Author Topic: Monk or rabbit?  (Read 12861 times)

tsangpakarpo

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 163
Re: Monk or rabbit?
« Reply #15 on: January 15, 2012, 06:09:58 PM »
Interesting conversation...if I was the monk and I know I have no other choice but to starve to death, I will choose to feed my body to the hungry animals.

You may say that doing so will cause the animals to incur negative karma. But for me, the animals are going to kill for food anyways so why not since I am already dying, be of benefit to the animals rather than having the animals hunt for other animals which if not killed can still survive for a very long time.

Whatever is it, our motivation has to be 100% pure.

shugdentruth

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: Monk or rabbit?
« Reply #16 on: January 17, 2012, 02:51:05 PM »
I agree with mom, monk eats rabbit, survives and spreads the dharma. Both monk and rabbit serves the dharma. But in the jungle, if the monk really wants to, he could eat some sort of vegetation.

Jessie Fong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 690
Re: Monk or rabbit?
« Reply #17 on: June 30, 2012, 03:32:01 PM »
Based on the above dinner conversation, I would assume that the monk was in that position as there were no other choices for him?  That being the case, I would say that the monk should eat the rabbit to survive – I agree with Mom’s reasoning that it would ensure the survival of the monk and the continuity of spreading Buddha’s teachings.
However, if there were other choices, the monk would have taken the alternative not to eat the rabbit but instead try to survive on something else – maybe cactus, fruits, berries.
The monk surely knows the karma of killing and eating meat.

ratanasutra

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
Re: Monk or rabbit?
« Reply #18 on: June 30, 2012, 03:50:36 PM »
I would say that for the monk to kill the rabbit to eat and survive as the last choice. And i wish that the monk could find some fruit or water to eat/drink so he can survive without killing rabbit.

Of course, the monk should know the best of result of killing as he the vows holder. No matter how his pure motive, killing is killing and there is the result for it even Lord Buddha can not escape from that.




bambi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 722
Re: Monk or rabbit?
« Reply #19 on: July 01, 2012, 01:08:26 PM »
I would say that for the monk to kill the rabbit to eat and survive as the last choice. And i wish that the monk could find some fruit or water to eat/drink so he can survive without killing rabbit.

Of course, the monk should know the best of result of killing as he the vows holder. No matter how his pure motive, killing is killing and there is the result for it even Lord Buddha can not escape from that.

I'd like to comment on your last comment.

It depends on the motivation of the monk. No, I am not saying that he should eat the rabbit but there are exceptions because his motivation should he choose to eat it. As such, I have found a teaching that says the opposite of what you have stated. There are ways for tantric practitioners who choose to eat meat but not reap the negative karma, bless the meat and purify it at the same time. So since it is not elaborated on whether the monk is a tantric practitioner, we can't tell the motivation or compassion.


So when it is referred, so for example, a bodhisattva, and especially one who has realizations of tantra, who has realization of generation stage, oneself as deity, and especially on the top of that who has completion stage experience, clear light, illusory body, these things, then so if there is an evil being who harms a lot, who harms so many sentient beings, or teachings, holy beings like that, then if this bodhisattva, especially this great yogi, who has those Highest Tantra experiences, is responsible to destroy that evil being, to kill, in other words to split the consciousness from the body, through meditation, through wrathful actions of tantra. So if it is tantric practitioner, like that so he is responsible because of having those qualifications, one who has the bodhicitta, great compassion, where this action doesn't become dangerous to you and tantra realizations, so he is responsible, it is a vow, samaya, it is a bodhisattva vow, to do that. While you have the capacity, if you don't do that then breaking a vow.

Another example :

Buddha killed a pirate on board a ship, because the pirate was planning to sink the ship and kill the passengers, and the Buddha's compassion for the man's karmic fate was so great that he was willing to take on the act of killing, and the karmic consequences that go with it, in service of the greater good. And my understanding is that because karma is determined by intention, the Buddha's seemingly aggressively harmful act was actually beneficial, from a karmic point of view, because his intention was pure, so he escaped harmful karmic consequences from harming a sentient being -- and thus demonstrated a valid exception to the "rules."

biggyboy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
Re: Monk or rabbit?
« Reply #20 on: July 01, 2012, 06:39:42 PM »
If the hungry monk ran into the jungle and meets the rabbit and faced with the dilemma of whether to eat the rabbit or not for his own survival is really a test of his understanding of teachings and how awaken he is. There is no coincidence; there must be some karmic relationship between the monk and the rabbit. If  we believe, according to teachings, that all sentient beings are our mothers than the monk should not eat the rabbit. I once read a story of how Buddha offered his body to a tiger who was so hungry and about to eat his own tiger cub. This is the ultimate act of compassion and selflessness.  Therefore one should not kill for own survival no matter how compelling the reasons are. Killing is killing. If you believe in karma.