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.
Who kills the chicken/pigs in sri lanka?
cook99
Explorer
Sri Lanka is a buddhist country. Are the people who slaughters animals buddhists?
0
Comments
Thailand is something like 98% Buddhist. Buddhists kill the livestock.
Not sure I agree. Most butchers that sell their product in Thailand are Muslims. On the farm I imagine Buddhists kill their own livestock. Of course the Muslims wouldn't handle pork. That wouldn't be kosher!
Is Mercury a metal, a liquid, a planet with no atmosphere, or a messenger from god?
Think about what you want to get from such questions, unless you are being provocative, in which case expect ridiculous replies, lies and... well lets see...
Seems like a fair enough question to me. I wondered the same thing when I first went to Thailand.
I don't know vinlyn. In rural northern Thailand I see livestock everywhere. Very few Muslims up there. Perhaps as you say, the farmers sell their products to Muslim companies to butcher.
Much of the chicken appears to be delivered fresh daily to markets and street vendors so I was assuming that it is being butchered locally.
From Wiki:
Sri Lanka's population practices a variety of religions. As of the 2011 census 70.2% of Sri Lankans were Theravada Buddhists, 12.6% were Hindus, 9.7% were Muslims and 7.4% Christians (6.1% Roman Catholic and 1.3% other Christian). In 2008 Sri Lanka was the third most religious country in the world by according to a Gallup poll, with 99% of Sri Lankans saying religion is an important part of their daily life.
In eastern Tibet, families did their own butchering. People were herders and farmers, living a subsistence lifestyle, even since before Buddhism came to Tibet. The Dalai Lama's parents butchered their own sheep to feed the family, according to his oldest brother, in his autobiography, Tibet Is My Country. When he organized an expedition to move to Lhasa after the DL had been recognized, he brought rifles and hired marksmen to travel with the group. These people weren't Muslims, they were Tibetans. In Mongolia, too, Buddhists do their own butchering. The brother was a reincarnate lama himself, btw.
I don't know about Sri Lankan Buddhists. But we maybe shouldn't assume that they don't do any butchering at all. For one thing, in some Buddhist countries, most people don't take vows, they don't observe the precepts. They believe that is for monks. Mainly they pray and observe rituals, receive a blessing when they can from a monk, and they may or may not read scripture. This is their definition of "practice". Westerners take things much more seriously, trying to observe the precepts, and all. But that's a Western thing, to some degree.
No @Vinlyn I cannot see what is fair about this question?
Who kills chickens and pigs in other countries - should they be named or is it their job!
Since the perception is that Buddhists don't kill, and the majority of Thais are Buddhist, yet there are those Buddhist Thais eating every kind of animal food you can think of, why is it not logical to wonder who does the killing or why there is a disconnect?
In mostly Muslim Malaysia or Pakistan, it would be odd to wonder who butchers animals, since Muslims don't have an aversion to killing animals.
Similarly, I asked my son (an adopted Pakistani) what would happen if a Muslim man needed a heart valve replaced, and the only option was a pig's valve?
The fact that in some countries a particular ethnic group does most of one kind of business does not denote a connotation of good or bad. For example, walk into any gold shop in Bangkok and find out who the owner is (not to mention the workers). The answer is -- ethnic Chinese. That's not good or bad. That's just the way it is.
wtf anataman? Are you losing your sh*t over there?
Um dude that wasn't the question at all. What page are you on?
@cook99,
Some are Buddhist by name but necessarily not by nature...(as in adhering to the precepts-eg, do no harm etc etc)
And some are human by nature. They eat food.
True.....
The fact that a person is from a "Buddhist" culture doesn't mean he or she is particularly strict in following the rules of their religion. Many of them leave that sort of thing to the monks, I suspect.
Exactly. Taking precepts is seen as monks' business.
I had an interesting conversation with a Tibetan Lama once, who had gotten his training at the monastery in Seattle, so he was Americanized, and more approachable about this sort of thing. I told him my observation was that a lot of people in Buddhist countries consider themselves Buddhists because they're from a Buddhist culture, not because they actually practice Buddhism, applying it to their daily lives. Similarly some Westerners consider themselves Christians because they're from a Christian culture, not because they believe everything in Christianity. And he agreed. Tibetans may circumambulate the stupa when they come across one, or say a prayer on a certain day or occasion, but in the way they go about everyday life, and the way they treat others, some don't show any concern for or adherence to Buddhist principles.
I think we Westerners have a tendency to exoticize Asian Buddhists to some degree, or idealize them. They're just regular folks, and can be just as messy (and carnivorous) as some Westerners in going about the business of living.
maybe victor can offer some insights...
Here's an article that says it's Muslims who do the slaughtering and selling of meat, but most of the customers are non-Muslims.
The linked letter is in response to an article accusing "meat traders" in Sri Lanka of using inhumane practices in transporting animals to slaughterhouses, and in the manner of carrying out the actual slaughter.
http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/23204
original article: http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/23202
Well, in some countries the culture is to be open about butchering animals. So, folks raised in those countries do not know that other counties have taboos about talking about such things and that folks from there will take offense at such things.
Christian people are very pious, but that doesn't deter them from butchering and eating their livestock either.
Generalisation? Perhaps this is true in certain areas but certainly not the Christians I know! The main difference is that Christianity imposes no limitations on what can be eaten - other than in consideration for other beliefs where relevant.
Similarly, we are told that killing animals is not the same as killing humans:
I don't want to spark another pointless debate on vegetarian vs non-vegetarian Buddhism, but truth is nowhere in the suttas will you find any limitation on what can be eaten or not, either, at least not within the vegetarian/non-vegetarian context.
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd21.htm
And if the precepts admonish us not to kill, nor be cruel to animals, so do the ten commandments, but some people still have to kill to get nourished.
And those of us who don't do the butchering with our own hands, still feed on animals that have been butchered by another.
Thanks for the reduction in my ignorance @DhammaDragon! Still a newcomer to buddhist practices and I had understood the 10th precept to advise against killing of any living being. But don't know how widely accepted the 10 precepts are or how much they originate from the suttas - even though these were my first introduction to the beauty of Buddhism! The justification for this I am aware of is from the Dhammapada - translation given by Sangarakshita in his book The Ten Pillars of Buddhism as:
I don't know whether Buddhism has the same distinction between humans and animals that Christianity does.
Pondering this further, I am wondering whether this is why "Christian" nations (other, of course, than La Suisse) tend to allow euthanasia of pets but not of people? Hmmm .... Interesting also that I am told that Switzerland has measures to enforce observance of a 7th day (even if it's not the sabbath). So many complexities!
Peace
And those of us who don't do the butchering with our own hands, still feed on animals that have been butchered by another.
Yes, and butchery is traditionally wrong livelihood in Buddhism.
Otherwise it would say "humans" instead of "living beings". Christianity supposes other animals were put here for us to dominate and use as we see fit.
Buddha knew better.
The Buddhist precepts are not -commandments- , @SarahT, as commands from a God that will punish you if you break them.
They are self-given rules of conduct that you undertake to accept and endeavour to keep, mostly to make your actions conform to your line of thinking.
As Edmond Holmes put it, they are "arterial directions in which the Buddhist's self-control is to be exercised."
Whether you abide by them or not, you have your own conscience to account to.
Of the ten precepts, laypeople are supposed to abide by the first five.
And yes, if you strictly abide by the first precept, you should ideally stick to a vegetarian diet, which laypeople following a strict Mahayana tradition do.
Other traditions don't consider diet to be a matter of religion, but of climate and personal choice, especially since the Buddha did not seem to prohibit the consumption of meat.
As to your quotation from the Genesis: 'God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth,"' it seems to me it's a sentence open to debate too, because why should we humans subdue the earth, and how should the killing of animals be different to killing a human being?
As to "reducing your ignorance," we are in a forum for the amiable exchange of opinions.
Sorry but I can't reduce anyone's ignorance, only my own, by learning things I did not know before.
Hopefully you too, since some wise people said we never stop learning and we become ignorant the moment we think we know it all.
As to Switzerland, yes, I live here but I'm not Swiss.
What this has to do with the thread, I'm stumped, but since you want to know:
Observance of a seventh day, has to do with union regulations, and is not stemmed on religious beliefs.
Just to make sure people don't overwork nor are unduly exploited by their employers.
Your 7th day can fall on a Tuesday or a Thursday, for that matter.
As to euthanasia, it is as debatable as vegetarianism.
I don't like to put myself in hypothetical situations, and hopefully will never find myself prey to a terminal illness, or to incapacity to live by my own means.
I have seen people's lives being artificially prolonged, but not their quality of lives.
Would I choose euthanasia? Would I not? Should we judge?
Please tell me you did not understand that I am for butchery and the killing of animals...
No, I didn't think that. One of the reasons I don't eat meat is that I couldn't face killing and butchering an animal myself, so I'd feel like a hypocrite expecting somebody else to do it.
But going back to the OP, if there are lots of people eating meat in a Buddhist country, then I assume that there must be people making their living out of butchery, ie not taking on board the precept on right livelihood.
I trust, @cook99 , you are not considering a judgemental stance with regard to the answer to your question?
All (living beings) are terrified of punishment (danda); all fear death. Making comparison (of others) with oneself one should neither kill nor cause to kill.
All (living beings) are terrified of punishment (danda); to all, life is dear. Making comparison (of others) with oneself, one should neither kill nor cause to kill.
AWESOME insightful post, newcomer to buddhist practices! Thanks for introducing us to the 10th Precept. I've never seen it quoted or discussed as such, here. Fabulous!
And it does introduce a dilemma. Tibetan monks learn this precept, of course, and it's part of their vows. So I wonder how they justify eating meat (which is "causing to kill". I know meat is an important part of their diet, due to the terrain in which they live. But I'm now curious as to how this moral dilemma is dealt with, if it's ever addressed by senior monks/lamas.
monks are offered food (meat), they do not buy food (meat) or kill animal for food
according to Buddha's Teaching what monks has to do is to eat whatever offered to them with mindfulness (people offer what normal people eat)
with mindfulness means:
not to think this is chicken, beef, meat, beans, rice, bread etc. (those are perceptions) but to think whatever is offered as food consists of earth, water, fire and air (form) and that is
inconstant (it is changing from the plate, into mouth, to belly and out from the body),
suffering (by eating food helps to continue to make all the body parts and the six sense bases are open to suffering),
not-self (if it is changing and suffering there is nothing to say "I or mine" in food or in body
and
bless the people who offered the food which gives the strength to monks to continue their practice
and
moderately eat (to reduce hunger but not overeating)
for ourself:
we have to remember that monks we know and see are still practicing to be mindful and their mindfulness is less than 100%
then
answer to OP
'i am' a 'Sri Lankan' born to a 'buddhist family' so a 'buddhist'
all those '....' are perceptions
i killed ants to protect my infant child
i killed bugs and get killed bugs to have a clean house
i was a 'label buddhist' for 45 years because i was born to a buddhist family
i knew killing is bad from my childhood, but i killed ants and bugs because my priority come first than 'ants and bugs rights to live'
then i started to study Buddha's Teaching seriously and i tried not to lie, not to kill, try to meditate, but still i failed sometimes
after a long time of practice and after a long time of thinking about five precepts 'i think' now i am successful in keeping the five precept without breaking
so what can you say about other buddhists? Nothing
monks are offered food (meat), they do not buy food (meat) or kill animal for food
Not so, in Inner Asia, which is the context in which I was discussing the matter. Tibetan monasteries raised their own food and had their own serfs working the land. Even if they bought their food in the market, they bought meat from butchers, if only for senior monks or on special occasions. I was just wondering how people who took the full complement of vows, including the 10th Precept, squared that with consuming a non-vegetarian diet. Though I bet the junior monks didn't have meat too often, but still. It's a good question. I wonder if the monks and abbotts think about it at all. The quoting of the 10th Precept piqued my curiosity.
@Dakini
i do not remember the sutta, but there is a sutta that Buddha says that once the monk get rid of all unskillful qualities from the mind (greed, hate, delusion) he can have any food
the example given by Buddha is 'once one get cured the wound on one's palm one can touch any poison without harm to oneself'
i am not speaking for the monks who slaughter animals or buy food
according to my understanding so far is, Buddha's Teaching for monks is to go for alms round and that itself is to reduce attachment to food
Yes, that's a good teaching. Just saying, not all monastic traditions are the same. The 10th Precept does seem to present a dilemma to monks in the Himalayan and Mongol regions.
Maybe you need to get an answer from one of them?
We can assume all we want on here but we're never going to really know for sure unless we get an answer straight from the horse's mouth (so to speak).
_ /|\ _
Maybe you need to get an answer from one of them?
Yes, absolutely! I plan to!
I'm glad the subject came up on this thread. So grateful to SarahT for posting the 10th Precept.
victor, oh victor, where are you when we need you?
You don't find it in the suttas but you do find it in the sutras. One of the more prominent differences between Theravada and Mahayana sects IMO.
I knew there would be some knee-jerk reactions to my bolded statements but I was being provocative, however - I bolded my statement to address how ridiculous the OP's question is; of course Sri Lanka, as a majority buddhist state (its about 70%) where much of the population eats meat, they have chicken and particularly fish curries that I have tasted that are wonderful to eat. This thread is just another view of should buddhists eat meat, and that will depend on your tradition...
Sorry if I've caused offence, but take a look at your habits. If you are prepared to eat meat, and happy to slaughter the animal as a buddhist, then I respect you; I eat fish and have spent many fruitless hours with a hook and line gaining nothing; however, what I have caught and eaten I have enjoyed and blessed the food that provided itself to me from the ocean. Do you who buys supermarket caught food ever think about the process of killing?
Post edited. offensive comments removed.
Discussions on vegetarianism in buddhism is irrelevant, and imposing ideas of what a buddhist should or should not do i.e. act, or attract or disperse karma is irrelevant.
It's all about you and what you do! And we cannot dissociate ourselves with the animals.
remarks removed
Some fishy quotes:
Even a fish wouldn't get into trouble if it kept its mouth shut.
Remember, a dead fish can float downstream, but it takes a live one to swim upstream.
W. C. Fields
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
Maimonides
While living in Peradeniya,Sri Lanka most of the butchers I found were Muslims.
The 10th precept deals with accepting gold and silver (money).
And @seeker242, one of the links above explains the difference in position between Theravadas and Mahayanas.
The Sri Lankan news stories linked earlier said the butchers were Muslims.
@upekka said:
After a long time of practice and after a long time of thinking about five precepts 'i think' now i am successful in keeping the five precept without breaking.
So what can you say about other buddhists? Nothing
I think @upekka, as a Sri Lankan yourself, you have done a great job at explaining how application of the precepts has to do with a personal choice to strive to be consistent in one's beliefs and line of conduct.
It's no use to look aside and peep what my neighbour is doing: no-one can do the treading for us and since precepts are guidelines for one's conduct, I'd rather stick to tending my own garden and not judge what my neighbour chooses to do.
Whether butchers in Sri Lanka are Muslim or not won't get us anywhere.
All throughout history and in all religions, there have been hypocrite people who don't act according to the code of ethics of their chosen dogma.
I can't judge what other Buddhists choose to do.
I can only to try to be a good Buddhist myself.
And if some people fail to Buddhadharma, once more, it's again the human factor, not an imperfection inherent to the Buddhadharma itself.
The quotations from the Bible above don't seem to clarify the inconsistency between food and compassion in animal killing any further, anyway.
The links here remind us what the ten precepts are about:
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/budethics.htm
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/dasasila.html
The links here provide some background on the Tibetan attitude towards meat-eating:
http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/Buddhism/BuddhismAnimalsVegetarian/VegMeatTibet.htm
http://samvidbeauty.com/2013/02/a-lesson-from-the-dalai-lama-on-meat-eating/>
And at this point, @cook99, it would be interesting to know what prompted you to create the thread and what your opinion on the issue is, since we have hardly heard from you all along.
Here the relevant sutta:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.177.than.html
cool. I guess if it's a family farm/ranch, on a subsistence economy, it's not "business", it's just survival, so it's ok.
Yes, @SpinyNorman, but we're beginning to turn around in circles here and the OP has not added any input on his thoughts on the subject.
We have done all the homework, now it would be nice to hear from him.
The main point of Right livelihood seems to be about not harming other living beings.
I read it as not making money from killing other living beings (or otherwise harming them). I don't think people should have the only sustenance they have regular access to and that provides health taken away from them. People who live in cold climes and high altitudes don't have much choice.