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.
Throwing said meat out, and buying a veggie burger instead, is contributing to even more needless suffering of beings than just eating the damned meat.
I don't know about your family, but if I don't eat a steak that was bought for me to eat, its not going into the trash. Someone else will eat it.
Trust me, it won't be wasted.
but they won't buy one for me next time... and I think that's kind of the point...
If you have taken vows not to eat meat whether formally or personally then you should not eat it. Its nobodies damn business what you eat. Your choice your body (and mind).
The following is very uncomfortable to watch, but if you insist on eating meat you should watch it, and at the very least consider the source of any meat you choose to eat...
Some may consider it distasteful to post such a video, but what is it considered to let these crimes continue without intervention, particularly among a community of people whose goal it is to live lives of compassion?
VERY appalling video this, but I did see it (with great disgust I must say), It's a horrible sight, period.
I think it's IMPORTANT to state though that BIOLOGICAL MEAT-PRODUCTS are understated here. This is the worst meat-grinding-scenario if you ask me. I know for fact this is not how they treat animals on BIOLOGICAL farms. It's at least more humanistic, as opposed to this at times, sadistic looking process, some of these methods should simply be PROHIBITED.
I think if all of us chose to at least eat biological food when "not-vegetarian" (and thus not going for the cheapest meat), things would at least improve.
I will look into this more though, that's for sure.
VERY appalling video this, but I did see it (with great disgust I must say), It's a horrible sight, period.
I think it's IMPORTANT to state though that BIOLOGICAL MEAT-PRODUCTS are understated here. This is the worst meat-grinding-scenario if you ask me. I know for fact this is not how they treat animals on BIOLOGICAL farms. It's at least more humanistic, as opposed to this at times, sadistic looking process, some of these methods should simply be PROHIBITED.
I think if all of us chose to at least eat biological food when "not-vegetarian" (and thus not going for the cheapest meat), things would at least improve.
I will look into this more though, that's for sure.
I agree with you that your way is, at least, a whole lot better than supporting those big, meat industry, factory farms. Unfortunately most of the meat in popular restaurants and big grocery stores is from the bad source.
There are different ways to practice with eating. You should choose your own practice and you need not please others. If your grandma gets you a prostitute for your birthday you don't need to sleep with her either.
The practice of monks accepting what was offered them was one means of practicing non-attachment. Presumably it also prevented some bad behaviour or ugly scenes of monks complaining to their benefactors, dunno?
There are other ways to practice in an aware way with regards to buddhism. The karmapa not to long ago urged people to do some form of vegetarianism as a compassionate practice to accumulate merit or punya. He gave several options other than full force vegetarian including waving meat at holidays or just simply taking some time to contemplate the issue rather than being unaware.
It is your choice whether you eat meat or not. I don't think it is particularly meaningful to say someone is a lesser or greater buddhist for one or the other.
VERY appalling video this, but I did see it (with great disgust I must say), It's a horrible sight, period.
I think it's IMPORTANT to state though that BIOLOGICAL MEAT-PRODUCTS are understated here. This is the worst meat-grinding-scenario if you ask me. I know for fact this is not how they treat animals on BIOLOGICAL farms. It's at least more humanistic, as opposed to this at times, sadistic looking process, some of these methods should simply be PROHIBITED.
I think if all of us chose to at least eat biological food when "not-vegetarian" (and thus not going for the cheapest meat), things would at least improve.
I will look into this more though, that's for sure.
If I had to eat meat, I would go with only grass-fed beef. Not even organic, but grass-fed... there's a difference. Organic meat is corn fed, which is not what cows eat naturally. Grass-fed means they lived a largely natural life and communed among others of their species. Plus, its healthier meat. Its more expensive and I'd have to track it down somehow, but it would be worth it to me.
As far as poultry goes, I'd go with free-range organic.
Do your own research, but by and large I believe that as far as meat goes, this is about as cruelty-free as you can get.
If you can find a single farm or maybe just a few that you can do business with and meet the animals, etc. that's probably a best case scenario in my opinion.
Un argentino que no come carne..como puede ser eso? Creo que a veces te sientes muy solo en una sociedad como tuya. Una vez venimos a un restaurante argentino con una chica de Buenos Aires y cuando yo le dije que no comia carne roja ella me respondio que no vine al restaraunte correcto!
Bueno, es como maravilloso lo que haces tu, oponendote a tu cultura asi. Se necesita un poco de valor para eso. Que te vaya bien, y que tu familia, (incluso los abuelos si hay ) te entienda.
Un argentino que no come carne..como puede ser eso? Creo que a veces te sientes muy solo en una sociedad como tuya. Una vez venimos a un restaurante argentino con una chica de Buenos Aires y cuando yo le dije que no comia carne roja ella me respondio que no vine al restaraunte correcto!
Bueno, es como maravilloso lo que haces tu, oponendote a tu cultura asi. Se necesita un poco de valor para eso. Que te vaya bien, y que tu familia, (incluso los abuelos si hay ) te entienda.
Paz!
jajaja, si, es MUY complicado hacer eso... Pero si uno esta convencido de lo que hace se pueden lograr cosas increibles. La razon por la que deje de ser vegano en su momento fue porque ya era demasiado complicado para mi hacer eso en este pais.
Incluso las reuniones familiares o de amigos, siempre es "a comer un asado", es muy complicado eso. Pero como dije antes, si uno se mantiene fiel a uno mismo se puede lograr sin tener que dejar de lado a mis amigos/familia
My opinion on the issue (if you wanna hear it) is that if people want to reduce the suffering they put upon the creatures that share the Earth with them, they should not eat animal products. By purchasing these products, you are supporting the horrible factory farms. And on top of that, I agree with Juan, "it's really disgusting".
I'm vegan. I didn't become vegan because of any Buddhist-related ideas--I did it for the animal right's side--but I can really see where the ideas of Buddhism and veganism do connect.
My opinion on the issue (if you wanna hear it) is that if people want to reduce the suffering they put upon the creatures that share the Earth with them, they should not eat animal products. By purchasing these products, you are supporting the horrible factory farms. And on top of that, I agree with Juan, "it's really disgusting".
I'm vegan. I didn't become vegan because of any Buddhist-related ideas--I did it for the animal right's side--but I can really see where the ideas of Buddhism and veganism do connect.
Seems that many people think that at one point or another Buddhist should be vegetarians or that otherwise you are not really living in accordance to the Buddhist philosophy?
Personally, I don't like the "needless" killing of animals, but do eat meat, and think that's how it was meant to be in nature. Humans being omnivores etc.
Well, since Buddhists have conflicting views on the issue, why consider the Buddhist standpoint? Let's consider the standpoint on evolutionary terms.
Are humans designed by nature to be meat-eaters at all? Do we have very sharp teeth for eating raw meat, claws or other natural weapons for attacking animals, speed or poison or something else to give us an advantage? As far as our bodies go, no.
You might say our brain, our intelligence, is our advantage. However, we were not always the architects of tools for hunting. Therefore we were originally vegetarians, and our evolving brain gave us the capacity to overpower other animals, kill them and burn their flesh.
Just because we can do a thing it does not follow that we must. Our brains also give us the capacity to create nuclear weapons. That is no more natural than anything else we've done with intelligence as a base.
I think most of us can survive quite comfortably as vegans... but because of our laziness to act or our 'addiction' to meat, fish, poultry and dairy products... we will find a thousand excuses to justify the consumption thereof. I include myself here; I eat fish (the only 'animal-tissue' food I consume)... and my excuse... I need it to ensure my diet has sufficient protein and omega 3 fatty oils or whatever... BUT there are non-animal substitutes for this.
Surely this is the last word in so far as the whole "Buddhist Vegeterian" thing:
"Meat eating in any form, in any manner, and in any place is unconditionaly and once and for all prohibited. I have not permitted meat eating to anyone"
The Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama
I don't believe for a second that The Buddha ate meat, and I really don't understand why so many Thai and Tibetan monks do so. It boggles my mind.
I don't think that non-vegeterian Buddhists are any less good than vegetarian ones, I really couldn't care less. However, the quotation I have provided seems quite clear to me.
"Do not kill, but rather preserve and cherish all life"
"Meat eating in any form, in any manner, and in any place is unconditionaly and once and for all prohibited. I have not permitted meat eating to anyone"
The Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama
Sutta citations are encouraged for a reason.
"Whoever attributed the aforementioned quote to me is a giant douche." -The Buddha
See? ;]
"Generally," the Buddha didn't outright prohibit things to all people, period. ;] That false quote is ridiculous.
Hi Stream, for the sake of other buddhists (especially beginners) it's usually best, when quoting, to give the sutra and chapter you are taking it from.
I'll give you a hand here, your quote about meat is from the Lankavatara Sutra Chapter 8, which is from the Mahayana school of thought. http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-chapter-4.htm#chap8
How was that rude? Unless you're the one who attributed it to him, although I assumed you found it on a random website.
I don't actually understand what you mean at all
I mean, please provide a sutta citation when you supposedly quote the Buddha?
Edit - Thank you, Nios. So, Stream, as not all Buddhists agree that those suttas are legitimate, and not all schools follow those suttas, that would be why your quote is not the "final word on what the Buddha said," although you're certainly entitled to your opinion.
Unfortunatly I don't have the location of the quote, its on the innards of my "Moby - Play" album, with a bunch of other quotes from religious leaders encouraging vegeterianism. Feel free to search it if your interested, I know Moby isn't the type of guy to just pull something out of thin air like that. It must have being said by him.
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.
No it doesnt.
There is a huge difference between killing an animal and ordering some buffalo wings at your neighborhood pub.
eating meat is unethical for sure but it in no way ='s killing animals.
Unfortunately, this argument probably wouldn't hold up from a logical standpoint, i.e., the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise.
If one is eating meat, the animal itself has most likely been killed well prior to its order or purchase, unless, of course, it's something like oysters, fresh lobster, etc. It'd be more correct to say that eating meat = an animal has already been killed, assuming it's not still alive (e.g., oysters, fresh lobster, etc.).
For eating meat = killing animals to be true, the animal in question must either be alive while being eaten (as in the case of oysters) or alive immediately prior to being eaten or ordered (as in the case of fresh lobster).
We seem to be missing the sense of personal responsibility in this discussion. Sure, an animal has already been killed, why not buy a steak? Well, you might not think it makes a difference, and in reality, it makes very little of a difference what one individual does.
However, the meat industry is driven by demand. Each of us who takes part in the purchasing of meat products is a part of the "fuel" for its continuation; our actions are a condition. It may not make _much_ of a difference if a single person wouldn't buy meat, but it certainly wouldn't be a contributing factor to any animal deaths or cruelty; you would be "blameless", and such is a great thing.
It's the same concept as voting. You've heard this one, right? People don't think their vote matters because one little vote won't be missed. Well, if enough people think that, a lot of votes go missing and it does indeed make a difference. If you don't think your vote counts, neither will you think what you do in regards to purchasing meat (and thereby helping drive the meat industry) matters at all.
I haven't been able to give up meat entirely yet as I'm still rather new to all of this, but my distaste for it grows with my deeper understanding of the Dhamma, and I'd much prefer to eat fruit and vegetables if I can. That's not to say I won't eat meat when that's what is offered; not even monks are meant to turn away meat, or else they may starve. But... when it comes to purchasing meat for consumption, it is a _choice_, and whatever consequence comes of that choice is your responsibility, no one else's.
I've been a vegetarian (and vegan) and it has nothing to do with Buddhism (or has it?).
In MY case, the decision to stop eating meating had to do with the love with all living beings. I just couldn't stand eating a piece of a corpse, it was really disturbing.
The Dalai Lama once said:
"My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness."
and I think Vegetarianism is beyond buddhism. It has to do with kindness
Now, don't think I'm a fundamentalist or nothing like that. But just imagine my situation... I live in a country that has the highest rate in the world when it comes to eating meat.
Just google "asado" (the traditional argentinian food) in images and you'll see what I'm talking about.
The Dalai Lama eats meat. He stopped for a while but his health suffered. Ajahn Chah ate meat, Ajahn Sumedho eats meat.
The point being that unlike in some forms of Hindudharma, in Buddhadharma the eating of meat has always been a matter of individual choice. Vegetarianism has always been optional. The only exceptions are certain Chinese Schools where vegetarianism is expected.
We seem to be missing the sense of personal responsibility in this discussion. Sure, an animal has already been killed, why not buy a steak? Well, you might not think it makes a difference, and in reality, it makes very little of a difference what one individual does.
However, the meat industry is driven by demand. Each of us who takes part in the purchasing of meat products is a part of the "fuel" for its continuation; our actions are a condition. It may not make _much_ of a difference if a single person wouldn't buy meat, but it certainly wouldn't be a contributing factor to any animal deaths or cruelty; you would be "blameless", and such is a great thing.
It's the same concept as voting. You've heard this one, right? People don't think their vote matters because one little vote won't be missed. Well, if enough people think that, a lot of votes go missing and it does indeed make a difference. If you don't think your vote counts, neither will you think what you do in regards to purchasing meat (and thereby helping drive the meat industry) matters at all.
I haven't been able to give up meat entirely yet as I'm still rather new to all of this, but my distaste for it grows with my deeper understanding of the Dhamma, and I'd much prefer to eat fruit and vegetables if I can. That's not to say I won't eat meat when that's what is offered; not even monks are meant to turn away meat, or else they may starve. But... when it comes to purchasing meat for consumption, it is a _choice_, and whatever consequence comes of that choice is your responsibility, no one else's.
Actually, I directly address many of those points in the two posts I referenced above in post #71:
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.
It's funny, I always used to think vegetarians and vegans were a little "off" and that they were rather sticking their noses up at the rest of us and thought they were better than us for not eating meat. Now I understand their viewpoint, must concede I had them entirely wrong and that they are not at all haughty, but rather more selfless and compassionate.
Growing up in the country surrounded by farms I am accutely aware that vegetables aren't blood free. Rabbits, birds and many other animals are intentionally killed to protect the fruit & veg from being eaten. Not to mention the countless insects that are killed by pestisides or other means. It's difficult to know the farming methods of how things are grown when purchasing from a supermarket.
I prefer to grow my own veg as much as possible. This way I can use my own methods of pest control, and I know what I am responsible for.
It's funny, I always used to think vegetarians and vegans were a little "off" and that they were rather sticking their noses up at the rest of us and thought they were better than us for not eating meat. Now I understand their viewpoint, must concede I had them entirely wrong and that they are not at all haughty, but rather more selfless and compassionate.
Same here. The way I see it is like evangelical christians... they are only a small percentage but they are soo vocal about their beliefs it's easy to assume EVERY one is like that...
Hmm, doesn't seem very catchy to me. I think we cling to a lot of words in Pali or Sanskrit because that's how we learn the teachings. For instance, dukkha is the best word for what is translated as unsatisfactoriness/suffering in English, but I tend to use unsatisfactoriness when trying to explain something.
"Unrest" might be an even better term for reality-at-large. Unsatisfactoriness/suffering is more mental dukkha on the part of humans.
It's funny, I always used to think vegetarians and vegans were a little "off" and that they were rather sticking their noses up at the rest of us and thought they were better than us for not eating meat. Now I understand their viewpoint, must concede I had them entirely wrong and that they are not at all haughty, but rather more selfless and compassionate.
Personally, I think it depends on the individual. I've known vegetarians and vegans who were very judgmental and clung to their eating habits in ways that were anything but compassionate and selflessness. I've also known omnivores who were quite compassionate and selfless. I think it's a mistake to paint any diverse group of people with a broad brush.
That's entirely true, but if you must take a stance, take the positive one. I'd rather believe vegetarians/vegans are a good and compassionate lot as a general rule, only to have exception on individual basis (if I know a person to be a certain way), than to believe negative things about them. That's part of seeing good in everyone that is good morality and loving-kindness, metta if you will. I usually don't use the Pali terms.
If it's all the same to you, I'd rather use excellent! than sadhu! then. Meaningful to more people that way. We can talk about dukkha and metta and tanha and such all we like, but you have to have a certain amount of experience with those words for them to have the same kind of meaning as terms in your native tongue.
Unfortunately, this argument probably wouldn't hold up from a logical standpoint, i.e., the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise.
If one is eating meat, the animal itself has most likely been killed well prior to its order or purchase, unless, of course, it's something like oysters, fresh lobster, etc. It'd be more correct to say that eating meat = an animal has already been killed, assuming it's not still alive (e.g., oysters, fresh lobster, etc.).
For eating meat = killing animals to be true, the animal in question must either be alive while being eaten (as in the case of oysters) or alive immediately prior to being eaten or ordered (as in the case of fresh lobster).
In order to eat meat, an animal must die. Is that not true???
When you eat meat, you are supporting the death of the animal.
No it doesnt.
There is a huge difference between killing an animal and ordering some buffalo wings at your neighborhood pub.
eating meat is unethical for sure but it in no way ='s killing animals.
No. There is not a huge difference. By ordering that dead animal to eat, you are promoting the death of animals.
It is supply and demand.
Think I read somewhere that the negative kamma of killing life is greater with larger animals, i.e. killing a cow is worse than killing a turkey. That would also apply to insects, I believe. Are we really going to try comparing the raising and slaughtering of livestock for the sole purpose of consumption to the insects that are incidentally killed by pesticides? We do have to survive somehow, and if it's between animals and fruits/vegetables, the choice is pretty obvious.
I tend to disagree. I don't think if you accidentally step on and kill an ant that it's the same thing as if you just accidentally killed a cow. All lifeforms have their purpose, but it is in my opinion wrong view to think of the world in such simplistic terms.
There are a lot of problems with becoming a vegetarian in this society for sure. One is the cultural issue you mention. People think you're weird if you don't eat meat, or get insulted. Also it can be extremely difficult to find vegetarian food (not to mention vegan) in many parts of the country.
With respect, I'm a 24 year vegetarian in the heart of the BBQ belt, and it's really not as hard as all that. I've traveled the globe for business; there are rare times when I have difficulty finding something to eat. If I'm in a restaurant and there's nothing, I can string a few safe side-dishes together. I also plan ahead and make sure to have something in my luggage to supplement. It's nothing I worry about.
I've yet to have someone get insulted by my diet...threatened maybe, because they don't understand, but not insulted. I put them at ease pretty quickly when they see that I'm not "militant" about it.
Compared to when I started, (1986), it's actually quite easy to find good vegetarian food in the U.S. if you make any effort.
I got past the "people are going to think I'm weird" thing decades ago. I'm weird even without the veggiehead thing.
In order to eat meat, an animal must die. Is that not true???
When you eat meat, you are supporting the death of the animal.
To be honest, pinkxlotus, I'm not trying to argue with you about the ethics of eating meat. I'm simply pointing out that the logic behind your argument doesn't really hold up the way it's phrased, i.e., the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise.
The main problem I see is that you're essentially taking an ethical argument and trying to turn it into a logical argument, which I think ultimately detracts from what you're trying to say, especially considering the fact that the Buddha himself never equated the two things. I suggest checking out the two posts I referenced earlier in this thread if you haven't already, just so that you know where I'm coming from.
To be honest, pinkxlotus, I'm not trying to argue with you about the ethics of eating meat. I'm simply pointing out that the logic behind your argument doesn't really hold up the way it's phrased, i.e., the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise.
The main problem I see is that you're essentially taking an ethical argument and trying to turn it into a logical argument, which I think ultimately hurts your point, especially considering the fact that the Buddha himself never equated the two things. I suggest checking out the two posts I referenced earlier in this thread if you haven't already for some of my past thoughts on this subject.
Okay. I'm just going to agree to disagree on this topic. I feel like we're just saying the same things again and again.
Think I read somewhere that the negative kamma of killing life is greater with larger animals, i.e. killing a cow is worse than killing a turkey. That would also apply to insects, I believe. Are we really going to try comparing the raising and slaughtering of livestock for the sole purpose of consumption to the insects that are incidentally killed by pesticides? We do have to survive somehow, and if it's between animals and fruits/vegetables, the choice is pretty obvious.
This is mentioned in the commentary to the Vinaya. See BMC1: 8.7.
Comments
Trust me, it won't be wasted.
but they won't buy one for me next time... and I think that's kind of the point...
That goes both ways, right?
I think it's IMPORTANT to state though that BIOLOGICAL MEAT-PRODUCTS are understated here. This is the worst meat-grinding-scenario if you ask me. I know for fact this is not how they treat animals on BIOLOGICAL farms. It's at least more humanistic, as opposed to this at times, sadistic looking process, some of these methods should simply be PROHIBITED.
I think if all of us chose to at least eat biological food when "not-vegetarian" (and thus not going for the cheapest meat), things would at least improve.
I will look into this more though, that's for sure.
I agree with you that your way is, at least, a whole lot better than supporting those big, meat industry, factory farms. Unfortunately most of the meat in popular restaurants and big grocery stores is from the bad source.
The practice of monks accepting what was offered them was one means of practicing non-attachment. Presumably it also prevented some bad behaviour or ugly scenes of monks complaining to their benefactors, dunno?
There are other ways to practice in an aware way with regards to buddhism. The karmapa not to long ago urged people to do some form of vegetarianism as a compassionate practice to accumulate merit or punya. He gave several options other than full force vegetarian including waving meat at holidays or just simply taking some time to contemplate the issue rather than being unaware.
It is your choice whether you eat meat or not. I don't think it is particularly meaningful to say someone is a lesser or greater buddhist for one or the other.
If I had to eat meat, I would go with only grass-fed beef. Not even organic, but grass-fed... there's a difference. Organic meat is corn fed, which is not what cows eat naturally. Grass-fed means they lived a largely natural life and communed among others of their species. Plus, its healthier meat. Its more expensive and I'd have to track it down somehow, but it would be worth it to me.
As far as poultry goes, I'd go with free-range organic.
Do your own research, but by and large I believe that as far as meat goes, this is about as cruelty-free as you can get.
If you can find a single farm or maybe just a few that you can do business with and meet the animals, etc. that's probably a best case scenario in my opinion.
Bueno, es como maravilloso lo que haces tu, oponendote a tu cultura asi. Se necesita un poco de valor para eso. Que te vaya bien, y que tu familia, (incluso los abuelos si hay
Paz!
jajaja, si, es MUY complicado hacer eso... Pero si uno esta convencido de lo que hace se pueden lograr cosas increibles. La razon por la que deje de ser vegano en su momento fue porque ya era demasiado complicado para mi hacer eso en este pais.
Incluso las reuniones familiares o de amigos, siempre es "a comer un asado", es muy complicado eso. Pero como dije antes, si uno se mantiene fiel a uno mismo se puede lograr sin tener que dejar de lado a mis amigos/familia
I'm vegan. I didn't become vegan because of any Buddhist-related ideas--I did it for the animal right's side--but I can really see where the ideas of Buddhism and veganism do connect.
Ahimsa
Well, since Buddhists have conflicting views on the issue, why consider the Buddhist standpoint? Let's consider the standpoint on evolutionary terms.
Are humans designed by nature to be meat-eaters at all? Do we have very sharp teeth for eating raw meat, claws or other natural weapons for attacking animals, speed or poison or something else to give us an advantage? As far as our bodies go, no.
You might say our brain, our intelligence, is our advantage. However, we were not always the architects of tools for hunting. Therefore we were originally vegetarians, and our evolving brain gave us the capacity to overpower other animals, kill them and burn their flesh.
Just because we can do a thing it does not follow that we must. Our brains also give us the capacity to create nuclear weapons. That is no more natural than anything else we've done with intelligence as a base.
"Meat eating in any form, in any manner, and in any place is unconditionaly and once and for all prohibited. I have not permitted meat eating to anyone"
The Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama
I don't believe for a second that The Buddha ate meat, and I really don't understand why so many Thai and Tibetan monks do so. It boggles my mind.
I don't think that non-vegeterian Buddhists are any less good than vegetarian ones, I really couldn't care less. However, the quotation I have provided seems quite clear to me.
"Do not kill, but rather preserve and cherish all life"
The Buddha, Siddhartha Guatama.
Sutta citations are encouraged for a reason.
"Whoever attributed the aforementioned quote to me is a giant douche." -The Buddha
See? ;]
"Generally," the Buddha didn't outright prohibit things to all people, period. ;] That false quote is ridiculous.
Oh great its you again, the rude person. I don't actually understand what you mean at all.
The first precept... 'do not kill'
eating animals = killing animals
I'll give you a hand here, your quote about meat is from the Lankavatara Sutra Chapter 8, which is from the Mahayana school of thought. http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-chapter-4.htm#chap8
Hope that helps evryone
Nios
I mean, please provide a sutta citation when you supposedly quote the Buddha?
Edit - Thank you, Nios. So, Stream, as not all Buddhists agree that those suttas are legitimate, and not all schools follow those suttas, that would be why your quote is not the "final word on what the Buddha said," although you're certainly entitled to your opinion.
I agree. Its not exactly rocket science is it?
Unfortunatly I don't have the location of the quote, its on the innards of my "Moby - Play" album, with a bunch of other quotes from religious leaders encouraging vegeterianism. Feel free to search it if your interested, I know Moby isn't the type of guy to just pull something out of thin air like that. It must have being said by him.
No it doesnt.
There is a huge difference between killing an animal and ordering some buffalo wings at your neighborhood pub.
eating meat is unethical for sure but it in no way ='s killing animals.
Unfortunately, this argument probably wouldn't hold up from a logical standpoint, i.e., the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise.
If one is eating meat, the animal itself has most likely been killed well prior to its order or purchase, unless, of course, it's something like oysters, fresh lobster, etc. It'd be more correct to say that eating meat = an animal has already been killed, assuming it's not still alive (e.g., oysters, fresh lobster, etc.).
For eating meat = killing animals to be true, the animal in question must either be alive while being eaten (as in the case of oysters) or alive immediately prior to being eaten or ordered (as in the case of fresh lobster).
However, the meat industry is driven by demand. Each of us who takes part in the purchasing of meat products is a part of the "fuel" for its continuation; our actions are a condition. It may not make _much_ of a difference if a single person wouldn't buy meat, but it certainly wouldn't be a contributing factor to any animal deaths or cruelty; you would be "blameless", and such is a great thing.
It's the same concept as voting. You've heard this one, right? People don't think their vote matters because one little vote won't be missed. Well, if enough people think that, a lot of votes go missing and it does indeed make a difference. If you don't think your vote counts, neither will you think what you do in regards to purchasing meat (and thereby helping drive the meat industry) matters at all.
I haven't been able to give up meat entirely yet as I'm still rather new to all of this, but my distaste for it grows with my deeper understanding of the Dhamma, and I'd much prefer to eat fruit and vegetables if I can. That's not to say I won't eat meat when that's what is offered; not even monks are meant to turn away meat, or else they may starve. But... when it comes to purchasing meat for consumption, it is a _choice_, and whatever consequence comes of that choice is your responsibility, no one else's.
The Dalai Lama eats meat. He stopped for a while but his health suffered. Ajahn Chah ate meat, Ajahn Sumedho eats meat.
The point being that unlike in some forms of Hindudharma, in Buddhadharma the eating of meat has always been a matter of individual choice. Vegetarianism has always been optional. The only exceptions are certain Chinese Schools where vegetarianism is expected.
Actually, I directly address many of those points in the two posts I referenced above in post #71:
I prefer to grow my own veg as much as possible. This way I can use my own methods of pest control, and I know what I am responsible for.
Nios.
Same here.
Amen!!
" Sadhu ! Sadhu ! Sadhu ! ".:)
i am a big fan of your signature.
"Unrest" might be an even better term for reality-at-large. Unsatisfactoriness/suffering is more mental dukkha on the part of humans.
So what does "sadhu" mean exactly?
Cool! (after a little research
Personally, I think it depends on the individual. I've known vegetarians and vegans who were very judgmental and clung to their eating habits in ways that were anything but compassionate and selflessness. I've also known omnivores who were quite compassionate and selfless. I think it's a mistake to paint any diverse group of people with a broad brush.
Thanks. You're about the only one.
"Excellent!" OR "It is well!" or something to that efect... (I think)
In order to eat meat, an animal must die. Is that not true???
When you eat meat, you are supporting the death of the animal.
No. There is not a huge difference. By ordering that dead animal to eat, you are promoting the death of animals.
It is supply and demand.
Palzang
I agree. The death of any animal is just as bad.
With respect, I'm a 24 year vegetarian in the heart of the BBQ belt, and it's really not as hard as all that. I've traveled the globe for business; there are rare times when I have difficulty finding something to eat. If I'm in a restaurant and there's nothing, I can string a few safe side-dishes together. I also plan ahead and make sure to have something in my luggage to supplement. It's nothing I worry about.
I've yet to have someone get insulted by my diet...threatened maybe, because they don't understand, but not insulted. I put them at ease pretty quickly when they see that I'm not "militant" about it.
Compared to when I started, (1986), it's actually quite easy to find good vegetarian food in the U.S. if you make any effort.
I got past the "people are going to think I'm weird" thing decades ago. I'm weird even without the veggiehead thing.
To be honest, pinkxlotus, I'm not trying to argue with you about the ethics of eating meat. I'm simply pointing out that the logic behind your argument doesn't really hold up the way it's phrased, i.e., the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise.
The main problem I see is that you're essentially taking an ethical argument and trying to turn it into a logical argument, which I think ultimately detracts from what you're trying to say, especially considering the fact that the Buddha himself never equated the two things. I suggest checking out the two posts I referenced earlier in this thread if you haven't already, just so that you know where I'm coming from.
Okay. I'm just going to agree to disagree on this topic. I feel like we're just saying the same things again and again.
This is mentioned in the commentary to the Vinaya. See BMC1: 8.7.