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.
Question about Buddhists Eating Meat...
I just found this paragraph on a site about Buddhism:
"The main objectives of morality, according to Buddhism, are self-restraint, purity in personal conduct, and benevolent social interaction. Man is intrinsically wholesome, being of a noble-minded nature. The practice in Buddhist morality aims at preserving that natural state of humanity and wholesomeness. This is accomplished through the observance of certain sets of precepts that are graded into different levels according to different stages of moral maturity. Basically, lay Buddhists follow five precepts: not to kill, not to steal, to refrain from sexual misconduct, not to resort to falsehood, and to refrain from taking intoxicants. The essence of these precepts is moral responsibility to oneself and other beings."
So if Buddhists are to follow those five precepts, then why is it ok for Buddhists to eat meat?
"The main objectives of morality, according to Buddhism, are self-restraint, purity in personal conduct, and benevolent social interaction. Man is intrinsically wholesome, being of a noble-minded nature. The practice in Buddhist morality aims at preserving that natural state of humanity and wholesomeness. This is accomplished through the observance of certain sets of precepts that are graded into different levels according to different stages of moral maturity. Basically, lay Buddhists follow five precepts: not to kill, not to steal, to refrain from sexual misconduct, not to resort to falsehood, and to refrain from taking intoxicants. The essence of these precepts is moral responsibility to oneself and other beings."
So if Buddhists are to follow those five precepts, then why is it ok for Buddhists to eat meat?
0
Comments
One answer that can be given is that each practitioner will interpret the precepts according to their own lights and understanding. For some, their understanding of killing may include restricting their diet. For others, this may appear to beg questions about the nature and meaning to be attributed to the word "life". Despite a national commitment to the Path, Tibetans are not - and cannot be - vegans. Meat is an essential part of their diet, as it is to those nations of the Arctic.
One of the great strengths of Buddhism is that it is essentially practical. Dogmatism smells of 'eternalism'. The precepts are aids on the Noble Eightfold Path and it is the Dharma Path that matters. Each precept requires us to examine how, in our own lives from day to day, they represent an ideal to which we aspire.
To make meat-eating an absolute no-no would restrict the Dharma, excluding rather than universal.
If a (fill in the blank) was about to kill your (fill in random loved one), could you kill it?
Like, your son who is highly allergic to bees was about to get stung by a bee, would you swat it away, potentially killing it?
A vicious dog is ravaging your cousin, and you have a gun. You are not strong enough to fight the dog off, and you know that the dog will not stop unless put down. Do you shoot the dog?
Of course, the answer almost always is "yes". Death is just as necessary as birth. It's nature. Your intent was not to cause suffering but to prevent more suffering. I am a novice at buddhism, and this is only my interpretation, but it is how I live my life.
hahah this doesn't have much to do with eating meat, does it?
Are chickens "more alive" than carrots? Don't we kill the carrot when we yank it out of the ground and throw it in a pot of boiling water? Is it less damaging to your kamma to kill a living carrot than a living chicken?
I eat meat. Is it "right" or "wrong"? I can't say.
I can say it's a choice I make. It may be a skillful choice, because I get the materials my body needs to be health, which allow me to practice. It can also be an unskillful choice, because an animal had to die for me to be eatting it, regardless if I did the killing or not.
This is never a simple thing to answer. I need the iron from meat. I can't really use any other kind. It's just what my blood seems to be able to use. I regret consuming animal flesh, and at the same time I see it as a natural part of life. It's "good" to eat meat, it's "bad" to eat meat-either way, it's still a view of "right and wrong".
The Dhamma is not always so black and white. An example in Buddhism is suicide. On most occasions suicide is considered a "bad" and "unskillful" thing, but there are a few suttas that show that this is not always the case. In one story the Buddha was a rabbit that jumped into a fire so a starving bhikkhu could eat. In another he was a man who offered his life to a hungry tigress that couldn't even feed her young. A bhikkhu named Vakkali commited suicide, and was found to not have fault in his action by the Buddha because of his intention.
I guess it may come down to intention. The reasons for an action are just as important as the actual action, because as the Buddha said in the Dhammapada,"The mind is the forerunner to all things." I think maybe your intention to eat, or not eat meat makes the difference in whether it's "ok".
This is excellent advice.
Through my practice I have become closer to nature and the creatures that inhabit it.
I have said that if one had to kill the animal by themself then there would be more vegetarians in the modern world.
On one occasion, when I was young, a rabbit infected with mixamatosis (a man made virus) hopped into my back garden. The disease makes the rabbits blind and deaf so the rabbit was unaware of the family dog - and his intentions to eat it.
Being young - I was still motivated by compassion for my friend, the dog, and my new friend, the diseased rabbit. If I did not do something then:
a. The rabbit would continue to suffer.
b. My friend, the dog, would eat the rabbit and potentially become very ill.
c. A wild predator would eat the rabbit and potentially become very ill.
So I killed the rabbit, in a humane manner, but it was the most awfull experience. Killing strikes you deep inside. It is a precept for a reason. Every death is the death of a potential Buddha. All sentient beings flee from death.
Of course, it is not all cut and dry and hence not an easy subject to come to conclusions about.
Personally:
I don't eat meat and I try to avoid animal products in the food I eat. Ironically I have become less attached to the food I eat and see it more as fuel. For this reason I don't 'miss' burgers or steaks or chicken but don't lecture others who do.
The only advice I would have for others would be an echo of Elohim's - live the truest reality of life (all 'ideas' of self aside) - and your intentions will always be pure.
A deep bow,
Dave
A better questons is "If Buddhists follow those five precepts, then why is it ok for Buddhists to eat vegetables." Yogamama, life is life.
Sounds good but begs the question, Comic.
Well please explain. I am all ears.
Speak to me about life.
You assert that the life that you detect in a plant is similar, if not identical to animal or human life.
This pushes the boundaries of the definition so that I am not sure where you draw the line. In order to understand and apply the precept about killing, we need to have some grasp of what we mean by the life we refuse to take.
Although I can see poetic justification for calling vegetables 'alive', I cannot see what is useful in such (as it appears to me) confusion. It also clouds the debate about how we can regulate our diet skillfully.
So, I am open to being convinced but, for now, I have to say that "life is life" is no more than a trope to me, a sound-bite. Convince me!
"Soul" has no meaning in Buddhist terms when it applies to some aspect of the human which exists independently.
All phenomena do, indeed, arise and pass away. "This too shall pass," is the only statement that is true in all parts of samsara. The notion of rebirth is not, however, understood as applying to the vegetable or mineral worlds. If, in their own meditation, some people come to a personal view about this, I am sure that is fair enough but it is not part of Buddhism.
On the whole, Buddhist thought is not in opposition to scientific understanding and evolves as science progresses. In this, it is very different from much Christianity.
My point is that it is not 'life' in the same sense as human or animal life. It is energy. It is power, too. But removing or stopping it is not killing in the true sense of that word. any more than I kill a light bulb when I switch it off.
Prove it.
The Buddhist view of interdependence is based on experience. Not the teacher's experience but that of each practitioner. It is the approach used by Thomas in the Gospel: "Show me. Let me touch."
Regarding your take on 'life', Comic, it is, of course, possible to extend the notion to plants or to the land itself. My own experience is that the power of the land is actually different in kind from that of human/animal life. It is why I use ancient words such as wouivre to describe it. The more I detect it, the more I am convinced that it is a sound-based power, just as animal life is light-based. This is, of course, only my personal perception.
If animal and vegetable life appear the same to you, there is always the possibility that you need to spend time looking at what we each mean by "life". As this thread was about eating, you may like to consider why (apart from a very few survivals) cannibalism has become taboo: it is, surely, that human 'life' is deemed different from animal 'life', and different again from the vegetable.
It is a fun paradox to equate animal and non-animal life. Of course, as a Buddhist, I am fascinated by the science. To date, the equation doesn't work. Also, taking Refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha, I am aware that the Buddha never taught the impossible. If the precept not to kill applies even to a blade of grass, we shall starve.
This sort of eternalism is as dangerous to our Dharma practice as nihilism.
In Science Life is defined as an organism that reproduces. Basic Biology 101.
Thus the complexity. If plants reporduce then are they not alive? if the precepts tell us not to kill, does this include plants? And what about the circle of life, in which a hawk will eat a rabbit and the rabbit the plant and the plant the nutriates from the earth?
I was wondering what your opionon on this is?
My master told me I think to much.
IMHO, this is where we need to apply Common Sense!
The Buddha did not teach the precepts because they are "right" in all senses. He gave every single one of his teachings for a reason. That reason is training. We use these things as tools to train ourselves. We have been stuck in our way of life for so long that we need a lot of effort to change our ingrained patterns.
The precepts are given to us so that when we follow them we have a "clear conscience". This is virtue (sila). With this virtue we will not worry about what we did, said, or thought because we know we did not knowingly commit an offensive act. This leaves less things for the mind to "worry" about, or "ponder" , or "stress" over. With a mind free of these things we can develop a deep concentration (samadhi) in our meditation (bhavana). This concentration blocks the defilements so the mind can contemplate it's meditative subject (i.e. the breath, the 32 parts of the body, the 3 characteristics of dukkha, anicca, anatta, etc.) without disturbance. This of course brings discernment or wisdom (panna), also know as right understanding.
I'm sure the Buddha knew the limitations of his precepts, and the human life. We must do somethings out of necessity. We must eat, we must breath, we must live with the laws of nature. The only problem is our ignorance (avijja) blinds us to the True nature, the Law (Dhamma), that all conditioned things must follow, which intern causes our suffering, distress, unhappiness, etc.
To avoid killing frees you from the guilt, the shame, the punishment (man made laws), and harm that ripples from such an action. Of course we need to eat something whether it is a plant or animal. As long as we eat for the purpose of fueling the body to practice we are being skillful. If we eat just to eat, to taste, to enjoy, then we are being unskillful. Plants are alive, but whether they are sentient is another matter.
So we must remember that the Buddha's teachings only deal with dukkha, and the freedom from dukkha. His teachings are based solely around this. He did not teach about the metaphysical questions that always plaque mankind. He taught us how to transcend these things, as well as all conditioned phenomena.
-Henry Beston
Seeing everything through the lens of compassion...you can even hear the ants scream.