money. Who can do that?  To some extent, some donot attach to
money so heavilyas others, but there is still a use for it in their lives.
    He understood, and stopped asking me the question. hahaha

  That was a short story of the first day I met my student from Pakistan.Fun.
  Peace and Happiness,

Yun Xing

       净心园
Jing Xin Yuan

www.jingxinyuan.com
http://www.freewebs.com/yunxingpai/index.htm





----- Original Message ----
From: John Pellecchia <pellejf@...>
To: Buddhism_101@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2007 6:06:26 AM
Subject: [Buddhism_101] Re: confused?













             Dear Yun Xing,



Interesting thought -- interdependency and duality of emotions. Great

topic for meditation.



BTW checked your website earlier -- very professional. I didn't get to

check all of it so will be re-visiting later.



May all be at peace.



John



--- In Buddhism_101@ yahoogroups. com, Yun Xing <yunxingpai@ ...> wrote:

>

>

>

>   All depend on all. All do not need to depend. Need is depending.

>

>  Anger, Happiness, Love, Hate, etc... all of these are dependant on

its opposite for it to be of itself.

> Anyone in these minds in its extreme can be perceived of as "needing

help".

>

> Avoiding anything shines a light on what you need to experience.

What you are receiving is exactly what you should be getting.

> That which one experiences and does not like, is that which one must

accept. Avoidance only brings it closer and closer.

> Because there is a belief that there is need for patience to be

practiced, there will be the manifestation of that which patience is

practiced for.

>

>

> Amituofo

>

>  Yun Xing














<!--

#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;
}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;
}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;
font-family:Verdana;
font-size:77%;
margin:0;
}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding:0 1px;
}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear:both;
margin:25px 0;
white-space:nowrap;
color:#666;
text-align:right;
}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float:left;
white-space:nowrap;
}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family:Verdana;
font-size:77%;
padding:15px 0;
}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family:verdana;
font-size:77%;
border-top:1px solid #666;
padding:5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom:10px;
}

#ygrp-vital{
background-color:#e0ecee;
margin-bottom:20px;
padding:2px 0 8px 8px;
}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size:77%;
font-family:Verdana;
font-weight:bold;
color:#333;
text-transform:uppercase;
}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding:0;
margin:2px 0;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type:none;
clear:both;
border:1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight:bold;
color:#ff7900;
float:right;
width:2em;
text-align:right;
padding-right:.5em;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight:bold;
}
#ygrp-vital a {
text-decoration:none;
}

#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;
}

#ygrp-sponsor #hd{
color:#999;
font-size:77%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov{
padding:6px 13px;
background-color:#e0ecee;
margin-bottom:20px;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
padding:0 0 0 8px;
margin:0;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
list-style-type:square;
padding:6px 0;
font-size:77%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
text-decoration:none;
font-size:130%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #nc {
background-color:#eee;
margin-bottom:20px;
padding:0 8px;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad{
padding:8px 0;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
font-family:Arial;
font-weight:bold;
color:#628c2a;
font-size:100%;
line-height:122%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
text-decoration:none;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
margin:0;
}
o {font-size:0;}
.MsoNormal {
margin:0 0 0 0;
}
#ygrp-text tt{
font-size:120%;
}
blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
.replbq {margin:4;}
-->









________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Then avoidance would be the wrong word. Just do not be there.
Avoiding would be; there is a reasonable sense of fear, and so one does not want
to be in the situation for fear of
not being able to change it.
   Not bothering isn't indifference. If one is not moved by the conditions of the
situation, by not becoming angry,
  discriminative, and in a manner similar to the other person, yet the people
have not wisened up, just leave. It is
Wise Discrimination. How? One is awakened to the fact that all emotional
experiences are not real, are empty.
All points that have to be made are only a perception of the person making it,
and are outcomes of causes and conditions, which
are due to the discriminating mind. They neither have a begining or an end, and
do not come from or return to.

Here is something better:

   According to the conditions of the situation... don't be there.  Don't be in
the person's presence, don't think ofher "negatively" or at all,
and do not fear her, the situation, and the outcomes. Look at the causes of the
situation, and you may come to an understanding as to why things are like this.
It may go further back than is being looked at.

  Humans fear the outcomes, Bodhisattvas fear the causes.


Peace and Happiness,

  Yun Xing

       净心园
Jing Xin Yuan

www.jingxinyuan.com
http://www.freewebs.com/yunxingpai/index.htm





----- Original Message ----
From: judy <judyw1941@...>
To: Buddhism_101@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2007 10:05:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Buddhism_101] confused?













             Is it wrong to avoid this person with the anger problem? She has a

tendency to take out her frustration/ anger/bitterness on my husband and

once on my children. I tend to stay away from her unless my husband

wants to visit (she's his mother)

------------ --------- --------- -

Cara, I've started to respond to your email several times but it is a

complicated situation, complicated in that there are several ways to

view the situation.



First from a psychological perspective, your husband's possible problem

with his mother is his to address and to resolve or not.  I understand

your feeling protective of him.



Of course there is the option of staying away from her but perhaps that

is not realistic if your husband desires to have contact with her.



Always underneath anger is fear of one sort or another.  You can

probably figure out what that fear is.  Does she fear she is no longer

important to anyone for example.  To understand fear and anger, you only

have to look within yourself and see how it operates to then transfer

that to your understanding of her.



Bottom line is always that we each do as well as we can given our level

of development.  We all want the same thing...peace and contentment.  It

rarely is personal about us, that is, how others react to us, but has to

do with the needs of the other person.

If you could reach some detachment and see her anger as belonging to

her.  You observe many facets about her, such as her size, color of hair

etc. and probably have no reaction.  It is possible to observe she is an

angry woman and have little to no reaction to that.



Judy














<!--

#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;
}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;
}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;
font-family:Verdana;
font-size:77%;
margin:0;
}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding:0 1px;
}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear:both;
margin:25px 0;
white-space:nowrap;
color:#666;
text-align:right;
}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float:left;
white-space:nowrap;
}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family:Verdana;
font-size:77%;
padding:15px 0;
}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family:verdana;
font-size:77%;
border-top:1px solid #666;
padding:5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom:10px;
}

#ygrp-vital{
background-color:#e0ecee;
margin-bottom:20px;
padding:2px 0 8px 8px;
}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size:77%;
font-family:Verdana;
font-weight:bold;
color:#333;
text-transform:uppercase;
}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding:0;
margin:2px 0;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type:none;
clear:both;
border:1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight:bold;
color:#ff7900;
float:right;
width:2em;
text-align:right;
padding-right:.5em;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight:bold;
}
#ygrp-vital a {
text-decoration:none;
}

#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;
}

#ygrp-sponsor #hd{
color:#999;
font-size:77%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov{
padding:6px 13px;
background-color:#e0ecee;
margin-bottom:20px;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
padding:0 0 0 8px;
margin:0;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
list-style-type:square;
padding:6px 0;
font-size:77%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
text-decoration:none;
font-size:130%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #nc {
background-color:#eee;
margin-bottom:20px;
padding:0 8px;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad{
padding:8px 0;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
font-family:Arial;
font-weight:bold;
color:#628c2a;
font-size:100%;
line-height:122%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
text-decoration:none;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
margin:0;
}
o {font-size:0;}
.MsoNormal {
margin:0 0 0 0;
}
#ygrp-text tt{
font-size:120%;
}
blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
.replbq {margin:4;}
-->









________________________________________________________________________________\
____
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Friends:

How to be a Real  Buddhist through Observance?

Medin Poya day is the full-moon of March. This holy day celebrates
that the Buddha visits parents home after his supreme Enlightenment,
and ordains his son prince R
<http://localhost/WBSlocal/library/DPPN/r/raahula.htm> ā
<http://localhost/WBSlocal/library/DPPN/wtb/n_r/parinibbaana.htm> hula
<http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/r/raahula.htm> , & half brother Nanda
<http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/n/nanda.htm> . This day is
  also called: The Sangha Day, since on this full-moon 1250 Arahats
  spontaneously met & assembled around the Buddha without any call.
  Buddha then spoke the famous Ovada
<http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/dhammayut/chanting.html#ovada> 
Patimokkha core teaching!

On such Full-Moon Uposatha Poya Observance days:
Any Lay Buddhist simply joins the Three Refuges
<http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/tisarana.html>  and undertakes the
Five Precepts <http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/pancasila.html>  like this:
Newly bathed, shaved, white-clothed, with clean
bare feet, one kneels at a shrine with a Buddha-statue, and bows first
three times, so that feet, hands, elbows, knees & head touch the floor.
Then, with joined palms at the heart, one recites these memorized lines
in a loud, calm & steady voice:

As long as this life lasts:
I hereby take refuge in the Buddha.
I hereby take refuge in the Dhamma.
I hereby take refuge in the Sangha.
I hereby seek shelter in the Buddha for the 2nd time.
I hereby seek shelter in the Dhamma for the 2nd time.
I hereby seek shelter in the Sangha for the 2nd time.
I hereby request protection from the Buddha for the 3rd time.
I hereby request protection from the Dhamma for the 3rd time.
I hereby request protection from the Sangha for the 3rd time.
I will hereby respect these Three Jewels 
<http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/II/The_Three_Jewels.htm> the rest of my life!

I accept to respect & undertake these 5 training rules:
I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Killing.
I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Stealing.
I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Sexual Abuse.
I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Dishonesty.
I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Alcohol & Drugs.
As long as this life lasts, I am thus protected by these 5 precepts...

Then, one keeps and protects these sacred vows better than one's
own eyes & children!, since they protect you & all other beings much
better than any army! They are the highest offer one can give in & to
this world! The journey towards Nibbāna: The Deathless is started!
This is the Noble Way to Peace, to Freedom, to Ease, to Happiness,
initiated by Morality <http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/Mighty_is_Morality.htm>
, developed further by Dhamma-Study
<http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/essential.books.htm>  and
fulfilled by training of Meditation
<http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Manual/Meditation.Manual.htm> ...

Today indeed is Pooya or <http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/uposatha.html> 
Uposatha or observance day, where any lay
Buddhist normally keeps also the Eight Precepts
<http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/atthasila.html>  from sunrise until the
next dawn... If any wish an official recognition by the Bhikkhu-Sangha,
they may simply forward the lines starting with "I hereby ..." signed with
name, date, town, & country to me <mailto:what.buddha.said@...>  or join
here <http://what-buddha-said.net/sangha/Sangha_Entry.htm> .  A public list of
this new
quite rapidly growing global web Saddhamma-Sangha is set up here!
<http://what-buddha-said.net/sangha/Saddhamma_Sangha.htm>

The New Noble Community of Buddha's Disciples: Saddhamma Sangha:
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/sangha/Saddhamma_Sangha.htm
Can quite advantageously be Joined Here:
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/sangha/Sangha_Entry.htm

May your journey hereby be light, swift, and sweet. Never give up !!
Bhikkhu Samahita: what.buddha.said@...
For Details on The Origin of Uposatha Observance Days:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/uposatha.html

Medin Poya Day!


  Friendship is the Greatest :-)
  Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon *
  http://What-Buddha-Said.net
  http://groups.google.com/group/Buddha-Direct
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/What_Buddha_Said





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Yun Xing,

Good morning (probably "good night" is more appropriate at your end of
the world).

Excellent story, excellent lesson. Thanks for sharing it.

BTW the additional qotations you supplied in your posting (re. Cara),
greatly appreciate them. Could you cite the sources for me? I'd like
to read the full text if they are currently in print and available in
English.

May all be at peace.

John

--- In Buddhism_101@yahoogroups.com, Yun Xing <yunxingpai@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
>  Thanks for checking the website. It was something really simple to
put together. All credit goes to the website company
>
>    Interdependancy is in everyhting. How attached one is to it
dictates how "free" from conditional living they are.Though conditions
and dependancy on all levels are within the same ocean, it is the
heaviness of the karma, wether good or bad, and one's attachment to
them which dictates their experiences. Unless they are awakened,
experiencing anything will be the conditions which cause more, deeper,
stronger need for them.
>
>  I have a student who said to me that he wanted to be the most
independant being on this planet. I said no problem. He smiled, and
asked how to do it. hahahahaha   I said, you are needing me to tell
you? When will you start being the most independant person in the
world, and do it yourself?
> He smiled embarrassed, and said its not what he meant. I knew what
he meant, and so I smiled back and pointed to his bed sheets. I asked
him if he knew what those are, and he replied...sheets. I said very
good. Now take these sheets, and go find yourself a forest, wrap your
body in them, and sit in meditation till your karma is no more , and
you will be the most independant being in this world system. Can you
do that? He tried to argue midly that he meant somehting else, but it
didn't hold.
>   THen I asked him if he had a business that he wanted
successful,will he need some workers to help him? He said yes. I said,
if it were products you were selling, or a service you wereproviding,
wouldn't you need customers/consumers to buy your product and hire
you/your workers for your services? He said yes. I then asked, how
will you become the most independant person in the world if you are
relying on all those people, workers and consumers/customers, for help
and money?
>   Independancy is a perception of mind given the conditions of the
myriad situations we create. Where is your mind...once you know, there
will be an independance that is far greater than being successful.
Financial indpendance is not relying on money. Who can do that?  To
some extent, some donot attach to money so heavilyas others, but there
is still a use for it in their lives.
>    He understood, and stopped asking me the question. hahaha
>
>  That was a short story of the first day I met my student from
Pakistan.Fun.
>  Peace and Happiness,
>
> Yun Xing
>
>       净心园
> Jing Xin Yuan
>
> www.jingxinyuan.com
> http://www.freewebs.com/yunxingpai/index.htm

Dear John,

  Please le tme know which quotes you are referring to.
If I did quote, I usually put the name of the master I am quoting.. hehe

  Peace and Happiness.

Amituofo

  Yun Xing








----- Original Message ----
From: John Pellecchia <pellejf@...>
To: Buddhism_101@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2007 8:31:14 PM
Subject: [Buddhism_101] Re: confused?













             Dear Yun Xing,



Good morning (probably "good night" is more appropriate at your end of

the world).



Excellent story, excellent lesson. Thanks for sharing it.



BTW the additional qotations you supplied in your posting (re. Cara),

greatly appreciate them. Could you cite the sources for me? I'd like

to read the full text if they are currently in print and available in

English.



May all be at peace.



John



--- In Buddhism_101@ yahoogroups. com, Yun Xing <yunxingpai@ ...> wrote:

>

>

>

> Hi John,

>

>  Thanks for checking the website. It was something really simple to

put together. All credit goes to the website company

>

>    Interdependancy is in everyhting. How attached one is to it

dictates how "free" from conditional living they are.Though conditions

and dependancy on all levels are within the same ocean, it is the

heaviness of the karma, wether good or bad, and one's attachment to

them which dictates their experiences. Unless they are awakened,

experiencing anything will be the conditions which cause more, deeper,

stronger need for them.

>

>  I have a student who said to me that he wanted to be the most

independant being on this planet. I said no problem. He smiled, and

asked how to do it. hahahahaha   I said, you are needing me to tell

you? When will you start being the most independant person in the

world, and do it yourself?

> He smiled embarrassed, and said its not what he meant. I knew what

he meant, and so I smiled back and pointed to his bed sheets. I asked

him if he knew what those are, and he replied...sheets. I said very

good. Now take these sheets, and go find yourself a forest, wrap your

body in them, and sit in meditation till your karma is no more , and

you will be the most independant being in this world system. Can you

do that? He tried to argue midly that he meant somehting else, but it

didn't hold.

>   THen I asked him if he had a business that he wanted

successful,will he need some workers to help him? He said yes. I said,

if it were products you were selling, or a service you wereproviding,

wouldn't you need customers/consumers to buy your product and hire

you/your workers for your services? He said yes. I then asked, how

will you become the most independant person in the world if you are

relying on all those people, workers and consumers/customers , for help

and money?

>   Independancy is a perception of mind given the conditions of the

myriad situations we create. Where is your mind...once you know, there

will be an independance that is far greater than being successful.

Financial indpendance is not relying on money. Who can do that?  To

some extent, some donot attach to money so heavilyas others, but there

is still a use for it in their lives.

>    He understood, and stopped asking me the question. hahaha

>

>  That was a short story of the first day I met my student from

Pakistan.Fun.

>  Peace and Happiness,

>

> Yun Xing

>

>       净心园

> Jing Xin Yuan

>

> www.jingxinyuan. com

> http://www.freewebs .com/yunxingpai/ index.htm














<!--

#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;
}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;
}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;
font-family:Verdana;
font-size:77%;
margin:0;
}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding:0 1px;
}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear:both;
margin:25px 0;
white-space:nowrap;
color:#666;
text-align:right;
}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float:left;
white-space:nowrap;
}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family:Verdana;
font-size:77%;
padding:15px 0;
}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family:verdana;
font-size:77%;
border-top:1px solid #666;
padding:5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom:10px;
}

#ygrp-vital{
background-color:#e0ecee;
margin-bottom:20px;
padding:2px 0 8px 8px;
}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size:77%;
font-family:Verdana;
font-weight:bold;
color:#333;
text-transform:uppercase;
}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding:0;
margin:2px 0;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type:none;
clear:both;
border:1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight:bold;
color:#ff7900;
float:right;
width:2em;
text-align:right;
padding-right:.5em;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight:bold;
}
#ygrp-vital a {
text-decoration:none;
}

#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;
}

#ygrp-sponsor #hd{
color:#999;
font-size:77%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov{
padding:6px 13px;
background-color:#e0ecee;
margin-bottom:20px;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
padding:0 0 0 8px;
margin:0;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
list-style-type:square;
padding:6px 0;
font-size:77%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
text-decoration:none;
font-size:130%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #nc {
background-color:#eee;
margin-bottom:20px;
padding:0 8px;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad{
padding:8px 0;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
font-family:Arial;
font-weight:bold;
color:#628c2a;
font-size:100%;
line-height:122%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
text-decoration:none;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
margin:0;
}
o {font-size:0;}
.MsoNormal {
margin:0 0 0 0;
}
#ygrp-text tt{
font-size:120%;
}
blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
.replbq {margin:4;}
-->









________________________________________________________________________________\
____
The fish are biting.
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Interesting.  I was very surprised at the responses.

In regards to the answers regarding my question about vegetarianism, I
was absolutely amazed by the wonderful responses.

If any of you read my last topic, you will note that some were
offended by my use of the word "nonsense" to describe my impression of
parts of buddhist belief.  I was speaking in particular about the kind
of 'afterlife', or rebirth concepts.

Firstly in regards to the term nonsense, I found it interesting to see
that one respondent was upset enough to remark but not answer my
question in any way.  I would say that if the use of one word,
admittedly used in a deliberately challenging way, upsets your
equilibrium to any significant degree, then you would probably need to
consider whether your relationship to buddhism is one of worship or
philosophical understanding and thinking.  To explain further, I
always have concern in such cases that the person's attachment to
their philosophy or religion is overly emotional, or based perhaps on
some willingness/desire to belong.  An analogy might be the way a
football fan might get angry at criticism of their teams performance
or coach.  Another possibility is that a person is caught up in some
salvation seeking pursuit, or perhaps that they desire or tend
unknowingly to elevate themselves on the platform of their belief, to
the point that questions or challenges are taken to heart.

I want to look into this further.  One thing that I have always tried
to do is to see any disagreement or challenge as merely a challenge.
Not just to overcome, but to maintain equilibrium, composure, and
dignity while doing so.  I would have to say that the vast majority of
people who responded were so kind and thorough... I am grateful.

I think if you read between the lines it should be clear what I think
about any distress caused by my use of the word 'nonsense'.

Nevertheless, I apologise for deliberately testing the waters using an
underhanded method!!!  Thanks.  I look forward to reading more about
what buddhism means to you.

Dear Yun Xing,

These are the words to which I referred:

"Then avoidance would be the wrong word. Just do not be there.
Avoiding would be; there is a reasonable sense of fear, and so one
does not want to be in the situation for fear of not being able to
change it.
Not bothering isn't indifference. If one is not moved by the
conditions of the situation, by not becoming angry, discriminative,
and in a manner similar to the other person, yet the people have not
wisened up, just leave. It is Wise Discrimination. How? One is
awakened to the fact that all emotional experiences are not real, are
empty. All points that have to be made are only a perception of the
person making it, and are outcomes of causes and conditions, which are
due to the discriminating mind. They neither have a begining or an
end, and do not come from or return to.

"Here is something better:

"According to the conditions of the situation... don't be there. Don't
be in the person's presence, don't think ofher "negatively" or at all,
and do not fear her, the situation, and the outcomes. Look at the
causes of the situation, and you may come to an understanding as to
why things are like this. It may go further back than is being looked at."

Perhaps these are original thoughts? If so, I bow to your wisdom and
eloquence.

May all be at peace.

John



--- In Buddhism_101@yahoogroups.com, Yun Xing <yunxingpai@...> wrote:
>
>
> Dear John,
>
>  Please le tme know which quotes you are referring to.
> If I did quote, I usually put the name of the master I am quoting.. hehe
>
>  Peace and Happiness.
>
> Amituofo
>
>  Yun Xing

Dear Jeremy,

Glad to see you back -- I was afraid we "lost" you. It seems many new
members come to this site but few post messages. I guess what Nixon
termed "the silent majority" does in fact exist (smile). I guess it's
either not what they are seeking or they find the answers to their
questions without asking.

Well, you certainly "sparked" some interesting thinking on my part.
BTW no apology is necessary. I often find it important to research a
topic to re-affirm my beliefs. I appreciate the opportunity you
provided in this regard. As is often stated, intellectual discourse is
encouraged and appreciated as long as it is not "mean-spirited."

I'm sure I speak for many when I say we look forward to your future
questions and active participation in discussions here.

May all be at peace.

John

--- In Buddhism_101@yahoogroups.com, "Jeremy" wrote in part:
>
> Interesting.  I was very surprised at the responses.
>
> In regards to the answers regarding my question about vegetarianism,
I was absolutely amazed by the wonderful responses.
>
> If any of you read my last topic, you will note that some were
offended by my use of the word "nonsense" to describe my impression of
parts of buddhist belief.  I was speaking in particular about the kind
of 'afterlife', or rebirth concepts.
>
....

>One thing that I have always tried to do is to see any disagreement
or challenge as merely a challenge.  Not just to overcome, but to
maintain equilibrium, composure, and dignity while doing so.  I would
have to say that the vast majority of people who responded were so
kind and thorough... I am grateful.
>
> I think if you read between the lines it should be clear what I
think about any distress caused by my use of the word 'nonsense'.
>
> Nevertheless, I apologise for deliberately testing the waters using
an underhanded method!!!  Thanks.  I look forward to reading more
about what buddhism means to you.
>

Nevertheless, I apologise for deliberately testing the waters using an
underhanded method!!! Thanks. I look forward to reading more about
what buddhism means to you.
Jeremy
--------------------
I admit to being curious as to why this was important to you and why you
chose this method.

I find that most of the time it is more important to focus on my own
reactions than to focus on those of others.

For example, I am now looking at my reaction to your testing and using
what you describe as an underhanded method.

But you are like me, we each want to progress along this path.
Acceptance is always the key.

Judy

i just found this dvd at the library:
http://www.amazon.com/Wheel-Time/dp/B000AQ68Y6/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5486771-42758\
22?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1172951556&sr=1-1
any positive reviews out there? it looks really good.
-dwain

Self-Esteem, n. An erroneous appraisement.
-Ambrose Bierce




________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear John,

   There are no original  thoughts, only ones that are repeated with different
sounds.
Though I didn't quote in my post, I am sure these words have been said before in
many many many varieties of ways according to the situation.


  Peace and Happiness to you my friend

Amituofo

  Yun Xing









----- Original Message ----
From: John Pellecchia <pellejf@...>
To: Buddhism_101@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2007 11:28:18 PM
Subject: [Buddhism_101] Re: confused?













             Dear Yun Xing,



These are the words to which I referred:



"Then avoidance would be the wrong word. Just do not be there.

Avoiding would be; there is a reasonable sense of fear, and so one

does not want to be in the situation for fear of not being able to

change it.

Not bothering isn't indifference. If one is not moved by the

conditions of the situation, by not becoming angry, discriminative,

and in a manner similar to the other person, yet the people have not

wisened up, just leave. It is Wise Discrimination. How? One is

awakened to the fact that all emotional experiences are not real, are

empty. All points that have to be made are only a perception of the

person making it, and are outcomes of causes and conditions, which are

due to the discriminating mind. They neither have a begining or an

end, and do not come from or return to.



"Here is something better:



"According to the conditions of the situation... don't be there. Don't

be in the person's presence, don't think ofher "negatively" or at all,

and do not fear her, the situation, and the outcomes. Look at the

causes of the situation, and you may come to an understanding as to

why things are like this. It may go further back than is being looked at."



Perhaps these are original thoughts? If so, I bow to your wisdom and

eloquence.



May all be at peace.



John



--- In Buddhism_101@ yahoogroups. com, Yun Xing <yunxingpai@ ...> wrote:

>

>

> Dear John,

>

>  Please le tme know which quotes you are referring to.

> If I did quote, I usually put the name of the master I am quoting.. hehe

>

>  Peace and Happiness.

>

> Amituofo

>

>  Yun Xing














<!--

#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;
}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;
}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;
font-family:Verdana;
font-size:77%;
margin:0;
}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding:0 1px;
}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear:both;
margin:25px 0;
white-space:nowrap;
color:#666;
text-align:right;
}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float:left;
white-space:nowrap;
}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family:Verdana;
font-size:77%;
padding:15px 0;
}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family:verdana;
font-size:77%;
border-top:1px solid #666;
padding:5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom:10px;
}

#ygrp-vital{
background-color:#e0ecee;
margin-bottom:20px;
padding:2px 0 8px 8px;
}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size:77%;
font-family:Verdana;
font-weight:bold;
color:#333;
text-transform:uppercase;
}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding:0;
margin:2px 0;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type:none;
clear:both;
border:1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight:bold;
color:#ff7900;
float:right;
width:2em;
text-align:right;
padding-right:.5em;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight:bold;
}
#ygrp-vital a {
text-decoration:none;
}

#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;
}

#ygrp-sponsor #hd{
color:#999;
font-size:77%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov{
padding:6px 13px;
background-color:#e0ecee;
margin-bottom:20px;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
padding:0 0 0 8px;
margin:0;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
list-style-type:square;
padding:6px 0;
font-size:77%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
text-decoration:none;
font-size:130%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #nc {
background-color:#eee;
margin-bottom:20px;
padding:0 8px;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad{
padding:8px 0;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
font-family:Arial;
font-weight:bold;
color:#628c2a;
font-size:100%;
line-height:122%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
text-decoration:none;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
margin:0;
}
o {font-size:0;}
.MsoNormal {
margin:0 0 0 0;
}
#ygrp-text tt{
font-size:120%;
}
blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
.replbq {margin:4;}
-->









________________________________________________________________________________\
____
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jeremy,

There's no reason for you to apologize for your "test" of this group.
Everything, every question we are asked, can be understood as a test.
Someone might offer me a hundred dollars to do something, perhaps
trivially illegal, perhaps mildly unethical.  Is it a test, perhaps the
police or mafia seeking to entrap me?  Or is the offer genuine and so a
really nice, quick way to make a hundred bucks?  Do we seek to find out
whether it is entrapment, a test?  No.  We do (or say) what we believe
is best.  Whether it is a test or not doesn't matter.  If I'm walking
down the sidewalk eating an apple and a truck goes by spurting grit
which seconds later I can see on the flesh of my apple, is this a test.
  Most likely not.  But, yes, we could see it this way.  Everything can
be a test.  But nothing need be a test.

And, Jeremy, are you saying that you don't believe in rebirth or
afterlife?  Or are you saying that you believe that they can't be possible?


On 03/03/2007 09:20 AM somebody named Jeremy wrote:
> Interesting.  I was very surprised at the responses.
>
> In regards to the answers regarding my question about vegetarianism, I
> was absolutely amazed by the wonderful responses.
>
> If any of you read my last topic, you will note that some were
> offended by my use of the word "nonsense" to describe my impression of
> parts of buddhist belief.  I was speaking in particular about the kind
> of 'afterlife', or rebirth concepts.
>
> Firstly in regards to the term nonsense, I found it interesting to see
> that one respondent was upset enough to remark but not answer my
> question in any way.  I would say that if the use of one word,
> admittedly used in a deliberately challenging way, upsets your
> equilibrium to any significant degree, then you would probably need to
> consider whether your relationship to buddhism is one of worship or
> philosophical understanding and thinking.  To explain further, I
> always have concern in such cases that the person's attachment to
> their philosophy or religion is overly emotional, or based perhaps on
> some willingness/desire to belong.  An analogy might be the way a
> football fan might get angry at criticism of their teams performance
> or coach.  Another possibility is that a person is caught up in some
> salvation seeking pursuit, or perhaps that they desire or tend
> unknowingly to elevate themselves on the platform of their belief, to
> the point that questions or challenges are taken to heart.
>
> I want to look into this further.  One thing that I have always tried
> to do is to see any disagreement or challenge as merely a challenge.
> Not just to overcome, but to maintain equilibrium, composure, and
> dignity while doing so.  I would have to say that the vast majority of
> people who responded were so kind and thorough... I am grateful.
>
> I think if you read between the lines it should be clear what I think
> about any distress caused by my use of the word 'nonsense'.
>
> Nevertheless, I apologise for deliberately testing the waters using an
> underhanded method!!!  Thanks.  I look forward to reading more about
> what buddhism means to you.


--
"Genius might be described as a supreme capacity for getting its
possessors into trouble of all kinds."
	 -- Samuel Butler