how come the Dalai lama...

Life ...

Is there life in a being while it is dead? At least life that could constitute sentience.

If one did not kill another living being, is one not allowed to eat it?

HTML:

 

That I'm not sure about. I guess it all depends on how you interpret it.

 

If the Dalai Llama eats only as a means to avoid hepatitis and preserve life is he not giving in to the ego that blinds us? Is he not showing a strong desire for life by giving up what he believes in to maintain his false self?

 

1) Explain how it is "ego that blinds us"
2) Explain what means "maintain false self"

HTML:

 

It is ego that blinds by tricking us into believing we have a 'self' when in fact we are part of a constantly changing system in much the way a car is not a car but a combination of different systems put together to reach a desired effect. Such is our body isn't it? It's that ego that leads to attachment to the body and to life etc, is it not? Afterall, while the Dalai Llama may be prolonging the inevitable, the ego has tricked him into giving up on something he believes in, even though he's changed nothing. His bodily vessel will still deteriorate over time, regardless if he eats meat or not.

Maintaining his false self, to me, is simply preservation of the body, or our vessel. We are not our body, yet the Dalai Llama ignores one of his principle beliefs out of attachment to the body and to life itself because he desires to stay alive in good health.

At least that is how it would appear to me.

 

Isn't there some part of Buddhist tradition that also prevents him from turning down foods if he's offered?

Something I can across somewhere and wasn't sure if it was true or not or just out of context.

 

Is it "Ego" that is tricking us? Is Ego and Self the same thing?

This much is indisputable. The three principles of Buddhism is Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta. Anicca: everything is changing, never the same from one moment to the next, not permanent, i.e., impermanent, unsatisfactory, unstable. Because of Anicca, there is Dukkha: pain, sorrow, grief, lamentation, despair, stress, loving the unloved, loosing the loved, not getting what one wants. Dukkha is dependent on Anicca. Without Anicca there would be no Dukkha. So to say there is Dukkha is to affirm there is Anicca. Anatta simply means there is "No Self" associated with any of these; Dukkha, and Anicca. That self arises due to conditions of sense coming into contact with sense-object (eye with forms [seeing], ear with sounds [hearing], nose with aromas [smelling], tongue with flavors [tasting], body with tangibles [touching], and mind with ideas or thoughts [thinking]) and the motivating factors (lobha, moha, dosa ... greed, ill-will, delusion) which perpetuate contact with sense-object. Basically the first noble truth.

Is it?

What is the first noble truth? Pain, sorrow, grief, lamentation and despair; loving the unloved; loosing the loved; not getting what one wants; in other words, the five aggregates of clinging. Forms, feelings (sensations), perceptions, mental volition (fabrication), consciousness (awareness). That consciousness depends on the presence of mental volition, that mental volition depends on the presence of perceptions, that perceptions depends on the presence of feelings, that feelings depend on forms. That without any one of these the following would not even appear. The eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind each are subject to these five aggregates; eyes with forms, ear with sounds, nose with smells, tongue with tastes, body with touching, and mind with thinking. Forms, sounds, aromas, flavors, tactile and thought are all forms which produce feelings when the sense comes into contact with its associated object. Continuous feelings give rise perceptions. Continuous perceptions give rise to mental volition, mental fabrication. And continuous mental volition is the basis for the appearance of a state of awareness, consciousness.

All this, moment-to-moment, and there are thousands of moments-per-second, give rise to the classification of self.

All in all it really doesn't matter what another person THINKS, as all beings are still subject to the five aggregates of clinging and as a result of this subjugation will still posit self. As a monk we are (speaking from a Theravada point-of-view regarding the teachings of Buddha) to consider four things, daily ... 1) clothing, 2) food, 3) shelter, 4) medicines. Clothing; to be satisfied with what we have to cover the naked body, to protect it from the cold and heat, and to protect it from stinging and biting insects. Food; to be satisfied with whatever is given to us and never wanting more than is necessary to keep the body alive. Shelter; to be satisfied with the base of a tree, an abandoned building, or a cave to protect us from the elements. And Medicines: to take (apply topically or ingest) only what is necessary to bring the body back to stable health.

This includes eating meat if it is given, to be satisfied with what was given, and to maintain the precept of not taking the life of another living being. Eating meat that was bought at the market does not mean that the one who slaughtered it knew the person buying it was buying it for this or that person, or for this or that monk, or for the Dalai Lama. Only that someone did slaughter it and that someone will have his/her own kamma to deal with.

In the case of the Dalai Lama, meat falls under two categories; food, and medicine.

On the contrary, the Dalai Lama does not ignore any of his principle beliefs. Some people have a different idea or belief on how the Dalai Lama should be conducting his existence based on their own perception of how one who professes to live a holy life Should exist. The Buddha, in the Parinibbanasutta told his monks to "Be An Island Unto Your Own Selves." This does not mean to practice liberation from greed, ill-will and delusion based on the ideas and opinions of others, but to practice according to the Dhamma as taught by Buddha, the Self-Awakened One.

Ahhhhhh ... perfect !

HTML:

 

A monk (and this includes the Dalai Lama, as he is still a monk) is never to accept meat from one who has intentionally killed the animal for them, or if the monk suspects that the animal was killed specifically for them, or if they witnessed or was made privy to the slaughtering of an animal that was prepared form them to eat.

Suspects means if the monk knew the one offering the food raised this particular type of meat for the purpose of slaughtering it for its flesh to be consumed, such as one who raises chickens and offers a chicken to a monk that was cooked or prepared to be consumed or ingested.

Also there is a list of animals the Buddha said cannot be eaten, not just by monks but by anyone. Humans, lions, tigers (or any of the larger cat family), elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, boars and hyenas.

HTML:

 

I thought all sentient beings were equally valued?

Thank you for your response to my previous post by the way. It was very interesting and it has given me much to reflect upon.

 

Thank you for the explanation.

 

And they are.

But ...

You are forgetting one very important factor here ...

Not all sentient beings are practitioners of teachings that lead one to Enlightenment, Nibbana, freedom from greed, ill-will, or delusion ...

As such, there will be hunters, slaughterers, killers, haters, mongers of evil, etc ... without question!

HTML:

 

Which makes perfect sense in itself. What puzzles me is why the Buddha would accept a meal of beef if he did not suspect it was slaughtered and served for him, but he would not eat a tiger even if he did not suspect it was slaughtered and served for him. Or have I misinterpreted what you were trying to say initially?

 

Nothing hidden in what I entered. Everything was entered exactly as I wanted it to appear without need for interpretation.

There were some things the Buddha never answered, nor did he ever say, "Come follow me and I will answer all your questions." Matter-of-fact, he did say in a simile that one would surely die without ever having known the answers to these questions ...

HTML:

 

One would think though, with a world of alternate foods and supplicants, that the need to eat meat every second day could be compensated for in a myriad of different ways. Perhaps this was not so in the 70's when he first got the Hep and such. Sounds like he needs a new bunch of doctors.

Personally I don't care what the DL eats. But saying that it's NEEDED 'cause his doc's said so, seems a little weak in this day and age. If he wanted to eat meat 'cause he likes it, just own up to enjoying it without, what sounds like, an excuse!

 

I believe that I will use the same line of reasoning everyone likes to start theirs with in response to this ... by saying ...

I THINK ...

That you would not be so ready to say that if it was you whose existence was necessary on certain foods and conditions [before alternate foods and supplicants].

I THINK ...

That if these [certain foods and conditions] were what kept you alive for all your known life and by changing over to other [alternative] foods and supplicants any illness or life-threatening condition previously present were to increase and get worse, and that by going back to what you were doing before caused these conditions to decrease, that you too would do exactly whatever you needed to do to stay alive.

And ...

I THINK ...

Just by [me] saying these things you will disagree just because it is YOUR reasoning that is being called to question ...

HTML:

 

How can I say anything else but I think? I cannot know unless I talk directly to the DL or his doctors or read his medical reports and I cannot learn more about it unless I discuss. Maybe I just lack the semantics and I should have probably not been talking in casual-mode in my last post.

My diet or what I believe or choose for myself seems irrelevant to the question of IS DL presently in NEED meat for his condition. I am questioning the DL's doctor's here. Not anything else. Ultimately it's up to the DL to make his choice in doctor's and to vest his confidence in them. I ask and look and try to learn because of my general curiosity about nutrition and distrust of those in the medical.

I found a little article about the DL having and liking some goat that was served to him and saying that he does enjoy some meat. Which was nice. It was part of what I was looking to get answered and it was nice to see it came from him 'cause whenever the topic is discussed, the defense of his health and diet go up like a wall and nobody seems to think that maybe the fellow just does enjoy a bit of meat or that it'd be horribly wrong if he did happen to enjoy it. Apparently he does. My curiosity on this part of the topic is satisfied.

 

It is a red herring to be concerned about the Dalai Lama's diet, who cares? There are people starving in this world and there are vegetarians who don't have any morals. So it can't be assumed that all meat eaters are less spiritually or morally inclined than vegetarians. Heck, Jesus and Mohammad were meat eaters. It's like people who only go to church or any other house of worship on the holy day of the week and don't apply the teachings of their religion to their life, and there are those who haven't set foot in a religious building who follow the teachings very closely.