Is it a good deed for the Buddha to cut the meat and feed it to the tiger?

Let me answer you. Based on existing morality and Buddhism. I can only say that this behavior of sacrificing for the tiger is worthy of recognition. He didn't save the tiger with other creatures, so he praised it with his own flesh and blood, and he won't be praised with other flesh and blood. There is no need to discuss that situation. As for how big it is, it's hard to say. But let's think about it. First of all, put forward a point that life does not feed on other life. There's nothing to say about this. Based on this, no matter you save that person's life. It depends on your behavior. At least you can't save other lives at the expense of others. Then the problem is that you only have one kind. Who to sacrifice, only yourself. Of course, in the final analysis, it is still the cause and effect after the rescue. Based on what I originally said, life does not feed on other life. That sentence is very troublesome In other words, even Buddhism's morality will fall into paradox. Let's talk about the road to becoming a Buddha and the two major situations of becoming a Buddha. Of course, the reason why it is said that it will fall into paradox here has to lead to a point of view. One is the idea of becoming a Buddha, and the other is the idea of becoming a demon. And you can't ignore the cause and effect or other results caused by good deeds, just like the question you asked. To answer your question, why don't we discuss the nature of behavior directly? Buddha and demon. The possible assumption here is that this monk seems to be on his way to becoming a Buddha, regardless of his choice after becoming a Buddha, because there is no doubt that he can become a Buddha by doing so, because he became a Buddha by sacrificing himself rather than others. Then after that, the tiger became a Buddha because he saved the monk. The cause and effect of tigers and monks here cannot be ignored. Then this is the problem. Then I understand your question. Others probably don't know much about it. I won't explain this either. Just say it. The tiger later ate life. No, damn it. But he died because the monk saved him. This monk is a Buddha now. The reason is clear. But now the result is not only that the monk became a Buddha, but also that the tiger ate the life that should not have died. So I'm pushing a point now. I didn't kill Boren Boren, but I died because of me. This view is beyond doubt. Then keep thinking. Now is the cause and effect between the Buddha and the tiger and the life that should not have died. According to logic, Buddha can let all beings go out of the sea of reincarnation and go to the other side. Of course, this is the concept of Buddhism. Get out first. The good result is that the tiger ate the damned life and the Buddha had cause and effect, which led the Buddha to complete the karma through these lives and the sea of suffering. This is the idea of Buddhism. So this is a very good explanation and result. Of course, I am thinking about this logic. Of course, I don't know much about Buddhism Maybe Buddhism will give a better answer, but this is the most reasonable answer for me to think according to this logical thinking. So the question is coming, is it over? Normal. That's a good answer But I'm sorry, this is not my answer. It's complicated and dizzy. This is what I said, but it is not my answer, because it is the result of my thinking according to Buddhist logic. Then let me tell you my answer. If you are good at thinking, you will find a terrible thinking logic. The Buddha said that cause and effect are universal, and all beings do not kill. But even if this is a good explanation, it is better late than never. The problem has arisen. It is this sentence that is the key to the problem and the most puzzling place for everyone. I think if you think about it carefully, you will find. Under the inversion of the whole process. And settings. The monk sacrificed himself to save the tiger. Because the tiger should be dead. The process was saved by the monk and the tiger lived. Become a Buddhist monk. Again, the tiger is still alive. Causing the death of other life that should have existed. Because monks sacrificed themselves to save tigers, the country became a monk. The whole reason is that the monk's family saved the tiger from becoming a Buddha. The subsequent cost of becoming a Buddha is the death of other lives. This process. The monk who became a Buddha came from this reason. The Buddha wants to put an end to this cause and effect, because it leads to the suffering of the Buddha for these lives that should not have died. It's over. It's over. There is an undeniable fact that although those lives have turned into a sea of suffering, it is not too late to mend. Of course, you can say those lives are long dead. But this theory cannot be introduced. If you introduce it, you will directly come to the conclusion that you can kill for the benefit of the other party. This is still a theory, but you can also come to the conclusion that you killed someone who should have died. Neither of these conclusions holds water. These two conclusions mean that any life of a person can end other lives that are not dead, and it is natural for you to remedy it or not. Such an absurd conclusion. Impossible, so we can't introduce the idea that people who would not have died will eventually die. So this view cannot be introduced. Then don't introduce this idea. We are sorting out the current situation. In other words, the monk fed himself to the tiger. The tiger who became a Buddha lived and ate the life that would not have died. After the monk became a Buddha, the lives of these immortals became reincarnation because of the need to make up for the previous cause and effect. Or pain. There is no need to explain suffering here. Generally speaking, the result is beautiful, but here we can't help but deny that the monk became a Buddha and saved the dead tiger, but at the expense of other once-alive lives. This process cannot be ignored and erased. Then the question comes, and the idea introduced before will come in handy, that is, to become a Buddha with one heart and one mind. This process sacrifices other damned lives to become buddhas. There is no need to think about logic. If I want to think for myself, my meditation ability is limited at present, so give my opinion directly. There is no difference between Buddha and demon. The Buddha's good deeds became a magic because he made up for it and became a Buddha again. You can become a demon indirectly without being a demon directly. So everyone should be wary of Buddha and demon, because you don't know when he will sacrifice you, when he will return to Buddha or demon. Three-body world law. Both Buddha and demon should be potential enemies. But think again with Buddhist thinking. If you are really kind, you really have Buddha's heart to benefit all beings. So your behavior is restricting yourself from doing evil? Look straight. Tired. In other words, if the Buddha is really kind when he becomes a Buddha or has not yet become a Buddha, he can give up on himself. So should we work out a solution first, that is, how to commit suicide to ensure that we don't commit homicide? Right? First, make sure you become a Buddha. But you should also make sure that if you become a demon when you become a Buddha, how to kill yourself. Another is that if you are really good, you must ensure that you don't sacrifice other lives in the process of becoming a Buddha, so that you can become a Buddha. Then the result is that we don't discuss other situations, including the monk's failure to save the tiger from becoming a Buddha, and the monk's reputation is ruined. Let's not talk about it. Draw a direct conclusion that marriage means that monks should not sacrifice other lives first. But the monk must save the tiger. Before becoming a Buddha, a monk still has to study how to kill the Buddha, and then he may become the magic capital himself. That is to say, the monk should introduce assumptions at this time, assuming that the monk has the ability not to sacrifice other lives, and the monk has the ability to save the tiger from eating other lives or eating himself, but only by feeding the tiger to death with his own flesh and blood can he die. Monks still have to live and study how to kill demons at the same level as Buddha. That is to say, monks should use coping strategies to kill demons like Buddhas. But we should put this ability in the world. We must ensure that when we become demons, we can kill ourselves. We also need to make sure that this ability is only for killing demons, not being stolen by others to do other evil things. That's a big mountain. Haha, otherwise your mother will force you not to say great kindness in front of me. You can't do this. You're a fucking Buddha. If you can't do anything, you'll become a Buddha and do evil. Then you'll become a Buddha and make wool. If not, Buddha has the ability to match Buddha. Of course, you have done all the above, and you have to become a Buddha. Of course, the premise is that the Buddha is right not to cross all beings. What's the point of becoming a Buddha if a monk can be kind to all beings like a Buddha without becoming a Buddha? Monks who do not become monks can directly save all the troubles mentioned above. Of course, you didn't become a Buddha to stop thinking about all beings. Conversely, if you are not Purdue, what kind of Buddha are you? Hell is not empty and vows not to become a Buddha. Then why the fuck are you still Buddha? Of course, I won't say this. Let's talk about becoming a Buddha first You have done all the above, but you have the ability to kill Buddha. Monks can continue to give energy to tigers, and you have to eat and drink. Otherwise, you won't kill indirectly if you eat everything. Then God is qualified to be the Buddha. But what is God? Is the existence of regular order. Then the rules have to be changed, that is, life must eat the flesh and blood of God, and only death can complete the goodness of Buddhism. In this way, God has emotional love. What kind of existence it is. But God's flesh and blood is eaten by everyone, provided that you are not a God's creation struggling to feed God's flesh and blood. Of course, I forgot to introduce the concept, that is, the monk who did it above. Then the monk has the ability to eat the other person's life instead of life. He must be immortal like all life. Let life stop killing. That's God. But God is a rule. No feelings. When a monk becomes an emotional god, he will not die, but will let life eat other lives and live, so as to ensure that life eats its own strength and remains the life it should have instead of becoming a more powerful life. Of course, the more powerful life monks also have the ability to limit. This is the transformation of a monk into a monk who loves all beings and has unlimited immortal ability. Do such monks exist? Even if they exist. So does this monk have anything to do with the magic Buddha? Even if it has something to do with Buddha, he must become a god first. But what can he do before he can do it? No, he has to kill someone. Then his result is only suicide. This charity is given to something that is already a god, or something that is born a god, so that once the material that is born a god becomes a Buddha, it can truly conform to the Buddhist theory. In other words, all beings can't become buddhas to conform to the theory. Then the only way for all beings to become Buddhas is to commit suicide. Then come out without eating anything and teach God to become a Buddha in a limited life. Only in line with Buddhism's purdue beings. Of course, you can become a Buddha alive by eating magic. Then you have to come out and eat the devil. The devil eats other life, so you eat the devil as soon as you come out. The life of the devil. If you eat other life, then this knot is the devil. But if I eat the devil as soon as I come out, then I am a Buddha, that is to say, I am a Buddha eating the devil, and you are a Buddha eating the devil, that is to say, you can't tell the difference between the devil and the Buddha, because the life you eat has no other life. Then the knot of all beings is a magic knot, and the knot of Buddha is on the way to becoming a Buddha and a demon. Then all beings became gods and buddhas. Does this mean that I think I am a Buddha? I am a Buddha, because I am on my way to becoming a Buddha. Then everyone will eventually become a god. Forget it. I want to cultivate immortality. Eat a jap first. Bitch, wait for me. I'm painting the wilderness. Wait till I eat all the demons in this wild area. Do I eat Buddha or magic? I think this is magic, and I am a Buddha. I think it's a Buddha, and I'm a demon. If you go to cultivate immortality, you should eat your life to become a Buddha first. Xiuxian went to eat a life that wanted to be the magic capital. Then your supervisor doesn't want to become a Buddha or a demon, so you are also the capital of a potential Buddha or demon. Then the knot of all sentient beings is the future God buddha magic. Who is talking loudly about pretending to force me to be a future Buddha? Who can tell me that I am dissatisfied with the old devil? I am the future god. Do I need to bird you? Crazy. As the saying goes, if you don't seal the devil, you won't become a Buddha. Haha, it's over, baboon. Forget it. I want to make money to buy some gods, buddhas and demons to satisfy my hunger.