Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Thanks dazzle been looking for a veggie cookbook. Anyway my stance is I think meat is delicious, but in the way that animals are treated I can not feel OK about supporting that. For the past month I've been entirely vegetarian, minus 2 bits of a chicken burger. However, My sole abstinence from meat makes little difference so I plan on indulging every once in a while. And if someone cooked meat for me, I would be polite and eat it.
The Dalai Lama does. Indigenous people of the North American Plains do.
Actually, they don't. Vegetarian diets can give you all the nutrients you need - and it's especially easy if you're a 'lacto-ovo' vege (ie you eat dairy products & eggs). If you have good medical proof otherwise, please show me, because i would be very interested - and so would millions of others
Getting your protein from nothing but tofu, eggs and dairy can be a bit tedious and limited. Tibetan doctors recommend a meat diet for people with unstable blood sugar, for example. Like me. Beans and grains are too "carby", and upset my blood sugar, giving me headaches. I don't care to depend on tofu, eggs and dairy all my life. In fact, eggs and dairy are allergenic foods for a surprising number of people (of Germanic heritage, mainly). I'm supposed to keep those to a minimum. These things are more complex than one would think. Do I want to be a meat-eater? No, I was vegetarian for 15 years and loved it. But for now I need to eat meat, so I do, and I accept that. (BTW, you're never going to talk those Plains tribes into substituting tofu, eggs and dairy for meat, haha! ^_^ Nor the salmon-peoples of the Pacific Northwest and Alaska.)
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Getting your protein from nothing but tofu, eggs and dairy can be a bit tedious and limited.
Vegetarians don't find it in the slightest bit tedious or limited, I assure you. Vegetarians find it perfectly satisfactory.
Tibetan doctors recommend a meat diet for people with unstable blood sugar, for example. Like me.
Bearing in mind of course that Tibetan Doctors are educated in Tibetan medicine, and may not have access to a wide and comprehensive range of products which would be perfectly sufficient and suited to a complete vegetarian diet. A western Nutritionist can help by giving more general advice, and a more rounded treatment.....Unstable blood sugar can be stabilised without resorting to eating meat. My partner is diabetic, and belongs to a self-help group of around 28 people. 6 of those are vegetarian. Their blood sugar levels are often less variable than those of their meat counterparts....
Beans and grains are too "carby", and upset my blood sugar, giving me headaches. I don't care to depend on tofu, eggs and dairy all my life. In fact, eggs and dairy are allergenic foods for a surprising number of people (of Germanic heritage, mainly). I'm supposed to keep those to a minimum. These things are more complex than one would think. Do I want to be a meat-eater? No, I was vegetarian for 15 years and loved it. But for now I need to eat meat, so I do, and I accept that.
The basic fact and bottom line is actually that you enjoy having meat as part of your diet, because you prefer it to tofu, quorn or other protein substitutes.
And that's fine. There's no harm in that.
Are you allergic to dairy and eggs? Who says you have to keep them to a minimum?
you could go for goat's milk, and eating eggs isn't bad for you, because nutritionists have now discovered that citing eggs as bad because of cholesterol is actually a flawed piece of advice.
Putting your trust and faith in a Tibetan doctor is all well and good, and if you're happy to do that, then good on you. but a second opinion and further research wouldn't hurt. However, you sound as if you're happier including meat in your diet, so keep on trucking!
Have you had offline consultation and treatment from a Tibetan doctor, Dakini ?
I have. I had consultations and medicines over a period of time for a medical problem and it cost me quite a lot of money and made no difference to my condition at all. The doctor and his translator also appeared to have no idea what a thyroid was, even when shown diagrams.
I did find acupuncture from a Tibetan doctor for a knee injury helpful though.
Vegetarians don't find it in the slightest bit tedious or limited, I assure you. Vegetarians find it perfectly satisfactory.
Yeah, so did I when I was vegetarian for 15 years and loved it, as I said earlier. but something about my metabolism changed. A lifelong thyroid problem is part of the cause, they tell me. Vegetarians find a vegetarian diet satisfactory because most of them can get their protein from combos of legumes and grains. That doesn't work for me. It used to, but not any more.
Bearing in mind of course that Tibetan Doctors are educated in Tibetan medicine, and may not have access to a wide and comprehensive range of products which would be perfectly sufficient and suited to a complete vegetarian diet.
Those who practice in the west have access to the same products other doctors do.
A western Nutritionist can help by giving more general advice, and a more rounded treatment.....Unstable blood sugar can be stabilised without resorting to eating meat.
by eating soy, dairy and eggs? I already do different protein powders, tofu, protein bars, occasional dairy and eggs. One can't live on that every day for months, years. For one thing, a repetitive diet like that can and does set people up for food allergies. Trust me, I know what I'm doing, have consulted w/a nutritionist, done extensive testing. Tests show sensitivity to dairy and eggs. Blood Type "O" people tend to be that way, even if they're not aware of it.
The basic fact and bottom line is actually that you enjoy having meat as part of your diet, because you prefer it to tofu, quorn or other protein substitutes.
Please don't tell me what my preferences are. I'd much prefer to be vegetarian, and am hoping I can return to that type of diet someday. I actually am a much better vegetarian cook than a meat cook.
Are you allergic to dairy and eggs? Who says you have to keep them to a minimum?
Doctors. Lab test results.
you could go for goat's milk, and eating eggs isn't bad for you, because nutritionists have now discovered that citing eggs as bad because of cholesterol is actually a flawed piece of advice.
I didn't do well on goat's milk, but sheep's milk is good. The eggs issue isn't about cholesterol, I know about the cholesterol de-bunking.
Putting your trust and faith in a Tibetan doctor is all well and good, and if you're happy to do that, then good on you. but a second opinion and further research wouldn't hurt. However, you sound as if you're happier including meat in your diet, so keep on trucking!
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I'd put my trust and faith in a Tibetan doctor. I was just saying they, among other medical professionals, recommend meat diets for certain patients. Got lots of professional opinions, done the research. Meat is what works for now. The fact is that every body is different, is its own unique combination of subtle conditions, and needs to be addressed individually. There is no "one size fits all". The human organism is much more complex than that.
Of all the threads on Buddhism and vegetarianism, this is the first time anyone has contested the statement that some people need meat to be healthy. Is there a reason why suddenly this is coming up now?
Hang on here folks. For crying out loud, is this Fox News or a Buddhist discussion board? People are different. Some people eat meat, and some people don't eat meat. Every human body is different, and just because something is good for me doesn't mean it's necessarily good for you or for someone else. People are very passionate about this subject (obviously). The upshot is, nobody here is going to change anybody else's mind here on this subject, so what's the point of endless bickering about it?
Can human beings survive without meat? Of course they can. Do some people choose to do so? Of course they do. And they're perfectly happy. Others prefer not to do so. And they can be perfectly happy as well. To quote Rodney King...
Have you had offline consultation and treatment from a Tibetan doctor, Dakini ?
Is there such a thing as online consultation with a Tibetan doctor? How would that work, since they have to take your pulse?
I worked with a Tibetan doctor for years, for blood sugar issues and chronic fatigue/adrenal fatigue. Eastern medicine doesn't work for some hormonal issues, I concluded (thyroid, stress hormones), but Tibetan medicine is internationally known for reversing diabetes, and for certain aspects of cancer treatment. And their cholesterol herbs save lives, and make coronary bypass surgery obsolete, fabulous stuff! I found it helpful to a certain extent for my particular blood sugar issues, though fortunately, I don't have full-blown diabetes. Acupuncture is great for a lot of things, and Chinese herbs are good for certain hormonal issues. I think these modalities each have their strengths and weaknesses.
The film, "The Knowledge of Healing", about Western research into Tibetan medicine, is one of my favorites. Federica, could you provide that link again please, to the source for Padma 28?
Can human beings survive without meat? Of course they can.
I'd hope that it's about thriving, not just surviving. That's a different question.
To quote Rodney King... "Can't we all just get along?"_/\_
haha! Put that up on the chronic rebirth threads! ^_^
"Tibetan medicine is internationally known for reversing diabetes"
That's interesting, because I know of 2 tulkus and a monk with diabetes who have access to Tibetan medicine. Obviously it didn't reverse theirs because they use western treatment.
Anyway, good luck to those who use it - may they recover swiftly.
That's interesting, Dazzle. It depends on how well they comply with dietary prescriptions, among other things. Some patients aren't good about that. Do you know for sure that they tried Tibetan medicine? But many Tibetans don't use Tibetan medicine. I've read in several sources that Tibetans tend to die relatively early due to all the butter in the butter tea (cholesterol/clogged arteries). And yet there's no need for that, because of Padma 28, which clears out the arteries. It's popular in the German-speaking countries, for that reason.
That's interesting, because I know of 2 tulkus and a monk with diabetes who have access to Tibetan medicine. Obviously it didn't reverse theirs because they use western treatment.
But yeah, the Tibetan doctors charge a lot. Unless they're monks and have brought the medicines just to help people while they're doing a temporary teaching gig. There was a documentary done in the US of an experiment, where one of HHDL's former doctors came to treat 3 cancer patients, and the one with the worse prognosis did the best, her cancer went into remission. She complied better than the others with the dietary restrictions. The patient with the best prognosis did the worst, because she had wine every day (no alcohol allowed while on Tibetan medical regimes), she just couldn't give it up. Tibetan doctors treated some of the kids affected by the Chernobyl disaster, and say authorities there were impressed with the results, but I don't have the details. It would be interesting to read a study of that.
Vegetarians don't find it in the slightest bit tedious or limited, I assure you. Vegetarians find it perfectly satisfactory.
I've been a vegetarian for about 3 years, and I'm starting to get really tired of just eating tofu and beans and veggies all the time, even at restaurants where the cook it all tasty-like.
Even though I try to remind myself about the animals that died and whatnot, it's so tiring to eat the same texture and generally the same set of flavours every time I eat a meal (whether at home or going out).
Buddhists are suppose to be more compassionate than ordinary lay people. Hence it's probably not a good look to gorge on the carcass of cute lil animals
But yeah, no one is stop anyone from eating meat. Buddha only teaches these things for your own good!
If you feel guilty or indignant and have to defend your diet, whether your a grass eater or a carnivore, then maybe it's time to make a mind adjustment.
I recently became a vegetarian. It was a personal choice that I gave much thought to. I just couldn't see myself eating the flesh of animals anymore. My compassion to all living things couldn't justify my eating of meat. However, I do respect people who choose to eat meat.
but in the suttas, the buddha compared eating food to eating the flesh of one's only child, when forced to save one's life whilst getting lost in a desert
this parable has many meanings
but one interpretation i have is that killing to eat is an inevitability
but in the suttas, the buddha compared eating food to eating the flesh of one's only child, when forced to save one's life whilst getting lost in a desert
this parable has many meanings
but one interpretation i have is that killing to eat is an inevitability
life has this harsh reality
:-/
Buddha is also cited as saying
"I have never approved, do not approve, and will never approve of a meat diet.” He declared: “my followers must never eat meat.
No meat can be regarded as pure if it was premeditated, asked for or desired; therefore refrain from eating meat. Both myself and other Buddhas forbid adepts from eating meat. Those sentient beings who feed on one another will be reborn as carnivorous animals. The meat-eater is ill-smelling, contemptuous and born deprived of intelligence. He belongs to the lowest class of men. Since the Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and sravakas have all condemned meat-eating, one who still eats meat without shame will always be devoid of sense. Those who give up eating meat will be reborn as wise and wealthy Brahmans. Meat that one has seen, heard, or suspected to have come from an animal slaughtered for meat is to be condemned. Theorizers who are born as meat-eaters will not understand this. These people will make foolish remarks about meat-eating, saying, “Meat is proper to eat, unobjectionable and permitted by the Buddha.” An adept enjoys vegetarian food in appropriate quantity and views meat as unfit to eat as the flesh of one’s own son. For those who are abiding in compassion, I forbid meat at all times and in all circumstances. Eating meat is a horrifying site and prevents progress towards Nirvana. Refraining from eating meat is the mark of the wise.v
"I have never approved, do not approve, and will never approve of a meat diet.” He declared: “my followers must never eat meat".
first time i have heard of this
the buddha and his monks often ate meat
today most monks eat meat
the buddha made the rule that if it is known or suspected an animal is killed specifically to feed the monks, then that meat cannot be eaten by the monks
but if people cooked meat for themselves and offered a portion of their ordinary food to the monks, it was OK to accept it
the Buddha's view on this matter is clearly documented in the original suttas
:-/
Some Buddhist think he did speak it, hence the wide use of "Buddha said" in the sutra.
Also this argument could be used on anything in the Pali Canon, that Buddha did not speak this sutra. Its up to the individual to come to their own conclusions.
Its up to the individual to come to their own conclusions.
Monks ate meat since the Buddha died, with no record disputes, and then something is written 100's of years after the Buddha die and we claim the Buddha spoke something contrary to the monk's established behaviour.
We may be vegetarian because it supports to our sense of compassion & empathy.
But the Buddha did not teach it. Even the Dalai Lama eats meat.
I guess some Buddhists are vegetarian out of compassion to put it very basically. I am a vegeterian myself, have been since I was 16 so 5 years now and have never found anything tedious. If you live in the western world you can get meatless meatballs (which I'm basically addicted to), chicken burgers minus the chicken, portabello burger patties, soy patties, 100 different other flavoured patties, vegetarian hot dogs that taste better than the real thing, etc. You can get most of these products in Asia too.
Its up to the individual to come to their own conclusions.
Monks ate meat since the Buddha died, with no record disputes, and then something is written 100's of years after the Buddha die and we claim the Buddha spoke something contrary to the monk's established behaviour.
We may be vegetarian because it supports to our sense of compassion & empathy.
But the Buddha did not teach it. Even the Dalai Lama eats meat.
I eat little meat, apart from some canned fish.
Am I more holy than the Dalai Lama?
Are you sure all monks ate meat since Buddha died ? is there any proof of this ?
The Pali Canon was written hundreds of years after Buddha died also. So if we take what is written in that as Buddha's words, we take it as an act of faith, like wise with Mahayana suttas, we take what is written as an act of faith do we not.
Theravada buddhists can eat meat . The Buddha established the precept for monks and lay people alike against killing or harming living beings.This is the first precept and clearly a very important one.Now I want to talk about are Theravadan monks and vegetarians . The Buddha required the monks in the Sangha to exist by receiving almsfood only, meaning that each day they would go on almsround collecting whatever food was offered to them by the local lay people. He did not allow them to store food overnight for the next day, nor did he allow them to practice agriculture to raise their own food. The Buddha allowed monks to receive whatever food was offered to them by the lay people, even if it was meat, because the monks depend on the open-handed generosity of lay supporters (who may or may not themselves be vegetarian). It is considered unseemly for them to make special food requests of the lay people. In those parts of the world (including wide areas of south Asia ) where vegetarianism is uncommon and many dishes are prepared in a meat or fish broth, vegetarian monks would soon face a simple choice: eat meat or starve. Requiring lay people to offer only vegetable food could also pose undue hardships on them at certain times of the year or in certain places where vegetable food was rare.
However, he did make three stipulations about receiving meat as almsfood. First, monks are forbidden to eat uncooked meat or fish. Second, they are forbidden to eat the flesh of humans, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, hyenas, and panthers. Third, they are not allowed to accept meat when they know, or even suspect, that the animal being offered was killed specifically to feed them personally, and not simply killed in order to provide food for whomever might need it. In these three situations a monk may not accept meat that is offered to them as food.
For Theravadan monks, the issue of vegetarianism is particularly sensitive because it was precisely this issue that the Buddha's cousin and nemesis, Devadatta, used in his attempt to create a schism in the Sangha. Devadatta made a request of the Buddha that he make it a fixed rule that his monks should not eat fish or meat of any kind. The Buddha refused to require his monks to abstain from eating flesh and left it as a personal option for those who wished to do so.
In India during the Buddha's time there was a long-established practice of offering food to renunciants and holy men. Thus begging was not considered to be a disgraceful act, but a holy one, and people willingly supported the renunciants in their efforts to gain liberation. As Buddhism spread to other parts of Asia, it encountered cultures where this practice was not found. In China for example, begging for food was seen as something disgraceful, and was not held to be something worthy of a holy person. Therefore, Buddhist monks had to begin providing themselves with their own food. Now since they were not able to change the social attitudes about begging for food, and given that the Buddha forbade killing of any living being, and also forbade monks to practice agriculture, they were faced with a tough decision in order to survive in the new culture and continue their work of transmitting the Dhamma. Of the two requirements (not killing, and not practicing agriculture) which one could be considered of lesser importance and relaxed to allow them to survive? Clearly, the latter one about practicing agriculture, and not the former about killing living beings. Thus, the Mahayanist monks in China began to grow their own food in order to survive. Since killing animals was not an option for them, they survived on vegetarian food only, and so a tradition grew up in the Chinese Sangha of being vegetarian. I cannot discuss , this is copied from other site The Theravadan sangha maintains the original practice that was defined by the Buddha and allows the consumption of meat when it is properly offered.
I guess it's all down to which one you want to believe Buddha said, again I am a vegetarian, I would like to think Buddha had the view which is expressed in the Lankavatara Sutra. People who think the Pali Cannon is the only true words of Buddha may think otherwise. But again can the Theravada or Mahayana suttras claim with 100% certainty that they are the true words of Buddha. I think not. In case's such as this, I go with what I think is right, and for me its the view expressed in the Lankavatara Sutra as far as eating meat goes.
you said you copied your information from other site could you provide a link or reference for the site you got your information from, it will be a interesting read for me.
For Theravadan monks, the issue of vegetarianism is particularly sensitive because it was precisely this issue that the Buddha's cousin and nemesis, Devadatta, used in his attempt to create a schism in the Sangha. Devadatta made a request of the Buddha that he make it a fixed rule that his monks should not eat fish or meat of any kind. The Buddha refused to require his monks to abstain from eating flesh and left it as a personal option for those who wished to do so.
This outrage made Devadatta very unpopular, and even Ajātasattu was compelled by the force of public opinion to withdraw his patronage from Devadatta, whose gain and honour decreased. (Sp.iv.811. At this time, Kokālika was very useful to Devadatta, J. ii.438). Thereupon he decided, with the help of several others, Kokālika, Katamoraka-tissa, Khandadeviyāputta and Samuddadatta, to bring about a schism in the Order. These five went accordingly to the Buddha and asked for the imposition of five rules on all members of the Sangha:
* (1) that monks should dwell all their lives in the forest, * (2) that they should accept no invitations to meals, but live entirely on alms obtained by begging, * (3) that they should wear only robes made of discarded rags and accept no robes from the laity, * (4) that they should dwell at the foot of a tree and not under a roof, * (5) that they should abstain completely from fish and flesh.
The Buddha's reply was that those who felt so inclined could follow these rules - except that of sleeping under a tree during the rainy season - but he refused to make the rules obligatory. This refusal delighted Devadatta, who went about with his party, declaring that the Buddha was prone to luxury and abundance. He was believed by the foolish, and in spite of the Buddha's warning against the dire sin of causing schism in the Order, Devadatta informed Ananda of his intention of holding an uposatha meeting without the Buddha, and, having persuaded five hundred newly ordained monks from Vesāli to join him, he went out to Gayāsīsa. On this occasion he tried to imitate the Buddha, keeping two chief disciples beside him (DhA.i.122). Three suttas, the two Devadatta, and the Mahāsāropama, were preached after this event.
Animals are so poor .We should not eat them and should save their lives .But my expression is only that meats eating is not unwholesome deed and abstaining from eating meats is also not wholesome deed . Forgive my spelling . Sutta Pitaka , Digha Nikàya [COLLECTION OF LONG DIALOGUES.] , VIII. KASSAPA-SäHANâDA SUTTA [THE NAKED ASCETIC.] This is from conversation between the Exalted One and Kassapa (a naked ascetic);
[\q 233/] `And if a man, O Kassapa, feed on potherbs, on wild rice, on Nivàra seeds, or on any of those other things you gave in detail down to fruits that have fallen of themselves, and the state of blissful attainment in conduct, in heart, in intellect, have not been practised by him, realised by him, then is he far from Samaõaship, far from Bràhmaõaship. But from the time, O Kassapa, when a Bhikkhu has cultivated the heart of love that knows no anger, that knows no ill willÞfrom the time when, by the destruction of the deadly intoxications (the lusts of the flesh, the lust after future life, and the defilements of delusion and ignorance), he dwells in that emancipation of heart, that emancipation of mind, that is free from those intoxications, and that he, while yet. in this visible world, has come to realise and know from that time, O Kassapa, is it that the Bhikkhu is called a Samaõa, is called a Bràhmaõa! You can read more in this link http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/1Digha-Nikaya/Digha1/08-kassapasihanada-e.html#start
If you feel guilty or indignant and have to defend your diet, whether your a grass eater or a carnivore, then maybe it's time to make a mind adjustment.
I recently became a vegetarian. It was a personal choice that I gave much thought to. I just couldn't see myself eating the flesh of animals anymore. My compassion to all living things couldn't justify my eating of meat. However, I do respect people who choose to eat meat.
Comments
(BTW, you're never going to talk those Plains tribes into substituting tofu, eggs and dairy for meat, haha! ^_^ Nor the salmon-peoples of the Pacific Northwest and Alaska.)
A western Nutritionist can help by giving more general advice, and a more rounded treatment.....Unstable blood sugar can be stabilised without resorting to eating meat.
My partner is diabetic, and belongs to a self-help group of around 28 people. 6 of those are vegetarian. Their blood sugar levels are often less variable than those of their meat counterparts.... The basic fact and bottom line is actually that you enjoy having meat as part of your diet, because you prefer it to tofu, quorn or other protein substitutes.
And that's fine.
There's no harm in that.
Are you allergic to dairy and eggs?
Who says you have to keep them to a minimum?
you could go for goat's milk, and eating eggs isn't bad for you, because nutritionists have now discovered that citing eggs as bad because of cholesterol is actually a flawed piece of advice.
Putting your trust and faith in a Tibetan doctor is all well and good, and if you're happy to do that, then good on you.
but a second opinion and further research wouldn't hurt.
However, you sound as if you're happier including meat in your diet, so keep on trucking!
Bon appetit!
I have. I had consultations and medicines over a period of time for a medical problem and it cost me quite a lot of money and made no difference to my condition at all. The doctor and his translator also appeared to have no idea what a thyroid was, even when shown diagrams.
I did find acupuncture from a Tibetan doctor for a knee injury helpful though.
The fact is that every body is different, is its own unique combination of subtle conditions, and needs to be addressed individually. There is no "one size fits all". The human organism is much more complex than that.
Of all the threads on Buddhism and vegetarianism, this is the first time anyone has contested the statement that some people need meat to be healthy. Is there a reason why suddenly this is coming up now?
Can human beings survive without meat? Of course they can. Do some people choose to do so? Of course they do. And they're perfectly happy. Others prefer not to do so. And they can be perfectly happy as well. To quote Rodney King...
"Can't we all just get along?"
_/\_
I worked with a Tibetan doctor for years, for blood sugar issues and chronic fatigue/adrenal fatigue. Eastern medicine doesn't work for some hormonal issues, I concluded (thyroid, stress hormones), but Tibetan medicine is internationally known for reversing diabetes, and for certain aspects of cancer treatment. And their cholesterol herbs save lives, and make coronary bypass surgery obsolete, fabulous stuff! I found it helpful to a certain extent for my particular blood sugar issues, though fortunately, I don't have full-blown diabetes. Acupuncture is great for a lot of things, and Chinese herbs are good for certain hormonal issues. I think these modalities each have their strengths and weaknesses.
The film, "The Knowledge of Healing", about Western research into Tibetan medicine, is one of my favorites. Federica, could you provide that link again please, to the source for Padma 28? I'd hope that it's about thriving, not just surviving. That's a different question. haha! Put that up on the chronic rebirth threads! ^_^
That's interesting, because I know of 2 tulkus and a monk with diabetes who have access to Tibetan medicine. Obviously it didn't reverse theirs because they use western treatment.
Anyway, good luck to those who use it - may they recover swiftly.
I guess we're off-topic.
Even though I try to remind myself about the animals that died and whatnot, it's so tiring to eat the same texture and generally the same set of flavours every time I eat a meal (whether at home or going out).
But yeah, no one is stop anyone from eating meat. Buddha only teaches these things for your own good!
If you feel guilty or indignant and have to defend your diet, whether your a grass eater or a carnivore, then maybe it's time to make a mind adjustment.
but in the suttas, the buddha compared eating food to eating the flesh of one's only child, when forced to save one's life whilst getting lost in a desert
this parable has many meanings
but one interpretation i have is that killing to eat is an inevitability
life has this harsh reality
:-/
"I have never approved, do not approve, and will never approve of a meat diet.” He declared: “my followers must never eat meat.
http://www.purifymind.com/RW28.htm
http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-chapter-4.htm#chap8
Taken from the Lankavatara-sutra
No meat can be regarded as pure if it was premeditated, asked for or desired; therefore
refrain from eating meat. Both myself and other Buddhas forbid adepts from eating
meat. Those sentient beings who feed on one another will be reborn as carnivorous
animals. The meat-eater is ill-smelling, contemptuous and born deprived of intelligence.
He belongs to the lowest class of men. Since the Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and sravakas
have all condemned meat-eating, one who still eats meat without shame will always be
devoid of sense. Those who give up eating meat will be reborn as wise and wealthy
Brahmans. Meat that one has seen, heard, or suspected to have come from an animal
slaughtered for meat is to be condemned. Theorizers who are born as meat-eaters will
not understand this. These people will make foolish remarks about meat-eating, saying,
“Meat is proper to eat, unobjectionable and permitted by the Buddha.” An adept enjoys
vegetarian food in appropriate quantity and views meat as unfit to eat as the flesh of
one’s own son. For those who are abiding in compassion, I forbid meat at all times and
in all circumstances. Eating meat is a horrifying site and prevents progress towards
Nirvana. Refraining from eating meat is the mark of the wise.v
With Metta
the buddha and his monks often ate meat
today most monks eat meat
the buddha made the rule that if it is known or suspected an animal is killed specifically to feed the monks, then that meat cannot be eaten by the monks
but if people cooked meat for themselves and offered a portion of their ordinary food to the monks, it was OK to accept it
regards
http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-nondiacritical.htm
http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-chapter-4.htm#chap8
To balance the argument a bit read the other link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_vegetarianism
Its up to the individual if you agree with the sutra or if you think Buddha actually said these words. Being a vegetarian I may be biased
With Metta
pigs are so cute & lovable (and smart)
it is a Mahayana sutta
the Buddha's view on this matter is clearly documented in the original suttas
:-/
Also this argument could be used on anything in the Pali Canon, that Buddha did not speak this sutra. Its up to the individual to come to their own conclusions.
With Metta
We may be vegetarian because it supports to our sense of compassion & empathy.
But the Buddha did not teach it. Even the Dalai Lama eats meat.
I eat little meat, apart from some canned fish.
Am I more holy than the Dalai Lama?
The Pali Canon was written hundreds of years after Buddha died also. So if we take what is written in that as Buddha's words, we take it as an act of faith, like wise with Mahayana suttas, we take what is written as an act of faith do we not.
With Metta
However, he did make three stipulations about receiving meat as almsfood. First, monks are forbidden to eat uncooked meat or fish. Second, they are forbidden to eat the flesh of humans, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, hyenas, and panthers. Third, they are not allowed to accept meat when they know, or even suspect, that the animal being offered was killed specifically to feed them personally, and not simply killed in order to provide food for whomever might need it. In these three situations a monk may not accept meat that is offered to them as food.
For Theravadan monks, the issue of vegetarianism is particularly sensitive because it was precisely this issue that the Buddha's cousin and nemesis, Devadatta, used in his attempt to create a schism in the Sangha. Devadatta made a request of the Buddha that he make it a fixed rule that his monks should not eat fish or meat of any kind. The Buddha refused to require his monks to abstain from eating flesh and left it as a personal option for those who wished to do so.
In India during the Buddha's time there was a long-established practice of offering food to renunciants and holy men. Thus begging was not considered to be a disgraceful act, but a holy one, and people willingly supported the renunciants in their efforts to gain liberation. As Buddhism spread to other parts of Asia, it encountered cultures where this practice was not found. In China for example, begging for food was seen as something disgraceful, and was not held to be something worthy of a holy person. Therefore, Buddhist monks had to begin providing themselves with their own food. Now since they were not able to change the social attitudes about begging for food, and given that the Buddha forbade killing of any living being, and also forbade monks to practice agriculture, they were faced with a tough decision in order to survive in the new culture and continue their work of transmitting the Dhamma. Of the two requirements (not killing, and not practicing agriculture) which one could be considered of lesser importance and relaxed to allow them to survive? Clearly, the latter one about practicing agriculture, and not the former about killing living beings. Thus, the Mahayanist monks in China began to grow their own food in order to survive. Since killing animals was not an option for them, they survived on vegetarian food only, and so a tradition grew up in the Chinese Sangha of being vegetarian.
I cannot discuss , this is copied from other site
The Theravadan sangha maintains the original practice that was defined by the Buddha and allows the consumption of meat when it is properly offered.
http://www.veggiebuddhists.com/lankavatarasutra
As I say I am biased because I am a vegetarian, please provide links or information arguing a different point if anyone wants.
With Metta
http://www.veggiebuddhists.com/lankavatarasutra
I think this site is for Mahayana .
In the Lankavatara Sutra, the Buddha states that he “does not permit the eating of meat and will not permit it”
This sutra is not found in THE TIPITAKA of Theravada . I can only explain from
Theravada . But this page of site can explain you .There is a question
( Are Buddhists vegetarian? ) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bullitt/bfaq.html#veggie
But again can the Theravada or Mahayana suttras claim with 100% certainty that they are the true words of Buddha. I think not. In case's such as this, I go with what I think is right, and for me its the view expressed in the Lankavatara Sutra as far as eating meat goes.
With Metta
you said you copied your information from other site
could you provide a link or reference for the site you got your information from, it will be a interesting read for me.
Thanks
With Metta
http://www.veggiebuddhists.com/devadatta
With Metta
* (1) that monks should dwell all their lives in the forest,
* (2) that they should accept no invitations to meals, but live entirely on alms obtained by begging,
* (3) that they should wear only robes made of discarded rags and accept no robes from the laity,
* (4) that they should dwell at the foot of a tree and not under a roof,
* (5) that they should abstain completely from fish and flesh.
The Buddha's reply was that those who felt so inclined could follow these rules - except that of sleeping under a tree during the rainy season - but he refused to make the rules obligatory. This refusal delighted Devadatta, who went about with his party, declaring that the Buddha was prone to luxury and abundance. He was believed by the foolish, and in spite of the Buddha's warning against the dire sin of causing schism in the Order, Devadatta informed Ananda of his intention of holding an uposatha meeting without the Buddha, and, having persuaded five hundred newly ordained monks from Vesāli to join him, he went out to Gayāsīsa. On this occasion he tried to imitate the Buddha, keeping two chief disciples beside him (DhA.i.122). Three suttas, the two Devadatta, and the Mahāsāropama, were preached after this event.
http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/d/devadatta.htm
this site is for Tipitaka Theravāda-Buddhismus
and then http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/2_5lbud.htm
When we eat , meat or vegetation is not important .The important is your mind's state when you eat . That statement is also taught Buddha . But I cannot find.Because The size of Tipitaka is very enormous . I can only know about this but did not know yet where can I find . Plese forgive my spelling .
With Metta
Sutta Pitaka , Digha Nikàya [COLLECTION OF LONG DIALOGUES.] , VIII. KASSAPA-SäHANâDA SUTTA [THE NAKED ASCETIC.] This is from conversation between the Exalted One and Kassapa (a naked ascetic);
[\q 233/] `And if a man, O Kassapa, feed on potherbs, on wild rice, on Nivàra seeds, or on any of those other things you gave in detail down to fruits that have fallen of themselves, and the state of blissful attainment in conduct, in heart, in intellect, have not been practised by him, realised by him, then is he far from Samaõaship, far from Bràhmaõaship. But from the time, O Kassapa, when a Bhikkhu has cultivated the heart of love that knows no anger, that knows no ill willÞfrom the time when, by the destruction of the deadly intoxications (the lusts of the flesh, the lust after future life, and the defilements of delusion and ignorance), he dwells in that emancipation of heart, that emancipation of mind, that is free from those intoxications, and that he, while yet. in this visible world, has come to realise and know from that time, O Kassapa, is it that the Bhikkhu is called a Samaõa, is called a Bràhmaõa!
You can read more in this link http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/1Digha-Nikaya/Digha1/08-kassapasihanada-e.html#start