Do you have to be a Buddhist to do the Buddha diet?
And you don’t have to be Buddhist to try it. All you need is a clock, a scale, an open mind, and a willingness to endure some late-night stomach grumblings for a few weeks. The key to Buddha’s Diet is time-restricted dieting—sometimes known as intermittent fasting.
Is it true that the Buddha ate meat?
The Vinaya, then, is quite clear on this matter. Monks and nuns may eat meat. Even the Buddha ate meat. Unfortunately, meat eating is often seen by westerners as an indulgence on the part of the monks.
What did Buddha say about man born blind?
There was a man born blind, and he said: “I do not believe in the world of light and appearance. There are no colours, bright or somber. There is no sun, no moon, no stars. No one has witnessed these things.” His friends remonstrated with him, but he clung to his opinion: “What you say that you see,” he objected, “are illusions.
Why did Buddha say do not believe in anything simply?
In the original quote, accepting something because it “agrees with reason” would seem to be rejected, because “logical conjecture” and “inference” have been rejected, at least as sufficientbases for accepting a teaching as valid. It’s not that logic is rejected as such, just that it can’t be relied on. What is needed is experience.
And you don’t have to be Buddhist to try it. All you need is a clock, a scale, an open mind, and a willingness to endure some late-night stomach grumblings for a few weeks. The key to Buddha’s Diet is time-restricted dieting—sometimes known as intermittent fasting.
There was a man born blind, and he said: “I do not believe in the world of light and appearance. There are no colours, bright or somber. There is no sun, no moon, no stars. No one has witnessed these things.” His friends remonstrated with him, but he clung to his opinion: “What you say that you see,” he objected, “are illusions.
The Vinaya, then, is quite clear on this matter. Monks and nuns may eat meat. Even the Buddha ate meat. Unfortunately, meat eating is often seen by westerners as an indulgence on the part of the monks.
In the original quote, accepting something because it “agrees with reason” would seem to be rejected, because “logical conjecture” and “inference” have been rejected, at least as sufficientbases for accepting a teaching as valid. It’s not that logic is rejected as such, just that it can’t be relied on. What is needed is experience.
