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.

Killing Animals

13»

Comments

  • edited October 2009
    Somnilocus wrote: »
    So subtle. Know that I feel the same about you.
    Lost sorry.

    You asked for an example of "Everything you say generates more conflict than understanding among the participants, including you." - you just provided another one.
    Lost sorry.
    I would say the same right back at you but I'm not so ignorant as to assume my way is The Way and am open to the possibility of change, and I will always do my best to view things from THAT perspective.
    But the thread is about killing animals, not about This Way and That Way. Hence, I am advancing a few ideas about nonviolence and non-killing. I'm not broaching the topic of various paths - I'm discussing with you about the merits and otherwise of killing animals.
    I said that it was self-righteous to say your ways of being compassionate are superior to mine. Simple as that.
    What I am saying is that it is better to not kill, than to kill. I am saying it's more compassionate to not kill, than to kill. Therefore, I am saying that to eat meat is not as compassionate as to not eat meat. Deal with it. Hehe.

    Before I go, please understand that it's people like you who made me avoid Buddhism altogether for quite a long time. The way you present yourself, the way you put for your beliefs, has a way of turning many people away from the Dharma. Just thought you should know.
    But the thread is not just about Buddhism and the Dharma. The thread is mostly about killing animals. Again, vegetarianism is not just practiced and advocated by Buddhists. Many Hindus and many millions of secular people practice and advocate vegetarianism. If, when you hear about the merits of nonviolence, and the merits of abandoning killing, that puts you off Buddhism, well that's really up to you, but it would'nt discourage me from praising non-violence and non-killing and urging people to abandon meat-eating.
  • edited October 2009
    fivebells wrote: »
    Your narcissism is blinding you.
    Can you explain it clearer, because I still don't see the narcissism in stating the sin of killing, and the merit of non-killing. Oh please, fivebells, what is it I'm missing.
  • BrigidBrigid Veteran
    edited October 2009
    Having read through the last, oh say, 35 posts in this thread it's pretty plain to me, as I'm sure it is to everyone else, that this argument can't go anywhere because lalavajra basically has his/her fingers plugging his/her ears, sticking out his/her tongue, and sing songing, "I can't hear you....I'm not listening...I can't hear you...".

    There's no point.

    The argument about eating meat has long been over and now it's just an argument about how to argue.

    As I was reading through the posts I kept seeing these outrageous, ridiculous assertions being made by lalavajra and I was planning to add my own protest to them, add my voice of dissent to Somnilocus' and Five Bells'. But now I find I've lost the energy required so the only thing I want to repeat, and will repeat a hundred thousand times if I have to, is that no unenlightened sentient being has the right to tell another that they are going to hell for any reason. Period.

    Lala,
    Do you realize how much you sound like the 'eye-for-an-eye', Old Testament-loving, self-righteous variety of Christian? If you're unable to see that I can assure you that you're the only one. To have the unmitigated gall to tell someone they are going to hell is a reprehensible, violent, and incredibly ignorant thing to assert and it offends me to the bottom of my heart. It sickens me, frankly.

    I rarely tell others what I think they need to do but I'm going to tell you something; you need to take a good, hard, long, and honest look at yourself in the mirror because you're sustaining your spiritual development on the perpetuation of lies and arrogant self righteousness. You really, really are. I would have left you to it and not said a thing had you not done something which you know can cause serious psycho/spiritual suffering to others. That was the line you crossed between your right to believe something and the right of someone else not to be abused.

    That's all I'm going to say about it in this thread but let this be fair warning: If I come across anymore of this "You're going to hell" garbage anywhere else in this forum I will take my gloves off because it's filthy.
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited October 2009
    You tell 'em, Brigid.
  • BrigidBrigid Veteran
    edited October 2009
    Oh, I will! *snap*
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited October 2009
    You go, girl.
  • BrigidBrigid Veteran
    edited October 2009
    Lol!!
  • edited October 2009
    Brigid, no! You were so lucky to not be a part of this! Now he got you too! :P You know everyone agrees with you but I will tell you right now that you're right, it is pointless. I can tell you for a fact that this comment: "you need to take a good, hard, long, and honest look at yourself in the mirror because you're sustaining your spiritual development on the perpetuation of lies and arrogant self righteousness." will be taken completely out of context as you suggesting he's lying to himself and being arrogant/self-righteous in simply wanting no sentient being to suffer (as if he's alone in this).

    I sent a PM last night with the intent of leaving at that, and the responses seemed to have stopped... and if they haven't, well, I totally agree... any energy put into a response to him is wasted right now.
    I assumed you had a teacher.

    I myself do not have a teacher. I don't strictly follow only one tradition, either.

    Stop making assumptions. I do not care whether or not you have a teacher.

    Relax.

    This isn't about killing animals/not killing animals. I do not like the idea of killing animals. That includes indirectly. I wish nothing ever had to suffer as a direct or indirect result of myself.

    Fivebells suggested you take it to your teacher, which we just assumed you had given the way you present yourself, not to discuss whether it is ok or not to kill animals. That is not even the discussion anymore (and largely never was). The discussion is how you present yourself, how you lecture others, how you scold others, how you preach, how you even go so far as to tell people "you're going to hell." This is not helpful.

    My opinion is simply this:

    Eating vegetarian, for me, would involve the indirect killing of billions. I try to eat local when I can, but it's very expensive and I often can't. As well, many things are not available where I live, especially at certain times of the year, at which point nearly everything is imported. Still, I rarely eat meat. When I do, I try to ensure it's coming from a place that treats their animals properly and slaughters them in as painless a way as possible. In truth I'd rather kill one large animal directly and "humanely" (yes I know that's an oxymoron but I'm too tired to think of a proper word - you know what I mean though) than billions indirectly and violently. Right now, I'm just trying to survive, am pregnant, and am this close to being homeless, so I eat what I can when I can and try to ensure it's from a good source at the very least. If I could grow all my own food and sustain myself and my family entirely this way, I would, without a doubt. But I can't.

    Ok?

    Now please stop judging me.
  • edited October 2009
    sambodhi wrote: »
    I am raising four chickens for eggs currently... When I am ready to eat them, I will have a local butcher slaughter them for me. What are the karmonic consequences of this?
    yes. the karmic consequences for having another being killed for you are the same as killing the animal yourself.
  • edited October 2009
    sambodhi wrote: »
    I didn't know Buddhism offered tales of fire & brimstone...
    the hell-realms in Buddhism offer WAY more fire and brimstone than anything the Abrahamic religions thought of.
    The only good thing for us is that there is the possibility to get out of them.

    and on another note.
    eating meat is bad but the act of eating and killing are very very different.
    Killing an animal for its flesh is a serious non-virtuous act, eating meat that was not killed for you or by you is a totally different act.
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited October 2009
    For anyone that's interested, some of my past thoughts on this subject can be found here and here. But the short version is, more important than what you eat is how you eat. One shouldn't be attached to either view (i.e., meat eating vs. vegetarianism).

    To eat mindfully and in moderation is better than simply abstaining from certain foods (unless the food in question is still alive). If one wishes to abstain from eating meat out of compassion, that's fine. If not, that's fine too.
  • PalzangPalzang Veteran
    edited October 2009
    Right, Jason. Do what you feel is best for YOU, and then don't make a big production out of it.

    Palzang
  • edited October 2009
    Somnilocus wrote: »
    Before I go, please understand that it's people like you who made me avoid Buddhism altogether for quite a long time. The way you present yourself, the way you put for your beliefs, has a way of turning many people away from the Dharma. Just thought you should know.

    I COULDN'T AGREE MORE
  • edited October 2009
    Oh joy, it's coming at me in self-righteous PMs now

    In other news, I find this particular bit o' Suttra quite interesting, hmm.

    "When he says thus: 'It seems that one who kills living beings... has wrong view, will always, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell,' I do not concede that to him." [Maha-kammavibhanga Sutta]

    Hey, question: doesn't Adidas contribute to the brutal slaughter of kangaroos for leather? Aren't most vegan organizations entirely against supporting Adidas? Hmm. I have no idea why I'm asking this at all. Lala, those handsome shoes you're wearing in your avatar... that's not a big old Adidas logo, I should hope, given you told me you only wear vegan products...
  • PalzangPalzang Veteran
    edited October 2009
    You know, the Buddha himself never told anyone to be vegan. He just said don't eat meat that is killed specifically for you. And that applied only to monks.

    Palzang
  • edited October 2009
    Somnilocus wrote: »
    Oh joy, it's coming at me in self-righteous PMs now
    Thats not nice :sadc:
  • edited October 2009
    Palzang wrote: »
    You know, the Buddha himself never told anyone to be vegan. He just said don't eat meat that is killed specifically for you. And that applied only to monks.

    Palzang
    I think it depends on the interpretation and the Yana whether or not this teaching applies to the laity.
    Since bodhisattva vows are available to to lay people I think its fair to say that the bodhisattvayana teachings are not in favor or lay people eating animals that were killed for them. I for one would never entertain the idea of eating a being that was killed for my consumption as i see it as a direct violation of my bodhisattva and vajrayana vows.
    In the modern world where the slaughter of animals is a huge business we arent going to find clear scriptural teachings on how to deal with the meat industry and as Somnilocus pointed out, the industries that use the skin of animals etc.
    I think it is fair to say that we can extrapolate and come to the conclusion that our financial support does contribute to the suffering of beings. I dont think the karmic weight is as much as killing or ordering beings killed but its certainly unethical for Buddhists to support these industries.
    Its also not fair for us to pass judgment on our sangha brothers and sisters who do eat meat, but we can lead through example and promote a lifestyle that minimizes suffering.
    I think being a vegan is best, a vegetarian is also excellent.
  • BrigidBrigid Veteran
    edited October 2009
    Hi, Palzang!

    I've been missing you. Glad you're back.

    For anyone who's interested in buying meat that is less cruelly rendered, kosher meat, from what I understand, may be an option. I haven't done the research yet and this recommendation only comes from a very short reference I read so if you're interested you should look it up or ask a kosher butcher. Muslims also have a special way to prepare meat. I imagine both Jews and Muslims will have rules specific to their hot climates and the spoiling of meat but I'm pretty sure there are other rules that could be helpful to those of us living in the north.
  • BrigidBrigid Veteran
    edited October 2009
    Somnilocus wrote: »
    Brigid, no! You were so lucky to not be a part of this! Now he got you too! :P You know everyone agrees with you but I will tell you right now that you're right, it is pointless. I can tell you for a fact that this comment: "you need to take a good, hard, long, and honest look at yourself in the mirror because you're sustaining your spiritual development on the perpetuation of lies and arrogant self righteousness." will be taken completely out of context as you suggesting he's lying to himself and being arrogant/self-righteous in simply wanting no sentient being to suffer (as if he's alone in this).
    Lol! That's okay, Somnilocus. I doubt anything I say will have any positive effect but you never know. I used to suffer from rigid thinking myself and I know how painful it can be to live that way and how impossible it was for anyone to get through to me. I'm glad those days are largely over but I still have a long way to go.
  • edited October 2009
    Where can I find a list of Mods (I don't see a Staff List at the bottom of the Forum)? I'm getting really sick of the way Lala's talking to me in PMs - seems like he thinks that, as it's in private, he can talk however he wants.
  • PalzangPalzang Veteran
    edited October 2009
    Brigid wrote: »
    Hi, Palzang!

    I've been missing you. Glad you're back.

    Yes, took a little break to recover a bit of my sanity after assaults by that Nazi dive bomber guy (who fortunately is no longer here). Plus you need to recharge the old batteries once in a while.

    Palzang
  • edited October 2009
    Palzang wrote: »
    You know, the Buddha himself never told anyone to be vegan. He just said don't eat meat that is killed specifically for you. And that applied only to monks.

    Palzang

    I'm just playing devil advocate's here and get a better understanding of it all, but couldn't meat in a supermarket be viewed as being killed for you as you can go and buy it anytime you like?
  • PalzangPalzang Veteran
    edited October 2009
    No, it has to be killed for you specifically. I think the story goes that the Buddha was invited to eat at someone's house as he was passing through, and they were going to kill a bullock or something, and he said that he could not eat meat that was specifically killed for him. I may have the story all wrong, but that's as close as I remember it!

    Palzang
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited October 2009
    Palzang wrote: »
    No, it has to be killed for you specifically. I think the story goes that the Buddha was invited to eat at someone's house as he was passing through, and they were going to kill a bullock or something, and he said that he could not eat meat that was specifically killed for him. I may have the story all wrong, but that's as close as I remember it!

    Palzang

    Perhaps you are thinking of MN 55. It's well worth a read for anyone interested in what the Buddha had to say about this issue. Also see Sn 2.2.
  • VrusaderVrusader New
    edited October 2009
    Hi Daveie,

    In my interpretation of Buddhism, Buddhism teaches us that actions have consequences. For every action we take, there will no doubt be many consequences to our chosen action. Thus, in everything that we do, we are encouraged to make wise, considered choices so that our actions will lead to positive consequences.

    Killing

    If we kill an animal, what are the possible consequences of such an action?

    The obvious answer is that the animal dies - we've taken the life of another being.

    In the wild, the rabbit or bird may have been a mother taking food back to their young. Killing the mother may have also inadvertantly killed the entire family.

    The animal may have had a unique survival trait which now cannot be passed onto other generations.

    In fact, there are many other possible consequences to this one action. Some of the possible consequences may be significant and likely while others may be far-fetched and very unlikely.

    Having considered the consequences, we should then consider whether it was "worth" it.

    For many people, the reasons for killing the animal would be for food or for sport or both. Thus, the question we have to ask ourselves is whether getting what we want from killing the animal is worth suffering the consequences of actually undertaking the action to kill the animal.

    Some people like eating meat and so will respond by saying yes - it is worth killing the animal.

    Other people may feel more compassion for the animal and choose to say no - it is not worth killing the animal.

    Some people like their sport and so will respond by saying yes - it is worth killing the animal.

    Other people may feel that getting a temporary excitement from killing an animal is not worth killing the animal.

    At the end of the day, it is up to you to consider the consequences of killing and then deciding whether you can live with the consequences.

    Buying Meat

    With regards to whether it was okay to buy meat, again, we have to make considered choices and analyse the consequences.

    Butchers and the meat industry exist to provide a service. Consumers buy processed meat from a butcher in exchange for money. That is, the meat industry supplies the meat because there is a demand for the consumption of meat.

    If we buy some meat from the butcher, the butcher will see that the business is profitable. Thus, next week, the butcher will continue to kill more animals so that more meat can be sold next week. In other words, the consequence of buying meat has lead to more animals being killed to supply the meat for your to buy in the future.

    Thus, to buy meat from the butcher is still a form of (indirect) killing. Of course, whether you can live with that consequence is entirely up to you as noted above.

    Please note that I intentionally did not include any concept of rebirth and karma (in the rebirth sense) in my discussion. I don't believe they should play a part in your choices on this matter.

    Regards,
    V
  • SimonthepilgrimSimonthepilgrim Veteran
    edited October 2009
    Oy gevalt!

    What a waste of good bandwidth.

    Where's the naughty step when you need it?
  • PalzangPalzang Veteran
    edited October 2009
    Jason wrote: »
    Perhaps you are thinking of MN 55. It's well worth a read for anyone interested in what the Buddha had to say about this issue. Also see Sn 2.2.

    Yup, I think that must be the one I was thinking of. Thanks.

    Um, what's a "naughty step", Simon? Or do I want to know...

    Palzang
  • SimonthepilgrimSimonthepilgrim Veteran
    edited October 2009
    Palzang wrote: »
    ......................
    Um, what's a "naughty step", Simon? Or do I want to know...

    Palzang

    The "naughty step" is part of the current 'doctrine' of child-rearing: if your little brat misbehaves, they are sent to sit on the "naughty step". Seemed to me that we have been treated (not much of a treat, I admit) to some of our newer members squabbling like infants. They have yet to learn that we are a generally courteous bunch who know when a debate has degenerated into argument and should be abandoned.
  • edited October 2009
    Simon,

    With respect, you'll notice that many did choose to abandon the argument (and unfortunately it then followed into PMs and other Threads). It did get quite heated because some very nasty and hurtful things were said to other members, which have since been deleted by a Moderator - so parts of the overall picture are missing from this Thread now. Yeah, I should have given up long ago, but it bothered me that someone was being talked to in such a way - a way I encountered on another forum that resulted in me stepping away from Buddhism for years. I am human. You live, you learn. ;]
  • PalzangPalzang Veteran
    edited October 2009
    The "naughty step" is part of the current 'doctrine' of child-rearing: if your little brat misbehaves, they are sent to sit on the "naughty step". Seemed to me that we have been treated (not much of a treat, I admit) to some of our newer members squabbling like infants. They have yet to learn that we are a generally courteous bunch who know when a debate has degenerated into argument and should be abandoned.

    Ah, thank you. I thought maybe it was a dance step...

    Palzang
Sign In or Register to comment.