tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5541500.post3930839570639987975..comments2024-03-28T18:35:54.237+09:00Comments on BigHominid's Hairy Chasms: animal ZenKevin Kimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01328790917314282058noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5541500.post-29080184626829743402007-06-02T22:04:00.000+09:002007-06-02T22:04:00.000+09:00T O'C,I don't see any mystery in Hyeon Gak's veget...T O'C,<BR/><BR/>I don't see any mystery in Hyeon Gak's vegetarianism. He's only following his situation, just as the Dalai Lama is following <I>his</I> situation by eating meat.<BR/><BR/>As a non-Buddhist, I tend to see the proscription against meat-eating as rooted more in superstition than in anything morally meaningful. As commenter Sperwer has pointed out on a few occasions, the proscription is an add-on to original Buddhism; I would further note that it isn't really followed seriously by the majority of practicing cradle Buddhists in the world, Korea included. That's quite telling.<BR/><BR/>I wrote superficially on this issue <A HREF="http://bighominid.blogspot.com/2005/08/eating-and-suffering.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>. One implied point in that post is that Jainism doesn't make excuses for eating veggies. Oh, yes-- the veggies suffer, too!<BR/><BR/><BR/>KevinKevin Kimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328790917314282058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5541500.post-57268403720984519042007-06-02T21:24:00.000+09:002007-06-02T21:24:00.000+09:00and yet, he's still a vegetarian, why?this is the ...and yet, he's still a vegetarian, why?<BR/>this is the fantastic hwadu of the bodhisattva path. <BR/><BR/>"beings are numberless, i vow to save them all."<BR/><BR/>you are not a buddhist, as you yourself say, and thus, to a buddhist, you might sometimes seem quite guilty of falling prey to existential extremes, privileging the "bestiality" (and all the concomitant gore that entails) over the "benevolence" that is equally inherent in life. i hope you don't confuse hyon-gak's quip as an endorsement of your emphasis on the beastliness in life.<BR/><BR/>grains and fruits can not only not get away, they can't feel suffering. they can't feel suffering to an even greater degree of difference with animals than between the rabbits that can't feel suffering quite like human adults. to buddhists, such distinctions regarding suffering matter, greatly. to carnivorous philosophers who try to make snide points against their vegetarian counterparts, such distinctions are seen as arbitrary.<BR/><BR/>that said, the point you seem to make about vegetarians being wise to not fall prey to self-satisfied feelings of purity is important. sadly, this self-satisfaction often seems to be a key ingredient in causing carnivores to be anti-vegetarian. this is quite lamentable, as carnivores seem to suffer from a much worse self-satisfaction, that they are "keeping it real," acting in accord with nature, while vegetarians are all cooky, deluded cranks. the sin of the illusion of purity is not nearly as detrimental to one's karma (and can be quite quickly extinguished) as the illusion that one's participation in the meat consumption machine is just part of a "grand scheme of natural life." the slavish taste for the flesh of sentient beings is a desire not easily eradicated, in this life or the next.<BR/><BR/>mahayanist monastics may be the most relativist of buddhists, sometimes to an extreme, but even they hold precepts, and for very good reason. not eating meat is very high up on the list, and should never be taken lightly, no matter what type of pithy comments may be made during dharma sermons.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com