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.
Can a Buddhist eat beef?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Then people can post on these topics, to their hearts' content, and everybody has been warned. to go there - or not - at their peril.
Now, whether he/she chooses to do so based on adherence to some code or other is another matter.
PS: Just thought I'd try to lighten things up a little... Everybody (not just here) seems testy today. I think the earthquake and aftermath have everyone a little edgy.
If anybody can show me a place in the suttas that says that I can not reach nibbana because I buy and eat meat I will eat my shorts, uncooked after wearing them for a month.
By which time I will probably have to break the first precept in order to do so...
:wtf:
49 reasons to be vegetarian:
http://www.britishmeat.com/49.htm
"A lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison."
— AN 5.177
It is well worth mentioning also, though, that imo it is wiser to refrain from judging those who do eat meat. This is imo kinda like an alcoholic condemning a smoker for ruining their own health, since being critical of others can be a poison in its own right. This is coming from someone who has been a strict vegan for 12 years, and an aspiring vegetarian for three years before that. It is a process one must come to on their own, not something to be guilted or prodded into.
___________________________________
With regards to an official Buddhist position on this issue, the Mahayana sutras and Pali suttas, it seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong... my knowledge is limited in this matter), differ.
The Pali cannon does not forbid meat eating in general, and in one place to my knowledge, expressly defends meat eating insofar as not being as bad as killing or other wrong acts. At most, the Pali suttas do instruct that monks and nuns should refrain from eating meat except when it is not specially prepared for them, as I posted earlier in this thread.
At least a few Mahayanist sutras, however, expressly condemn meat eating entirely.
Again, I am not well enough versed in this to know for certain. Wikipedia seems to confirm this opinion, at least. I hope someone with more knowledge than I can enlighten us.
I apologise to anyone who has found my ant-meat rants a little over the top
Namaste
what about fishing? don't fish live however they want until fished?
maybe we should focus on being free from oil, stop polluting so much, recycling, and so on... instead of promoting a vegetarian diet for all.
OK i'm done now. Promise.
We didn't actually evolve from monkeys though we do share a whopping 98% of their DNA.
"A lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison."
— AN 5.177
Very good point.
:thumbsup:
Humor aside, I feel most of the other posts sum it up well. Be conscious of the industries / suffering you can be creating. Money is a very very powerful tool and it influences the outcome of many areas of life. By buying/consuming meat, be aware of what it's supporting.
That goes right from the top of the Diet Industry, right down to each other here and our own preferences.
All we can do is weigh the decision in our own minds and go from there.
We are saying "yes, this is good, please continue making this product at this price".
At the time, it was for me, a purely virtual sangha, but it provided much teaching, encouragement and support.
That was a suitable, appropriate and accurate thing for me to do. and I am certain was just as valid as actually sitting/kneeling in a temple and doing it.
AFAIK, there is nothing written anywhere that states refuge can only be taken in or at a temple.
Incidentally, I have also Taken Refuge in a temple. The Monks there told me that either way is completely acceptable and appropriate.
So I guess by using that same logic you do not eat carrots either?.
Because by buying carrots you encourage the farmers to kill millions of living beings when they farm the land. From field mice and worms down to bacteria. Not to mention millions of habitats destroyed and living creatures driven out of their homes, starved to death or plain killed in making the carrot field.
No way I am going to buy that. There is meat in the store because people are making an unskillfull living in the meat industry. Not because I buy dead meat.
Yes and when they stop I will buy some other food. But what says I can not reach nibbana because I by meat? point me to the sutta please?
But again where does it say that I can not reach nibbana because I buy and eat meat?
As I said before this is Stupid.
I do not care about the planet I want to reach Nibbana. Samsara continues on and on without my help. It has no beginning and no end. What do you think the Buddhas Dhamma is all about?
And if you are so concerned about how the meat industry treats animals you should bring it up with them and not buddhist intent on leaving the mess behind. Dont you think?
Regards
Victor
Oh, thanks Cloud. So the vow doesn't mean literally that you rely on sangha members for support and guidance. It's more a vow of committment to the path.
(I wish you'd posted this on my new Taking Refuge thread. oh well. Thx anyway.
Is taking refuge a requirement for being a Buddhist, or is it about one's internal commitment?
I came to find a lot more understanding for meat eaters once I really recognized and admitted that some people really do need to eat meat for health reasons (e.g. whether due to disease, general health, multiple food allergies, or simply their heredity). I still regard vegetarianism as an ideal to be approached, though, to whatever degree one is able and willing to, and I am glad my body can handle it completely without consequence.
First, there is a distinction between ecologically friendly (e.g. organic) farming and conventional farming. The former is more considerate of animal populations while the latter is not. For example, an organic farmer might dedicate a small patch of land to planting certain flowers that attract insects away from the crops, whereas a conventional farm typically resorts to spraying harmful insecticides to kill all insects.
Second, there is imo a difference between killing an animal and eating its meat and developing land that animals were using to hunt, gather, or live on. In the latter case, the animals still have a chance at survival (e.g. by moving elsewhere), and the intent is not to harm the animals but to plant crops.
You are right though in that even farming certainly causes suffering and death for animals, though in both intent and in the degree of that suffering there is a significant distinction. Of course, if you decided today to stop eating meat, the meat industry would not be phased. But it would cause a very minor decrease in the number of animal deaths per year since that's one less person creating a demand for meat.