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.
How can BUDDHISTS not be VEGETARIAN?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
ANIMAL IN THERAVADA BUDDHISM
http://src.ac.th/web/index.<wbr>php?option=cont...ask=view&id=<wbr>626
They used to put me (Sixth Patriarch Master Hui Neng) to watch their nets, but whenever I found living creatures therein I set them free. At meal times I put vegetables in the pan in which they cooked their meat. Some of them questioned me, and I explained to them that I would eat the vegetables only, after they had been cooked with the meat.
How does simply asking a question about what the Buddha would approve of equal a "hate filled rant"?
One could call it melodramatic, but that does not mean it does not happen.
I don't think that the president of The Humane Society would feel the need to testify before congress about animal cruelty, if that were actually the case across the board.
I would agree that this is true for some places but not for all places where animals are slaughtered. But, most people go to the regular supermarket and at the supermarket, how do you know that that meat did not come from a animal that was abused horribly during it's life? You really can't.
Personally, I think that what the Buddha said regarding the eating of meat is mostly irrelevant today. The Buddha never witnessed how animals are being treated in some places today.
All the best,
Jellybean
All the best,
Jellybean
......... and a curse. We are condemned to choice and cannot escape it.
I really don't see this as an isssue to being a Buddhist; as surely it will be sorted out eventually in the course of learning during our lives cycles.
There is some science behind vegetables tasting bad to some mouths. I suggest trying to roast them with some bread crumbs and see if it helps. Unless you were just making an excuse, then boo on you
With warmth,
Matt
Thanks for the suggestion Matt, which I will try out. Yes it's boo on me as I am pretty attached to my steak and chops at the moment, but hey, an excuse is just a postponement to an act, unlike a justification which is more likely to be a never never event.:)
On topic to aMatt how do you get the bread crumbs to stick? flour wash then egg wash? Do you fry or sautee the vegetables (sautee you could then next add a little water to steam)...
After I cut up the intended vegetables I toss them with a small amount of olive oil. My favorite is broccoli, with a finely minced clove of garlic and panko breadcrumbs. (pre-toast the crumbs for 4 minutes or so, then broccoli for 7 minutes at 350) Though peppers, squash, zucchini, pea pods are all wondrous. A bit of ground ginger can also help accent the sweetness and avoid that snappy bitterness... whisk it with the olive oil first though or it might clump.
Happy veggie eating,
Matt
All the best
Jellybean
Why does this proposition disturb most?
Because most would agree that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals.
And what do we mean by “unnecessary”? We mean that it is wrong to inflict suffering or death on animals merely because it gives us pleasure or we find it amusing. Simon is inflicting unnecessary suffering and death on the dog; he is torturing an animal for no reason other than his pleasure and amusement.
In truth, the actions of Simon are morally non-different from those of anyone who eats meat, dairy, or eggs?
What is the only justification that we have to inflict pain, suffering, and death on 50 billion sentient nonhumans?
The answer: we enjoy the taste of animal products. We derive pleasure from using animals even though there is no necessity involved.
We Are All Simon.
The other thing being that there is a great deal of law forbidding and punishing wanton, needless and inhuman cruelty to animals - INCLUDING those destined for the meat market.
And finally - the question of eating meat is a personal choice - even amongst Buddhists. (Did you know for example, that Tibetan and Nepalese Buddhists must eat meat in order to ensure a balanced diet, such is the scarcity of a fully-rounded diet there? And the way they slaughter their animals would be condemned here in Europe....)
Furthermore, extreme, sensationalist and unnecessary comparisons such as yours actually do nothing to either enhance, or promote your position, one jot.
"You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
but it's individual choice, for which there is no damnation.
State your case, by all means, but stop beating people round the head.
Opinions differ, and that's fine.
Anything else?
All the best,
Jellybean
come on now, lets at least keep this thread somewhat respectful and free from name calling.
Would you like it Love'N'Peace if other members of this forum would reply to your posts by calling you names like this?
Elric is not promoting racism or anything, only expressing his/her disgust for animal suffering, the way she/he sees it.
Regardless of what that member have to say, we should all try to stay respectful and open minded.
All the best,
Jellybean
I didn't read his post as referring to our Simon specifically. I think he was just using a generic name for a general example. He could have just as well used Bill, or George, or Sue.
bwahaha... You know, I looked back a bit to see if you had said something that would justify your presence in the story. I guess there is more than one Simon in the world. Strange...
All the best,
Jellybean
Heh, that's why I am just a Matt. Although I admit to once thinking I was THE Matt.
With warmth,
(a)Matt
All the best,
Jellybean
Reminds me of the story of the two Englishmen on holiday in Germany before the First World War. Sitting drinking their beer at an open air cafe on Unter Den Linden, one says to the other: "The Emperor really is a bloody fool." Overheard by a policeman, they are arrested. They protest that the Kaiser is not the only emperor in the world, to which the policeman replies: "Very true, but he is the only one who really is a bloody fool."
With love from the only member here who advertises his name as 'Simon'.
A huge issue in our world is deforestation. With deforestation comes the destruction of entire ecosystems, animals are becoming extinct daily largely impart due to unnatural deforestation caused by mankind so that we can wipe our butts, have our hamburgers and fries (and don't forget to upsize it), live in houses, etc...
Here are just some of the reasons why mankind contributes to mass deforestation:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xWfSSaQKW1sJ:www.saveourearth.co.uk/soe_rainf.php%3Fid%3D2+deforestation+macdonalds&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a
So Elrick... unless you live naked in the woods and live off of nuts and berries then you are by your own logic just as culpable for the deaths of animals the world over as any one of us... It's easy to single out the meat eaters but there is much more to the reality of this issue than the directly obvious.
Definitely not true. You argue<layer id="google-toolbar-hilite-38" style="background-color: Dodgerblue; color: black;"></layer> that culpability is equal across the board regardless of how one lives. If that were the case, then even living naked in the woods and living off of nuts and berries would not make any difference, which is obviously not true.
ElricK may not have great prowess in composing an argument, I agree. But to claim that culpability is equal across the board, regardless of how one lives, is simply illogical.
The first promise of these five is that ' I promise not to kill any living being. ' This indicates that the primary quality a Buddhist should possess is non-violence. The Buddha denounced all forms of violence. The Buddha asked loving-kindness to be extended not only to men, but even to all animals.
To become vegetarian is to step into the stream which leads to nirvana.
--The Buddha
Wilbur burst into tears. "I don't want to die," he moaned. "I want to stay alive, right here in my comfortable manure pile with all my friends. I want to breathe the beautiful air and lie in the beautiful sun."
E.B. White (Charlotte's Web)
As for equal culpability... perhaps not but I doubt there are many who can claim that there lifestyle does not in some way impact the lives of animals whether directly or indirectly...
I sit in my living room typing on my computer and I look around at that which can conceivably be called "mine" (no-self aside)... The house, my clothes, furniture, my car in the driveway, etc...
Then i look beyond just what i have in my home but look at each item and how it actually got there, the vehicles that transported it and the material abstracted from nature to create them, the warehouses that they were shipped to and the materials that were abstracted from nature to create them, the stores that i purchased said items in and the materials that were abstracted from nature to create them...
Then look even deeper, at all the people involved in said transportation, warehouses, stores and the homes that they "possess" and the materials abstracted from nature that created it all... If not for my (and societies) need to consume such items then said warehouses, stores, transportation methods (ships, cars, transfer trucks, trains, plains) might not exist (or perhaps just not in such numbers) and people would not possess all the "stuff" they "possess" and all those animals may not have needed to die so we could live so comfortably...
If we just ate nuts and berries and wore no clothes... what sentient beings would die?
Perhaps if all the meat eaters stopped eating meat, maybe all the animals that only ate nuts and berries who now can't find any food to eat because us humans have taken it all for ourselves... then what... they would die of starvation in large numbers as well... Not just from depleted resources due to our consumption but from more deforestation caused by increased land area needed for agriculture...
For those against the eating of meat what do you suggest would be the ultimate scenario? Take into consideration that our planet now has a human population of 6 billion + ...
"Abstaining from taking life." Householders Sutta; http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.179.than.html
Elric, to promise not to take life would be an impossible promise to keep. As has been pointed out, almost every part of our mordern daily lives involves the killing of santient beings, be-it accidental, on purpose, or through ignorance. Almost all forms of transport involve killing insects and sometimes animals. Almost all forms of farming involve killing insects and animals. Many products we use might have once been a home for animals, or the land on which the factory was built. The list goes on and on. I'm not saying not eating meat is good. I prefer not eating meat myself, but I am realistic in realising that many many santient beings are killed so I can continue to live. Even the vegetables I eat have blood on them.
These kind of scare-mongering and over-the-top tear-jerking stories you come up with are, well, over the top. As I said in another thread, I grew up in rural england surrounded by farms. My friends parents used to take part in the anual slaughter of rabbits and other "vermin" to keep the farmers vegetables and wheats from being eaten. The same vegetables that end up on our dinner plates.
There are "better" ways to live, of course, but lets not kid ourselves. We need to be realistic. This is why Buddha taught us to "abstain". Abstain means to refrain from by choice. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abstain He did not teach us to promise not to kill.
Nios.
Did the Buddha ever "convert" anyone? I thought, from my limited reading and listening, that he offered a way out of suffering and that, in some cases, one or more of those around him, either by his words or by his silence, "woke up". Did he ask anyone to promise anything, other than, possibly, the ordained?
On the matter of group culpability, I know it is a sore point with many. Nevertheless, if I take seriously, either as factual or as metaphor, the notions of karma and rebirth, have 'I' not been a murderer, a philanthropist, gay, straight, male, female, slave and free? Even as metaphor, I can find the 'seeds' of all of these in me, traces of all the good and all the evil that we, as a race, have done and achieved.
Having said that, what is the point of feeling guilty? Isn't just another way of massaging and strengthening the ego?
Totally agree. It's not possible to have no impact. However your posts make is seem like there are only 2 options, either "impact" or "no impact". When there is actually varying degrees of impact which are dependent on ones actions. Ahimsa means living in a manner that has the least impact with regards to creating suffering as is practical because it is simply not possible to be alive and have no impact. Obviously, someone who lives in the middle of nowhere and their only source of food is animals, giving up meat would not be practical because they would die of starvation. However, for someone that shops in huge supermarket with 1000 choices, one could argue that it is.
The insects that you accidentally step on and kill as you are walking through the forest collecting nuts and berries would be some of them.:)
We really do need to distinguish between the moderation of the Buddha's teachings and the extremism of Jainism Of course, there will always be those for whom moderation is not enough, which explains why Mahavira's precepts are still followed. It is, however, not Buddhism (as I understand it).
The world population is btw 6700000000, or 6.7 billion. Your ideas, Elric, are idealistic; a nice thought but unacheivable. Sorry, it's Life :winkc:
All the best,
Jellybean
A biologist once estimated that whenever you take a step in a meadow, you step on seven spiders. And of course, you're stepping many other types of wee beasties as well. Not even the Jains are able entirely to avoid killing.
Of course 7 billions people will not change their habits in an eye blink.
perhaps 4-5 billions of them eat meat regularly.
if only 10% of those would eventually change their habit, it would make a big difference.
Eating a vegan diet is possible for many.
even desirable for many health wise.
Once a movement gain some momentum, progress can come.
just like the green movement.
All the best,
Jellybean
Quoting a freakin' pig from a fictional (well, duh?) children's book in a cheap attempt to emotionally manipulate your audience isn't very good debate style, either.
He/she asked what beings would be killed by eating nuts and berries and insects is the correct answer, yes? Of course it is extreme to never walk in the forest because you might kill some bugs. Which is why I don't personally worry about walking in the forest. But in the context of this thread about meat, picking vegetables over meat at the supermarket, some people consider that to be extreme. I don't think it even comes close.:)
I agree. :-) However, the situation with some people goes like this. When they find out that their actions are supporting the creation of suffering and killing, there is a natural tendency to not want to contribute to it, which arises from compassion of course. For example: I know that if I go to the local supermarket and buy a piece of meat, I know that suffering and killing had to take place in order for that piece of meat the be in the supermarket to begin with, because no sentient being enjoys being killed. So the intentional act of purchasing that meat becomes equivalent and synonymous to intentional support for the killing, which, because it is intentional support for killing, is a violation of the precept of no killing and creates karma.
One could argue that one is not supporting the killing of animals by buying that piece of meat but that is not really realistic if there are other choices besides meat. The meat is there because there is a demand for it and by buying it one is contributing to the demand for it thereby intentionally contributing to the killing, if the existence of the meat to begin with equals suffering and killing. The contribution is minuscule yes, but it is a contribution nonetheless.
Also, for people who see it this way, the act of not changing their behavior becomes an intentional act because the natural compassionate response is to change it to alleviate suffering and when one does not change that behavior, that also becomes an intentional act, which violates the precepts and creates karma. Does any of that make sense? LOL