« The Precepts | Main | A different kind of precept »

May 27, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

There is a story in the Nirvana Sutra, I believe, that a mad bull elephant is nothing to fear for a mad bull elephant can only destroy the body. What is to fear are evil spiritual friends because they destroy the mind of Buddha. I think this is what our friend Zennist was getting at and I am sure, we both don't know anyone more disinclined to take any life, than he.


Once again, these dumb Westerners instead of thriving to search for the Pure Mind, they ponder on issue whether or not it is a 'sin' to kill the flesh.

I bet you don't brush your teeth because you afraid to kill all those gems, after all they are sentient beings too, right?!

And go preach your sermon somewhere else as Buddhism is not out to save Icchantika.



If "killing the flesh is no karma", then why did the Buddha vehemently oppose animal sacrifice? He even had compassion for the insects that lived in the grass. You seem far from that spirit, my friend, judging from the tenor of your posts and your clinging to the phrase "dumb Westerners."

One very unfortunate by-product of the net is the lack of manners it engenders. Strangers are always so polite to me in person...

Dumb Westerners are too much into words. What the author said made lot of sense, the phrase "abstentation of destruction of the vital principle" simply meant that not doing things (or thinking things) that steer one's mind away from the Light.

If these dumb Westerners have read and investigated into the act of killing as understood by Aryasavaka, they know that killing the flesh is no Karma.........and killing those who are against the Light, is OK. It is an esoteric area of teaching and it is quite dangerous for Westerners to venture into.

Many Tibetan masters vow not to teach to these demonic Westerners out of the fear that they turn evil because they cling to words and forms, and not the Essence of the Teaching (the Juice).


regarding the "Precepts Post":

I always read that the first precept was not to take life, not to kill....you wrote "abstentation of destruction of the vital principle" (or something like that.)

Regardless of what the literal translation is, the Buddha clearly showed great compassion for sentient beings....taking the first precept in total context, it seems to me "not to kill" is more apt---

It's like pro-abortionists referring to a growing life as a "choice"--no, it's not a choice, it's a sentient being,

and my or anyone else's cat (or any other being) is not a "principle", it's a sentient being....

Please, no insults about this referring to "stupid Westerners" in any responses, boys...(:

If Zen considers itself beyond compassion, then why call it Zen Buddhism--why not just Zen?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo