Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Fishing

Wisdom23Wisdom23 Veteran
edited December 2012 in Buddhism Basics
For a while my gf's grandad has been trying to get me to go fishing. Ofcourse this disobeys the do not harm precep but he has told me he has bought me a rod n reel. I dont want to upset him yet i dont really wanna cause unnecessary harm,i mean i certainly wouldn'tlike a hook through my cheek.

what do you recommend my dear friends
«13

Comments

  • Very sticky situation. Kind of between a rock and a hard place unfortunately. Hopefully someone will have a good answer to this for you!
    Wisdom23
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    The answers I have heard in similar situations is do what you feel is truly right. I fish. I do not keep anything we will not eat, and I use fake bait as often as possible. It is not something we do often, but it is a vital part of the connection to the time I spend with my father, and has been since I was a baby. I can't (and don't want to) just give it up because my path took a bit of a turn in life. It would change my relationship with my father, and not for the better. Eventually I may change my mind, and I am open to that. I realize I am accepting bad karma as a result, and I take that on freely as a result. I am very careful to honor anything that feeds my family, and I also spend a fair amount of time rescuing and helping with rehabbing injured animals, so perhaps that help the karma balance out.

    When I asked my teacher about it he said, "reflect deeply. Some people are just fishermen. Some are even hunters. If you feel this is who you are, then be it. But understand your reasons for wanting to do it versus being it, reflect on your motivations and be honest with yourself." That was the answer he (my teacher) was given by one of TNH's monks when he asked at a retreat. He also used an example at another time where a person had decided to be a vegetarian as part of their Buddhist practice, but it was routine every Sunday for her grandmother to make her (the Buddhist) a Sunday meal that always included the same meat dish. He said that it was more harmful to reject the love of the grandmother and the tradition that made them both connect and share a special thing, than it was to eat the meat mindfully and thankfully.

    So, it depends on your intentions, as always ;) If you do not wish to go and feel you are breaking your precepts, then perhaps you can explain your position and suggest another activity to do together. Perhaps you could suggest that you prefer not to fish yourself but would like to go along to spend time with him. You will have to decide how far to pursue it. If you are absolutely unwilling to have anything to do with spending any amount of time in a fishing atmosphere at all, then best be up front about it immediately and explain why. He may accept it openly. He may find you odd and give you a funny eyebrow look but accept it anyhow. He may have questions. He may think you're odd. He may reject you, but I think that is pretty darn unlikely. Even with older people, they have a hard time rejecting someone solely on the notion that they wish not to harm another animal.
    cactomfranzdorfFicus_religiosa
  • My karate teacher used to go fishing. As a Buddhist he was kind to the fish. He had a rod and line but no hook. He sat by the river and meditated in broad view of all. :thumbsup:
    Cole_
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    In my view, if you are a meat-eater, then there is no more real consequence to the fish than there would be to a chicken you will eat.
    zombiegirl
  • howhow Veteran Veteran
    If you are a vegetarian for compassionate reasons, you might consider telling him why fishing doesn't feel like the right thing for you to do. I think that a honest disclosure of this life choice can manifest as a natural teaching on compassionate, especially if you are only talking about yourself.
    Depending on him and the your development of skillful means, it could go many different ways but
    I can't think of a more respectful way to relate to your GF's Grandad?
  • zombiegirlzombiegirl beating the drum of the lifeless in a dry wasteland Veteran
    It really depends on how strongly you feel about it. Is the discomfort of talking to your gf's grandfather outweigh the discomfort of causing harm? If you are a meat eater, then I agree with @vinlyn but if you are a vegetarian... I do get your dilemma.

    If you really can't get around it, then perhaps you could donate the fish you catch to a needy family you might know? Or catch and release... which, of course, is quite cruel, but in most cases the fish will at least keep their life.
    Wisdom23
  • The first precept says in the Pali
    "Panitipata veramani sikkhapadam samadyami."
    Which translates as " I undertake the rule of training to abstain from intentional taking of life ".
    Which is fairly unambiguous.
    However an important clause here is " the rule of training "..
    The precepts are not commandments. They are rules of training.
    People find the rule of training regarding some precepts a hard and lengthy process..and some will find different precepts more difficult.
    I am not tempted to hunt or fish for example...but I have to work hard with anger..
    Most of us are works in progress.
    There is a middle way between self indulgence and unrealistic expectations of ourselves.
    BhikkhuJayasara
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    Wisdom23 said:

    For a while my gf's grandad has been trying to get me to go fishing. Ofcourse this disobeys the do not harm precep but he has told me he has bought me a rod n reel. I dont want to upset him yet i dont really wanna cause unnecessary harm,i mean i certainly wouldn'tlike a hook through my cheek.

    what do you recommend my dear friends

    Have a conversation with your girlfriends grand-dad, explain your reservations. Maybe he just wants some company and wouldn't be too bothered whether you're actually fishing or not.
    BhikkhuJayasara
  • There has always been fishermen. Fish is a vital component in a healthy, human diet and fishing is one of the reasons man was able to populate the whole planet. Just like hunting.
    The urge to fish and hunt is natural to humans - and especially men. With our rational mind we can realize, that fishing and hunting hurts and kills animals. Animals who love life just like you do.
    To me that's the one great absurdity in life. Ultimately there is but one option:
    Accept your cruel fate. Hurt fish or hurt granpa - who means the most to you?
    A really cruel truth is, that granpa will live to experience being hurt, while the fish die almost immediately.
  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran
    Citta said:

    The first precept says in the Pali
    "Panitipata veramani sikkhapadam samadyami."
    Which translates as " I undertake the rule of training to abstain from intentional taking of life ".
    Which is fairly unambiguous.
    However an important clause here is " the rule of training "..
    The precepts are not commandments. They are rules of training.
    People find the rule of training regarding some precepts a hard and lengthy process..and some will find different precepts more difficult.
    I am not tempted to hunt or fish for example...but I have to work hard with anger..
    Most of us are works in progress.
    There is a middle way between self indulgence and unrealistic expectations of ourselves.

    well said friend, this is how I teach the 5 precepts. Westerners especially have this idea of the 10 commandments, and they transfer that concept of guilt, sin, and punishment to the 5 precepts (training rules as you've pointed out) which really have no place in dhamma practice.

    I say to the OP, go with your "gut" or your 7th sense as some call it. the 5 precepts will often and always come up against modern society and put you in these types of situations. A great example for me is the not taking drinks or drugs that cause heedlessness, while I am now the official designated driver the rare times I ever go out anymore, at first not drinking anymore caused confusion and social awkwardness, more for the other people with me then myself, but people begin to understand. A talk with your Gf's grandfather is probably a good idea if you are firm in your feelings to not fish.
  • I gave up fishing a very long time ago. When young I was absolutely engrossed in it.

    Now I shudder to think of all the killings done.
  • I used to fish a lot, with my grandfather, because it was a passion of his and it allowed me time to be with him doing something he loved. I used to hunt when I was younger, to be with my Uncle who also had a passion for hunting. I don't do either anymore, although my grandson loves to hunt and fish and do take him fishing. He knows I'll be sitting there, enjoying watching him have fun. I gave him my old shotgun that my Uncle have me long ago, and it's a treasured heirloom for him.

    The old man bought you a rod and reel? Then accept the gift gracefully and go with him. Accept that sometimes in life we are faced with conflicting choices and your decisions aren't always going to fit into the box you've labeled "this is good, this is bad".

    Yes, you might damage or even kill a fish in order to forge a bond with an old man. More likely you'll be lucky to even get a bite if you don't know what you're doing. People never seem to understand fishing requires skill and practice to be successful.

    Which is more important to you, strict obedience to your precepts or not insulting someone your girlfriend loves who is reaching out to you? You can't always have both. And if you think the fish is just as important as the people in your life, you're fooling yourself. You don't want to break a precept in order to live a normal life? Become a monk. You also have that choice.



    robotMaryAnnekarasti
  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran
    Do not harm others. This includes animals.
  • I'd just go fishing :shrug:
  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran
    RebeccaS said:

    I'd just go fishing :shrug:

    Fishing is harmful, Id not plant unwanted suffering for the future. There are other ways with which to have good relations with family rather then engaging in something that will be a cause of pain in the future.
  • @caz can you point to an example of someone who has experienced pain as a result of fishing?
  • genkakugenkaku Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
    edited December 2012
    Within the past year, my younger son took up fishing. Not only did he go fishing with the friend who had inspired him, he also started to go by himself. I was happy he had found something to be passionate about. He threw everything back and used fake worms, but still, from my point of view, was disturbing a balance that was not in need of disturbance. I thought about it quite a bit and came to the conclusion that doing harm is not something anyone can avoid; the best anyone can do is to try to correct the harm they do and, when that is not possible, to shoulder with honesty the harm done.

    Also, because he is my son, I asked him to take me with him some time. This he did, driving over to a nearby pond that was pretty. He gave me a short course on casting and I tried it a few times. Neither of us had caught anything when suddenly I felt a resistance along the line. I thought perhaps I had snagged a stick, but when I reeled in the line ... lo and behold, I had caught, no kidding, a clam which had clamped down on the backside of the hook ... no harm done. (I'd post a picture, but can't upload).

    I threw the clam back and figured that was enough fishing for me.
    MaryAnneCittamaarten
  • You can tell him your problem with fishing, and take up drawing. It is another quiet activity that you can do while he is fishing. You will be sharing the same views of the country side, will have the same chances to talk, etc.
  • caz said:

    RebeccaS said:

    I'd just go fishing :shrug:

    Fishing is harmful, Id not plant unwanted suffering for the future. There are other ways with which to have good relations with family rather then engaging in something that will be a cause of pain in the future.
    Sometimes people who are a little older prefer not to have their beliefs challenged which (whether you mean to or not) is what you're doing when you say "I can't do this because I believe XYZ". Sometimes, for the sake of harmony, you have to let go of some of your beliefs. The relationship just trumps it.

    There are always compromises (go with but do something else, as many have suggested) but I personally would just fish.
    MaryAnne
  • @RebeccaS,

    maybe that is because you have no problem with fishing. What if his granddad's hobby was to squash frogs with a big hammer (which in the end is not so different from fishing, correct me if I am wrong). To make him happy, would you do it?
    Jeffrey
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    How about whales getting harpooned? Is that OK too?
  • RebeccaSRebeccaS Veteran
    edited December 2012
    No. What's the point in killing a frog? You can't eat a frog. Well, you could I suppose, but I wouldn't want to. And squishing it with a hammer? Like.. Frog pate? Ewwww.
  • For six months or more of each year I am around only fishermen and fishing. Commercial fishermen, professional guides and anglers. I do not and have not seen fishing to be a cause for later suffering in these people's lives.
    What I see is that fishing can be a cause for present suffering when someone is sensitive to the suffering of beings. Sometimes someone's empathy for the fish makes its suffering unbearable.
    For someone who has strived to enhance their capacity for compassion, to engage in fishing for a pastime, they risk undoing the progress they have made. Killing their compassion.
    I rarely see empathy for the plight of the fish in any type of fishing. Some catch and release fly fishermen claim to be concerned for the welfare of the fish and the habitat, but it seems hollow to me. Their pleasure still comes from the fish's struggle.
    If you go fishing you must be ready to accept that fish will die. You can't reel them in and expect that they will all swim away unharmed. Once they are bleeding you can't undo it, the fish will die.
    Catch and release is dumb.
    I don't know what my point is here. I think about fishing a lot.
    maartenNiwalen
  • If one is going to eat the fish that they catch, I see nothing whatsoever wrong with fishing. We, Home Sapiens, have been catching our food in bodies of water for tens of thousands of years. Now fishing just for fun is another story...
    Niwalen
  • So you are saying that it would be a good idea for Wisdom23 to go fishing with his granddad to make him happy, even though he is opposed to fishing (for good reasons). At the same time, you would not go frog squashing with your granddad to make him happy, because you are opposed to frog squashing (for good reasons) :).

  • robot said:

    @caz can you point to an example of someone who has experienced pain as a result of fishing?

    RebeccaS said:

    No. What's the point in killing a frog? You can't eat a frog. Well, you could I suppose, but I wouldn't want to. And squishing it with a hammer? Like.. Frog pate? Ewwww.

    Hmm..... I must tell you sometime about French cuisine.
    It doesnt involve hammers. but it does involve frogs and sharp knives.
  • MaryAnneMaryAnne Veteran
    edited December 2012
    maarten said:

    @RebeccaS,

    maybe that is because you have no problem with fishing. What if his granddad's hobby was to squash frogs with a big hammer (which in the end is not so different from fishing, correct me if I am wrong). To make him happy, would you do it?

    What ifs are a big waste of time. His hobby is fishing, he is not a Buddhist so his beliefs regarding fishing are not the same as (some) Buddhists' might be.... It is an act of kindness and acceptance for the granddad to ask him to go fishing with him.

    There are ways to accept this kindness without compromising one's own beliefs about (against) fishing. Simply don't fish - but like others said- do something else; walk about, draw, meditate, or simply keep Granddad company while he fishes.
    And IMO there is a HUGE difference between randomly killing animals for a "hobby" and fishing, if one eats what they catch and respects the process for getting that food to the table.

    RebeccaS
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    Wisdom23 said:

    For a while my gf's grandad has been trying to get me to go fishing. Ofcourse this disobeys the do not harm precep but he has told me he has bought me a rod n reel. I dont want to upset him yet i dont really wanna cause unnecessary harm,i mean i certainly wouldn'tlike a hook through my cheek.

    what do you recommend my dear friends

    I would just say "I'm very sorry but fishing is against my religion". And if he asks why, just explain what the no "harm principal" is. He might just say ok or he might think you are completely crazy. Or, you could just show him some educational anti-fishing stuff from an animal welfare group. Some animal welfare groups deal with the subject of fishing. Going fishing, just to make someone feel good, is not a very nice thing to do!

    Jeffrey
  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran
    robot said:

    @caz can you point to an example of someone who has experienced pain as a result of fishing?

    There is the story of the fishing village in Tibet, One day a Yogi was passing who remark that these people where continually switching places with the fish and visa versa.


  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran
    RebeccaS said:

    caz said:

    RebeccaS said:

    I'd just go fishing :shrug:

    Fishing is harmful, Id not plant unwanted suffering for the future. There are other ways with which to have good relations with family rather then engaging in something that will be a cause of pain in the future.
    Sometimes people who are a little older prefer not to have their beliefs challenged which (whether you mean to or not) is what you're doing when you say "I can't do this because I believe XYZ". Sometimes, for the sake of harmony, you have to let go of some of your beliefs. The relationship just trumps it.

    There are always compromises (go with but do something else, as many have suggested) but I personally would just fish.
    I personally would not abandon virtue for fear of loosing my favour with someone. It would be foolish to do such.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Jayantha said:

    Citta said:

    The first precept says in the Pali
    "Panitipata veramani sikkhapadam samadyami."
    Which translates as " I undertake the rule of training to abstain from intentional taking of life ".
    Which is fairly unambiguous.
    However an important clause here is " the rule of training "..
    The precepts are not commandments. They are rules of training.
    People find the rule of training regarding some precepts a hard and lengthy process..and some will find different precepts more difficult.
    I am not tempted to hunt or fish for example...but I have to work hard with anger..
    Most of us are works in progress.
    There is a middle way between self indulgence and unrealistic expectations of ourselves.

    well said friend, this is how I teach the 5 precepts. Westerners especially have this idea of the 10 commandments, and they transfer that concept of guilt, sin, and punishment to the 5 precepts (training rules as you've pointed out) which really have no place in dhamma practice.

    I say to the OP, go with your "gut" or your 7th sense as some call it. the 5 precepts will often and always come up against modern society and put you in these types of situations. A great example for me is the not taking drinks or drugs that cause heedlessness, while I am now the official designated driver the rare times I ever go out anymore, at first not drinking anymore caused confusion and social awkwardness, more for the other people with me then myself, but people begin to understand. A talk with your Gf's grandfather is probably a good idea if you are firm in your feelings to not fish.
    Where exactly (in terms of Buddhist scripture) did Buddha say something along the lines of, "These are only training rules, and once you have accomplished them in terms of training, you no longer need to abide by them?"

  • caz said:

    robot said:

    @caz can you point to an example of someone who has experienced pain as a result of fishing?

    There is the story of the fishing village in Tibet, One day a Yogi was passing who remark that these people where continually switching places with the fish and visa versa.



    I was hoping for first hand knowledge you might have.
    Does Tibet have fishing villages? I thought it was land locked and mountainous.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited December 2012
    vinlyn said:

    Jayantha said:

    Citta said:

    The first precept says in the Pali
    "Panitipata veramani sikkhapadam samadyami."
    Which translates as " I undertake the rule of training to abstain from intentional taking of life ".
    Which is fairly unambiguous.
    However an important clause here is " the rule of training "..
    The precepts are not commandments. They are rules of training.
    People find the rule of training regarding some precepts a hard and lengthy process..and some will find different precepts more difficult.
    I am not tempted to hunt or fish for example...but I have to work hard with anger..
    Most of us are works in progress.
    There is a middle way between self indulgence and unrealistic expectations of ourselves.

    well said friend, this is how I teach the 5 precepts. Westerners especially have this idea of the 10 commandments, and they transfer that concept of guilt, sin, and punishment to the 5 precepts (training rules as you've pointed out) which really have no place in dhamma practice.

    I say to the OP, go with your "gut" or your 7th sense as some call it. the 5 precepts will often and always come up against modern society and put you in these types of situations. A great example for me is the not taking drinks or drugs that cause heedlessness, while I am now the official designated driver the rare times I ever go out anymore, at first not drinking anymore caused confusion and social awkwardness, more for the other people with me then myself, but people begin to understand. A talk with your Gf's grandfather is probably a good idea if you are firm in your feelings to not fish.
    Where exactly (in terms of Buddhist scripture) did Buddha say something along the lines of, "These are only training rules, and once you have accomplished them in terms of training, you no longer need to abide by them?"

    Nowhere.
    What is implicit is that once they are internalised and understood fully you WILL live by them. They will be as natural as breathing.
    But no one gets there overnight.
    BhikkhuJayasara
  • @MaryAnne,
    What ifs are a big waste of time.
    As far as I know, the Buddha used them quite a lot :)

    For the rest, I mostly agree with you. My point was not that fishing is equally bad as frog squashing (although the means are similar, the ends are different, and then the question becomes whether the ends justify the means) but rather that it is not so easy to go fishing with someone if you are really opposed to it. I invented the example of frog squashing, because it might produce the type of revulsion that other people would have to fishing.

    Actually I think that frog squashing produces more revulsion because it is more gross, not because of the question whether you can eat the result or not. Probably, fishing on fish that are not edible is still considered more acceptable than squashing frogs, because it looks cleaner and in fact it does not even look aggressive.

  • Just for the sake of conversation:

    I think about this (killing for food) from time to time as I'm sure most of us do.
    I just can't wrap my head around the idea that we should ignore *all* natural inclinations to eat certain animals based on a very organic and natural system called The Food Chain, and feel guilty and shameful for being near the top of that Food Chain, because of ANY religious teaching or belief.

    I can understand to a point the idea that Buddha had instructed monks to refrain from such activities as killing/hunting themselves, and to avoid eating the food that comes from killing/hunting if others have done it for them specifically.
    But to take that concept and expect it to apply (and work) amongst all lay people everywhere, (Buddhist or not) seems to me to be very contrary to what nature itself has deemed as sensible, natural and necessary.

    Yes, we humans have a level of emotional reasoning and cognitive skills that most other animals do not have and this is what has elevated humans to the upper level of the food chain. But to eat/feed ourselves is a basic instinct we share with all living things, without exception.
    We should feel honored and privileged to be at the top of the food chain, and remember to treat all creatures below us as respectfully and with as much kindness as possible.
    But respect and kindness for animals doesn't mean I would hesitate one split second if I had to choose to feed a starving dog, or a starving child; or if I had to rescue a cat from a burning car, or a human from a burning car. The idea that all creatures are completely equal is a good theory on paper, but in the grand scheme of LIFE, some things end up with more value over others. And I firmly believe this world could not survive - and millions of humans would not survive- if people everywhere decided they would eat only plants.
    RebeccaSlobster
  • I think the trick is (if you aren't going to fish) is to let him down without being all "holier than thou" about it.
    Jeffrey
  • And I firmly believe this world could not survive - and millions of humans would not survive- if people everywhere decided they would eat only plants.
    Did you investigate this belief? Because I think science is pointing to a different conclusion.
  • RebeccaSRebeccaS Veteran
    edited December 2012
    maarten said:

    And I firmly believe this world could not survive - and millions of humans would not survive- if people everywhere decided they would eat only plants.
    Did you investigate this belief? Because I think science is pointing to a different conclusion.

    What science? The science of diabetes and epilepsy don't point to that, nor does the science of cardiovascular health in general. The whole "grain" fad has been around for a while now but it's looking more and more sketchy all the time with new research.

    The healthiest diet is probably the non strict "paleo" diet (heavy on the meat and veg, no grains, no refined sugars, no processed oils and in some circles no dairy and legumes). More and more research is pointing in that direction.
    MaryAnnemfranzdorf
  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran
    vinlyn said:

    Jayantha said:

    Citta said:

    The first precept says in the Pali
    "Panitipata veramani sikkhapadam samadyami."
    Which translates as " I undertake the rule of training to abstain from intentional taking of life ".
    Which is fairly unambiguous.
    However an important clause here is " the rule of training "..
    The precepts are not commandments. They are rules of training.
    People find the rule of training regarding some precepts a hard and lengthy process..and some will find different precepts more difficult.
    I am not tempted to hunt or fish for example...but I have to work hard with anger..
    Most of us are works in progress.
    There is a middle way between self indulgence and unrealistic expectations of ourselves.

    well said friend, this is how I teach the 5 precepts. Westerners especially have this idea of the 10 commandments, and they transfer that concept of guilt, sin, and punishment to the 5 precepts (training rules as you've pointed out) which really have no place in dhamma practice.

    I say to the OP, go with your "gut" or your 7th sense as some call it. the 5 precepts will often and always come up against modern society and put you in these types of situations. A great example for me is the not taking drinks or drugs that cause heedlessness, while I am now the official designated driver the rare times I ever go out anymore, at first not drinking anymore caused confusion and social awkwardness, more for the other people with me then myself, but people begin to understand. A talk with your Gf's grandfather is probably a good idea if you are firm in your feelings to not fish.
    Where exactly (in terms of Buddhist scripture) did Buddha say something along the lines of, "These are only training rules, and once you have accomplished them in terms of training, you no longer need to abide by them?"

    I'm a bit confused where you got your question out of my statement, please elaborate friend.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Citta said:



    Where exactly (in terms of Buddhist scripture) did Buddha say something along the lines of, "These are only training rules, and once you have accomplished them in terms of training, you no longer need to abide by them?"

    Nowhere.
    What is implicit is that once they are internalised and understood fully you WILL live by them. They will be as natural as breathing.
    But no one gets there overnight.


    Ah, so you might say they are principles to live by. Rather than "just training rules" as some people say.

  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Jayantha said:


    I'm a bit confused where you got your question out of my statement, please elaborate friend.

    It wasn't just what you wrote, but rather what you wrote along with a general trend of thinking on this forum where, at times, people have said, "they're just training rules". For example, in the context that drinking or drugs are not really a problem because they're just training rules.



  • maarten said:

    And I firmly believe this world could not survive - and millions of humans would not survive- if people everywhere decided they would eat only plants.
    Did you investigate this belief? Because I think science is pointing to a different conclusion.

    One needs to look beyond the dinner plate on the table to see why it wouldn't work. The "science" you say is leaning towards a different conclusion is only concerning itself with (our individual) physiological survival eating only plant matter. Sure, individually the majority of us probably could survive eating only plant material. Thrive? That's a matter of opinion.

    But what about whole communities of people who live in areas where agriculture is nearly non-existent? Like mountain peoples and desert peoples, whose entire diet consists of poultry, meats and milk from various animals - with very little grains or plant matter?

    What about the millions of people whose livelihoods depend on farming animals, butchering or processing and selling meats? What happens to all the livestock which will no longer be bred for disease resistance and general health? What happens to all the wild animals that peripherally benefit from livestock farming in other ways?
    What happens to the millions of people who live in climates with extremely short growing seasons? Or limited sunlight hours? What happens when the limited modes of transporting plant foods into these regions can't keep up?

    What happens when vast areas of agricultural regions are hit by droughts or floods or other natural calamities? What happens when the topsoil erodes and its nutrients are sucked out of it from over-farming? You think we will stick to ONLY organic fertilizers and food growth enhancements?
    Hardly... we're already genetically screwing around with what we grow now.

    World wide vegetarianism is a pipe dream. Actually, it's more of a nightmare.

    RebeccaS
  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran
    Oh
    vinlyn said:

    Jayantha said:


    I'm a bit confused where you got your question out of my statement, please elaborate friend.

    It wasn't just what you wrote, but rather what you wrote along with a general trend of thinking on this forum where, at times, people have said, "they're just training rules". For example, in the context that drinking or drugs are not really a problem because they're just training rules.


    OK I see where you are coming from. In the end they really ARE just training rules however that you undertake. The Buddha and no Buddhist I know throughout history ever forced people to take the precepts by the threat of force.

    the 10 commandments are enforced by the threat of force.. if you do this you get this punishment , or you go to hell, etc. The buddha is not like this and never forces the practice on anyone.

    That being said I think your underlying thought is people thinking the precepts are not meant to be taken seriously by those who truly wish to practice. That I do not think is a major issue, when people are ready to practice and follow the precepts, they will do so naturally, no amount of forcing will accomplish this before their time is ready.

    If people feel that drinking and drugs are not really a problem, and maybe to those people they aren't, maybe it does not affect their lives in any easily seen way so they don't see it as a hindrance. This is their perception and mind state, we can't force them to "take it seriously", etc.

    and finally when talking to westerners who are use to the commandments, I do think we have to emphasize the difference that they ARE training rules and that guilt, fear, and punishment have no place there.
    MaryAnneJeffrey
  • Thrive? That's a matter of opinion.
    I am curious as to why you believe there is a relation between eating meat and thriving.
    But what about whole communities of people who live in areas where agriculture is nearly non-existent? Like mountain peoples and desert peoples, whose entire diet consists of poultry, meats and milk from various animals - with very little grains or plant matter?
    You are right, I did not think of them. Maybe 5% of the population needs to eat meat in order to survive. I am not against that.
    What about the millions of people whose livelihoods depend on farming animals, butchering or processing and selling meats?
    We can share our jobs with them. Some of them could switch to the plant food production chain.
    What happens to all the livestock which will no longer be bred for disease resistance and general health?
    I am not following you here. Do we need those livestock for our disease resistance and health?
    What happens to all the wild animals that peripherally benefit from livestock farming in other ways?
    I would feel sorry for those animals, but I think that this suffering is offset by the fact that we would no longer be destroying natural habitats for the production of meat and fish (see my comment below on the production of plant food for feeding animals). On the whole, less animals would be hurt.
    What happens when vast areas of agricultural regions are hit by droughts or floods or other natural calamities?
    This is a common misconception. If we stop eating meat, we would actually need to produce less plant food, because of the huge reduction in the need for plants that are fed to animals. It may seem paradoxical, but we could have more plant food per human being, and still produce less plant food in total if we stop eating meat. These surplus amounts of plant food could be used to create reserves in case of natural calamities.
    Cole_Jeffrey
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    I understand all that you are saying, Jayantha.

    But I see Buddhism as something beyond religion. I personally think it is also one of the great universal moral codes. I don't do or not do things simply because if I do I would go to hell. And in fact, I don't think in today's world that most people operate that way. I don't do or not do things simply because of kamma. To me, whether it's the 10 Commandments or kamma, I have an inner calling that makes me want to do good things and not do bad things. I never didn't kill somebody because of the 10 Commandments. I never didn't kill somebody because of kamma.

    In the case of this thread, I would rather that somebody said, "I eat meat because I don't believe in that Precept", or "I eat meat because I don't agree that it applies to food sources", than have someone say, "I eat meat because that was just a training rule, and now I'm beyond training."

    It's very much like my school system, which about every 2 years would train administrators and teachers on some (usually new or refined) teaching technique. It would be a major emphasis. Then, after a couple of years we would move on to some new teaching technique. I'd go in and observe a teacher and see kids failing, and in the post-conference I'd say, "Remember technique X, what happened in your classroom is a good example of when you should have used technique X." And more often than not, the teacher would say something along the lines of, "Oh, I thought we weren't doing that anymore." And I would want to say something like, "What the hell is wrong with you? You learned a valid teaching technique which is now is your bag of tricks of how to effectively teach children. You don't throw away valid techniques. They're always in there for you to pull out when you need them." Of course, I'd be professional and leave off the "What the hell is wrong with you" portion. :D

  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited December 2012
    vinlyn said:

    Citta said:



    Where exactly (in terms of Buddhist scripture) did Buddha say something along the lines of, "These are only training rules, and once you have accomplished them in terms of training, you no longer need to abide by them?"

    Nowhere.
    What is implicit is that once they are internalised and understood fully you WILL live by them. They will be as natural as breathing.
    But no one gets there overnight.
    Ah, so you might say they are principles to live by. Rather than "just training rules" as some people say.



    The key term here from the precepts in Pali is " sikkhapadam " which means literally " training way " or "way to walk "...sikkha means " training " and "padam " means walking. ( pad is foot, the same indo-european root as pedal, or pedestrian.)
    So they are both principles to live by, and training in the way we should walk...
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    @Citta...very good post!
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    edited December 2012
    MaryAnne said:

    And I firmly believe this world could not survive - and millions of humans would not survive- if people everywhere decided they would eat only plants.

    Have you seen this? The scientists basically say just the opposite. Unless people become more vegetarian, millions will starve because of the inefficient and unsustainable use of finite natural resources. "Scientists Say the World Must Become Vegetarian"
    World wide vegetarianism is a pipe dream. Actually, it's more of a nightmare.
    And yet it is an absolute necessity to sustain the current population grown without massive amounts of people starving. World wide meat consumption is what will cause the nightmare.

  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    I see the precepts as something more as a constant work in progress, and we are all on different levels with it. I have an easier time with some than others, while other people have the opposite challenges. I have them in mind at all times (interestingly the precepts I took with my teacher had nothing to do with alcohol, lol) and I think about them and I progress towards them all the time. But for me to just say some words and magically be able to perform all those things all of a sudden, is pretty unlikely. We cause harm all the time.

    People would not have developed into what they are without eating animals. The sources (world wide) of omega fats and iron are not plentiful enough in plants and nuts to sustain people to develop the minds and bodies that we have. Without supplements we have today, it is very difficult to get enough omegas without eating fish. You can get it from flax and chia, but those things were not available in all parts of the world year round.

    My teacher is a vegetarian when he is in the US because of the supplements and the huge variety of foods he can get living in a major metro area. When he is in Asia (nepal and tibet) he is not vegetarian because he could not stay healthy being so.
  • What if he brings a case of beer to the fishing? Should you start drinking with him too? What if your buddy wants to take you to a titty bar and get a lap dance?
Sign In or Register to comment.