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.
Dear ThailandTom, I would like to think that it is all right to try out all type of dishes, be it alligator or snake meat but I am not so sure about human meat. What makes you think it is all right? I tend to think in line with NOTaGangsta. Sampling human meat does not sound like a good idea.
Dear NOTaGangsta, I tend to agree with you. Even if it is not an indulgence, it still does not seem wise.
Well what makes it any different from any other meat... What makes a species different from another species. We are only superior with our intellect, apart from that we are just another form of species on this planet. It is only an ideology that we have created that makes it wrong. I would not go out of my way to do such a thing, but if I was proposed the opportunity, I would do so..
Thats cool homes... The Buddha never forced anyone to do anything, he just keeping it real and tells it like it is "for your own good". All FORCING got left with Prophet Muhammed.
that's not cool. I have a feeling that won't go down to well.... Not like human meat, I bet that goes down like a treat But on a serious note, I think it is important to respect all religions as they in themselves are pure and have the ability to help people and turn negativity into positivity. It is people who taint religion
I think if you have the ability to be Vegetarian, wherever you're living, you kind of have an obligation to, or at least to only consume meat that has been taken from animals treated properly in their lives. Like jenzay brought up, factory farming is literally the most harmful industry that this planet has ever seen, so actively contributing to the demand for meat that has been taken from mistreated animals (increasing suffering), in the meanwhile increasing pollution (increasing suffering in the future in different ways). I would think that participating in this is probably some bad karma.
On another note, it is important for the vegetarians out there to note that many 'free-range' eggs are still from mistreated chickens. Because the USDA actually holds a very minimum standard for what constitutes 'free-range', chickens that qualify for this type of egg are often cramped into dark pens, unable to do much moving at all.
I heard that free range eggs are worse in the sense that they have the potential to be born into chickens because they results from fertilsation with the rooster. Where as caged eggs have not been inseminated by the rooster's sperm...
Dear ThailandTom, Perhaps the difference is when it comes to human meat, the closest kin will know about a person eating someone they love and I am sure that is not going to generate good feelings. This is of course, just an idea.
Between people and religion, which one do you think needs to be respected?
Dear NOTaGangsta, Someone may do the forcing but a person does not have to take what is coming.
Dear kataz, Everyone must have the ability to be a vegetarian. It is not that one will die without meat. As for obligation, maybe it is the ruling powers that should have this obligation first.
footiam, I woudl only try human meat on the conditions that they person died of huamn nature and natural causes, that it was cooked to how I would like it and I would have permission from loved ones...
Well footiam, it is important to remember that there ARE certain places where nutrition is not readily available, so meat must be eaten (I think the Mongolians were a good example, being herders they have little access to nutrition in a non-meat form). It is even possible the Buddha was thinking of this when he declined vegetarianism as a must! I'm not gonna begrudge someone a burger when the only other food they have access to is, say, a blade of grass :P
“The chief law-inspector in Hung-chou asked, ‘Is it correct to eat meat and drink wine?’ The Patriarch (Ma-tsu) replied, ‘If you eat meat and drink wine, that is your happiness. If you do not, it is your blessing.’”
In some things I've read about about Buddhism they say it's recommended but not absolutely necessary. Personally, I'm a vegetarian because I think the unnecessary killing of animals is cruel (the conditions of where they keep the animals in some places is disgusting) and I would never support that kind of industry. But really, it's your decision. Do what you think is right.
yes after I died I would give permission if somebody wanted to eat a part of me. However, I would not let them at my organs as hey may be valuable to people who need them, if they are in working order. What do I care if somebody eats part of me, I am dead...
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Thats cool homes... The Buddha never forced anyone to do anything, he just keeping it real and tells it like it is "for your own good". All FORCING got left with Prophet Muhammed.
That's an irresponsible, argumentative and judgemental comment. Avoid making such remarks please.
Dear ThailandTom, The people who are gone may not mind but the people who are around may not especially if they love and care about you.
Dear NOTaGangsta, Eating is not the issue, I suppose. The mind is.
Dear sukhita, Thanks again. She is a Buddhist then. Just the other day, I saw some kind of celebrations in a Chinese temple dedicated to her. I heard its her birthday and if I am not mistaken, there is a special prayer being carried out there for the tsunami victims in Japan.
Zidangus would like to discuss vegetarianism. So here is a necro thread:
Zidangus said in a thread that was locked because vegetarianism has already been discussed:
When the Buddha was alive, there was not the huge choice of food that is available today. It is clear that the issue of killing animals for food was one which he gave a lot of thought to. It's also clear that his teachings extend compassion to all sentient beings, including those destined for the butcher. But in some sutras he did not require his followers to be vegetarians, and rejected such a requirement when suggested by his cousin (and, later, rival) Devadatta. In fact, Buddha's last meal could have been wild boar meat, given him by Cunda the smith. Tough I should say that others believe it was mushrooms.
On the issue of vegetarianism the Buddhist sutras are contradictory, and different schools have different attitudes toward it depending on the sutras they believe authoritative. Or, given how we get attached to our food choices, maybe they have just chosen which sutras they believe authoritative depending on their attitudes towards vegetarianism, and I admit I am guilty of this picking and choosing what suits me myself with regards to some sutras.
There are some Buddhists who seem to ignore the issue completely. I mean some Buddhist such as the Dali Lama and the Shunryu Suzuki, who praise vegetarianism while continuing to eat meat themselves :scratch: , and then there are Zen temples which have elevated shojin ryori to an art. Hui Neng, is supposed to have lived with hunters during his exile, but would destroy their traps and gather vegetables to eat. On the other hand some Vajrayana Buddhists believe it's more important to chant mantras or dedicate their merit to the souls of slaughtered animals, than to actually refrain from killing them.
So what does this all actually mean ? Were the early Buddhists happy to eat animal flesh, as long as someone else accumulated the bad karma of doing the killing? In the past this is how things were done in Japan, with the burakumin, getting stuck doing work like butchering. Side note here, the discrimination against the descendants of these people still continues today in Japan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burakumin
So if we take Buddha's words to be true in the sutras which say it's ok to eat meat, then why did Buddha take the stance he did on this issue ?
I mean the precept against taking the lives of animals is there for all to see. It applied to monks and lay followers. So if everyone followed the Buddha's teachings, there would be no slaughter houses, no butchers, no meat to eat. The world would be a vegetarian world. Also, take into account that early Buddhist monks lived with a different economic system than todays. They were not allowed to use money and went begging for their food, basically they were teaching to the local community in return for food, clothing, etc etc. This behaviour goes all the way back to the time the Buddha spent under the Bo tree, when children brought him food and he would teach them in return.
Anyway the monks were expected to accept whatever was offered to them, but were not allowed to accept offerings of meat from animals that had been killed specifically for them. Even the suspicion that this was the case, was enough to reject the meat. When a monk eat meat it was not an endorsement of the act of killing the animal, because the monk or nun taught the lay person the precept against the taking of life. Maybe if the Buddha made his monks accept only vegetarian food, the message of compassion would be less likely to get to those who did not have vegetarian food to offer. By allowing, (but not forcing I should add) his monks to accept meat, maybe the Buddha thought this would allow his teaching to spread to more laypeople.
I should also say that a lot of monks did not like the idea that lay people should practice vegetarianism. After the Buddha's death, this was one of the issues that lead to the split between the Theravada and Mahayana schools, that is would Buddhism be a practice predominantly for monastic practice, or could lay people participate fully too. When Devadatta proposed that the monks should be allowed to accept only vegetarian food, it was because he wanted greater separation between monks and laypeople. Maybe Buddha rejected this and his other proposals because he wanted to affirm that Buddhism was inclusive to all, and not because he wanted to endorse eating meat.
Well it seems that the Buddha was pragmatic, recognizing that the monks didn't have a choice over what they ate. Otherwise, the word would have to go out to all in the community that they'd have to prepare special food just for the monks, while the householders ate their meat dishes. That might have resulted in people being more reluctant to make offerings to the monks, if they had to cook special food for them. IDK Anyway, I think the Buddha was being sensible.
So the result is now, that the teachings are open to interpretation, and people can pick what they want from them to suit their preference, I guess. :-/
I didn't know vegetarianism was one of the issues that contributed to the schism. That last part, about the Buddha possibly wanting the dharma to be inclusive and welcoming of all is interesting, thanks for that, z.
Let's go with this thread, now that it's been revived. Stick with us, ok, z? I liked the way it was shaping up, with you and TiaP and CW. Thanks, Jeffrey
Jeffrey, z has moved to a different thread. It only has 3 pages instead of 4, I guess he preferred that. IDK. But we're on the "veggie or vegan" thread now.
Dear Jeffrey, Thanks for the information. That there is another thread about this subject shows that we are all very concerned about what we eat. Maybe we should put as much effort in keeping the basic precepts of Buddhism.
Dear Dakini, Maybe a religion should be like that, flexible to meet our needs. And since everyone is moving to another thread, bye!
Giving up meat (for me) was quite hard but then I thought of myself farming people and slaughtering and eating them, and their hard lives before death.
That made me realize that doing the same to animals is just as bad.
I have to admit that I'm not very scientific about my diet, but I try to put enough tofu, nuts, and beans (for protein) as well as dark green vegetables (for iron) and broccoli (for calcium) in my diet, and to eat with enough variety. It should be relatively easy to find good sources of information on how to ensure that a vegetarian diet contains all you need.
Dear maarten , If we get too scientific over everything, things perhaps couldn't be done. Maybe, an atomic bomb will not even be invented if you see what it can do to the environment. As it is, in ancient time, there are already vegetarians and I suppose they live a healthy life. It is strange now to think that herbivores can live on plants alone.
We should not forget that vegetarianism was an important issue during Buddha's time. Devadatta wanted to replace Buddha, so he came out with stricter rules to show that he was better than Buddha. One of the rules was strictly no meat for monks. It was rejected by Buddha because monks are supposed to eat whatever food offered by laypeople. This issue caused a schism in the sangha.
I heard that free range eggs are worse in the sense that they have the potential to be born into chickens because they results from fertilsation with the rooster. Where as caged eggs have not been inseminated by the rooster's sperm...
I haven't been involved in this thread (personally I feel the subject gets tiresome), but I just say this bumped and decided to read a bit, and would like to address this.
I'm not sure who told you that, but it's pretty much a load of bull. The eggs you find are the market are not, and never were, potential chickens. Eggs sold for human consumption are always unfertilized eggs.
Oh, and "free range" just means they have to be let out of their cage for five minutes per day.
Dear jll, That's probably because vegetarianism is very important in India. Many Hindus are vegetarians and would you think that Buddhism borrowed this from the Hindus?
Thanks StaticToybox, But I would think if people eat chicken, it does not matter if the eggs are fertilised or not.
Whether Hinduism follows Buddhism or vice versa is subject to endless debates.
Dear jll, That's probably because vegetarianism is very important in India. Many Hindus are vegetarians and would you think that Buddhism borrowed this from the Hindus?
Thanks StaticToybox, But I would think if people eat chicken, it does not matter if the eggs are fertilised or not.
I've been trained as a chef before. Worked as a line cook. So I am actually pretty desensitized to chopping up dead animals for people to eat. I don't like doing it though, so I buy meat already chopped up now. But I don't mind it, especially for my own family who has always loved having meat at least in one course. It's all a matter of someones culture.
I grew up so many years admiring chefs and admiring food of all sorts, whether it was vegetarian food or if it was a philly cheese steak (I love that sandwich). I feel food is love, whether it has meat or not.
It all comes down to ones personal culture when it comes to what type of food people eat. Humans have been hunters, and cooks from the start of civilization. So I see no problem with it as long as everything is sustainable. No killing whales or stuff like that.
I'm also a body builder. To maintain my muscles I have to eat a whole lot of protein. Meat is the easiest place to get that, beans work too, but I just aim for balance.
Some monks eat "three cleans meat" 1, didn't see the animal killing 2, didn't hear the sound from animal killing 3, The meat was not killed by himself/herself
Mahayana forbids monks eating meat, some followers don't eat meat in Buddhism festivals, or don't eat meat at all.
Tibetan and Mongolian are in special natural conditions.
Dear jll, In the end, it is not important – this who is copying who thing. It is more important that one is copying something that is worth copying. Didn’t Buddha say: To accept truth wherever you see it.
Dear tamster, Some people are just born vegetarians.
Dear StaticToybox, Some people get misinformed.
Dear Mr Serenity, Eating meat is not as bad as doing the actual killing of the animals. Chopping animals that are already dead perhaps is not as abhor able too.
Dear zlzl, Eating meat for Buddhists should be okay then. Just that they are clean.
A complete reading of Genesis 9, with God's covenant with all flesh, both humans and animals, as well as the begrudging line, "Fear and dread of you will be in all the animals …" paints a very clear picture of a God who is horrified by human violence and exploitation. It is hardly humanity's finest hour when we find animals living in fear and dread of us. Who of us has not seen a dog or a cat who has been abused and cowers in fear of any human contact? Is this what we aspire to with cows, pigs, chickens, and other animals? Of course not.
In Genesis 9, God makes a covenant "between [God] and [humans], and every kind of living creature." It is important to recall that by the time of the flood, God had come to realize that human hearts are "set on evil from childhood" (Genesis 8), and it is in the context of evil that God allows both eating animals and slavery in Genesis 9 (it is interesting to read the congressional debate between 1820-1865, in which one finds U.S. senators and representatives utilizing Genesis 9 to justify slavery as a part of God's plan). There are a host of stipulations about how to treat slaves and how to treat animals, but both are allowed, perhaps because by allowing them, God can then make them less vile by creating laws to temper human cruelty.
In the instance of eating animals, God recognizes that people will eat animals (violence has already taken over the Earth) but admonishes that "you shall not eat flesh with its life.
The main criteria is that the animal was not killed for the monk.
Some monks eat "three cleans meat" 1, didn't see the animal killing 2, didn't hear the sound from animal killing 3, The meat was not killed by himself/herself
Mahayana forbids monks eating meat, some followers don't eat meat in Buddhism festivals, or don't eat meat at all.
Tibetan and Mongolian are in special natural conditions.
Philosophers & Scholars on Vegetarian and Vegan Elite of the World Rabindranath Tagore - Bengali poet, Brahmo philosopher, visual artist, playwright, composer, and novelist; 1913 Nobel Laureate in Literature Albert Schweitzer - German theologian, musician, philosopher, and physician; 1952 Nobel Laureate in Peace Confucius - Chinese saint and philosopher Lao Tzu - Chinese saint and philosopher Voltaire - French Enlightenment writer and philosopher Peter Singer - Australian humanist and philosopher Alan Watts - British philosopher and comparative religion writer Muhyi-Ddin Ibn Arabi - Spanish Islamic scholar, Sufi master and philosopher Muhammad Al-Ghazali - Iranian Islamic scholar and Sufi saint Hafiz B.A Masri - British-Indian Imam (scholar who knows the Koran in its entirety), Shah Jehan Mosque, Britain Nianzu Huang - Chinese professor and Buddhist practitioner Steven Rosen (Satyaraja Dasa) - American Hinduism scholar and writer Maria Szyszkowska - Polish philosopher, politician and activist Elie Wiesel - Hungarian novelist, philosopher, humanitarian, political activist, and Holocaust survivor; 1986 Nobel Laureate in Peace Sir Isaac Newton - British physicist, mathematician, astronomer, alchemist, inventor, and natural philosopher; father of physics Jane Goodall - British primatologist, ethologist and anthropologist Diogenes - Greek philosopher and cosmologist Plato - Greek saint and philosopher Pythagoras - Greek mathematician and philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson - American author, poet and philosopher Socrates - Greek saint and philosopher St. Francis of Assisi - Italian Christian saint, founder of the Franciscan order Yogi Maharishi Mahesh - Indian writer, philosopher, leader of Transcendental Meditation Henry Salt - British artist, diplomat and Egyptologist John Wesley - British clergyman and Christian theologian Plotinus - Egyptian Neoplatonism founder Origen - Egyptian scholar and Christian theologian Schopenhauer - German philosopher Martin Luther - German theologian, Augustinian monk and ecclesiastical reformer Chanakya Pandit - Indian philosopher and the minister of King Chandra Gupta Porphyry - Syrian Neoplatonic philosopher Serge Raynaud de la Ferriere - French scholar, founder of Universal Great Brotherhood Emanuel Swedenborg - Swedish scientist, philosopher and mystic Edmond Bordeaux Szekely - Hungarian philosopher, philologist and spiritual writer Lucius Annaeus Seneca - Roman philosopher, politician and dramatist Giordano Bruno - Italian philosopher Martinetti Piero - Italian philosopher Plinio Caio Secondo - Roman officer and scholar Tito Lucrezio Caro - Roman poet and philosopher Aldo Capitini - Italian philosopher and writer Maria Montessori - Italian educator and physician Stephen Clark - British philosophy professor Colin McGinn - British philosopher Ci-Mei Wang - Chinese operatic scholar Chuang Tzu - Ancient Chinese philosopher and spiritual practitioner Helmut F. Kaplan - Austrian philosopher, author and animal rights activist Simon Chau - Hong Kong professor and natural living activist Jim Mason - American author, lecturer and environmentalist Tom Regan - American professor of philosophy and writer on animal rights
what about if you need to eat meat occasionally for health reasons? I took vegan suppliments, and ate a hugely varied vegan diet (and tried reverting only to veggie) before realising I need to eat a few portions of meat a week. It is difficult to obtain some nutrients from vegetables, fungi and grains alone, I can honestly say I have never felt physically healthier than eating the range of food I do now, including around 3-5 portions of meat a week.
before I used to be anaemic and tired, even with suppliments and extra sources of iron and other vitamins.
Comments
I would like to think that it is all right to try out all type of dishes, be it alligator or snake meat but I am not so sure about human meat. What makes you think it is all right? I tend to think in line with NOTaGangsta. Sampling human meat does not sound like a good idea.
Dear NOTaGangsta,
I tend to agree with you. Even if it is not an indulgence, it still does not seem wise.
On another note, it is important for the vegetarians out there to note that many 'free-range' eggs are still from mistreated chickens. Because the USDA actually holds a very minimum standard for what constitutes 'free-range', chickens that qualify for this type of egg are often cramped into dark pens, unable to do much moving at all.
Happy day to all!
Perhaps the difference is when it comes to human meat, the closest kin will know about a person eating someone they love and I am sure that is not going to generate good feelings. This is of course, just an idea.
Between people and religion, which one do you think needs to be respected?
Dear NOTaGangsta,
Someone may do the forcing but a person does not have to take what is coming.
Dear kataz,
Everyone must have the ability to be a vegetarian. It is not that one will die without meat. As for obligation, maybe it is the ruling powers that should have this obligation first.
Would you give permission to someone to eat you?
Dear kataz,
Yes. There is no reason to begrudge anyone at all. You can't live for others.
Dear sukhita,
Thanks for this piece about Ma-Tzu. Is she a Buddhist?
Dear AbbeyRoad,
If it is recommended, it ought to be good?
Avoid making such remarks please.
The people who are gone may not mind but the people who are around may not especially if they love and care about you.
Dear NOTaGangsta,
Eating is not the issue, I suppose. The mind is.
Dear sukhita,
Thanks again. She is a Buddhist then. Just the other day, I saw some kind of celebrations in a Chinese temple dedicated to her. I heard its her birthday and if I am not mistaken, there is a special prayer being carried out there for the tsunami victims in Japan.
Dear federica,
Maybe so.
Zidangus said in a thread that was locked because vegetarianism has already been discussed:
When the Buddha was alive, there was not the huge choice of food that is available today. It is clear that the issue of killing animals for food was one which he gave a lot of thought to. It's also clear that his teachings extend compassion to all sentient beings, including those destined for the butcher. But in some sutras he did not require his followers to be vegetarians, and rejected such a requirement when suggested by his cousin (and, later, rival) Devadatta. In fact, Buddha's last meal could have been wild boar meat, given him by Cunda the smith. Tough I should say that others believe it was mushrooms.
On the issue of vegetarianism the Buddhist sutras are contradictory, and different schools have different attitudes toward it depending on the sutras they believe authoritative. Or, given how we get attached to our food choices, maybe they have just chosen which sutras they believe authoritative depending on their attitudes towards vegetarianism, and I admit I am guilty of this picking and choosing what suits me myself with regards to some sutras.
There are some Buddhists who seem to ignore the issue completely. I mean some Buddhist such as the Dali Lama and the Shunryu Suzuki, who praise vegetarianism while continuing to eat meat themselves :scratch: , and then there are Zen temples which have elevated shojin ryori to an art. Hui Neng, is supposed to have lived with hunters during his exile, but would destroy their traps and gather vegetables to eat. On the other hand some Vajrayana Buddhists believe it's more important to chant mantras or dedicate their merit to the souls of slaughtered animals, than to actually refrain from killing them.
So what does this all actually mean ? Were the early Buddhists happy to eat animal flesh, as long as someone else accumulated the bad karma of doing the killing? In the past this is how things were done in Japan, with the burakumin, getting stuck doing work like butchering. Side note here, the discrimination against the descendants of these people still continues today in Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burakumin
So if we take Buddha's words to be true in the sutras which say it's ok to eat meat, then why did Buddha take the stance he did on this issue ?
I mean the precept against taking the lives of animals is there for all to see. It applied to monks and lay followers. So if everyone followed the Buddha's teachings, there would be no slaughter houses, no butchers, no meat to eat. The world would be a vegetarian world. Also, take into account that early Buddhist monks lived with a different economic system than todays. They were not allowed to use money and went begging for their food, basically they were teaching to the local community in return for food, clothing, etc etc. This behaviour goes all the way back to the time the Buddha spent under the Bo tree, when children brought him food and he would teach them in return.
Anyway the monks were expected to accept whatever was offered to them, but were not allowed to accept offerings of meat from animals that had been killed specifically for them. Even the suspicion that this was the case, was enough to reject the meat. When a monk eat meat it was not an endorsement of the act of killing the animal, because the monk or nun taught the lay person the precept against the taking of life. Maybe if the Buddha made his monks accept only vegetarian food, the message of compassion would be less likely to get to those who did not have vegetarian food to offer. By allowing, (but not forcing I should add) his monks to accept meat, maybe the Buddha thought this would allow his teaching to spread to more laypeople.
I should also say that a lot of monks did not like the idea that lay people should practice vegetarianism. After the Buddha's death, this was one of the issues that lead to the split between the Theravada and Mahayana schools, that is would Buddhism be a practice predominantly for monastic practice, or could lay people participate fully too. When Devadatta proposed that the monks should be allowed to accept only vegetarian food, it was because he wanted greater separation between monks and laypeople.
Maybe Buddha rejected this and his other proposals because he wanted to affirm that Buddhism was inclusive to all, and not because he wanted to endorse eating meat.
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/686/buddhism.-vegetarian-or-vegan#Item_114
Maybe posting in that one would be better idea, or this could be closed :rolleyes:
So the result is now, that the teachings are open to interpretation, and people can pick what they want from them to suit their preference, I guess. :-/
I didn't know vegetarianism was one of the issues that contributed to the schism. That last part, about the Buddha possibly wanting the dharma to be inclusive and welcoming of all is interesting, thanks for that, z.
Let's go with this thread, now that it's been revived. Stick with us, ok, z? I liked the way it was shaping up, with you and TiaP and CW. Thanks, Jeffrey
Everyone here is the other thread:
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/686/buddhism.-vegetarian-or-vegan#Item_114
Thanks for the information. That there is another thread about this subject shows that we are all very concerned about what we eat. Maybe we should put as much effort in keeping the basic precepts of Buddhism.
Dear Dakini,
Maybe a religion should be like that, flexible to meet our needs. And since everyone is moving to another thread, bye!
Would that make your diet imbalanced?
That made me realize that doing the same to animals is just as bad.
I have to admit that I'm not very scientific about my diet, but I try to put enough tofu, nuts, and beans (for protein) as well as dark green vegetables (for iron) and broccoli (for calcium) in my diet, and to eat with enough variety. It should be relatively easy to find good sources of information on how to ensure that a vegetarian diet contains all you need.
Best regards
Maarten
In a way, we are all animals.
Dear maarten ,
If we get too scientific over everything, things perhaps couldn't be done. Maybe, an atomic bomb will not even be invented if you see what it can do to the environment. As it is, in ancient time, there are already vegetarians and I suppose they live a healthy life. It is strange now to think that herbivores can live on plants alone.
One of the rules was strictly no meat for monks.
It was rejected by Buddha because monks are supposed to eat whatever food offered by laypeople. This issue caused a schism in the sangha.
I'm not sure who told you that, but it's pretty much a load of bull. The eggs you find are the market are not, and never were, potential chickens. Eggs sold for human consumption are always unfertilized eggs.
Oh, and "free range" just means they have to be let out of their cage for five minutes per day.
That's probably because vegetarianism is very important in India. Many Hindus are vegetarians and would you think that Buddhism borrowed this from the Hindus?
Thanks StaticToybox,
But I would think if people eat chicken, it does not matter if the eggs are fertilised or not.
It just fits in with my basic feeling about not taking another sentient being's life to benefit my own.
I grew up so many years admiring chefs and admiring food of all sorts, whether it was vegetarian food or if it was a philly cheese steak (I love that sandwich). I feel food is love, whether it has meat or not.
It all comes down to ones personal culture when it comes to what type of food people eat. Humans have been hunters, and cooks from the start of civilization. So I see no problem with it as long as everything is sustainable. No killing whales or stuff like that.
I'm also a body builder. To maintain my muscles I have to eat a whole lot of protein. Meat is the easiest place to get that, beans work too, but I just aim for balance.
1, didn't see the animal killing
2, didn't hear the sound from animal killing
3, The meat was not killed by himself/herself
Mahayana forbids monks eating meat, some followers don't eat meat in Buddhism festivals, or don't eat meat at all.
Tibetan and Mongolian are in special natural conditions.
In the end, it is not important – this who is copying who thing. It is more important that one is copying something that is worth copying. Didn’t Buddha say: To accept truth wherever you see it.
Dear tamster,
Some people are just born vegetarians.
Dear StaticToybox,
Some people get misinformed.
Dear Mr Serenity,
Eating meat is not as bad as doing the actual killing of the animals. Chopping animals that are already dead perhaps is not as abhor able too.
Dear zlzl,
Eating meat for Buddhists should be okay then. Just that they are clean.
In Genesis 9, God makes a covenant "between [God] and [humans], and every kind of living creature." It is important to recall that by the time of the flood, God had come to realize that human hearts are "set on evil from childhood" (Genesis 8), and it is in the context of evil that God allows both eating animals and slavery in Genesis 9 (it is interesting to read the congressional debate between 1820-1865, in which one finds U.S. senators and representatives utilizing Genesis 9 to justify slavery as a part of God's plan). There are a host of stipulations about how to treat slaves and how to treat animals, but both are allowed, perhaps because by allowing them, God can then make them less vile by creating laws to temper human cruelty.
In the instance of eating animals, God recognizes that people will eat animals (violence has already taken over the Earth) but admonishes that "you shall not eat flesh with its life.
Rabindranath Tagore - Bengali poet, Brahmo philosopher, visual artist, playwright, composer, and novelist; 1913 Nobel Laureate in Literature
Albert Schweitzer - German theologian, musician, philosopher, and physician; 1952 Nobel Laureate in Peace
Confucius - Chinese saint and philosopher
Lao Tzu - Chinese saint and philosopher
Voltaire - French Enlightenment writer and philosopher
Peter Singer - Australian humanist and philosopher
Alan Watts - British philosopher and comparative religion writer
Muhyi-Ddin Ibn Arabi - Spanish Islamic scholar, Sufi master and philosopher
Muhammad Al-Ghazali - Iranian Islamic scholar and Sufi saint
Hafiz B.A Masri - British-Indian Imam (scholar who knows the Koran in its entirety), Shah Jehan Mosque, Britain
Nianzu Huang - Chinese professor and Buddhist practitioner
Steven Rosen (Satyaraja Dasa) - American Hinduism scholar and writer
Maria Szyszkowska - Polish philosopher, politician and activist
Elie Wiesel - Hungarian novelist, philosopher, humanitarian, political activist, and Holocaust survivor; 1986 Nobel Laureate in Peace
Sir Isaac Newton - British physicist, mathematician, astronomer, alchemist, inventor, and natural philosopher; father of physics
Jane Goodall - British primatologist, ethologist and anthropologist
Diogenes - Greek philosopher and cosmologist
Plato - Greek saint and philosopher
Pythagoras - Greek mathematician and philosopher
Ralph Waldo Emerson - American author, poet and philosopher
Socrates - Greek saint and philosopher
St. Francis of Assisi - Italian Christian saint, founder of the Franciscan order
Yogi Maharishi Mahesh - Indian writer, philosopher, leader of Transcendental Meditation
Henry Salt - British artist, diplomat and Egyptologist
John Wesley - British clergyman and Christian theologian
Plotinus - Egyptian Neoplatonism founder
Origen - Egyptian scholar and Christian theologian
Schopenhauer - German philosopher
Martin Luther - German theologian, Augustinian monk and ecclesiastical reformer
Chanakya Pandit - Indian philosopher and the minister of King Chandra Gupta
Porphyry - Syrian Neoplatonic philosopher
Serge Raynaud de la Ferriere - French scholar, founder of Universal Great Brotherhood
Emanuel Swedenborg - Swedish scientist, philosopher and mystic
Edmond Bordeaux Szekely - Hungarian philosopher, philologist and spiritual writer
Lucius Annaeus Seneca - Roman philosopher, politician and dramatist
Giordano Bruno - Italian philosopher
Martinetti Piero - Italian philosopher
Plinio Caio Secondo - Roman officer and scholar
Tito Lucrezio Caro - Roman poet and philosopher
Aldo Capitini - Italian philosopher and writer
Maria Montessori - Italian educator and physician
Stephen Clark - British philosophy professor
Colin McGinn - British philosopher
Ci-Mei Wang - Chinese operatic scholar
Chuang Tzu - Ancient Chinese philosopher and spiritual practitioner
Helmut F. Kaplan - Austrian philosopher, author and animal rights activist
Simon Chau - Hong Kong professor and natural living activist
Jim Mason - American author, lecturer and environmentalist
Tom Regan - American professor of philosophy and writer on animal rights
If God is horrified by human violence and exploitation, you’d think that he would put a stop to it, wouldn’t you?
Human hearts most probably are "set on evil from the day he was created. It is not a perfect creation. Some of man’s creation are not perfect too.
And one probably doesn’t have to be a great man to be a vegetarian.
Dear robot,
I like it but don’t have to believe in it.
Dear jll,
It wouldn’t be good if the animals is killed for nobody.
before I used to be anaemic and tired, even with suppliments and extra sources of iron and other vitamins.
By all means eat all the meat you want for the sake of your health. The issue is not to take life unnecessarily.
Dear LeonBasin,
Keep on working! It's a good exercise.