Aren't Buddhists Vegetarian?

jazzman

I recently chatted with a Buddhist online and met locally for lunch. Our meeting went very well.

But I was surprised and disappointed when she ordered meat for her meal. I thought Buddhists were vegetarian.

I am vegetarian because I can't support the cruelty of animal slaughter. I hoped Buddhists were also supporters of nonviolence.

Beej

Sometimes.

person

Many are but there's no rule that says you have to be.

federica

Some Buddhists smoke. others drink.

There is no hard and fast rule in Buddhism that says you must not eat meat, although some traditions advocate vegetarianism.

As ever, choices consequences.
your comment with regard to Buddhists and non-violence is also, inappropriate.

And I'm a vegetarian.

jazzman

Thanks for your response. It is always a pleasure to meet a vegetarian.

your comment with regard to Buddhists and non-violence is also, inappropriate.

But how is my comment "inappropriate"?

Either you mean Buddhists are not non-violent, or killing is somehow non-violent.

RebeccaS

I just ate bacon and eggs, smoked a cigarette and last night I had a couple of beers.

Buddhism rules! :rockon:

Judgmental stuff just makes me feel so facetious

taiyaki

Actually buddhist do what they want to do.

All depends upon tradition and personal perference.

zombiegirl

jazzman said:

Thanks for your response. It is always a pleasure to meet a vegetarian.

your comment with regard to Buddhists and non-violence is also, inappropriate.

But how is my comment "inappropriate"?

Either you mean Buddhists are not non-violent, or killing is somehow non-violent.

Probably inappropriate in that it violates right speech. (Check out, "Speak only words that do not harm") It's okay to state your opinions, but your statement had a bit of a edge and a jab to it, which could upset some of those here who do eat meat.

The topic of whether or not Buddhist should be vegetarians pops up here quite frequently. If you're curious, you could do a search and read through some of the thoughts and comments on the cyclical topic that never ends, lol.

federica

zombiegirl said:

Probably inappropriate in that it violates right speech. (Check out, "Speak only words that do not harm") It's okay to state your opinions, but your statement had a bit of a edge and a jab to it, which could upset some of those here who do eat meat.

Quite.
"A closed mouth gathers no foot.".

FairyFeller

I became veggie a long time before I became interested in Buddhism.

There's not point being a vegetarian though if the vegetables that your eating have come at the cost of numerous lives, poisoning of the food chain from pesticides, soil enriched with blood/bone meal or mulched up mackerel.

upekka

i refrain form killing
is one of the precept

killing
is one of the unskilful deed in ten unskillful deed, word and thought

it is upto us to decide whether we eat meat or not

at a certain level of practice 'whatever comes to your plate is just four basic elements, earth, fire, water and air'
and
you are indiffernce to what you eat

at a lower level it is better if we can avoid eat meat
but
we do not have to upset of other's eating meat

if we upset, it itself disturbe our own thought process and it is a hindrance to our own practice

most important thing is not 'what other's do, but what i do'

LostLight

Well I'm a vegetarian, yet I eat meat. I am very practical in my execution. I try to not support the slaughter of animals by only buying vegetarian food and supplies at restaurants and stores. However, if I'm at a family gathering and meat happens to be one of the bulk dishes for the entire house, my eating the meat would change nothing; either I eat it, it gets thrown out as extras, or someone else does.

Buddhism is all about being practical, it is said that the Buddha was not vegetarian; he too ate whatever was given to him even if it was meat. He would not, however, eat meat that was killed directly for him. I think that's a good rule to live by, but like others say, live and let live.

zombiegirl

LostLight said:

Well I'm a vegetarian, yet I eat meat. I am very practical in my execution. I try to not support the slaughter of animals by only buying vegetarian food and supplies at restaurants and stores. However, if I'm at a family gathering and meat happens to be one of the bulk dishes for the entire house, my eating the meat would change nothing; either I eat it, it gets thrown out as extras, or someone else does.

Buddhism is all about being practical, it is said that the Buddha was not vegetarian; he too ate whatever was given to him even if it was meat. He would not, however, eat meat that was killed directly for him. I think that's a good rule to live by, but like others say, live and let live.

I tried doing that, but it just upset my digestive system too much to eat meat so infrequently, since it ended up being most of the year without meat and then Thanksgiving and Christmas... way too much. I had to go back to just cutting it out of my diet completely and bringing my own vegetarian supplies when visiting family. I think it's a sound philosophy though.

LostLight

zombiegirl said:

I tried doing that, but it just upset my digestive system too much to eat meat so infrequently, since it ended up being most of the year without meat and then Thanksgiving and Christmas... way too much. I had to go back to just cutting it out of my diet completely and bringing my own vegetarian supplies when visiting family. I think it's a sound philosophy though.

My friend had the same issue. I guess my many years of being a hardcore meat loving guy still allow me to not be affected even if I eat it once or twice a year.

jazzman

Just want to share this amusing story.

Some years ago I had to do a 45-day stint in the county jail for failure to pay fines. I could only eat the small portions of bread and veggies on my tray, which wasn't filling.
I requested vegetarian, but nobody cared.

After a few days, I said I was a Buddhist and it is my religious requirement to eat vegetarian. Lo and behold, immediately I was served special vegetarian entrees!

Moral of the story: Nobody dares trample religious beliefs.

So thanks to Buddhism for being my alibi in maintaining vegetarianism!

Mountains

My recent batch of vegetarian (vegan, in fact) was very good. After I put some meat in it, it was fantastic!

seeker242

Millions of Buddhists are vegetarians. It is most popular in non-Tibetan traditions of Mahayana. But many Tibetans, ones that live in India at least, are increasingly becoming vegetarian. The Dali Lama holds the practice in high regard. All Zen and Chan traditions, except for Japanese traditions, are strict vegetarian for centuries. Japanese used to be but then the Japanese government got involved in temple affairs a while ago and that changed.

The position of the Buddha Dharma has always been that killing animals for food is productive of karma that leads to rebirth in the lower realms, that is, rebirth as an animal, hungry ghost, or hell being. But eating meat, is not karma producing unless there is a direct connection between the act of eating and the killing. Therefore, the rules of mendicancy are that (1) a follower of the Buddha can not kill an animal, including for a meal (e.g. even if out in the forest or while traveling), (2) one can not accept meat that has been killed "for" oneself as it is by the intention of the killer that the meat is for the mendicant that the mendicant thereby shares the karma of killing. (3) if the mendicant is begging and the donor puts meat in the bowl that is leftovers from the donor’s meal, and therefore the meat was not killed with the mendicant in mind, then the mendicant must eat what is in the bowl and there is no karma of the killing attached to it. This is the pre-Mahayana view of meat eating.

In the Mahayana view, Karma doesn’t appear to be so linear. Additionally, the modern world needs to be taken into account. In the modern world we have to ask what is the karmic connection between eating meat bought at a supermarket and the eater? Though the animal is not killed with the intent of being for any particular person, supermarket meat is killed with the intent of being for the buyer, so anyone who buys the meat is participating in the karma of the intentional killing and additionally if the meat is bought specifically for another to eat then the eater still shares in the karma of the killing through the purchase.

However, if dropped into the arctic circle and there was no way to survive except to hunt or fish until being able to return to the agricultural realm, the person has to deal with a pre-agricultural karmic relationship, and so killing the animal to survive may be done without karmic detriment if the killing is done with the appropriate reverence in knowing that the being that is killed is one’s own intimate relation so that the eating is done with full recognition that it is the flesh of a relative and necessary for survival. The karmic result is then entirely dependent on the truth of the matter of necessity and sincerity, so that the animal’s death becomes a bodhisattva sacrifice rather than a victimization of a lesser being.

On the other hand, in our modern world, since we do not live in the arctic or where the fruits of agriculture are not available, there is virtually no practical way to eat meat without direct karmic consequence from the killing of it being connected to the eating of it. In other words, the slaughterhouse is present and manifest on the plate.

This Mahayana level of understanding--that meat-eating is to be avoided altogether--is presented in the precepts of the Brahma Net Sutra and in the meat-eating chapter of the Lankavatara Sutra.

Any traditions that follow the precepts of the Brama Net sutra are strict vegetarian. For example, even physically bringing meat onto the grounds of a Korean temple, is strictly forbidden.

In the Brahma Net Sutra, the third of the 48 secondary precepts is a prohibition of eating meat. Here the question of karma is not connected to whether the meat was deliberately killed for the eater, but whether the eater is deliberately eating the meat.

3. On Eating Meat
A disciple of the Buddha must not deliberately eat meat. He should not eat the flesh of any sentient being. The meat-eater forfeits the seed of Great Compassion, severs the seed of the Buddha Nature, and causes [animals and transcendental] beings to avoid him. Those who do so are guilty of countless offenses. Therefore, Bodhisattvas should not eat the flesh of any sentient beings whatsoever. If instead, he deliberately eats meat, he commits a secondary offense.

Likewise the Lankavatara Sutra presents the question with greater emphasis.

DT Suzuki translation wrote:

The Blessed One said this to him: For innumerable reasons, Mahamati, the Bodhisattva, whose nature is compassion, is not to eat any meat; I will explain them: Mahamati, in this long course of transmigration here, there is not one living being that, having assumed the form of a living being, has not been your mother, or father, or brother, or sister, or son, or daughter, or the one or the other, in various degrees of kinship; and when acquiring another form of life may live as a beast, as a domestic animal, as a bird, or as a womb-born, or as something standing in some relationship to you; [this being so] how can the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva who desires to approach all living beings as if they were himself and to practise the Buddha-truths, eat the flesh of any living being that is of the same nature as himself? Even, Mahamati, the Rakshasa, listening to the Tathagata's discourse on the highest essence of the Dharma, attained the notion of protecting [Buddhism], and, feeling pity, refrains from eating flesh; how much more those who love the Dharma! Thus, Mahamati, wherever there is the evolution of living beings, let people cherish the thought of kinship with them, and, thinking that all beings are [to be loved as if they were] an only child, let them refrain from eating meat. So with Bodhisattvas whose nature is compassion, [the eating of] meat is to be avoided by him. Even in exceptional cases, it is not [compassionate] of a Bodhisattva of good standing to eat meat. The flesh of a dog, an ass, a buffalo, a horse, a bull, or man, or any other [being], Mahamati, that is not generally eaten by people, is sold on the roadside as mutton for the sake of money; and therefore, Mahamati, the Bodhisattva should not eat meat.

For the sake of love of purity, Mahamati, the Bodhisattva should refrain from eating flesh which is born of semen, blood, etc. For fear of causing terror to living beings, Mahamati, let the Bodhisattva who is disciplining himself to attain compassion, refrain from eating flesh. To illustrate, Mahamati: When a dog sees, even from a distance, a hunter, a pariah, a fisherman, etc., whose desires are for meat-eating, he is terrified with fear, thinking, "They are death-dealers, they will even kill me." In the same way, Mahamati, even those minute animals that are living in the air, on earth, and in water, seeing meat-eaters at a distance, will perceive in them, by their keen sense of smell, the odour of the Rakshasa and will run away from such people as quickly as possible; for they are to them the threat of death. For this reason, Mahamati, let the Bodhisattva, who is disciplining himself, to abide in great compassion, because of its terrifying living beings, refrain from eating meat. Mahamati, meat which is liked by unwise people is full of bad smell and its eating gives one a bad reputation which turns wise people away; let the Bodhisattva refrain from eating meat. The food of the wise, Mahamati, is what is eaten by the Rishis; it does not consist of meat and blood. Therefore, Mahamati, let the Bodhisattva refrain from eating meat.

In order to guard the minds of all people, Mahamati, let the Bodhisattva whose nature is holy and who is desirous of avoiding censure on the teaching of the Buddha, refrain from eating meat. For instance, Mahamati, there are some in the world who speak ill of the teaching of the Buddha; [they would say,] "Why are those who are living the life of a Sramana or a Brahmin reject such food as was enjoyed by the ancient Rishis, and like the carnivorous animals, living in the air, on earth, or in the water? Why do they go wandering about in the world thoroughly terrifying living beings, disregarding the life of a Sramana and destroying the vow of a Brahmin? There is no Dharma, no discipline in them." There are many such adverse-minded people who thus speak ill of the teaching of the Buddha. For this reason, Mahamati, in order to guard the minds of all people, let the Bodhisattva whose nature is full of pity and who is desirous of avoiding censure on the teaching of the Buddha, refrain from eating meat.

seeker242

upekka said:

at a certain level of practice 'whatever comes to your plate is just four basic elements, earth, fire, water and air'
and
you are indiffernce to what you eat

That is true for monks who go on alms rounds, because the food actually does "come to their plate" by itself so to speak. However, for most people the food does not "come to their plate". They intentionally go out and purchase it and put it on their plate deliberately and intentionally. This still have karmic consequences regardless of the level of practice. Don't you think? How can one intentionally give money to a slaughterhouse who abuses and kills animals, without having any karmic consequence from that?

poptart

No, not all Buddhists are vegetarians.

And they aren't all self-righteous either.

jazzman

Nothing self-righteous about being vegetarian. I love it!

How can one intentionally give money to a slaughterhouse who abuses and kills animals, without having any karmic consequence from that?

I believe in instant karma. The animals know they're going to die brutally.
Imagine the poisonous hormones that gush througout the animal's body at the moment of death from their extreme fear. That's what you eat.

Beej

jazzman said:

Nothing self-righteous about being vegetarian. I love it!

How can one intentionally give money to a slaughterhouse who abuses and kills animals, without having any karmic consequence from that?

I believe in instant karma. The animals know they're going to die brutally.
Imagine the poisonous hormones that gush througout the animal's body at the moment of death from their extreme fear. That's what you eat.Yes but do you use vegetarianism as an identity? In the Zen world that's just another hat that one need not wear as it can sometimes get pulled over our eyes and obscure the light, so to speak. Eat a vegitarian diet. Don't "be" a vegetarian. It's simpler that way. And that makes it a lot easier in case you get a hankering for pepperoni.

poptart

jazzman said:

Nothing self-righteous about being vegetarian. I love it!

I agree, there is nothing self-righteous about it unless you become self-righteous about it by suggesting everyone should do the same as you.

karasti

As the quote goes, "Be kind, everyone you meet is fighting a battle" or something like that. You don't know what battles they fight, or what reasons they have for what they do. If you were disappointed then you clearly had expectations of the person you were meeting. When you stop expecting people to be something in particular, you stop getting disappointed

I eat meat. But you wouldn't know why I eat meat without asking me, you'd just judge me from afar while I ate out one day. I cannot eat wheat or most dairy, and where I live fruits and veggies are very difficult to come by 6 months of the year (in an eatable condition). We also have a diabetic child and to keep him on balanced blood glucose, eating meat is part of that at this point in time. Could I be vegetarian? Yes. But I would suffer nutritionally part of the year if I did for lack of variety, so it is not worth it to do so. But it doesn't make me a bad Buddhist, or a person who doesn't care about nonviolence. I do care, and I'm very careful in where we purchase our meats. I still don't feel great about it, but right now it's necessary, so we just avoid supporting slaughterhouses and buy local, organic, family farmed grass fed meats, so that at least we are trying to do the least harm we can.

RebeccaS

jazzman said:

Nothing self-righteous about being vegetarian. I love it!

How can one intentionally give money to a slaughterhouse who abuses and kills animals, without having any karmic consequence from that?

I believe in instant karma. The animals know they're going to die brutally.
Imagine the poisonous hormones that gush througout the animal's body at the moment of death from their extreme fear. That's what you eat.

I don't know... You're clearly just trying to make people feel bad about eating meat (deny it all you want, but I'll call BS) and that seems pretty self righteous to me.

"That's what you eat". I don't think it gets more self righteous than that.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I get really bored of anti meat militants getting on people's cases. You eat what you want, I'll eat what I want (hormones and all) and we'll all live happily.

seeker242

jazzman said:

Nothing self-righteous about being vegetarian. I love it!

How can one intentionally give money to a slaughterhouse who abuses and kills animals, without having any karmic consequence from that?

I believe in instant karma. The animals know they're going to die brutally.
Imagine the poisonous hormones that gush througout the animal's body at the moment of death from their extreme fear. That's what you eat.

I hope that was not directed at me!

poptart said:

jazzman said:

Nothing self-righteous about being vegetarian. I love it!

I agree, there is nothing self-righteous about it unless you become self-righteous about it by suggesting everyone should do the same as you.

That is not exactly "self-righteous" in and of itself. It can be, but not necessarily. If one does not steal other people's belongings. Would one be "self-righteous" if one suggested everyone do the same as them? If one is not racist, would one be self-righteous if they suggested everyone do the same as them? Obviously not!

It really depends on if the action causes suffering to others. If it does, then there is a moral responsibility to suggest that this activity be stopped, if one can see and truly cares about the suffering that these other beings are experiencing. Inflicting suffering on these other beings like this is unethical. What goes on at a slaughterhouse is unethical.

It is not really self-righteous to suggest that this unethical behavior should be stopped. The Buddha, even in the old scriptures, agrees with this!

Once in Savatthi the Blessed Buddha said this:
What, householder friends, is the Dhamma explanation befitting to oneself?
Here, householder friends, a Noble Disciple reflects thus: I am one who wishes
to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness & do not like any suffering.
If someone were to take my life, it would neither be pleasing nor agreeable to me.
If I kill whatever another being: One who also wishes to live, who also does not
wish to die, who also desires happiness & who also dislike suffering, that would
neither be pleasant nor acceptable to that other being either...
What is displeasing and disagreeable to me, is also displeasing and disagreeable
to any other being too. How can I inflict upon another being what is displeasing
and disagreeable to myself? Having reflected repeatedly thus, then gradually:
1: He/she will carefully avoid all destruction of any life-form whatsoever...
2: He/she will persuade others also to abstain from all destruction of any life...
3: He/she will speak praising harmlessness and avoidance of all & any killing...
In exactly this way is this good bodily behaviour purified in three respects!!!

RebeccaS

Good point, but sometimes people clearly aren't coming from that place.

You can tell because people don't feel good listening to them, they feel attacked.

I can listen to vegetarians talking about being vegetarian, and that's totally cool with me. I can listen to them talk about their views and why they make their choices and that's awesome. No problem. It's not for me personally, but I don't have a problem with it.

But then other people talk about it, and it stings a little. They're not just sharing views or asking questions, they're on the offensive. They try and invoke negative feelings in other people (causing suffering) and that's not cool in my opinion.

Sabre

Hi,

I think this is an essay worth reading - It's by a Theravadin monk: Why Buddhists Should Be Vegetarian

It goes into why a lot of Buddhists aren't vegetarian, why the Buddha wasn't, but why it is a very reasonable choice nowadays - now we have more access to alternative food and the meat industry is much more harmful and bad for the environment. I don't really like the term "should" in it, but ok. It's a fine read, with cute pictures



Myself I'm a part-time vegetarian. When I'm at friends or family, I don't require them to cook vegetarian for me, but at home I prefer to eat vegetarian food.

Kangaroo

That puppy is so cute I could just eat him up!

karasti

As I've said before, every human that exists, causes death to other beings in the process. We all just try to do the best we can (hopefully) to limit that and still maintain our lives and health. Agriculture is one of the worst things for the destruction of other beings that has happened in the past several hundred years. So, even being vegetarian you still contribute to the destruction of beings, unless you sustain yourself 100% on your own land...and that you are sure that your own land was never home to other beings that were destroyed to make it a lot habitable by people. Organic farming is even worse as far as destruction can go, because it requires so much more space (ie destruction of habitat) than GMO farming does. So, just because you are vegetarian, don't try to pretend your existence doesn't cause the deaths of other beings and doesn't support unethical behaviors in other people.

This is how self-righteous is defined:
self-right·eous
   [self-rahy-chuhs, self-] Show IPA
adjective
confident of one's own righteousness, especially when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others.

To me, you come across as being exactly that-moralistic of the behavior of meat eaters. If is your *opinion* and you believe that everyone should live that way based on your opinion. Perhaps that is not the way you intend to come across, since perception of tone and such is difficult in text. But your words do carry a tone (to me) of "I am morally superior to those who eat meat, because it is *clearly* the wrong thing to do, and I uphold that and you don't." There are many reasons why someone might not be vegetarian, and it's not up to you to judge them for it.

karasti

Also remember not all traditions are the same, and not everyone follows the same tradition as you. Tibetans eat meat often, because their climate basically requires that they do. They aren't bad Buddhists, or less Buddhist because of it.

poptart

If one does not steal other people's belongings. Would one be "self-righteous" if one suggested everyone do the same as them? If one is not racist, would one be self-righteous if they suggested everyone do the same as them? Obviously not!

Actually it would. You change the world by changing yourself, not by taking the moral high ground to preach. The best you can do is serve as an example of what you want others to be. Shaming others into your way of thinking is simply the ego trying to exert control.

PrairieGhost

Is self-righteousness the issue or is the suffering of animals the issue?

seeker242

poptart said:

If one does not steal other people's belongings. Would one be "self-righteous" if one suggested everyone do the same as them? If one is not racist, would one be self-righteous if they suggested everyone do the same as them? Obviously not!

Actually it would. You change the world by changing yourself, not by taking the moral high ground to preach. The best you can do is serve as an example of what you want others to be. Shaming others into your way of thinking is simply the ego trying to exert control.



So Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King were both self-righteous? I find that hard to believe! So all those anti war peace activists, like Thich Nhat Hanh, are self-righteous ego projectors? I don't think that is the case! Public activism and self righteous ego projecting, are two completely different things. Just because they sometimes appear together does not mean they are the same thing.

RebeccaS

It's actually pretty easy to tell the difference between standing for what it right and self righteousness. It's all in the attitude.

PrairieGhost

RebeccaS:

It's actually pretty easy to tell the difference between standing for what it right and self righteousness. It's all in the attitude.

The room looks at its feet.

zombiegirl

The other day my girlfriend and I were having dinner at a restaurant when she noticed a man wearing a t-shirt that said, "MEAT IS MURDER". She was very offended by the use of the word "murder" and we had a conversation on how it is similar to those tactics of pro-lifers. It's shock and shame tactics. This is what I think of when I think of self-righteous vegetarians. Even if you did manage to convert someone with this type of strategy, it would be out of fear and shame, not compassion and understanding. But really, it's more likely to just piss some people off.

PrairieGhost

This comes across to me as a solipsistic view.

It's like saying 'I hate it when someone is being murdered and they yell 'murder! Help!'. It's a shock tactic that'll just put people off, and even if someone helps, it'll only be because of fear and shame...'

PrairieGhost

To put it plainer, no one cares that people are made to feel guilty about eating meat. Get over it or stop eating meat (I eat meat. This thread reminded me I should stop eating meat. Maybe I will today). I mean, we're killing beings and we act offended when someone draws our attention to the fact?

And then we turn it on its head and insinuate that campaigning vegetarians are unpleasant people deep down, egotistical, self-righteous etc. How cynical can we get? We're the ones butchering our fellow creatures, yet we ignore that obvious unpleasantness and focus instead on the entirely hypothetical egotism of those who draw attention to the suffering we're causing.

RebeccaS

Nah. Awful people can support great things, and it's usually their awfulness that shines through and overshadows the message or the great thing they're supporting. I think of the political activists, often they're working for things that are totally worthwhile, but their way of doing it can be straight up obnoxious. It does nothing for whatever they're supporting and just puts people off.

Pro lifers are a great example. Whether or not I support the issue personally isn't important, but when I was 15 and in Catholic school, the pro-life brigade came to show children pictures of what were supposed to be aborted fetuses. Not cool.

zombiegirl

As I posted earlier, I think that sort of tactic violates right speech. It's all about tact for me. And you know, I am a vegetarian, so it's not like I'm anti-vegetarian or something?

RebeccaS

They did an interesting study on people who recycle. It showed that they felt they were "good people" and so in other areas of their lives they made less of an effort to be "good". They found the same thing with regular church goers.

I think it's the same with militant vegetarians.

They think they're doing a "good thing" by being vegetarian and that it somehow exonerates them from the bad things they do in other areas of their lives. They can speak to people however they like because they're "good people" so it's cancelled out.

I'll try and find the study, it was super interesting.

MaryAnne

Wow, when are the "Bibles" going to come out into view and we'll hear about how 'sex is dirty' and "birth control is against god's plan' and 'working on Sundays is a sin'....?

I mean seriously! Not everyone is a vegetarian, and those that are need to get over themselves, and those that aren't reap what they sow - karma wise. So can't we move on?

PrairieGhost

RebeccaS

Nah. Awful people can support great things, and it's usually their awfulness that shines through and overshadows the message or the great thing they're supporting. I think of the political activists, often they're working for things that are totally worthwhile, but their way of doing it can be straight up obnoxious. It does nothing for whatever they're supporting and just puts people off.

I do agree, it can be this way, though we can also tend to put down people for making us feel uncomfortable about our own actions.

But the awfulness of the meat is murder people doesn't make it any more moral to eat meat. And on this thread, the issue that has been generally avoided in favour of the metta argument about shock tactics, is the issue of whether it is in fact moral to eat meat.

zombiegirl

PrairieGhost said:

But the awfulness of the meat is murder people doesn't make it any more moral to eat meat. And on this thread, the issue that has been generally avoided in favour of the metta argument about shock tactics, is the issue of whether it is in fact moral to eat meat.

Probably because this topic happens on this board once every few months and goes on so long that either everyone loses interest or a mod shuts it down.

You are welcome to do a search and read what others have written before. It usually just ends up with everyone agreeing to disagree.

PrairieGhost

Fair.

zombiegirl

RebeccaS said:

They did an interesting study on people who recycle. It showed that they felt they were "good people" and so in other areas of their lives they made less of an effort to be "good". They found the same thing with regular church goers.

I think it's the same with militant vegetarians.

They think they're doing a "good thing" by being vegetarian and that it somehow exonerates them from the bad things they do in other areas of their lives. They can speak to people however they like because they're "good people" so it's cancelled out.

I'll try and find the study, it was super interesting.

So in other words, these people were clinging to an image they had of themselves because of a few good things they did regularly... but failed in other obvious situations. The ego at work, huh? Interesting!

I'm not going to lie, I've known some militant vegetarians who kind of fail in the other obvious things like... basic kindness... lol.

Sabre

Lots of bla. Lots of generalisation. Let's get back to the topic as reasonable people, because we can doubt whether eating meat is unwholesome, but one thing is for sure, unskillful speach for sure is.

MaryAnne

Maybe NewBuddhist.com needs a "FAQs" page?

(I'm just teasing!! Don't anyone get their robes in a knot).

PrairieGhost

Is it better to eat fish, or is it worse to eat a particular species of animal?

I had this idea that we should especially not eat dogs or cats or horses, because they already help us in other ways, so they get a pass.

Arthurbodhi

zombiegirl said:

RebeccaS said:

They did an interesting study on people who recycle. It showed that they felt they were "good people" and so in other areas of their lives they made less of an effort to be "good". They found the same thing with regular church goers.

I think it's the same with militant vegetarians.

They think they're doing a "good thing" by being vegetarian and that it somehow exonerates them from the bad things they do in other areas of their lives. They can speak to people however they like because they're "good people" so it's cancelled out.

I'll try and find the study, it was super interesting.

So in other words, these people were clinging to an image they had of themselves because of a few good things they did regularly... but failed in other obvious situations. The ego at work, huh? Interesting!

I'm not going to lie, I've known some militant vegetarians who kind of fail in the other obvious things like... basic kindness... lol.

The same could be said about any label that you put in your being, of course that also include buddhist.

karasti

I'm not uncomfortable with the fact that a being dies when I eat meat. I've hunted, I've fished, I know where my food comes from. I've shot it and butchered it myself. I'm not uncomfortable with where it comes from. I'm uncomfortable with someone saying they are disappointed in a Buddhist who eats meat, expecting that all Buddhist are supposed to be vegetarian. Having expectations is one of the biggies in Buddhism. But I am also personally uncomfortable with the idea that someone will know I consider myself a Buddhist, see me eating out, and judge me and talk about me behind my back without knowing my reasons for eating meat, just that no matter what, in his/her mind, it's wrong for a Buddhist to eat meat.