Zen, Bodhisattva vow and veganism/vegetarianism

[Bion]

Oh my god I sincerely hope that is not true.
That is just outright abusive [emoji15]
Sounds like not everything Zen masters did was right - it would be dangerous to slip into a world where behaviour like that is acceptable.

Gassho,
Dee
ST

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

But see, right and wrong are subjective concepts which lack an essence just like everything else. Consider it this way: he was “wrong” for taking the cat’s life (if indeed it happened) but he taught the monks a valuable lesson that probably helped them advance in their studies and practice and one of the vows we make is to save and serve all sentient beings - mind you, that koan is still helping many many other practitioners even nowadays, centuries later.
Judging good and bad based on our own preferences and values doesn’t make those judgments universally valid and applicable to everyone else and more often than not it contributes to more delusion clouding the mind.

[emoji1374] SatToday lah

[Eikyo]

But see, right and wrong are subjective concepts which lack an essence just like everything else. Consider it this way: he was “wrong” for taking the cat’s life (if indeed it happened) but he taught the monks a valuable lesson that probably helped them advance in their studies and practice and one of the vows we make is to save and serve all sentient beings - mind you, that koan is still helping many many other practitioners even nowadays, centuries later.
Judging good and bad based on our own preferences and values doesn’t make those judgments universally valid and applicable to everyone else and more often than not it contributes to more delusion clouding the mind.

[emoji1374] SatToday lah

I agree with your last sentence, but nothing will convince me that killing a cat is helpful or right in any way - and in fact if that is the aim of zen practice, to lose the sense of right and wrong to that point, then I want out!!

Gassho
Dee
ST

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[Bion]

I agree with your last sentence, but nothing will convince me that killing a cat is helpful or right in any way - and in fact if that is the aim of zen practice, to lose the sense of right and wrong to that point, then I want out!!

Gassho
Dee
ST

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Oh no, not the aim at all, just look at the precepts and the vows and all the teachings. I hardly think anyone would try to teach anyone that killing is good or that you’d have to lose the sense of right and wrong. Just take that koan with a pinch of salt, it probably never happened. [emoji3526]

[emoji1374] SatToday lah

[Kokuu]

Oh my god I sincerely hope that is not true.
That is just outright abusive
Sounds like not everything Zen masters did was right - it would be dangerous to slip into a world where behaviour like that is acceptable.

Hi Dee

I don't think that koan is to be taken literally.

Nansen's cat (if he had one) was more likely fed milk and doted on by all of the monks but that wouldn't have made the same point.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday-

[Bion]

Hi Dee

I don't think that koan is to be taken literally.

Nansen's cat (if he had one) was more likely fed milk and doted on by all of the monks but that wouldn't have made the same point.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday-

Thanks for clearing that up! I felt really bad for bringing it up! [emoji1]

[emoji1374] SatToday lah

[Shinshi]

Hi Dee

I don't think that koan is to be taken literally.

Nansen's cat (if he had one) was more likely fed milk and doted on by all of the monks but that wouldn't have made the same point.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday-

I think Nansen's cat is the original Schrodinger's cat, he is in a state where he is both alive and dead until the Koan is deeply looked into.

Gassho, Shinshi

SaT-LaH

[gaurdianaq]

I agree with your last sentence, but nothing will convince me that killing a cat is helpful or right in any way - and in fact if that is the aim of zen practice, to lose the sense of right and wrong to that point, then I want out!!

Gassho
Dee
ST

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

I agree with you on this, so I'm going to assume the story about the cat was an extreme form of metaphor, and if it actually did happen, that also doesn't mean Zen is telling people to go cutting cats in half to make a point and we don't have to accept that sort of extreme teaching either in this day and age.

,
Evan,
Sat today, lah

[nknibbs]

There is a teaching in the Shobogenzo Zuimonki regarding the eating of meat. Essentially, the abbot of the monastery allows a sick monk to eat meat but when the abbot goes to check on the monk sees that the monk is feeding the meat to a demon (my reading is that this is unintentional-- the monk does not appear to know this). The conclusion by Master Dogen is unclear-- he simply mentions that each abbot must have considered such a choice deeply before making their decision as to allow or not allow the eating of meat.

Gassho,
Nick
SatLah

My apologies for going over 3 sentences by adding a postscript but just wanted to add this story because I found it interesting that it came up "by chance" while reading through the SZ.

[Jundo]

They should have just gone to the taco stand!! No wonder Suzuki was annoyed.

Still don't think this answers the question though - it is pretty crappy to make someone eat a burger if they don't want to - does Zen mean not being allowed to have principles, and that those principles are there to be mocked and worn down?

Gassho
Dee
ST

I happen to agree with you. I used to think it was a great story, but now I feel that what Suzuki Roshi did was quite unskillful. He should not have made the carpenter eat meat if he did not wish. Even Suzuki got it wrong sometimes, and if he meant it as a teaching he could have designed it better.

Of course, we also have the Buddhist traditional principle of eating (and accepting in life) "whatever is placed in one's bowl." Nonetheless, we seek to avoid anything that is a poison, would result in death, is harmful to self or others. To me, it sounds like eating meat may definitely be seen by many people as a poison, resulting in death (to the poor animal at least), and harm to self and others. So, there is good reason not to accept meat in one's bowl

I agree wholeheartedly with the vegans and vegetarians.

That said, this is one of those issues ... like politics ... where we leave some of that attitude at the door of the Zen temple or, at least, watch our own bowl, not the bowls of the people next to us. In Japan, in the Zen monastery, the food is vegetarian. Outside the monastery, it is left to each individual to make their own choices (forcing choices on someone else is, in a sense, the same mistake that Suzuki Roshi made!) I have been to many, many local temples in Japan where often the food served is vegetarian, but also often sometimes meat and fish are served. Each place and practitioner makes their own decision.

So, I actually agree with Dee. She is right in her stance, and should keep her principles. In the world, it is right to stand up for that stance as much as possible.

Furthermore, there are some stances that are not acceptable ever, whether inside or outside a Zen group. For example, I would not let someone come here to espouse racism or excessive drug use.

But in this Zen group, on this issue, we take an "each must determine for themself," and "look in your own bowl, not your neighbor's" attitude. Perhaps it is my mistake, like Suzuki had his. One may also lightly advocate for one's position on the issue, but should respect and honor those who disagree on both sides. We also say that, on the cushion, we thoroughly drop away "veg. vs. carni," cows and people, life and death, and there is nothing to desire or kill. Then, afterwards, getting up from the cushion and returning to the world, one may pick up one's viewpoints again, advocate for them as one feels right, and eat as one chooses.

I would like to see a world with more vegetarians.

Sorry, ran long.

Gassho, Jundo

STLah

[Jundo]

Certain masters have always had pretty rough teaching methods. When Nansen saw the monks fighting over the cat he taught them a big lesson by cutting the cat in two, saying: “if any of you can say a good word, you can save the cat” but since none did, he killed it.

[emoji1374] SatToday lah

For many reasons, I do not believe that any cat was actually killed or to be killed in that story. I believe that the point is that the monks, fighting about ownership of the cat (like us fighting about vegetarianism), divided as a community or within themselves into two factions and opinions, are the ones who had already "cut the cat" in two with their minds, not a knife. They are the ones who divided the world into pieces. Nansen used the "sword of wisdom," which ended the debate and mental dividing, cutting the cat back into one, not two. The cat was brought back to life and the divisions of the world ended.

I speak more about this here:

One of the most easily misunderstood of Koans is 'Nansen Kills the Cat.'

Nanchuan (Nansen) saw the monks of the eastern and western halls fighting over a cat. Seizing the cat, he told the monks: “If any of you can say a word of Zen, you will save the cat.” No one answered. Nanchuan cut the cat in two. That evening Zhaozho (Joshu) returned to the monastery and Nanchuan told him what had happened. Zhaozho removed his sandals, placed them on his head, and walked out. Nanchuan said: “If you had been there, you would have saved the cat.”

Here is how I take it: The "Sword of Wisdom" in Mahayana Buddhism actually makes the separate things of the world one when it "uncuts." It is the opposite of a worldly sword. The monks, in fighting over the cat, are the ones who had already mentally divided it. There was unlikely to have been any literal killing celebrated by Buddhist priests who take a vow to avoid violence, not to mention all the Karmic ramifications. Instead, Nansen actually brought wholeness and the cat back to life by ending the monk's arguing and divisive thoughts, and returning to Wholeness and the Absolute. No cat was harmed, in either the relative or the absolute sense. The "shoes on the head" at the end is a traditional gesture of mourning at Chinese funerals, showing that Joshu got the message.

Manjushri with the "Sword of Wisdom" as found in many Zazen Halls

Frankly, in my new book "ZEN of the FUTURE!" I advocate for a world in which we all eat delicious protein substitutes that will please everyone, where no sentient animal is harmed, the environment better respected. That will solve the problem and end the debate.

Gassho, J

STLah

[Bion]

For many reasons, I do not believe that any cat was actually killed or to be killed in that story. I believe that the point is that the monks, fighting about ownership of the cat (like us fighting about vegetarianism) divided into two factions and opinions are the ones who "cut the cat" in two with their minds, not a knife. They are the ones who divided the world into pieces. Nansen used the "sword of wisdom," which ended the debate and mental dividing, cutting the cat back into one, not two. The cat was brought back to life and the divisions of the world ended.

I speak more about this here:



Frankly, in my new book "ZEN of the FUTURE!" I advocate for a world in which we all eat delicious protein substitutes where no sentient animal is harmed, the environment better respected. That will solve the problem and end the debate.

Gassho, J

STLah

I don’t really believe the story to be factual either but the point I was trying to make in the conversation was that Zen doesn’t shy away from rough lessons, given that story has been passed down like that through the centuries, painting that image of Nansen as a teacher.

I am intrigues by the idea of your book now!

[emoji1374] SatToday lah

[Seiko]

I became vegetarian before I'd heard of Buddha. Recently I cut out gluten and my wife has cut out dairy - for different health reasons. Hello vegan life. In Gassho, Al. stlah

[gaurdianaq]

Frankly, in my new book "ZEN of the FUTURE!" I advocate for a world in which we all eat delicious protein substitutes that will please everyone, where no sentient animal is harmed, the environment better respected. That will solve the problem and end the debate.

Gassho, J

STLah

Have you heard of cultured meat? It's basically meat grown in a lab, for all intents and purposes, it is meat, it is the same flesh that you would find on an animal, but it was never alive/sentient either. I hope this technology is able to take off and be produced enough to be feasible to serve to the masses.


Evan,
Sat today, lah

[Jakuden]

I happen to agree with you. I used to think it was a great story, but now I feel that what Suzuki Roshi did was quite unskillful. He should not have made the carpenter eat meat if he did not wish. Even Suzuki got it wrong sometimes, and if he meant it as a teaching he could have designed it better.

Of course, we also have the Buddhist traditional principle of eating (and accepting in life) "whatever is placed in one's bowl." Nonetheless, we seek to avoid anything that is a poison, would result in death, is harmful to self or others. To me, it sounds like eating meat may definitely be seen by many people as a poison, resulting in death (to the poor animal at least), and harm to self and others. So, there is good reason not to accept meat in one's bowl

I agree wholeheartedly with the vegans and vegetarians.

That said, this is one of those issues ... like politics ... where we leave some of that attitude at the door of the Zen temple or, at least, watch our own bowl, not the bowls of the people next to us. In Japan, in the Zen monastery, the food is vegetarian. Outside the monastery, it is left to each individual to make their own choices (forcing choices on someone else is, in a sense, the same mistake that Suzuki Roshi made!) I have been to many, many local temples in Japan where often the food served is vegetarian, but also often sometimes meat and fish are served. Each place and practitioner makes their own decision.

So, I actually agree with Dee. She is right in her stance, and should keep her principles. In the world, it is right to stand up for that stance as much as possible.

Furthermore, there are some stances that are not acceptable ever, whether inside or outside a Zen group. For example, I would not let someone come here to espouse racism or excessive drug use.

But in this Zen group, on this issue, we take an "each must determine for themself," and "look in your own bowl, not your neighbor's" attitude. Perhaps it is my mistake, like Suzuki had his. One may also lightly advocate for one's position on the issue, but should respect and honor those who disagree on both sides. We also say that, on the cushion, we thoroughly drop away "veg. vs. carni," cows and people, life and death, and there is nothing to desire or kill. Then, afterwards, getting up from the cushion and returning to the world, one may pick up one's viewpoints again, advocate for them as one feels right, and eat as one chooses.

I would like to see a world with more vegetarians.

Sorry, ran long.

Gassho, Jundo

STLah

Thank you Jundo Roshi. I daresay we might be on a path to a gentler Zen, and it couldn't be more welcome. So much gratitude that you are my teacher.

Gassho,
Jakuden
SatToday

[Onka]

I happen to agree with you. I used to think it was a great story, but now I feel that what Suzuki Roshi did was quite unskillful. He should not have made the carpenter eat meat if he did not wish. Even Suzuki got it wrong sometimes, and if he meant it as a teaching he could have designed it better.

Of course, we also have the Buddhist traditional principle of eating (and accepting in life) "whatever is placed in one's bowl." Nonetheless, we seek to avoid anything that is a poison, would result in death, is harmful to self or others. To me, it sounds like eating meat may definitely be seen by many people as a poison, resulting in death (to the poor animal at least), and harm to self and others. So, there is good reason not to accept meat in one's bowl

I agree wholeheartedly with the vegans and vegetarians.

That said, this is one of those issues ... like politics ... where we leave some of that attitude at the door of the Zen temple or, at least, watch our own bowl, not the bowls of the people next to us. In Japan, in the Zen monastery, the food is vegetarian. Outside the monastery, it is left to each individual to make their own choices (forcing choices on someone else is, in a sense, the same mistake that Suzuki Roshi made!) I have been to many, many local temples in Japan where often the food served is vegetarian, but also often sometimes meat and fish are served. Each place and practitioner makes their own decision.

So, I actually agree with Dee. She is right in her stance, and should keep her principles. In the world, it is right to stand up for that stance as much as possible.

Furthermore, there are some stances that are not acceptable ever, whether inside or outside a Zen group. For example, I would not let someone come here to espouse racism or excessive drug use.

But in this Zen group, on this issue, we take an "each must determine for themself," and "look in your own bowl, not your neighbor's" attitude. Perhaps it is my mistake, like Suzuki had his. One may also lightly advocate for one's position on the issue, but should respect and honor those who disagree on both sides. We also say that, on the cushion, we thoroughly drop away "veg. vs. carni," cows and people, life and death, and there is nothing to desire or kill. Then, afterwards, getting up from the cushion and returning to the world, one may pick up one's viewpoints again, advocate for them as one feels right, and eat as one chooses.

I would like to see a world with more vegetarians.

Sorry, ran long.

Gassho, Jundo

STLah

Gassho
Onka
Sat