Hey, read this book! All stuff from Enlightened beings of every religion, philosophy, social caste, skin colour, etc. such as Dalai Lama, Jesus Christ, Jahve, Osiris, Druids or maybe your silent and smiley neighbour are always a good reason to buy, read, listen, etc. their acts and activities!
And is always a pleasure to read/listen/whatever, so may they can infect us with their wonderfull enlightened and happyness virus!! I wanna be infected!
I haven't finished to read this book though, but I can say that it is simply a demonstration's of Dalai Lama's Wide Open Brain! Impermanence is the right word that resumes this book to me => What is eating meat, beans, grains, fruit, milk or vegetables but simply feed the food's need of anyone? Is that really important? Really? Who we are to judge anyone for doing this or that? When we, short of brain humans' may understand?
When are we going to start doing simpler stuff such as being happy and infect people around with this happyness, so everybody can only have to time for joy instead of violence in any of its forms?
Yeaps, I have read some "deeper" books, but hey, what is deepness?
Is "high intellectual" stuff better than having peace inside, and live in happyness with all our surroundng people/sentient beings/wanna-be-sentient beings/or things?
(: Smile :)
Life is short and we all have a lot of things to do!! Read this book and use it for your growing purposes!!
Luz Shiva Futten
There is good evidence, at least from reading the Pali texts, that the Buddha and his followers did eat meat so long as certain conditions were met. These conditions were that a monk should not have seen, heard, nor have any reason to suspect, that the meat was from an animal killed specifically for him. If these three conditions were met then the meat was said to be 'blameless'. There are some four references to the 'blamelessness' of eating meat-once in both the Majjhima and Anguttara Nikayas, and twice in the Vinaya. However, for a householder to have an animal killed in order to feed a monk was reckoned to result in great demerit. In the Sutta Nipata a previous Buddha, Kassapa, is admonished by a brahmin for eating 'stinking meat'. Kassapa replies with a long list of unskilful mental states and declares that such are 'stench', not the eating of meat. There is also the notion from the Vinaya that meat and fish are 'excellent food' for those who are ill.
In fact, just as one can argue that Christianity flourished with a little help from Emperor Constantine's conversion, along with much of the dogmaticism inherent in any official state religion, one can also argue that this idea of strict vegetarianism came into vogue and cemented into dogmaticism during the reign of the Buddhist king Ashoka. The oldest extant written records which reflect the Buddha's teaching-the Ashokan edicts-show the king to be very concerned, as a Buddhist, with the welfare not only of his human subjects, but also with that of animals. Hunting and fishing were prohibited in his kingdom, no animals were killed in his kitchens, and the killing of animals for food was restricted elsewhere in his kingdom. Indeed, he even reports the establishment of medical services for animals. Keep in mind, too, that Ashoka even went so far as to send out "missionaries" to disseminate Buddhism, and I'm sure those monks chosen for this work were NOT opposed to the King's own views.
If you're going to argue that taking the life of an animal or even a bug is wrong for any reason, based on the argument that ALL life is sacred, then you better stop picking flowers too. I'm serious. Don't flowers too have life? Yet they are a staple of Buddhist Monasteries every where, and if it's not okay for you or I to decide on the relative worth or unworth of an animal or bug compared to a human-being, what right do we have to decide that it's okay to uproot a plant? Because it's one rung lower on the evolutionary chain? But wait! that's the kind of horrible arrogance these militant vegetarians would accuse us meat-eaters of!