Dear Venerable Monks,

For the past 10 years (off & on) I have been interested in learning
about the teachings of Buddhism, but I seemed to have never had the
time to actually delve into it.  For much of my life, I seem to have
been caught up in a neverending cycle of trying to deal with and
solve my own problems   -- as well as those of my family ----- and I
seem to have made little, if any, head way.

Recently, I have taken to reading about Buddhism beliefs again ---
this time in more detail on a daily basis --- and find that what I
have read  makes more sense to me than anything else I have ever
tried believing or living.

I understand that past Karma (Kamma) plays a very important part in
our lives, yet it seems we are able to change that Kamma, somewhat,
by practicing self control, letting go and adapting a lifestyle
of "always doing good".  I'm also understanding that there is evil &
suffering in this world and to accept this, without question, will
enable us to live a more satisfactory life.

  I have many questions, but mainly --  I'm having the most difficulty
difficulty with this:   when a child suffers or dies, either from
illness or at the hands of another, is it because of the "past life"
(Kamma) of that child?  If one were "reborn" in the womb and died
before actually being physically born (as in a miscarriage), what
would that mean??  I apologize for my ignorance, but I am still new
to this.

  I love children and have always thought of them as innocent and
pure.  It is hard for me to comprehend & accept the physical &
emotional suffering and/or death of any child without question.  My
heart has always ached for all those children throughout the world
who are sick, hungry, cold, abused, and neglected. I've always prayed
and hoped that the day would come when every child born could grow to
be safe, strong and free -- yet I'm realizing now that praying &
hoping are useless and that this is an "impossible dream".
Could you pls help me to understand this aspect according to the
teachings of Buddha?

There are no Buddhist Centers near my home and I know of no one who
can sort of be a "teacher" to help me along &/or instruct me.  Would
I be able to truly learn Buddhism on my own, by daily reading ,
meditation and practice?

Thank you much. ALEX

Dear Alex,

Your understanding of the Dhamma is very good.

As to the past kamma of children born of some defect or are victims of
miscarriage, it is to be understood, as you presumed, that it is due to their
kamma. This may prompt some to question if we condemn the children who have
already suffered enough. It may look so. I know a few pediatricians who look
for an answer why children have to suffer while they are all innocent.

Therefore, it is very necessary to take kamma in the context of rebirth. The
teaching of rebirth is not unique to Buddhism. It is shared in Hinduism and
Jainism in much similar way. A belief in rebirth suggests that there have been
many lives in the past and there will be endless lives, unless we become fully
enlightened, in the future. An action, wholesome or unwholesome, may be
accomplished in one life and its result obtained in another. They, action
and its result, may also take place in the same life. Kamma is thus not fix,
and therefore not a fate.

We all ponder why a certain bad thing has to happen to certain children, say,
cancer or AIDS. Before we continue to seek the answer to this mystified part
of life, can we not also apply the same question to the good side? Say,
without doing anything, why certain people have a lot to go for? Meaning, what
is the basis of the good result they are enjoying? It hardly enters people's
mind that this is equally a mystified question.

Lee Shin Long, the eldest son of Lee Kuan Yew, the former prime minister of
Singapore, had a place booked for him at a colelge in Cambridge when he was just
one week old! That was possible at that time because both parents were educated
there. He obviously shared the good fortune that his parents had. By virtue of
being their child, he had many opportunities open to him since a week old.
So, being in a company of people with the same kamma (meanign to have done
something together in the past) he has benefitted more than any child born to
the parents with average means.

His good fortune, in short, can be attributed to his past kamma. Then this
principle may be equally applied to the negative side of life.

Kamma explains why people are different in what they are. Kamma has its
original source in our intention. Our INTENTIONS are different, so are our
actions. Our intentions are made different by the six roots of the mind, called
hetu in Pali, half of which are unwholesome while the rest are wholesome. The
three unwholesome roots, greed, hatred and delusion, dictate our intention to be
negative. With unwholese intention, the action/speech we perform has
unwholesome nature and will give unwholesome result.

But we do not know when the result of our kamma is going to be seen. This makes
the process of cuase and effect (the link between kamma and its result) more
difficult to comprehend.

In fact, before enlightenment, kamma remains only a belief in us. Once
enlightened, kamma becomes sure: the way it operates and how it links to its
effect. Enlightenment is described in three words: 1. seeing one's own kamma
(past lives) in action in various lives, 2. seeing others' kamma in the same
way and 3. having erdaicated all unwholesome roots (defilements). These three
enforce each other.

While accepting that the children who suffer are getting back what they did
in the past (life), this is NO reason whatsoever to be indifferent to their
suffering. After all, Buddhists are no less kind to children than other
believers. Whatever theory and explanation we may hold, a child who suffers
does suffer. The explanation is for us, adults, to console or satisfy our mind.
If a Buddhist cares to his/her best a child who suffers, while holding the
above view, I see no reason to condemn this person(adult). Instead, the child
becomes an object of and a reason for compassion.

Divine-based or otherwise, any religious explanation may not relieve the pain of
the child directly. But belief in the past kamma does teach others to be mindful
of their actions and intentions. While perplexed as to when and what a
child did in the past to deserve a certain kind of suffering in this life, the
child's mind is not directed to blaming others for the suffering, nor
would he be mumbling for unfair treatment.

As human beings lost in daily pursuits, we remember not many things of a day's
work. We lose the sight of link between cause and effect even here and now.
It is all quite possible that we lose trace between past cause (kamma) and
the present effect. So, a good and long memory is essential to verify kamma.

I cannot explain everything about kamma. However, I may add that kamma is not
and cannot be perceived as a mechanical, fixed thing like the creation theory
that is thought to fit in everything. First, we need to try and see how our
present thoughts operate and what kind of effect they have on our life yesterday
and today.I other words, how yesterday thoughts condition today's welfare or
misery. With that, it is to begin to understand "intention" and then its
impact.


On a separate question that you raised, I think it is the best to study with
a teacher. After all, the Dhamma has been handed down through traditions of
teacher-pupil. The Buddha is reported to have said more than five hundred times
in fourty five years that we need a teacher to overcome suffering.

With Metta,

Ven. Dhammasami





In message <a8cklm+6cs1@eGroups.com> SanghaOnline@yahoogroups.com writes:
> Dear Venerable Monks,
>
> For the past 10 years (off & on) I have been interested in learning
> about the teachings of Buddhism, but I seemed to have never had the
> time to actually delve into it.  For much of my life, I seem to have
> been caught up in a neverending cycle of trying to deal with and
> solve my own problems   -- as well as those of my family ----- and I
> seem to have made little, if any, head way.
>
> Recently, I have taken to reading about Buddhism beliefs again ---
> this time in more detail on a daily basis --- and find that what I
> have read  makes more sense to me than anything else I have ever
> tried believing or living.
>
> I understand that past Karma (Kamma) plays a very important part in
> our lives, yet it seems we are able to change that Kamma, somewhat,
> by practicing self control, letting go and adapting a lifestyle
> of "always doing good".  I'm also understanding that there is evil &
> suffering in this world and to accept this, without question, will
> enable us to live a more satisfactory life.
>
>  I have many questions, but mainly --  I'm having the most difficulty
> difficulty with this:   when a child suffers or dies, either from
> illness or at the hands of another, is it because of the "past life"
> (Kamma) of that child?  If one were "reborn" in the womb and died
> before actually being physically born (as in a miscarriage), what
> would that mean??  I apologize for my ignorance, but I am still new
> to this.
>
>  I love children and have always thought of them as innocent and
> pure.  It is hard for me to comprehend & accept the physical &
> emotional suffering and/or death of any child without question.  My
> heart has always ached for all those children throughout the world
> who are sick, hungry, cold, abused, and neglected. I've always prayed
> and hoped that the day would come when every child born could grow to
> be safe, strong and free -- yet I'm realizing now that praying &
> hoping are useless and that this is an "impossible dream".
> Could you pls help me to understand this aspect according to the
> teachings of Buddha?
>
> There are no Buddhist Centers near my home and I know of no one who
> can sort of be a "teacher" to help me along &/or instruct me.  Would
> I be able to truly learn Buddhism on my own, by daily reading ,
> meditation and practice?
>
> Thank you much. ALEX
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> SanghaOnline-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Dear Venerable Monks,

    Is it necessary to take the refuges with a monk, or can you just
say them to yourself? Also does it matter if the monk is not
theravedan because the only monks close to where I live are Zen.

Duneman70

It is OK to say it in front of a Buddha image. Perhaps, to have a little shrine
would be better. What matters is that you really mean it in your mind. When you
say it front of a monk, you then have a physical presence of one of the Triple
Gem. Usually, people repeat the formula after a monk in a shrine. This is to
help us get closer to the Buddha, though only his statue, and the Sangha who
says in the end "be mindful" adding the Dhamma into the practical side. In
other words, the statue represents the Buddha symbolically, the monk the Sangha
and his words (Be mindful) the Dhamma. This is the most we can come across
closest to the Three Refuges, I think, as a beginner. From there, one can
make further effort until Sotapanna, "the stage of a stream-winner" when the
taking of the Triple Gem is never again to be shaken by anything in this world.

Metta,

Ven. Dhammasami

In message <a92lbs+2tbt@eGroups.com> SanghaOnline@yahoogroups.com writes:
> Dear Venerable Monks,
>
>    Is it necessary to take the refuges with a monk, or can you just
> say them to yourself? Also does it matter if the monk is not
> theravedan because the only monks close to where I live are Zen.
>
> Duneman70
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> SanghaOnline-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Dear Venerable Monks

I am new to buddhism (3 months) and I have a question related to practising
the dhamma, and in particular 'right action'.

I have some 'friends' at the moment who drink alocohol to get drunk, and
will often gossip and slander other people. Should I start to think about
distancing myself from these sorts of negative people, or should I try and
help them overcome their problems through a positive attitude ? (which is
more of a hindrance)

Best Regards,
Alan


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

Dear Alan,

You can decide for yourself. The bisis for a decision is first get oneslef
in the right/firm position as to the right action and right speech (slandering
and gossip), then one can help others.

It would be nice to be able to help them. People feel unhappy within themselves
and feel the need to talk about others to feel good, to ignore their own
failing or at least boredom.

The most important thing for you is to be aware that gossip is gossip and that
something we can do without. If you are aware when they are gossiping around,
you are not likely to get involved. If you are physically with them, but do not
get invloved, they will at one point take notice of your action. You may then
have a chance to explain them.

If they prove to be unable to convince, then it is better to keep some distance.

The need to gossip comes from within, and it is called restlessness or jealousy.
By being mindful of these elements, we can overcome boredom and the need for
gossip.

With metta,

Ven.Dhammasami




In message <001701c1e481$064cdfe0$6aac7ad5@oemcomputer>
SanghaOnline@yahoogroups.com writes:
> Dear Venerable Monks
>
> I am new to buddhism (3 months) and I have a question related to practising
> the dhamma, and in particular 'right action'.
>
> I have some 'friends' at the moment who drink alocohol to get drunk, and
> will often gossip and slander other people. Should I start to think about
> distancing myself from these sorts of negative people, or should I try and
> help them overcome their problems through a positive attitude ? (which is
> more of a hindrance)
>
> Best Regards,
> Alan
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> SanghaOnline-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Dear Alan

I am so pleased to answer your question regarding living in peace and happiness
in your daily life. I am also glad to know that you are following the Dhamma.

In Mangala Sutta, the discourse of the highest blessing, the Buddha said,"
Do not associate with a fool". Here the fool means one who destroys his life by
doing unwholesome action and causing harm to other people.

So I want to suggest that you should avoid those people otherwise
you will be harmed by them or you may end up joining them.

You can help them by your positive attitudes for the betterment of their lives,
provided that they listen to you.

With Metta,

Ven. U Khemissara
South Africa




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

Dear Alan

Thanks for your question.

I would like to suggest you according to Buddhist teachings.

The first of 38 discourses on Blessings is not to associate with the fools. It
is very important in Buddhism because the Buddha guided his followers to avoid
fool people.

On the other hand,he taught us four kinds of running wheels (catu cakka in
Pali). They are as follows

1. 'Patirupa desavasa' means to reside  the right place

2. 'Suppurirupa nissaya' means to associate with  good friends

3. 'Saddhamma savana' means to listen a good teachings and

4. 'Attasamma panidhi' means to keep one's own mind to purify.

If you follow these four kinds of actions you will be happy in practicing the
Dhamma.

There is a conversation between the Buddha and his attendant venerable Ananda.
Ananda said, "Venerable sir. If one  associates with a good friend, one's own
job finishes half." But the Buddha corrected Ananda's words by replying that
associating with a good friend is finishing his entire job.

Also there are many examples about good and bad friends.

That's why you should consider to associate with good and not to associate with
bad friends.

May you be happy by practicing the Dhamma!

With Metta

Ven. Ashin Acara,
USA
-----------------
Venerable Monks

I am new to Buddhism (3 months) and I have a question related to practising
the dhamma, and in particular 'right action'.

I have some 'friends' at the moment who drink alocohol to get drunk, and
will often gossip and slander other people. Should I start to think about
distancing myself from these sorts of negative people, or should I try and
help them overcome their problems through a positive attitude ? (which is
more of a hindrance)

Best Regards,
Alan


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




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
SanghaOnline-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax

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

Dear Venerable Monks

Thank you for all your replies with regards to my first question of
associating with negative people.

Further to this, how should one incorporate compassionate feelings for such
negative people in day to day existence ?

I understand from your replies that it is not good to have these people as
friends, but how does this relate to one showing compassion to these
negative individuals on a daily basis ? should I have the view that 'these
individuals are obviously sufferring - but they need to resolve their own
problems' ?

I look forward to your replies.

Best Regards,
Alan


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

Dear Venerable Monks,

I have a question about right livelihood.

Right livelihood can be defined as not taking any job that
contributes to the harming of other sentient beings.

I'm wondering whether teaching can be right livelihood. As a teacher
I often think about whether I am a good influence on my students or
whether I have inadvertedly negatively influenced one of them without
me knowing.

Can teaching if positive be right livelihood and if a really negative
thing - bad livelihood?!

Is right livelihood a case of black and white e.g. profession A is
not but profession B is?

Or does it depend on how it's done?

May I have your comments please?

(I'm trying to apply the Eightfold Path to my life)

Dear Alan

Firstly, you need to develop mindfulness or awareness most of the times
in your daily life and then you would realize that your mind also has some
time negative mental state once in a while.

The moment you know that there is a negative mental state in your mind
it will automatically subside or disappear, if your awareness is stronger
than that negative feeling.

Remember that the development of the compassionate feeling is dependent on
the development of awareness.
Suffering affects everyone to some extent. By knowing it to yourself,
develop loving kindness and compassion by being aware of present moment.

Not to associate with fool also means not to associate with the negative
mental state that makes one a fool. That is why the Buddha said, "The fool
who is aware
of his foolishness is wise at least to that extent. But the fool who thinks
himself wise is a fool indeed.

If you know yourself, you will know others, and with that understanding, you
can give them advice that can be helpful  to live a meaningful
life. I think that this is the only way to help them with your
compassionate feeling. And then you will be a good friend to them.


With Metta,

U Khemissara,
South Africa






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

Dear Venerable Monks,

I would like to know if there is any restriction on
the type of food we eat.  I have a friend of the
Mahayana tradition that advises, 'Beef should not be eaten at all.'
I'm from the Theravedan tradition, and what I have
known all these years is that any sort of food is fine
as long as the person can maintain good health both
mentally and physically.

Thank you.

Kevin

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/

Dear  questioner

The meaning of the Right livelihood is so deep,  profound and it often refers to
a virtuous life that does no harm other sentient beings.

As you know, Right livelihood is one aspect of the noble eightfold path that
falls under moral conduct
which refers to how we earn our living in society. It is an extension of the
Right speech and
Right action which is related  to the truth, and your way of life.

Of course, teaching can be right livelihood if positive but can also be bad
livelihood if  really
negative. For example teaching things that will cause harm to others like
trading in human beings,
producing weapons, intoxicating drinks, drugs and poison etc.

For the good teaching, sometime you may get angry with your students wishing
them to be
good students, it doesn't matter at all. I think you already know " Good beget
good and bad
beget bad". Yes, it depends on how it's done.

With Metta
U Khemissara
RSA


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

Dear Kevin

Of course, we also have restriction that
we should not get involved in killing inadvertently
or we should not ask others to kill any living beings
for us.

The Buddha had instructed the Bhikkhus
to avoid ten kinds of meat. They are of:
humans, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions,
tigers, leopards, bears and hyenas.

There are 3 other situations when we have to avoid eating meat offerred to us.
If you have heard or seen or suspected that
the animal is slaughtered on purpose for you.

Those taking vegetable food and refraining from eating
beef, pork or any other meat are praiseworthy.


With Metta
U Khemissara
RSA



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

Dear Venerable Monks,

I'm interested to know how Buddhism explains the Non Self Theory
(Anatta).  If there is non self, then who attains Nibbana?  If there
is non self, then who is the giver, who is the receiver of all the
deeds done.  Who is the doer and receiver of kamma?
    The Buddha spoke about non self in the khandhas / aggregates.  Of
course we cannot see a Self (Atta)  in those aggregates but.......He
spoke of the True Self in Digha Nikaya Mahaparinibbana Sutta Verse
100 (DN 2.100) Atta saranam anannasaranam = True Self as a refuge
with none other as a refuge.
    The Buddha in KN Jatakapali 1441 Akkhakandam said, "Atta ca me so
saranam gati ca" = The True Self is the refuge that I have gone unto.
    In AN4.128 the Buddha said, "Some have gone about saying that I
preach there is no eternal (amattam) Attan (true self): "O monks,
they do not speak the truth about me saying such things that I do not
say"
    With all those quotations from the Nikayas, could somebody please
explain to me why the Theravadin tradition rejected the True Self and
advocated Non Self (Anatta)?
    Thank you very much and saddhu to those who could "enlighten" me
on this issue of Non Self.  Saddhu

Dear Samgha:
I'm Hong Kong Mahayana monk,due to today internet I can study
Theravada on it. Nowadays so many people had pratice medation in
Theravada system (samatha & vipassana)
How to get a bhikkhu sila?
If I had receive bhikkhu sila in Burma society, can I come back to
Hong Kong to keep bhikkhu life?

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa.

Namami sanghassa.

Pujaneeya Bhikkhu sangha,

I practice anapanasati without guidance of any guru. however, I have
addiction to tobacco chewing. Is it a violation of "sura meraya
pamadathana veramani" sikkhapada? I dont drink or I dont have any
other addiction.


Mast Ram

Dear Venerable Sirs,

I have a question on Monks and Politics.

Can a monk involve in politics? Can he vote?
Where is it stated that monks cannot involve in politics?

Your answers will be deeply appreciated.

Thank you,
Wynn


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

Dear Questioner

Please find attached a file from the Access to Insight
Website on the question of not-self (anatta) by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Hope this helps to answer your question in some way
Please feel free to enquire if anything is still unclear

metta
ashin khemissara
south africa

  notself2


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

Hi,

Let me deal with the two questions breifly. Sorry for late participation due
to unavoidable circumstances. I shall try to give my thoguhts on the others
as and when I have time.

1. Is Teaching Right Livelihood?
Generally, teaching is a highly respected profession if you mean teaching in
school and university. Instead of defining what is the right livelihood, the
Buddha chose to mention at times what not to be engaged in. Yet, there is more
to what is the right livelihood.

Although examining each profession is a very good strategy, things are not
always black and white at all. For instance, the Buddha condemned killing but
not serving in the armed forces.

Perhaps, it is helpful to keep to some Buddhist principles while pondering
upon each profession. They are (a) one's intention or motive and (b) the
philosophy of the Four Noble Truth. If intention is wholesome, teaching
chemistry is a good thing. However, if someone intends to help a terrorist to
make a bomb, then it is bad. So, here we can go by the intention of the
teacher.

The basis of the philosophy of the Four Noble Truth or indeed of the Buddhist
teachings is to reduce and ultimately end suffering. So any action that is
rightly considered to contribute to reducing suffering is to be considered
the right livelihood. Remember that the right livelihood is one of the eight
parts of the Buddhist Path. The right livelihood does nto stand alone to make
the Path but only in a combination with other seven factors. Meaning, there
needs to be right mindfulness, right understanding (to see and reduce suffering)
and right thought (non-violent thougth and so on) etc. Even a well intented
teaching job will contribute to being a part of the Path only when it has
other factors to support it.

2. Friendship and Compassion
It always takes more than reading a simple passage to apply the teaching in our
life. Your question is an obvious instance. You have received wonderful answers
from my colleague sayadaws and I do not need repeating them here.

I only wish to emphasise that one MUST establish oneself in a strong position
morally first before helping others. If translated into action, this would
mean that if you are not sure that you will not be able to prevent their gossip
to defile your mind, it is certainly better then to keep some distance. Because
it is not possible for you to help them. Instead, you may get drowned in the
same dirty stream of gossip, with everyone on board sinking.

This is the very reason why the Buddha stressed a good beginning point, i.e
to start with oneself before helping others. You can see on the plane that you
need to put the oxygen mask on yourself first before putting it on your child.
It is a very practical advice and practice.

Once you are established in moral conduct and mentally firm to resist any
temptation of evil deeds, you can help your friends to get over their habits.
Because by associating with them, you are no longer affected by their habits,
like lotus flowers in muddy water not being affacted by the mud and water,
despite physically rooting there.

With Metta,

Ven.Dhammasami

Dear questioner

I am pleased to answer your good question which is quite important
to understand about non-self through personal experience.

First, you have to understand that there are two truths that the Buddha taught
to the different kinds of people during his 45 years.
The first one is the conventional truth in which things are dealt with an
ordinary sense
that The Buddha himself use in the Sutta as I and me etc.,
and the second is the ultimate truth that are free from bias or partiality that
He explained
in the Abhidhamma philosophy.

The term Anatta is totally concerned with ultimate truth that can only be fully
understood
by individual meditation experience, not enough to understand by intellectual
experience.

There are many meanings of the Pali word Atta in the Suttas,
like self, body, person, individually, life, mind, soul, etc.

It is sometimes used when we should expect the nominative word like you
mentioned.
I think some translation of Pali words into English may not be accurate, if the
translators
are not skilful in Pali grammar. That is why, some may get confused in some
explanations.

"Atta saranam anannasaranam" means "being your own refuge, with no one else as
your refuge",
and then further more explanation of it is "with the Dhamma as an your refuge,
with no other refuge".
If it translated the word atta as self, that also means you yourself, so there
is no true self.

Conventionally speaking, there is "self"  to be used as a nominative but
ultimately speaking,
there is no "self" but it is only mentality and physicality.
To understand about true Anatta, you should  meditate according to the
Satipatthana Sutta.

With Metta
U Khemissara
RSA


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

Sorry about that, the first message with the attachment did not work
Hope this gets through OK

Ashin khemissara
Ashin Nandhodaya
Dhammodaya Myanmar vihara
South Africa
-------------------------
Help | Home » Theravada Text Archives » Contemporary Writers » Thanissaro
Bhikkhu

No-self or Not-self?

by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Copyright © 1996 Thanissaro Bhikkhu
For free distribution only.
You may reprint this work for free distribution.
You may re-format and redistribute this work for use on computers and computer
networks
provided that you charge no fees for its distribution or use.
Otherwise, all rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEXT:

One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they
learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self.
This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there
being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the
doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results
of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own
Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or
self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a
spiritual life? Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the
Pali Canon -- the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings -- you won't
find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked
point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later
asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no
self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist
practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside. To understand what
his silence on this question says about the meaning of anatta, we first have to
look at his teachings on how questions should be asked and answered, and how to
interpret his answers.
The Buddha divided all questions into four classes: those that deserve a
categorical (straight yes or no) answer; those that deserve an analytical
answer, defining and qualifying the terms of the question; those that deserve a
counter-question, putting the ball back in the questioner's court; and those
that deserve to be put aside. The last class of question consists of those that
don't lead to the end of suffering and stress. The first duty of a teacher, when
asked a question, is to figure out which class the question belongs to, and then
to respond in the appropriate way. You don't, for example, say yes or no to a
question that should be put aside. If you are the person asking the question and
you get an answer, you should then determine how far the answer should be
interpreted. The Buddha said that there are two types of people who misrepresent
him: those who draw inferences from statements that shouldn't have inferences
drawn from them, and those who don't draw inferences from those that should.

These are the basic ground rules for interpreting the Buddha's teachings, but if
we look at the way most writers treat the anatta doctrine, we find these ground
rules ignored. Some writers try to qualify the no-self interpretation by saying
that the Buddha denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self, but
this is to give an analytical answer to a question that the Buddha showed should
be put aside. Others try to draw inferences from the few statements in the
discourse that seem to imply that there is no self, but it seems safe to assume
that if one forces those statements to give an answer to a question that should
be put aside, one is drawing inferences where they shouldn't be drawn.

So, instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there is a self
-- interconnected or separate, eternal or not -- the Buddha felt that the
question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how you define the line
between "self" and "other," the notion of self involves an element of
self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress. This holds as
much for an interconnected self, which recognizes no "other," as it does for a
separate self. If one identifies with all of nature, one is pained by every
felled tree. It also holds for an entirely "other" universe, in which the sense
of alienation and futility would become so debilitating as to make the quest for
happiness -- one's own or that of others -- impossible. For these reasons, the
Buddha advised paying no attention to such questions as "Do I exist?" or "Don't
I exist?" for however you answer them, they lead to suffering and stress.

To avoid the suffering implicit in questions of "self" and "other," he offered
an alternative way of dividing up experience: the four Noble Truths of stress,
its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation. Rather than viewing
these truths as pertaining to self or other, he said, one should recognize them
simply for what they are, in and of themselves, as they are directly
experienced, and then perform the duty appropriate to each. Stress should be
comprehended, its cause abandoned, its cessation realized, and the path to its
cessation developed. These duties form the context in which the anatta doctrine
is best understood. If you develop the path of virtue, concentration, and
discernment to a state of calm well-being and use that calm state to look at
experience in terms of the Noble Truths, the questions that occur to the mind
are not "Is there a self? What is my self?" but rather "Am I suffering stress
because I'm holding onto this particular phenomenon? Is it really me, myself, or
mine? If it's stressful but not really me or mine, why hold on?" These last
questions merit straightforward answers, as they then help you to comprehend
stress and to chip away at the attachment and clinging -- the residual sense of
self-identification -- that cause it, until ultimately all traces of
self-identification are gone and all that's left is limitless freedom.

In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self
strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the
highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and
not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where
would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's
a self?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised: Wed 16 May 2001
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/notself2.html


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

Dear Brother

It is possible to become a Theravada monk in our country ( Myanmar).
Firstly, you need to contact one of the meditation centres in Yangon
to get the sponsorship letter so that you can apply for a meditation visa
for up to a year ( 3 months, 6 months also). Then you will be ordained as
a Theravada monk and learn some vinaya rules.

If you wish, you can continue as a Theravada monk in your country.

With Metta
U Khemissara


----- Original Message -----
From: tcdhammaratana
To: SanghaOnline@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 6:15 AM
Subject: [SanghaOnline] How to get a bhikkhu sila?


Dear Samgha:
I'm Hong Kong Mahayana monk,due to today internet I can study
Theravada on it. Nowadays so many people had pratice medation in
Theravada system (samatha & vipassana)
How to get a bhikkhu sila?
If I had receive bhikkhu sila in Burma society, can I come back to
Hong Kong to keep bhikkhu life?





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
SanghaOnline-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




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

Dear  Wynn,

We have two main schools in Buddhism; Mahayana and Theravada. Perhaps
Mahayanis monks can involve in politics like Dalai Lama and monks in
Taiwan. some Theravadin monks also can involve in politics since the
Buddha did not lay down the rules clearly in Vinaya. But it is not good
for monks to involve in politics. Monks should guide politcians and solve
their problems when they have conflicts between the two parties or
different opinions. You may read Buddhist texts that the Buddha practiced
middle ways and He did not follow the kings, the rulers or the people
regarding with politics but He solved their many problems when they were
about to go to war.

Monk can vote but in some country they cannot vote due to their countries
rules, but not because of  the Vinaya rules.

Yours in Dhamma,

Ven. Milinda
***********

On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 16:36:14 +0800 wynn <wewynal@...> writes:
> Dear Venerable Sirs,
>
> I have a question on Monks and Politics.
>
> Can a monk involve in politics? Can he vote?
> Where is it stated that monks cannot involve in politics?
>
> Your answers will be deeply appreciated.
>
> Thank you,
> Wynn
>
>

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

Dear Mast Ram,

Let me answer your question regarding your Pali words that you want to
know.

I am glad to know that you are familiar with not only Pali words but also
the quality of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha.
And you even can practice anapanasati meditation. They are so good for
you to follow.

However it is not advisable to tell you that you have addiction to
tobacco chewing. Though it does not break the whole sentence of precept but
you  break the word: Maja as a whole. But you forgot to type; Majja word.
Majja means heedless that include consumption of  cigarettes, betel chewing and
tobacco.  You are not breaking a major precept. But you may get healthy in life
and you may
even get higher knowledge in your Anapanasati meditation if you can
abstain from chewing and smoking. Try to give up
tobacco chewing and reciting the Pali words Namotassa etc. instead of
chewing, smoking.

Metta,

Ven. Milinda
*********

On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 15:55:04 -0000 "mastram101" <mastram101@...>
writes:
> Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa.
>
> Namami sanghassa.
>
> Pujaneeya Bhikkhu sangha,
>
> I practice anapanasati without guidance of any guru. however, I have
>
> addiction to tobacco chewing. Is it a violation of "sura meraya
> pamadathana veramani" sikkhapada? I dont drink or I dont have any
> other addiction.
>
>
> Mast Ram
>
>
>
>

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

Dear Mast Ram

It is not  breaking the rule of "sura meraya majjapamadatthana veramani"
by chewing tobacco, if it does not cause heedlessness.

With Metta
U Khemissara


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

Dear Venerable Sir,

  My name is Victor (Mahanama), I used to be a novice monk in Lunas a
couple of years ago.

  I am studying in the States (USA) right now, my major is Biomedical
Science; recently I was assigned a project that need to 'sacrifice' rats, I
need some spiritual guidance...

  I had observed my first precept to the extent that I don't even kill
  mosquitoes ... but now, I have to inject a mouse with virus and do
cervical dislocations...

  I really don't know what to do...

  I am afraid this might affect my metta meditation

  Bhante, please Guide me...


Sukhi Hotu

May all beings be well and Happy

Sincerely
Victor

Sadhu!

Maybe you should talk to your tutor about this openly and seek his/her advice.

It is clearly a violation of the first precept. If you are forced to do, the
sin is less on you while the one who forces you to do it may accumulate
demerit more. Though killing a rat is not as sinful as killing a human being,
it still violates the first precept. It would be nice if you can work with
friends, trying to help each other.

Metta,

Ven.Dhammasami


In message <aarqda+kime@eGroups.com> SanghaOnline@yahoogroups.com writes:
> Dear Venerable Sir,
>
>  My name is Victor (Mahanama), I used to be a novice monk in Lunas a
> couple of years ago.
>
>  I am studying in the States (USA) right now, my major is Biomedical
> Science; recently I was assigned a project that need to 'sacrifice' rats, I
> need some spiritual guidance...
>
>  I had observed my first precept to the extent that I don't even kill
>  mosquitoes ... but now, I have to inject a mouse with virus and do
> cervical dislocations...
>
>  I really don't know what to do...
>
>  I am afraid this might affect my metta meditation
>
>  Bhante, please Guide me...
>
>
> Sukhi Hotu
>
> May all beings be well and Happy
>
> Sincerely
> Victor
>
> Sadhu!

Dear Venerable Monks,

I wanted to ask a related question. Is a buddhist
supposed to be a vegeterian?
Or does eating non veg food violate "panatipata
veramani" sikkhapadam?
There are differnt views about this.
The pujaneeya bhikkhusangha is requested to kindly
throw light on this.

Rajendra Jadhao

--- Khammai Dhammasami
<khammai.dhammasami@...> wrote:
> Maybe you should talk to your tutor about this
> openly and seek his/her advice.
>
> It is clearly a violation of the first precept. If
> you are forced to do, the
> sin is less on you while the one who forces you to
> do it may accumulate
> demerit more. Though killing a rat is not as sinful
> as killing a human being,
> it still violates the first precept. It would be
> nice if you can work with
> friends, trying to help each other.
>
> Metta,
>
> Ven.Dhammasami
>
>
> In message <aarqda+kime@eGroups.com>
> SanghaOnline@yahoogroups.com writes:
> > Dear Venerable Sir,
> >
> >  My name is Victor (Mahanama), I used to be a
> novice monk in Lunas a
> > couple of years ago.
> >
> >  I am studying in the States (USA) right now, my
> major is Biomedical
> > Science; recently I was assigned a project that
> need to 'sacrifice' rats, I
> > need some spiritual guidance...
> >
> >  I had observed my first precept to the extent
> that I don't even kill
> >  mosquitoes ... but now, I have to inject a mouse
> with virus and do
> > cervical dislocations...
> >
> >  I really don't know what to do...
> >
> >  I am afraid this might affect my metta meditation
> >
> >  Bhante, please Guide me...
> >
> >
> > Sukhi Hotu
> >
> > May all beings be well and Happy
> >
> > Sincerely
> > Victor
> >
> > Sadhu!
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com

Dear Mast Ram

I just want to forward you the following article that will help
you to understand clearly.

With Metta
U Khemissara

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

BuddhaSasana Home Page
English Section
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Buddhism and Vegetarianism: The Rationale for the Buddha's Views on the
Consumption of Meat
   by Dr V. A. Gunasekara
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   C O N T E N T S
       Prefatory Note


         1.. The Buddha's Three-Fold Rule
         2.. Other Religious Views on Meat Eating
         3.. The Rationale for the Buddha's Rule
         4.. The Arguments for Vegetarianism
         5.. Conclusion


   PREFATORY NOTE

   This article originally appeared in Vīma.msā the Journal of the Buddhist
Society of Queensland for October 1983. It was reprinted subsequently in the
Young Buddhist (Singapore). It was later issued in the BSQ Tracts on Buddhism
series, but has been out of print for some time. In view of the continuing
interest in this subject the booklet is being reissued.

   The opportunity has been taken to make some stylistic changes, include some
additional material and footnotes. There has been no change in the general
argument advanced in the booklet.

   1. The Buddha's Three-Fold Rule
   Vegetarianism is a growing practice in modern society and some of
its-new-found enthusiasts have pointed an accusing finger at the Buddha who is
recorded as having eaten meat, and at modern Buddhists who eat meat. In this
situation it is worthwhile examining the attitude of the Buddha to the
consumption of fish and meat. We shall first state the Rule which the Buddha
laid down relating the consumption of fish and meat, and then investigate the
rationale for this rule. While the Buddha's rule has been stated many times
there is very little discussion of the rationale for this rule. It is this that
the present work seeks to address.

   There is some controversy as to the exact composition of the last meal of
sūkaramaddava eaten by the Buddha, some (following Buddhaghosa) considering it
to be pork, others (following Mahayana sources) to be medicine or truffles.
However there are other incidents recorded where the Buddha and the early
Bhikkhus ate meat. The classic reference to this is in the story of the
"conversion" of General Siha given in the Vinaya Piaka (Mahāvagga, VI, 31-2).
The General had invited the Buddha and the Bhikkhus for a meal at which meat was
served. The Jains who had earlier enjoyed the exclusive patronage of the
General, now spread the story that Siha has a "fat beast" (thūla pasu) killed
for the occasion, and the Buddha by knowingly partaking of its meat, had
committed an act of grave karmic consequence (pāticcakamma). In fact the meat
had not been specially slaughtered, but had been purchased on the market. The
Buddha took the opportunity created by this incident to lay down the rule
governing the consumption of fish and flesh.

   Addressing the monks he said: "Do not eat meat knowing that it has been killed
specially for (your) use; I allow the use of fish and meat blameless [NOTE1] in
three ways, unseen, unheard and unsuspected" (na bhikkave jāna.m udissakata
ma.msa.m paribhunjitabba.m. Anujānāmi bhikkave tiko.tiparisuddha.m maccama.msa.m
adi.t.ta.m asuta.m aparisankitan ti [V I 233]). We shall refer to this rule as
the Buddha's three-fold rule on meat eating [NOTE 2]. The three conditions
postulated amount to not witnessing the actual killing, not being told that the
meat had been specially killed (for the use of the consumer), and even in the
absence of such information not suspecting that such was the case (i.e. the eye,
ear and mind should be satisfied as to the "blamelessness" of the meat).

   In the light of the three-fold rule the Pali texts make a distinction between
two kinds of meat, called respectively uddissakatamasa and pavattamasa. The
former term is used to refer to meat destined for a specific person's
consumption. Such meat would not be cleared by the three-fold rule. Although not
stated so a rough criterion which could be used to identify this kind of meat is
that the person doing the killing has a clear notion that the meat would be
consumed by a specific person, and if that person were to consume it that person
would partake not only of the meat but also of the karmic consequences attached
to the provision of that meat. The term used for the other kind of which it is
permissible to eat (pavattamasa) literally means "already existing meat"
(translated by Ms Horner as "meat at hand"). There has been some controversy as
to what types of meat would fall into this category of "already existing meat".
Some interpreters have taken it to mean that it refers to the meat of animals
killed accidentally or killed by other animals. But in fact it includes meat
sold commercially. This is clear from another incident in the Vinaya where the
lady Suppiyā sends her servant to the market to fetch meat (to make a soup for a
sick monk), and is told by the servant that "existing meat" could not be found
as "today is not a slaughter day" (n'atth'ayye pavattama.msa.m māghāto ajjā ti).
This shows that meat slaughtered for sale in the market was regarded as
pavatta-masa and therefore falling into the category of permissible meat. This
kind of meat is considered blameless because it is karmically neutral as far as
the consumer is concerned (but not of course for the provider of the meat who
must take the full karmic responsibility). We shall refer to the two kinds of
meat as karmically effective and karmically neutral meat [NOTE3].

   A shorter version of this incident is reported in the Anguttara Nikāya. In the
Jivakasutta of the Majjima Nikāya the same rule is explained to Jivaka the
physician. This sutta goes to great lengths to specify the wrong karmas that
would accompany the violation of the three-fold rule. The rule is again
reiterated when the Buddha rejected Devadatta's request to incorporate
vegetarianism into the Vinaya [NOTE 4]. It has been reported that this rule also
appears in the Vinayas of the other early "Hinayāna" schools like the
Dharmaguptas and the Mula Sarvastavādins (although not in their Sutras). It can
therefore be considered to be an authentic rule of the Buddha.

   The distinction between karmically effective and karmically neutral meat is
based on moral grounds. However there are other arguments for vegetarianism;
these will be considered in Section 4 below. The Buddha attached some importance
to at least one of these other reasons as well. It was on this grounds that the
meat of ten kinds of living beings were prohibited. These were: humans,
elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears and hyenas. The
texts simple declare that such meat is "unsuitable" (akappiya). There is no
detailed discussion why these ten species were selected for the prohibition, but
one would suspect that this was so because they were so considered by the Public
at large [NOTE5].

   In view of the fact that only meat that was "karmically neutral" was permitted
to the Buddhist community the Buddha requested that no meat should be consumed
without enquiry as to its provenance: na ca bhikkhave appativekkhitvā masa.m
paribhunjitabba.m. Thus ignorance was no excuse if the wrong kind had been
consumed. It was the responsibility of the consumer to determine the suitability
of meat for his or her own consumption. These rules are specifically laid down
with respect to monks, but they have been considered as applicable to the whole
Buddhist community, both monk and lay.

   Practices in modern Theravada countries differ. By and large in Sri Lanka only
fish is served for monks although increasing number of monks are vegetarians. In
Thailand there appears to be greater readiness to serve meat, and it has even
been rumoured that some of this meat has been "specially slaughtered" for the
use of the monks and therefore would fall into the category of karmically
effective meat which violates the three-fold rule of the Buddha.

   2. Other Religious Views on Meat Eating
   The Buddha's views on meat-eating should be put in the context of his times.
The earliest Indian religious texts, the Vedas, did not prohibit meat eating or
the killing of animals. Indeed large scale sacrifice became the norm,
particularly the cruel ritual of the asvamedha which gradually assumed large
dimensions as the power of the Indian rulers grew.

   It was the Upanishads that introduced, at first tentatively, the principle of
non-injury (ahi.msā) into Indian religious life. But even here sacrifice to the
gods were permitted, though not on the scale that it had assumed in later Vedic
times. The early Upanishads, like the Chandogya, permit the consumption of meat,
especially if part of it is offered to god. It was only in post-Buddhist times
that certain Hindu sects adopted vegetarianism as a general rule. But the rule
was not universal and some Hindu sects, like those following the cult of Tara,
engaged in ritual killing and consumption of meat. Most Hindus however either
became vegetarians, or at least avoided some kinds of meat, notably beef.

   It is amongst the Jains that we find the most extreme assertion of the
principle of ahi.msā. They prohibited the killing of all forms of life, even
microscopic organisms. Most of Jain ethics consists of a series of rules and
regulations all related to the principle of ahi.msā. Thus the Jain layperson's
eight basic restraints (mūlaguna) involve abstention from meat, alcohol, honey,
and five specific kinds of figs. The last seven kinds of foods were prohibited
because they could harbour small organisms. In addition a whole host of other
rules have to be kept, e.g. not eating after sunset (because cooking fires could
attract insects to their death) and not drinking unfiltered water (which may
contain organisms). Jain laypersons even excluded agriculture from their "right
livelihood" occupations as agriculture too involves destruction of life. Many of
them took to commerce and trade. The rules for the Jain monk (muni) was even
more strict, some sects even avoiding clothing which could be destructive to
bodily parasites. Some Jain munis even undertook the practice of fasting to
death (sallekhana) because no kind of food can be really free of harm to animals
(see the section below on the arguments for vegetarianism).

   Amongst Buddhists vegetarianism was extolled by certain Mahayanist groups.
Already in the Sanskrit version of the Mahāparinirvāna Sutra the following
statement is attributed to the Buddha: "I order the various disciples from today
that they cannot any more partake of meat". This statement is, of course, absent
in the Pali version of this Suttanata. It is well known that various statements
have been interpolated into this sutta to get the Buddha's authority
posthumously. The condemnation of meat eating occurs in other Mahayana sutras
such as their version of the Brahmajāla Sutra, and more importantly the
Lankāvatara Sutra. Chapter 8 of the latter sutra is devoted entirely to this
question, and some 24 arguments are advanced against the eating of meat. Some
representative arguments adduced against meat eating in the Lankāvatara are:

     1.. present-day animals may have been one's kith and kin in the past;
     2.. one's own parents and relatives may in a future life be born as an
animal;
     3.. there is no logic in exempting the meat of some animals on customary
grounds while not exempting all meat;
     4.. meat is impure as it is always contaminated by body wastes;
     5.. the prospect of being killed spreads terror amongst animals;
     6.. all meat is nothing other than carrion;
     7.. meat eating makes the consumer to be cruel and sensual;
     8.. man in not a carnivore by nature.
   In this Sutra the Buddha instructs the Bodhisattva Mahamati thus: "There is no
meat that is pure in three ways: not premeditated, not asked for, and not
impelled; therefore refrain from eating meat".

   It is clear that this is the Mahayana answer to the Buddha's three-fold rule
given in the Pali and other "Hinayana" Canons. But the three conditions
mentioned do not coincide with the conditions stipulated by the Buddha in the
Pali suttas. In spite of the textual criticisms of meat eating Mahayanists have
generally consumed meat in practice. This is particularly true of Tibetan
Buddhists. The Dalai Lama has given the excuse that this is because of the poor
soil and cold climate of Tibet which is no condusive to agriculture. But it may
also be due to tantric influences under which fish and meat and two of the five
"M"s which tantrists indulge in.

   As we have seen the Theravada School sought to adhere to the Buddha's rule.
The only notable exception was Devadatta's schism, which the Buddha
categorically rejected even the rule of vegetarianism. However remnants of
Devadatta's schism could still be seen in some of the tāpasa sects in Theravada
[NOTE 6].

   The monotheistic religions that arose in the middle east (Judaism,
Christianity and Islam) did not develop the ethic of non-injury to animals. Both
Judaism and Islam required animal sacrifice to God, and they also specify the
way in which animals have to be killed for human consumption (a way that is
often cruel). According to the Bible God shortly after the Creation ordered
humans to be vegetarians. This injunction however was short-lived and was
revoked after the mythical "Flood". Now humans were allowed to kill and eat meat
with some curious restrictions relating to the shedding of blood. This is the
basis of the cruel method of butchery resorted to by Jews and Muslims. The
Judeo-Christian Bible sanctions the "dominion" which God had given to animals
and the environment which has had severe consequences in history.

   It will be seen that Buddhism takes a middle position between the Jain ahi.msā
ideal and the complete abandon of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic position.

   3. The Rationale for Buddha's Rule
   What is the rationale for the Buddha's three-fold rule on meat eating? It
cannot be said that the hands of the consumer of "karmically neutral" meat are
clean, especially if the meat is bought in the market as is the case with most
consumers of meat. For it is a rule of the market place that without the demand
there would be no supply [NOTE 7]. At issue is the degree of involvement with
the act of killing if meat of any sort (excepting accidentally killed animals,
or those that have died naturally) is to be consumed. We may identify various
degrees of involvement of the consumer with the act of killing. The most direct
is where the consumer directly kills the animal whose flesh is eaten. The second
degree of involvement is when an employee of someone under the direct power
consumer is asked to do the killing. A variant of this degree of involvement is
when consumer dines on meat offered by a friend or a relative who in turn had
either directly killed or caused the animal to be directly killed. Both these
degrees of involvement would fall outside the Buddha three-fold requirement and
is prohibited to the Buddhist community.

   The next (third) degree of involvement is when the consumer buys the meat on
the open market. The Buddha seems to have considered this as satisfying the
three-fold rule and it is deemed karmically neutral. The reasons for permitting
the third degree of involvement with the act of killing is not directly
discussed in the Canon. So the reasons for it has to be inferred from the
Buddha's position in general. It is this rationale that we hope to supply in
this section.

   The relationship of this degree of involvement in killing to the first precept
of Buddhism (refraining from the taking of life) must first be explored. Karma
adheres to acts of sovereign choice. It is true that a butcher will only kill
animals for the sale of their meat only if there are consumers will to buy the
meat. But is so doing the butcher is making a sovereign choice. There is no
compulsion for the butcher to have become a butcher rather than say a baker or a
candle-stick maker. If there were no persons willing to supply the meat trade
meat eaters would, if they want to persist in their meat eating, be compelled to
do their own killing thus incurring karmic responsibility. It is this lack of
compulsion on the part of the consumer of the meat that really frees this type
of meat consumer from the full karmic responsibility for the act of killing
which made it possible for this person to buy the meat in the first place. Thus
the Buddha could logically hold on to both the first precept of Buddhism and the
three-fold rule of meat eating as not involving a logical contradiction.

   The most compelling argument for the Buddha's rule is that the whole of
samsaric existence involves some from of killing or other. As will be shown in
the next section the supply of "vegetarian" food also involves the destruction
of life, sometimes to a greater extent than the supply of meat products. The
stark reality is that both the vegetarian and the meat-eater by their very
existence in samsara causes the destruction of some form of life or other. In
fact it may be impossible to live at all without the destruction of life (as the
Jain munis realised).

   The fundamental point in the Buddha's teaching is that the whole of samsāric
existence involves some form of killing. This is indeed an aspect of dukkha, the
omni-present reality. Instead of a fruitless effort to end all forms of killing,
and make the world perfect in this respect, the Buddha laid a path to escape
from samsara and all its defects. This involves abstaining from the grosser
forms of evil, including the consumption of "karmically effective" meat,
together with the co-development of other elements of the Eight-Fold Path.

   The Buddha stressed graver ethical defects than meat-eating. The classic sutta
in this regard is the Amagandha Sutta in the Sutta Nipāta, one of the earliest
books of the Pali Canon. In this an unnamed vegetarian Brahmin confronts the
Buddha proclaiming the evils of eating fish and flesh. The word āmaganda
literally means the stench of fish and meat, and is also used to denote
defilements. In his reply the Buddha utters a number of verses listing the real
defilements that taint moral conduct. At the end of each verse he utters the
refrain: ...esāmagandho no hi ma.msabhojana.m ("... this is the stench giving
defilement, not the consumption of meat").

   The Buddha's approach is validated in Darwinian theory. Darwin showed that all
species are in constant conflict and that only the fittest survive. According to
this the survival of any species is brought about by the non-survival of other
species that compete for the same limited bio-space. The survival and
proliferation of mankind must necessarily involve the destruction of countless
lives irrespective of what the diet of humans is vegetarian or non-vegetarian.

   4. The Arguments for Vegetarianism
   We must next examine the ethical and other implications of vegetarianism.
There are many arguments advanced for vegetarianism amongst which the following
arguments should be considered: the moral argument, the biological argument, the
ecological argument and the socio-cultural argument.

   From the religious point of view the moral argument is the most important and
will be considered first. Many vegetarians relish in taking the moral
high-ground. They claim either that their diet does not involve the killing and
suffering of animals, or that even if it does so there would be greater
suffering and animal killing if they adopted non-vegetarian diets. Of course it
is a simple fact is that commercial agriculture, which is the basis of
vegetarian diets, cannot be undertaken without the destruction of life. Even the
very act of tilling the ground kills many earth-bound insect life, but the main
form of killing comes from the need to protect crops and harvests from insects,
predators and other vermin. We need only contemplate the wholesale killing of
feral pigs, rabbits, kangaroos, etc. for this purpose, often using poison,
traps, and man-induced diseases involving cruel and horrible deaths. The snails,
grasshoppers, grubs, locusts and other insects destroyed by powerful
insecticides number by the million. Even the number of rats killed to save the
stored-up grain from being eaten greatly exceed the number of cattle slaughtered
to feed the meat eaters. Indeed it could be argued that the number of animals
and insects killed to produce the average vegetarian meal greatly exceeds the
number of animals killed to produce the a non-vegetarian meal of equal food
value. If this is so the adoption of a vegetarian diet may actually increase the
number lives lost in the food production process.

   Also many vegetarians use animal products like milk. While it might appear
that this is a "humane" food as no killing is resorted to this may not really be
the case. Suppose that everyone gives up meat-eating but retains milk-drinking.
A consequence would be that male calves will be killed at birth (except for a
few kept for stud purposes), unless of course the unproductive bulls are
maintained which is not likely to happen. Milk is meant by nature for the
calves, and its forced appropriation by humans is questionable morals. It is
curious to note that some of staunchest vegetarians like the Hare Khrishnas as
also the most addicted to the use of milk products. They not appear to see the
moral dilemma involved in their dietary habits. The Buddha's three-fold rule,
while not a perfect one as none such exits, at least avoids the moral conundrums
that must remain to confuse the ethically motivated vegetarian.

   The biological argument for vegetarianism has greater validity than the moral
one. It may well be that the human body is not designed to subsist on meat (as
the Lankavatara Sutra claims). The two aspects of the human anatomy may suggest
that vegetarian food is the normal food for humans. The first is the composition
of human teeth (where molars are more important than the incisors), and the
other is the rather large ratio of the length of the intestines to the body
length in humans. Carnivores have incisor teeth to tear the flesh, and short
intestines as the putrefying meat has to be expelled from the body as soon as
possible. The human body is closer to that of herbivores, but not exclusive
herbivores who have a different structure to their stomachs. In fact the human
anatomy is a compromise between the pure herbivore and the pure carnivore - in
fact it is that of an omnivore. Also the harmful effects from the consumption of
animal products (e.g. cholesterol) are not counterbalanced by the alleged lack
of high grade protein in vegetarian diets. On balance the biological argument
seems to favour vegetarianism over meat-eating.

   The ecological argument too is in favour of vegetarianism. Meat is a very
inefficient way of converting energy into food. It is far easier and cheaper to
convert energy into biomass that is suitable for direct consumption by humans
rather than indirectly after feeding it to animals and then consuming the flesh
of the animals. Mass production of livestock (chickens, pigs, cattle) would
either lead to cutting down of native forests to create grazing lands, or under
the battery method lead to great cruelty, release of methane, etc. Selective
breeding of farm animals and use of chemicals and hormones to enhance growth can
have unexpected side effects in other areas. But it must be mentioned that
conversion into vegetarianism will not necessarily improve the environment
ecologically. What is needed is a decline in the population, and the adoption of
living standards that are sustainable without environmental damage.

   The socio-cultural argument involves the aesthetic argument of what society
considers fit to eat. Social norms differ in this respect. Most societies have
ruled out cannibalism, and do not permit the consumption of carrion and
scavenging of dead animals. In most Western countries and in the Indian
subcontinent there is a general aversion to eating pets (dogs, cats) or
reptiles. However no such inhibitions exist in parts of Africa and the Far East
(although in China in 511 CE the Emperor Wu of Liang prohibited the consumption
of meat). Logically there is no difference between eating one species of animal
and avoiding another. But aesthetically and culturally there can be a
significant difference. Certainly vegetarians foods are more aesthetic than mead
products however well the latter may be dressed up to be.

   5. Conclusion
   The foregoing argument should not be taken as a justification of meat-eating.
Our concern is to speculate on the rationale behind the three-fold rule on this
subject enunciated by the Buddha and to refute the charge that the Buddha's rule
involves a moral contradiction with the other parts of the Buddha's teaching
such as his insistence on loving-kindness and the precept on the taking of life.

   There are many compelling arguments for vegetarianism, the most important of
these being the biological, ecological and social arguments we have identified
in the previous section. The moral argument on which many vegetarians adopt to
claim to a morality which is even higher than that taught by the Buddha has been
shown to be invalid. In fact if people were to switch over from meat-eating to
vegetarianism there will not necessarily be a reduction in the amount of killing
and cruelty involved in the provision of food. Only different kinds of animals
are likely to suffer.

   There is also another interesting moral point to resolve. Most of the animals
killed for human consumption are deliberately bred for this purpose (e.g.
chickens, pigs and cattle). If there were no demand for their meat the animals
would not simply exist. Thus abolition of meat eating will not in the long run
"save" any animals as these animals will simply not be reared. The problem is
whether it is morally preferable for some animals to be kept alive for a limited
period rather than not allow them to exist at all. Without meat consumers most
of the animals not slaughtered for food would not have existed at all. We shall
not examine the moral conundrum involved in this question.

   The Buddha's requirement was for moderation in eating (matta¤¤uta ca
bhattasmi). Whether vegetarian or meat diets are used eating should be
restricted to the minimum that is necessary to keep the bodily functions going.
The Vinaya rule of not eating after mid-day may be related to this rule of
moderation in consumption. But however careful one may be in the matter of diet,
there is no way to keep one's body going in a material sense that does not cause
harm to some other organism. The interdependence between organisms ensures that
the survival of any one species - even the human species - must involve the
destruction of other forms of life.

   Even though there is no blanket proscription on meat eating in the Buddha's
teaching the three-fold rule that he enunciated has considerable value. The
Buddha was concerned with devising a practical rule that will reconcile the
dilemma involved in living in samsara and allowing other life forms too to
exist. The fact that the three-fold rule is not ideal is not a reflection on the
Buddha but of the existential fact that samsāra-faring must involve harm to
others. The Buddha's final solution to this is perhaps the only way in which
this problem could be satisfactorily solved. This solution is to chart a course
to get out of phenomenal existence, i.e. chart a path to Nibbāna.

   NOTES

   1. The term parisuddha is best translated as "blameless" rather than the more
literal "pure" which is the rendition favoured by Horner (who translated the
Vinaya for the Pali Text Society). It is the karmic quality of the meat that is
important, not its purity in other respects. [Return]

   2. The word "meat" will be used to designate all forms of food derived from
animals whether they fish, flesh or fowl. From the ethico-moral perspective
there is no essential difference between these various form of flesh. [Return]

   3. The relationship of meat-eating to karma is not specifically made by the
Buddha. The distinction we have made should be treated with care. Even the
consumption of what we have termed-"non-karmically effective" meat can have
adverse karmic effects depending on the thought moments that accompany the
consumption of that meat. What is meant however is that the consumption of what
we have called "karmically effective meat" will always have adverse karmic
consequences, while the other kind of meat may have adverse consequence. In
neither case can there be any good karmic effects. [Return]

   4. The rule of vegetarianism was the fifth of a list of rules which Devadatta
had proposed to the Buddha. Devadatta was the founder of the tāpasa movement in
Buddhism and his special rules involved ascetic and austere practices
(forest-dwelling, wearing only rags, etc). The Buddha rejected all the proposed
revisions of Devadatta, and it was in this context that he reiterated the
tikoiparisuddha rule. (On this see the author's Western Buddhism and a Theravāda
heterodoxy, BSQ Tracts on Buddhism. [Return]

   5. In general the Buddha tended to accept currently prevailing social customs
unless there was a direct conflict with the Dhammic principles. In this case
there was no need to change current practices. It is interesting to note that
the ten kinds of animals does not include the ox or cow. This was later to
become of one of the greatest taboos of Hinduism. Perhaps at the time of this
Buddha this aspect of Hinduism had not developed the importance that it was
later to assume. [Return]

   6. On this see the present writer's Western Buddhism and a Theravada
Heterodoxy, BSQ Tracts on Buddhism Series. [Return]

   7. The argument that the animal is already dead when its meat is bought is not
a valid one. Most butchers and meat shops sell out of stocks they hold. When a
sale is made the seller orders more stock to replace the item sold. Thus when an
already dead chicken is bought an order is sent out to kill another chicken to
replace the one sold. [Return]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Source: The Buddhist Society of Queensland Home Page,
http://www.uq.net.au/slsoc/budsoc.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------