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.
As is said in my previous post, I have no idea. Wiki says about some religious mumbojumbo, that you'll get 3 times what you give. Is that what you mean ?
It's not good to harm innocent creatures. It's more terrible than eating them to remove hunger than just leaving them in pain. How terrible it is when we hurt our own tounge in own teeth by mistake.
Buddha and buddhist monks eat meat on 3 conditions. 1. the animal was not killed for them. 2. They do not witness the killing of the animal. 3. they do not suspect the animal was killed for them.
@hermitwin said: Buddha and buddhist monks eat meat on 3 conditions. 1. the animal was not killed for them. 2. They do not witness the killing of the animal. 3. they do not suspect the animal was killed for them.
Yes, the intention was to minimise the number of animals slaughtered.
More generally there is Right Intention, Right Livelihood, the precepts, and so on.
it takes time, sometimes lots of time, to make changes in ones life, not just in habits but in things that have been engrained in your genetics via your ancestry and traditions. More and more research is showing just that-that it isn't simply a habit, it is actually in our genetics and that is pretty hard to go against. Not impossible, but doing so takes a lot of time and steady practice. It's something I've worked my way through, and continue to do so. But not everyone is there yet, not all buddhists are there yet, because they are working through other things.
@federica why does allowing a kid of age to hunt have to assume you are giving them no boundaries or guidance? I guide them, and they know and understand that their are consequences, and in my beliefs those consequences extend past what might happen here and now. They may or may not develop to share those beliefs. But I do not take my beliefs and refuse to allow them things they want to experience based on it. Life is revered in our home, it was when I was growing up and it is now as I raise my kids. But it truly is a different culture, rural America and Canada (different from other rural areas, too) with many of them where I live coming from rural northern European or Nordic traditions. A lot of it (including some of the reasoning for our gun culture) comes from how America was settled. I'm not saying we should maintain all of those traditions today now that the world has changed. But it takes a long time to bring about that kind of change on a large scale. But it's happening. Hunting is happening less and less. But our connection to the natural world is also less and less and it's not having a good impact, either.
If you are vegetarian or vegan, that's awesome. If you are a meat eater, then so be it. But in that case, it's far worse on many, many levels to buy meat from the store than it is to hunt your own.
There are a lot of things Buddha/Buddhism says. I do study and I do practice. I'm not yet where I hope to one day be, but I do work and grow. I don't simply set aside parts of it and ignore it. I take responsibility for the places where I have not yet been able to bring about those changes. I have no doubt there are both more immediate, and post-life consequences, and I accept them while I continue to work through things. It's not easy to live in a place where everyone around you, your parents, your grandparents, your aunts, uncles, neighbors-everyone, hunts and fishes for food. It is not just something you do, like riding a bike. It is built into the entire tradition of life, picked up from the Native Americans who were here when people started moving. People here still hand-tan hides from trapping and make their own canoes. It takes time to work out of that when it has been part of your family for generations. The climate does not easily lend itself to vegetarian survival. It is possible if you have the money to ship stuff in often, but produce is hard to come by in the winter because of shipping in the cold weather. It's not so easy as "just order your food" when you live 300 miles from the nearest major city. Even shipping stuff is not always an easy, or affordable, option.
1
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
I think the worms should be top dog in the so-called food chain thingy.
but can't help it - this wuz funny:
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited November 2015
@Barah said: He didn't bother what he got on his plate, as he was a beggar, and he died after eating pork meat, so he wasn't vegetarian.
Actually that is incorrect.
The content of the meal is by no means conclusively meat. But he did not die of it.
I have no idea what you mean by 3-fold rule. Should that be somehow obvious to me?
"I say that there are three instances in which meat should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected that the living being has been slaughtered for the bhikkhu. I say that meat should not be eaten in these three instances. I say that there are three instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is not seen, not heard, and not suspected, that the living being has been slaughtered for the bhikkhu."
( a simple search would have answered your own question. )
@federica said:
Actually that is incorrect.The content of the meal is by no means conclusively meat. But he did not die of it.
Actually this is a speculation, and speculations are not actuality.
What is interesting and more accurate for this topic:
The threefold rule specifies conditions under which meat could be eaten by monastic monks and nuns, but there is no indication if this rule applies to lay people. Thus, there has been controversy over if Buddhists should eat meat or not. The context of the passage and who it is addressed to indicate that the rule was meant for monastics only.
@federica said:
( a simple search would have answered your own question. )
I did search for it, as you can easily conclude from my previous post. Moreover I didn't ask you, so you can keep those googling lessons for yourself
@robot said:
Hunting is not a moral issue for anyone who doesn't consider it to be one.
But surely killing is?
And furthermore, aren't some hunters more skillful than others, and thus inflict unnecessary pain as the animal dies?
When food is available in myriad ways and forms, I don't see how a Buddhist in this modern world can kill animals and consider that skillful living. Those hunter-gatherer societies where one killed food or starved, no longer exist for 99.99999% of us. Buddha lived in that world, but we don't.
And spare me the violins about tradition and lifestyle.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@Barah said:
I did search for it, as you can easily conclude from my previous post. Moreover I didn't ask you, so you can keep those googling lessons for yourself
Being rude to anyone isn't acceptable. Nobody here has been rude to you, I'll thank you to behave likewise.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@Barah said:Actually this is a speculation, and speculations are not actuality.
Well, your statement that he died because of eating meat is just as speculative; only I gave a link to someone who is both deeply educated in the Suttas and is acknowledged as someone with a higher degree of medical know-how than some, so I would say that his speculation is based far more on medical know-how and experience, coupled with a detailed understanding of the writings and teachings of the Suttas...I'm inclined to give his account more credence, than I am to accept the speculation of those who needed clarification.
What is interesting and more accurate for this topic:
The threefold rule specifies conditions under which meat could be eaten by monastic monks and nuns, but there is no indication if this rule applies to lay people. Thus, there has been controversy over if Buddhists should eat meat or not. The context of the passage and who it is addressed to indicate that the rule was meant for monastics only.
Actually the vast majority of the Buddha's teachings were primarily addressed to monks, but have been widely acknowledged and accepted by laypeople as applying just as appropriately to them. It would seem therefore that you're suggesting we need take no notice of anything the Buddha taught....?
Not sure whether your point has validity....
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@karasti said:
it takes time, sometimes lots of time, to make changes in ones life, not just in habits but in things that have been engrained in your genetics via your ancestry and traditions. More and more research is showing just that-that it isn't simply a habit, it is actually in our genetics and that is pretty hard to go against. Not impossible, but doing so takes a lot of time and steady practice. It's something I've worked my way through, and continue to do so. But not everyone is there yet, not all buddhists are there yet, because they are working through other things.
I don't accept that at all.
If there are people everywhere in cities, towns, rural areas and the countryside who don't kill, I cannot accept the argument that it's a 'genetic' thing.
Do you have verifiable data to support that assertion?
federica why does allowing a kid of age to hunt have to assume you are giving them no boundaries or guidance? I guide them, and they know and understand that their are consequences, and in my beliefs those consequences extend past what might happen here and now. They may or may not develop to share those beliefs. But I do not take my beliefs and refuse to allow them things they want to experience based on it. Life is revered in our home, it was when I was growing up and it is now as I raise my kids. But it truly is a different culture, rural America and Canada (different from other rural areas, too) with many of them where I live coming from rural northern European or Nordic traditions. A lot of it (including some of the reasoning for our gun culture) comes from how America was settled. I'm not saying we should maintain all of those traditions today now that the world has changed. But it takes a long time to bring about that kind of change on a large scale. But it's happening. Hunting is happening less and less. But our connection to the natural world is also less and less and it's not having a good impact, either.
Our connection to the natural world would be a whole lot more wholesome if we didn't persist in killing, culling and destroying things with the poor excuse of culture, genes tradition and how it takes time to change behaviour. The best way to change behaviour is to get rid of the guns and say "killing is unskilful and we're not going to do it any more."
You would immediately step in front of your child and stop them going out to rob a bank if they told you it was their intention to do so.
You wouldn't say "I know it takes time to get this out of your system, because taking what you believe you need, is in your genes.... "
So you'd let them get arrested and find out the hard way that the consequences of depriving someone of something that is rightfullu theirs, isn't all that clever. Would you? No....
If you are vegetarian or vegan, that's awesome. If you are a meat eater, then so be it. But in that case, it's far worse on many, many levels to buy meat from the store than it is to hunt.
Well, I don't. So the point is academic in my case.
There are a lot of things Buddha/Buddhism says. I do study and I do practice. I'm not yet where I hope to one day be, but I do work and grow. I don't simply set aside parts of it and ignore it. I take responsibility for the places where I have not yet been able to bring about those changes. I have no doubt there are both more immediate, and post-life consequences, and I accept them while I continue to work through things. It's not easy to live in a place where everyone around you, your parents, your grandparents, your aunts, uncles, neighbors-everyone, hunts and fishes for food. It is not just something you do, like riding a bike. It is built into the entire tradition of life, picked up from the Native Americans who were here when people started moving. People here still hand-tan hides from trapping and make their own canoes. It takes time to work out of that when it has been part of your family for generations. The climate does not easily lend itself to vegetarian survival. It is possible if you have the money to ship stuff in often, but produce is hard to come by in the winter because of shipping in the cold weather. It's not so easy as "just order your food" when you live 300 miles from the nearest major city. Even shipping stuff is not always an easy, or affordable, option.
Well of course you live there, so you'd know best, and so won't comment. But nothing you have said convinces me of your ingrained traditional right to kill.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
If you say so. If you need to be right I'll concede the point. But I trust his 'non-actuality' far more than yours....
I quoted your source...
You haven't answered my question. Are you suggesting that because the vast majority of the Buddha's teachings were addressed to monks, we should take them all with a pinch of salt?
Even Dalai Lama eats meat .
Yes unfortunately he is obliged to due to having suffered from hepatitis.
"The Dalai Lama: Better. Philosophical reason. 20 months I remained strict vegetarian. At that time I took advice from some of my Indian friends about the substitutes of meat. Lot of milk, cream and ...then in 67 I developed gall bladder, hepatitis. So my whole body became yellow. So at that time I become like living Buddha. Whole body yellow. Nails also yellow. It remained I think for about 3 weeks. So Tibetan physician, as well as allopathic physician advised me to take meat. So back to original diet. Meantime, all our monasteries in south India, also Namgyal monastery, common kitchen, serve only vegetarian food. In south India monasteries, population 300-400, all vegetarian food. Also in foreign countries when I visit Buddhist centers I always ask them. Now it is up to the individual. But as a society, as a institution, when they give some sort of a festival, it must be vegetarian. That business started the gall bladder trouble. Finally, surgery. So that's the background. So my own case, meat once or twice a week, otherwise vegetarian. So I tried to become a vegetarian but still difficult. I think it's useful to know the whole background."
@federica said:
Being rude to anyone isn't acceptable. Nobody here has been rude to you, I'll thank you to behave likewise.
Many things are not acceptable by you... Especially the fact that You were rude, which I pointed out. Calm down and stop patronizing.
@federica said:
Are you suggesting that because the vast majority of the Buddha's teachings were addressed to monks, we should take them all with a pinch of salt?
Yes, or course. Are you following them all?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I wasn't rude at all. But let's not take this discussion off-topic, ok?
I never said it was a right, @federica. I simply said that some things that are engrained are just harder to work out of. They become a part of who you are, and if you don't have things in your traditions and cultures that are that way, then I can't explain it to you. There are several studies about how our ancestors habits and even their stress and fears are carried on through genes. Behaviors are inherited. How your body responds to certain foods is also largely genetic. Behavioral epigentics is the field. I don't have time to look them up, but there are quite a few studies out there now. You can, of course, change your gene expression, but it doesn't happen just because you want it to any more than you can simply change your pre-dispostion to heart disease just because you want to. It takes time and particular practice to do so.
And like I said, I'm not making excuses. I no longer hunt because I made a choice not to. But I won't tell everyone else they can't. Hunting is not illegal. I would consult/guide my children not to break the law, yes, but they very well might still make the choice to do so and they'd have to live with the consequences just the same. I advise them why I don't hunt just the same as I'd advise them why I don't rob banks. But I'll tell them the other side of the story, too, along with possible consequences.
Since when does everything Buddha taught get applied to lay people? Last I checked there were a lot of people not giving up sex or material items (in most of our cases, a lot of material items) or spouses or anything else. There is a WHOLE lot of what Buddha suggests for monastics that is not taken on by lay people. We take 5 precepts. Some take 8. Monastics take what, 200+? Unless of course you've taken all those and I didn't realize it.
No one really knows how Buddha died any more than they truly know how he was born. It's a moot point. There's no point in trying to take which part you believe the most to apply to your beliefs, whichever side you happen to be on.
1
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
Well...as fur as I can tell, the Buddha was one for accepting of ALL of what IS.
So...is this gonna be a verbal fight to the finish or what.
The more opinions one has about how reality "should" be. According to "your" opinions(which is just impersonal conditioning)
The more you will suffer
All your beliefs have been inherited from your environment, society, culture and upbringing, you never had a choice.
You can't choose what to believe, it appears that way but there is no chooser.
As long as you believe you are somebody living life and making choices. There will always be the "other" who doesn't fit your mold of beliefs.
Or you can just stop, and drop your ideas about how life "should" be and investigate who is making these statements. And you'll never find that one. Because it isn't there.
Life has been doing all of this. You and me are choice less holograms that the brain has created to ensure survival.
All your choices are made in the brain before you are even aware of them.
Some brains appear to have a capacity to see through it's own illusion. Maybe you could be one of them?
Just know that your and my opinions are no more of value than anybody else's.
@mockeymind said:
My question is - is leisure fishing bad for a practicing buddhist?
The original question was not about dietrary preferences but about fishing (a form of hunting and inflicting pain on other sentients) as a personal choice and leisure preference.
The question is simple. The choice is simple enough ...
... and now back to troll and dharma hunting ... or not ...
The catch-and-release option has come up on the forum before, and people say it does harm the fish. Just because we can't feel its pain doesn't mean the pain isn't there. And I don't know if it causes lasting damage that may interfere with its feeding, or something.
On the other hand, if you found yourself in a situation where you had to survive in the wild, fishing for the purpose of feeding yourself (rather than amusing yourself) would be valid, IMO. But that's just me.
And furthermore, aren't some hunters more skillful than others, and thus inflict unnecessary pain as the animal dies?
When food is available in myriad ways and forms, I don't see how a Buddhist in this modern >world can kill animals and consider that skillful living. Those hunter-gatherer societies where >one killed food or starved, no longer exist for 99.99999% of us. Buddha lived in that world, but >we don't.
And spare me the violins about tradition and lifestyle.
There you have it. As you said some hunters are skillful, some aren't.
Some have utmost reverence for the environment and the animals. Others drive around in their trucks drinking beer till something steps out onto the road.
Killing is not inherently immoral in my world. I judge some people to be immoral in the way they operate, even if they are acting within the law.
Some of the best fish killers I know are upright, honest, moral people, in my view. Some are deeply religious.
What you say about the abundance and variety of food that is available, leads me to think that you haven't seen enough of the world. Perhaps experiencing some other traditions or lifestyles could be an eye opener. In some places money doesn't solve everything.
Resource extraction is the reason that towns exist out here. This community like many others is dependent on commercial and sport fishing. I'm sure there are vegetarians around here, so it would be wrong to say that everyone eats fish, but the majority do. Many people hunt.
Taking a stand against fishing and hunting on moral grounds would be, if not offensive to many, at least laughable.
I don't hunt or fish for sport. That's not to say that I would never do it if the need arises. But then it's not sport anymore.
Killing is probably not a skillful thing for Buddhists. But my comment that you have responded to was directed at @federica, who unloaded her moral indignation on @Shak who wants to help his son learn to hunt.
Shak's son may not be a Buddhist. Not everyone here is Buddhist.
Others might be judged as not good Buddhists because they live in another kind of world. In my world men teach their kids to fish and hunt if they want to. It's normal.
@robot in my world, I teach my sons to hunt and fish, and dad stays home to cook dinner
3
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Yeah: I'm out. Killing does tend to hit a nerve with me. Almost as much (but probably not quite) as Misogyny, sexism and prejudicial anti-female behaviour.... So I'm quite up with your last comment, @karasti!
@Earthninja said: All your beliefs have been inherited from your environment, society, culture and upbringing, you never had a choice.
No, I don't buy this "slaves to our conditioning" line. We always have a choice, and those choices always have consequences, the issue is whether we just follow our desires or take a wider view.
0
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
@SpinyNorman said:No, I don't buy this "slaves to our conditioning" line. We always have a choice, and those choices always have consequences, the issue is whether we just follow our desires or take a wider view.
I don't think @Earthninja was pointing to the slaves to our conditioning thingy. I think what he said was accurate, about our BELIEFS being something we pick and choose among the ideas/beliefs we're exposed to throughout our lives. I don't think he ruled out the potential for us to become more awake and aware to options outside the stuff we're exposed to...I find myself resisting the idea that to help someone become more awake and aware enlists intolerance.
So anyone who challenges our current habits or opinions is being "intolerant"? Hmmm.
I recall a conversation years ago while I was involved in Tibetan Buddhism, a colleague was arguing that it was fine for us to eat meat because Tibet is very mountainous and it's difficult to grow crops there. I observed that we were living in a city in England and down the road there was a supermarket with an extensive range of non-meat products.... It became clear that this guy was very attached to eating meat but also feeling slightly guilty and trying to rationalise his choices. This may be quite common, which would explain why people get their panties in such a twist.
@silver said:
...I find myself resisting the idea that to help someone become more awake and aware enlists intolerance.
Exactly.
Tolerance towards the decadent, virtue challenged, crims, alcoholics, demons, bankers, arms dealers, hedonists, monk murderers, fish stranglers, Ms Soginists, grammar nazis, KKK, homophobes, facebook users etc ... and often hardest of all ourselves ...
Rubbish. Complete red herring and cop out. We're talking about the ethics of particular lifestyles and some people are getting over-sensitive and defensive. That's all.
Barah, you seem to have a poor understanding of what is prescribed to lay buddhists.
The precept of not killing includes not going to choose a live animal/fish from a market and asking the butcher/fishmonger to kill it for you. This is extremely rare in the west but in other continents its still quite common.
Buddha took great pains to explain that eating meat that is sold in the market ie animals that are already dead does not break the precept of not killing.
If you read about Devadatta , you will realise that vegetarianism was proposed but rejected by Buddha.
Too many people these days believe that eating meat is tantamount to killing animals. This argument was considered and rejected by Buddha.
The argument that if people dont eat meat , then no animals would be killed is only as valid as the argument that if nobody killed the animals then, people would not have any meat to buy/eat.
Its a fantasy, its not going to happen in the real world.
It looks like your understanding is also poor, because I generally agree with what you are saying .
I wouldn't make a big deal about of eating meat, because there is no escape from it. Even if an animal is not killed for us, we create demand which has the same effect on its life.
Killing is horrible, especially when it's cruel, but this is the world we are living in. Killing happens all around us. I hope that someday we will be able to engineer food, so there will be no need for killing.
Food is always a sensitive issue, whether you are talking veggie versus meat, paleo versus mediterranean or what. People are very attached to their food, maybe more so than most other things. So any debates about it are always heated. Food is much more to most people than simply the fuel they put in their bodies. If it wasn't, it would be much simpler to change our habits. There is a lot of memory, sensory, emotional, and traditional facets to eating.
I never said killing was good, or even ok. But myself and others aren't at a point either on their path or in their budget and living circumstance to completely give it up. In the cases, whatever the reason, that people are unable or even simply unwilling to give it up, I'll argue till the sun comes up that hunting is a better route than typical store bought meat. Even if it means the hunter takes on more direct, personal karma as a result. At least they aren't passing the buck.
@hermitwin said: Too many people these days believe that eating meat is tantamount to killing animals. This argument was considered and rejected by Buddha.
It's buying meat that is tantamount to killing, it creates more demand for meat directly or indirectly. Eating meat which has already been bought or cooked is a different matter, that's the point of the 3-fold rule.
@karasti said: I'll argue till the sun comes up that hunting is a better route than typical store bought meat. Even if it means the hunter takes on more direct, personal karma as a result. At least they aren't passing the buck.
I suspect that if everyone had to kill and prepare their own meat there would be a lot more vegetarians around. It's easy to forget where meat comes from if you only buy it neatly packaged in a supermarket.
Traditionally in Buddhism butchery is wrong livelihood of course.
@Barah said: I wouldn't make a big deal about of eating meat, because there is no escape from it.
It's your choice. Do you want to add to the suffering of animals or not? As Buddhists do we conveniently run out of compassion when it comes to a dietary preference?
Ghana and fish....Florida and crabs. We never fished for enjoyment or to pass the time. We did it to eat. And yes....culture has alot to do with it. It's so very easy to say what people should and shouldn't do....but we all have a list. We're all assholes on some days...and saints on another. Doesn't matter the 'moral subject'. We're all figuring this big mess out day by day....
@SpinyNorman said:
It's your choice. Do you want to add to the suffering of animals or not? As Buddhists do we conveniently run out of compassion when it comes to a dietary preference?
I am choiceless in this matter, as I eat whatever I am given.
Also, I look at compassion differently. It's not an intentional activity, rather a result of being intentionless. I such circumstances, even killing has no impact. As Bodhidharma said, you can even be a butcher, and karma won't accumulate. Of course, it's not an invitation to killing, that would be stupid. There simply is no need for rules anymore, and it make sense. Buddhas transformation was awakening, not revelation. All guidebooks ware creates much later.
@SpinyNorman said:
No, I don't buy this "slaves to our conditioning" line. We always have a choice, and those choices always have consequences, the issue is whether we just follow our desires or take a wider view.
What in saying is people who are born in certain environments inherit the beliefs of that area. Not to mention how their parents raise them.
It's not simply a case of I choose everything I believe. You think you do. But if you look at cultures they tend to follow patterns of belief.
Kids are like their parents... Societies, cultures. All this is inherited.
So if my culture hunts, and your culture doesn't. There's the clash.
We've inherited more than we can ever realise consciously, unconsciously we have huge stores of beliefs not even accessible to our attention.
Like what is right and what is wrong, it's complete speculation inherited from our upbringing.
I let the girls through the door first, in South Africa that's a huge disrespect to the girl.
See what I mean? Do you think these kids just thought "oh I should go in before girlsl" it was taught.,
Same as hunting, same as religions, same as politics, same as language.
Try and think in another language? How you think was even taught to you.
@Earthninja said:How you think was even taught to you.
So isn't the point of Buddhist practice to challenge all those assumptions? To think more wisely and skilfully instead of just going along with conditioning and making excuses?
@SpinyNorman maybe for you it is, most people just inherit the next thing. Eg enlightenment, the Buddha, rebirth, emptiness. Sutras.
You don't need a religion/philosophy to see this though. Buddhist practice may be a means to see through these assumptions, or just a whole heap of more assumptions. Depends on the person and how they are wired I guess.
Comments
Do you even know what the 3-fold rule is?
As is said in my previous post, I have no idea. Wiki says about some religious mumbojumbo, that you'll get 3 times what you give. Is that what you mean ?
It's not good to harm innocent creatures. It's more terrible than eating them to remove hunger than just leaving them in pain. How terrible it is when we hurt our own tounge in own teeth by mistake.
Buddha and buddhist monks eat meat on 3 conditions. 1. the animal was not killed for them. 2. They do not witness the killing of the animal. 3. they do not suspect the animal was killed for them.
Yes, the intention was to minimise the number of animals slaughtered.
More generally there is Right Intention, Right Livelihood, the precepts, and so on.
And sentiments like those in verses 129 and 130 of the Dhammapada: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.10.budd.html
And so on and so forth. Unless as Buddhists we think that animals are just a commodity to be exploited?
it takes time, sometimes lots of time, to make changes in ones life, not just in habits but in things that have been engrained in your genetics via your ancestry and traditions. More and more research is showing just that-that it isn't simply a habit, it is actually in our genetics and that is pretty hard to go against. Not impossible, but doing so takes a lot of time and steady practice. It's something I've worked my way through, and continue to do so. But not everyone is there yet, not all buddhists are there yet, because they are working through other things.
@federica why does allowing a kid of age to hunt have to assume you are giving them no boundaries or guidance? I guide them, and they know and understand that their are consequences, and in my beliefs those consequences extend past what might happen here and now. They may or may not develop to share those beliefs. But I do not take my beliefs and refuse to allow them things they want to experience based on it. Life is revered in our home, it was when I was growing up and it is now as I raise my kids. But it truly is a different culture, rural America and Canada (different from other rural areas, too) with many of them where I live coming from rural northern European or Nordic traditions. A lot of it (including some of the reasoning for our gun culture) comes from how America was settled. I'm not saying we should maintain all of those traditions today now that the world has changed. But it takes a long time to bring about that kind of change on a large scale. But it's happening. Hunting is happening less and less. But our connection to the natural world is also less and less and it's not having a good impact, either.
If you are vegetarian or vegan, that's awesome. If you are a meat eater, then so be it. But in that case, it's far worse on many, many levels to buy meat from the store than it is to hunt your own.
There are a lot of things Buddha/Buddhism says. I do study and I do practice. I'm not yet where I hope to one day be, but I do work and grow. I don't simply set aside parts of it and ignore it. I take responsibility for the places where I have not yet been able to bring about those changes. I have no doubt there are both more immediate, and post-life consequences, and I accept them while I continue to work through things. It's not easy to live in a place where everyone around you, your parents, your grandparents, your aunts, uncles, neighbors-everyone, hunts and fishes for food. It is not just something you do, like riding a bike. It is built into the entire tradition of life, picked up from the Native Americans who were here when people started moving. People here still hand-tan hides from trapping and make their own canoes. It takes time to work out of that when it has been part of your family for generations. The climate does not easily lend itself to vegetarian survival. It is possible if you have the money to ship stuff in often, but produce is hard to come by in the winter because of shipping in the cold weather. It's not so easy as "just order your food" when you live 300 miles from the nearest major city. Even shipping stuff is not always an easy, or affordable, option.
I think the worms should be top dog in the so-called food chain thingy.
but can't help it - this wuz funny:
Actually that is incorrect.
The content of the meal is by no means conclusively meat. But he did not die of it.
The threefold rule:
( a simple search would have answered your own question. )
Actually this is a speculation, and speculations are not actuality.
What is interesting and more accurate for this topic:
The threefold rule specifies conditions under which meat could be eaten by monastic monks and nuns, but there is no indication if this rule applies to lay people. Thus, there has been controversy over if Buddhists should eat meat or not. The context of the passage and who it is addressed to indicate that the rule was meant for monastics only.
I did search for it, as you can easily conclude from my previous post. Moreover I didn't ask you, so you can keep those googling lessons for yourself
But surely killing is?
And furthermore, aren't some hunters more skillful than others, and thus inflict unnecessary pain as the animal dies?
When food is available in myriad ways and forms, I don't see how a Buddhist in this modern world can kill animals and consider that skillful living. Those hunter-gatherer societies where one killed food or starved, no longer exist for 99.99999% of us. Buddha lived in that world, but we don't.
And spare me the violins about tradition and lifestyle.
Being rude to anyone isn't acceptable. Nobody here has been rude to you, I'll thank you to behave likewise.
Well, your statement that he died because of eating meat is just as speculative; only I gave a link to someone who is both deeply educated in the Suttas and is acknowledged as someone with a higher degree of medical know-how than some, so I would say that his speculation is based far more on medical know-how and experience, coupled with a detailed understanding of the writings and teachings of the Suttas...I'm inclined to give his account more credence, than I am to accept the speculation of those who needed clarification.
Actually the vast majority of the Buddha's teachings were primarily addressed to monks, but have been widely acknowledged and accepted by laypeople as applying just as appropriately to them. It would seem therefore that you're suggesting we need take no notice of anything the Buddha taught....?
Not sure whether your point has validity....
Still, not actuality.
I quoted your source...
http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=3_fold_rule
Nice reading here:
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/meat.html
Even Dalai Lama eats meat
.
I don't accept that at all.
If there are people everywhere in cities, towns, rural areas and the countryside who don't kill, I cannot accept the argument that it's a 'genetic' thing.
Do you have verifiable data to support that assertion?
Our connection to the natural world would be a whole lot more wholesome if we didn't persist in killing, culling and destroying things with the poor excuse of culture, genes tradition and how it takes time to change behaviour. The best way to change behaviour is to get rid of the guns and say "killing is unskilful and we're not going to do it any more."
You would immediately step in front of your child and stop them going out to rob a bank if they told you it was their intention to do so.
You wouldn't say "I know it takes time to get this out of your system, because taking what you believe you need, is in your genes.... "
So you'd let them get arrested and find out the hard way that the consequences of depriving someone of something that is rightfullu theirs, isn't all that clever. Would you? No....
Well, I don't. So the point is academic in my case.
Well of course you live there, so you'd know best, and so won't comment. But nothing you have said convinces me of your ingrained traditional right to kill.
If you say so. If you need to be right I'll concede the point. But I trust his 'non-actuality' far more than yours....
You haven't answered my question. Are you suggesting that because the vast majority of the Buddha's teachings were addressed to monks, we should take them all with a pinch of salt?
Yes unfortunately he is obliged to due to having suffered from hepatitis.
"The Dalai Lama: Better. Philosophical reason. 20 months I remained strict vegetarian. At that time I took advice from some of my Indian friends about the substitutes of meat. Lot of milk, cream and ...then in 67 I developed gall bladder, hepatitis. So my whole body became yellow. So at that time I become like living Buddha. Whole body yellow. Nails also yellow. It remained I think for about 3 weeks. So Tibetan physician, as well as allopathic physician advised me to take meat. So back to original diet. Meantime, all our monasteries in south India, also Namgyal monastery, common kitchen, serve only vegetarian food. In south India monasteries, population 300-400, all vegetarian food. Also in foreign countries when I visit Buddhist centers I always ask them. Now it is up to the individual. But as a society, as a institution, when they give some sort of a festival, it must be vegetarian. That business started the gall bladder trouble. Finally, surgery. So that's the background. So my own case, meat once or twice a week, otherwise vegetarian. So I tried to become a vegetarian but still difficult. I think it's useful to know the whole background."
(note final comment).
From here.
Many things are not acceptable by you... Especially the fact that You were rude, which I pointed out. Calm down and stop patronizing.
Yes, or course. Are you following them all?
I wasn't rude at all. But let's not take this discussion off-topic, ok?
Sure. You started it, you can end it.
I never said it was a right, @federica. I simply said that some things that are engrained are just harder to work out of. They become a part of who you are, and if you don't have things in your traditions and cultures that are that way, then I can't explain it to you. There are several studies about how our ancestors habits and even their stress and fears are carried on through genes. Behaviors are inherited. How your body responds to certain foods is also largely genetic. Behavioral epigentics is the field. I don't have time to look them up, but there are quite a few studies out there now. You can, of course, change your gene expression, but it doesn't happen just because you want it to any more than you can simply change your pre-dispostion to heart disease just because you want to. It takes time and particular practice to do so.
And like I said, I'm not making excuses. I no longer hunt because I made a choice not to. But I won't tell everyone else they can't. Hunting is not illegal. I would consult/guide my children not to break the law, yes, but they very well might still make the choice to do so and they'd have to live with the consequences just the same. I advise them why I don't hunt just the same as I'd advise them why I don't rob banks. But I'll tell them the other side of the story, too, along with possible consequences.
Since when does everything Buddha taught get applied to lay people? Last I checked there were a lot of people not giving up sex or material items (in most of our cases, a lot of material items) or spouses or anything else. There is a WHOLE lot of what Buddha suggests for monastics that is not taken on by lay people. We take 5 precepts. Some take 8. Monastics take what, 200+? Unless of course you've taken all those and I didn't realize it.
No one really knows how Buddha died any more than they truly know how he was born. It's a moot point. There's no point in trying to take which part you believe the most to apply to your beliefs, whichever side you happen to be on.
Well...as fur as I can tell, the Buddha was one for accepting of ALL of what IS.
So...is this gonna be a verbal fight to the finish or what.
The more opinions one has about how reality "should" be. According to "your" opinions(which is just impersonal conditioning)
The more you will suffer
All your beliefs have been inherited from your environment, society, culture and upbringing, you never had a choice.
You can't choose what to believe, it appears that way but there is no chooser.
As long as you believe you are somebody living life and making choices. There will always be the "other" who doesn't fit your mold of beliefs.
Or you can just stop, and drop your ideas about how life "should" be and investigate who is making these statements. And you'll never find that one. Because it isn't there.
Life has been doing all of this. You and me are choice less holograms that the brain has created to ensure survival.
All your choices are made in the brain before you are even aware of them.
Some brains appear to have a capacity to see through it's own illusion. Maybe you could be one of them?
Just know that your and my opinions are no more of value than anybody else's.
It's hard right? Hahah. Love you guys
The original question was not about dietrary preferences but about fishing (a form of hunting and inflicting pain on other sentients) as a personal choice and leisure preference.
The question is simple. The choice is simple enough ...
... and now back to troll and dharma hunting ... or not ...
The catch-and-release option has come up on the forum before, and people say it does harm the fish. Just because we can't feel its pain doesn't mean the pain isn't there. And I don't know if it causes lasting damage that may interfere with its feeding, or something.
On the other hand, if you found yourself in a situation where you had to survive in the wild, fishing for the purpose of feeding yourself (rather than amusing yourself) would be valid, IMO. But that's just me.
There you have it. As you said some hunters are skillful, some aren't.
Some have utmost reverence for the environment and the animals. Others drive around in their trucks drinking beer till something steps out onto the road.
Killing is not inherently immoral in my world. I judge some people to be immoral in the way they operate, even if they are acting within the law.
Some of the best fish killers I know are upright, honest, moral people, in my view. Some are deeply religious.
What you say about the abundance and variety of food that is available, leads me to think that you haven't seen enough of the world. Perhaps experiencing some other traditions or lifestyles could be an eye opener. In some places money doesn't solve everything.
Resource extraction is the reason that towns exist out here. This community like many others is dependent on commercial and sport fishing. I'm sure there are vegetarians around here, so it would be wrong to say that everyone eats fish, but the majority do. Many people hunt.
Taking a stand against fishing and hunting on moral grounds would be, if not offensive to many, at least laughable.
I don't hunt or fish for sport. That's not to say that I would never do it if the need arises. But then it's not sport anymore.
Killing is probably not a skillful thing for Buddhists. But my comment that you have responded to was directed at @federica, who unloaded her moral indignation on @Shak who wants to help his son learn to hunt.
Shak's son may not be a Buddhist. Not everyone here is Buddhist.
Others might be judged as not good Buddhists because they live in another kind of world. In my world men teach their kids to fish and hunt if they want to. It's normal.
@robot in my world, I teach my sons to hunt and fish, and dad stays home to cook dinner
Yeah: I'm out. Killing does tend to hit a nerve with me. Almost as much (but probably not quite) as Misogyny, sexism and prejudicial anti-female behaviour.... So I'm quite up with your last comment, @karasti!
No, I don't buy this "slaves to our conditioning" line. We always have a choice, and those choices always have consequences, the issue is whether we just follow our desires or take a wider view.
I don't think @Earthninja was pointing to the slaves to our conditioning thingy. I think what he said was accurate, about our BELIEFS being something we pick and choose among the ideas/beliefs we're exposed to throughout our lives. I don't think he ruled out the potential for us to become more awake and aware to options outside the stuff we're exposed to...I find myself resisting the idea that to help someone become more awake and aware enlists intolerance.
So anyone who challenges our current habits or opinions is being "intolerant"? Hmmm.
I recall a conversation years ago while I was involved in Tibetan Buddhism, a colleague was arguing that it was fine for us to eat meat because Tibet is very mountainous and it's difficult to grow crops there. I observed that we were living in a city in England and down the road there was a supermarket with an extensive range of non-meat products.... It became clear that this guy was very attached to eating meat but also feeling slightly guilty and trying to rationalise his choices. This may be quite common, which would explain why people get their panties in such a twist.
Exactly.
Tolerance towards the decadent, virtue challenged, crims, alcoholics, demons, bankers, arms dealers, hedonists, monk murderers, fish stranglers, Ms Soginists, grammar nazis, KKK, homophobes, facebook users etc ... and often hardest of all ourselves ...
Be kind ruthlessly, without quarter. Iz plan.
Rubbish. Complete red herring and cop out. We're talking about the ethics of particular lifestyles and some people are getting over-sensitive and defensive. That's all.
Perhaps. Red herring eh? Yum. Here is another ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ji_Gong
http://www.ttvs.cy.edu.tw/kcc/929nan/nan1.htm
Alan Watts was an alcoholic, does that mean we should all drink ourselves to death?
Barah, you seem to have a poor understanding of what is prescribed to lay buddhists.
The precept of not killing includes not going to choose a live animal/fish from a market and asking the butcher/fishmonger to kill it for you. This is extremely rare in the west but in other continents its still quite common.
Buddha took great pains to explain that eating meat that is sold in the market ie animals that are already dead does not break the precept of not killing.
If you read about Devadatta , you will realise that vegetarianism was proposed but rejected by Buddha.
Too many people these days believe that eating meat is tantamount to killing animals. This argument was considered and rejected by Buddha.
The argument that if people dont eat meat , then no animals would be killed is only as valid as the argument that if nobody killed the animals then, people would not have any meat to buy/eat.
Its a fantasy, its not going to happen in the real world.
It looks like your understanding is also poor, because I generally agree with what you are saying
.
I wouldn't make a big deal about of eating meat, because there is no escape from it. Even if an animal is not killed for us, we create demand which has the same effect on its life.
Killing is horrible, especially when it's cruel, but this is the world we are living in. Killing happens all around us. I hope that someday we will be able to engineer food, so there will be no need for killing.
Food is always a sensitive issue, whether you are talking veggie versus meat, paleo versus mediterranean or what. People are very attached to their food, maybe more so than most other things. So any debates about it are always heated. Food is much more to most people than simply the fuel they put in their bodies. If it wasn't, it would be much simpler to change our habits. There is a lot of memory, sensory, emotional, and traditional facets to eating.
I never said killing was good, or even ok. But myself and others aren't at a point either on their path or in their budget and living circumstance to completely give it up. In the cases, whatever the reason, that people are unable or even simply unwilling to give it up, I'll argue till the sun comes up that hunting is a better route than typical store bought meat. Even if it means the hunter takes on more direct, personal karma as a result. At least they aren't passing the buck.
It's buying meat that is tantamount to killing, it creates more demand for meat directly or indirectly. Eating meat which has already been bought or cooked is a different matter, that's the point of the 3-fold rule.
I suspect that if everyone had to kill and prepare their own meat there would be a lot more vegetarians around. It's easy to forget where meat comes from if you only buy it neatly packaged in a supermarket.
Traditionally in Buddhism butchery is wrong livelihood of course.
It's your choice. Do you want to add to the suffering of animals or not? As Buddhists do we conveniently run out of compassion when it comes to a dietary preference?
Ghana and fish....Florida and crabs. We never fished for enjoyment or to pass the time. We did it to eat. And yes....culture has alot to do with it. It's so very easy to say what people should and shouldn't do....but we all have a list. We're all assholes on some days...and saints on another. Doesn't matter the 'moral subject'. We're all figuring this big mess out day by day....
oops!
I am choiceless in this matter, as I eat whatever I am given.
Also, I look at compassion differently. It's not an intentional activity, rather a result of being intentionless. I such circumstances, even killing has no impact. As Bodhidharma said, you can even be a butcher, and karma won't accumulate. Of course, it's not an invitation to killing, that would be stupid. There simply is no need for rules anymore, and it make sense. Buddhas transformation was awakening, not revelation. All guidebooks ware creates much later.
How so? Are you a monk?
What in saying is people who are born in certain environments inherit the beliefs of that area. Not to mention how their parents raise them.
It's not simply a case of I choose everything I believe. You think you do. But if you look at cultures they tend to follow patterns of belief.
Kids are like their parents... Societies, cultures. All this is inherited.
So if my culture hunts, and your culture doesn't. There's the clash.
We've inherited more than we can ever realise consciously, unconsciously we have huge stores of beliefs not even accessible to our attention.
Like what is right and what is wrong, it's complete speculation inherited from our upbringing.
I let the girls through the door first, in South Africa that's a huge disrespect to the girl.
See what I mean? Do you think these kids just thought "oh I should go in before girlsl" it was taught.,
Same as hunting, same as religions, same as politics, same as language.
Try and think in another language? How you think was even taught to you.
No, a regular family man.
So isn't the point of Buddhist practice to challenge all those assumptions? To think more wisely and skilfully instead of just going along with conditioning and making excuses?
In which case you have some kind of choice. If you care enough to make it.
@SpinyNorman maybe for you it is, most people just inherit the next thing. Eg enlightenment, the Buddha, rebirth, emptiness. Sutras.
You don't need a religion/philosophy to see this though. Buddhist practice may be a means to see through these assumptions, or just a whole heap of more assumptions. Depends on the person and how they are wired I guess.
Yes of course, but why would I? Intention is precisely the causes of suffering.
No, just some intelligence. But that is sadly lacking.