Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Food

drewenstevenson11drewenstevenson11
edited December 2009 in Buddhism Basics
Ok, So the Buddha's last meal was some sort of pork dish. Why do some forms of buddhism strictly prohibit the consumption of meat? Zennists forbid beef, Milarepa wrote something about, 'ye who delight in sweet meats,' yet the Buddha's last meal was pork. Can someone explain this.

Thanks,
Andy

Comments

  • jinzangjinzang Veteran
    edited December 2009
    The earliest Buddhist monks were itinerant beggars and, according to the rule Buddha set down, accepted whatever was offered to them, meat or not. The word describing Buddha's last meal is obscure. Some commentaries translate it as pork, others as a kind of mushroom.

    Some Mahayana sutras, most notably the Lankavatara and Surangama Sutras, have Buddha forbidding meat. These sutras were held in great esteem in China, so traditions stemming from China dom't eat meat.
  • PietroPumokinPietroPumokin
    edited December 2009
    all prohibitions of meat are in concordance with the first precept to not take life. i don't know why there is so much difference between buddhists in eating meat. eating meat is the same as killing. the idea is not far from the action. by the various developments of thinking, different people have come to different conclusions, on the subject. i suppose that's why there's such a discrepancy.
  • DazzleDazzle
    edited December 2009
    Hi Andy,

    I recall reading somewhere that its uncertain whether it was pork or mushroom.

    This site about Buddhism and vegetarianism might be of interest to you.

    http://www.shabkar.org/


    Kind wishes,

    Dazzle
  • PalzangPalzang Veteran
    edited December 2009
    It is virtually impossible to eat anything without taking life. To harvest a field of rice thousands of sentient beings must die (assuming the rice isn't sentient).

    Palzang
  • shenpennangwashenpennangwa
    edited December 2009
    Pietro Pumokin wrote: »
    all prohibitions of meat are in concordance with the first precept to not take life. i don't know why there is so much difference between buddhists in eating meat. eating meat is the same as killing.

    eating meat and killing a sentient being are hugely different.
    eating meat is unethical and we shouldnt do it but there is no way we can argue that eating meat one bought at the store and killing are the same.
    they are completely different acts.
  • PietroPumokinPietroPumokin
    edited December 2009
    but they are linked into the same process. to make an analogy a theorist of fascism may not be murdering any jews, gypsies, non-aryans, etc, (to use an extreme example..) but his ideas are so to speak killing them. likewise by eating meat i am in some way complicit in the root act of killing the animal. by eating meat i implicitly may be condoning the slaughtering of animals, encouraging others to do so; i am cutting short the flow of compassion towards animals, i am reinforcing a tendency to eat meat in other future situations, et cetera, allowing the cycle of meat eating in all its manifestations to continue. i am not killing the animal directly but in a small way i am, from a distance. if the meat were the meat of a small animal, one that could only fill one person's stomach, then that animal had to die specifically for me. and we eat many meals, soon enough they begin to accumulate into an entire pig, or a whole cow.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited December 2009
    Oh here we go...
    The great 'Buddhists shouldn't eat meat' debate.....

    persona choices, personal consequences.
    Some Buddhists have come to the conclusion that meat-eating is not wrong, providing the meat has not been killed for you specifically (either by your direction or indirectly).
    Others debate and argue about what the Buddha's last meal was.
    As it happens, it's highly unlikely he died as a direct cause of poisoning.
    He more likely had an internal condition exacerbated by the meal.
    The Buddha did not die by food poisoning. Rather, it was the size of the meal, relatively too large for his already troubled digestive tract, that triggered the second attack of mesenteric infarction that brought an end to his life.
    (from the above link).

    So let's not begin swapping these inaccuracies in an effort to score points and declare one's self a 'better Buddhist' because we do/don't eat meat.

    Just a friendly cautionary request.

    Ok, carry on. ;)
  • LincLinc Site owner Detroit Moderator
    edited December 2009
    Pietro Pumokin wrote: »
    i don't know why there is so much difference between buddhists in eating meat.
    Probably because we don't all agree about the rest of what you said. :)
  • PietroPumokinPietroPumokin
    edited December 2009
    ha ha, but it is simple supply and demand!
    if eat is meaten, then that perpetuates the cycle of meat-eating, which is inherently tied together in with the cycle of animal-killing!
    am i wrong here? the devil's bells do not ring so softly without a tap on its glass.
    not all situations of meat-eating are necessarily wrong, some instances may certainly be absolutely innocent. but if one eats meat unecessarily, then one enjoys the fruit of the butcher's bloodied hands!
    isn't it?
  • acceptanceacceptance
    edited December 2009
    IMHO, I feel that it is totally a personal choice and completely up to you :)

    Do YOU want to eat meat? Is seafood and eggs meat to YOU? Is personally squishing a spider with your own hands the same to you as eating a cheeseburger? Where will YOU draw the line? Just take what you read and apply it to your belief system!

    A
  • shenpennangwashenpennangwa
    edited December 2009
    Pietro Pumokin wrote: »
    ha ha, but it is simple supply and demand!
    if eat is meaten, then that perpetuates the cycle of meat-eating, which is inherently tied together in with the cycle of animal-killing!
    am i wrong here? the devil's bells do not ring so softly without a tap on its glass.
    not all situations of meat-eating are necessarily wrong, some instances may certainly be absolutely innocent. but if one eats meat unecessarily, then one enjoys the fruit of the butcher's bloodied hands!
    isn't it?
    this is why meat eating is unethical. but it is not a definitive argument that killing and buying meat are the same (which they are not).
    A better argument is to use the one you gave as clear examples of the ethical responsibility of Mahayana Buddhists (ie those who have taken the bodhisattva vow) to protect the welfare of our father and mother sentient beings.
  • ValtielValtiel Veteran
    edited December 2009
    but they are linked into the same process.

    Eating anything is.
  • Quiet_witnessQuiet_witness Veteran
    edited December 2009
    This is something I have been meditaing greatly on recently and I am glad to see some discussion here.

    I agree with Pietro eating meat is enabling the slaughter and inhumane tratment of animals, but so is wearing leather products, using glue, etc. Additionally, as Palzang said but I'll use my own words, pretty much anything we eat, we are enabling (sometimes directly sometimes indirectly) the taking of a sentient being's life. What I have decided as of now is to eat meat sparingly (very sparingly) and only when it is offered. I will use my leather and other animal by-products but I will always try to find an alternative in my future purchases. Lastly, I will be aware of the sacrifice and suffering the animal made for my well-being and give them thanks in heart.
  • kicktotheheadkicktothehead
    edited December 2009
    Quiet_witness sounds like we have the same game plan moving forward.

    I have been contemplating this meat eating for some time. I was never a big red meat eater but I did eat chicken and pork quite often.
    However, last week at a relatives house for the holidays they had an enormous 10lb slab of beef. They cut it in half and roasted 5lbs.
    My stomach, for whatever reason, started turning just enough in looking at it and in an instant I truly could see clearly what it was I was looking at....for some reason I was no longer looking at an edible, good looking, slab of beef....I was looking at a large piece of a slaughtered animals flesh..It simply just hit me...Like someone taking a stick and whacking me in the head. Strange.
    So I chose to have salad and pasta and moved on.

    For several days after I didn't touch an ounce of meat.
    My wife made chicken 2 nights ago. I cut a small piece and put it in my salad.
    It tasted like death. I don't know how else to describe it. It was such a strange sensation or feeling.
    I have eaten chicken my entire life, I don't know what the heck happened at my relatives house but whatever it was it changed me.

    Funny story though as to how this all started....

    During the summer the family and I were at a family graduation. There happened to be a pig roast there. My 4 yr old looked at the roasted pig on the table but never asked a single question. It didn't phase her. I started to explain what it was but my wife quickly intervened and said comically "don't destroy the kid by telling her its real". lol...
    So I let it go...

    Well...my OTHER daughter who is 7 (going on 18, seriously) was off playing with some of the older cousins all day (9-12 yrs old or so) and I hardly saw her.

    On the ride home my 4 yr old asks in the car "Hey dad, how come they had a toy piggy there?"

    My eyes lit up and I started giggling to my wife...BUT Before I could answer my 7 yr old shouts this......

    "It's not a toy you goof, that was real. People used a shotting gun and shot it in the head and everyone gets to eat it"!!!!!

    My 4 yr olds response...<eyes watering="" and="" mouth="" curling="" with="" a="" sniff=""> ...(watering eyes and quivering lips and all)

    "that poor piggy was real"....

    My heart dropped....and from that point on I have always had it in the back of my head the following...

    What makes us better than them to give us the right to kill and eat them.....

    And for whatever reason the answer nailed me at the holiday party 2 weeks ago...</eyes>
  • Quiet_witnessQuiet_witness Veteran
    edited December 2009
    Tasting death is exactly how I would describe it, great post and excellent story. What is strange is like you I always ate meat and never really thought about it. Now, even my love affair with bacon has ended. It is harder on my girlfriend than on me as I cook most of the meals we eat together. What is most difficult for me is going out to lunch. Most of the quick options are mostly meat options.
  • kicktotheheadkicktothehead
    edited December 2009
    Hahaha oh boy bacon! Huge fan of bacon....until recently!
    There is an unopened package sitting on the shelf in my fridge...every time I look at it the flippin plastic oinks at me... :)
  • PietroPumokinPietroPumokin
    edited December 2009
    shenpen nangwa wrote: »
    this is why meat eating is unethical. but it is not a definitive argument that killing and buying meat are the same (which they are not).
    A better argument is to use the one you gave as clear examples of the ethical responsibility of Mahayana Buddhists (ie those who have taken the bodhisattva vow) to protect the welfare of our father and mother sentient beings.
    emotionally, that argument has more gravity, but logically the one i offered hasn't been refuted only denied. i don't care that much about proving that eating a bite of meat and killing an animal that provides it is the same thing as with actually proving that they are intrinsically interdependent activities that cannot exist without the other. it's important to look at the attitude underlying the action; my friends want to go hunting so they shoot and kill a deer and bring it back to the cabin for dinner: this makes me sad, how could i delight in and actually enjoy eating it when i know this was once a living being with pain and feelings and emotion that had to die because of my friends' greed?

    as you said quiet witness, being aware of "the sacrifice and suffering the animal made for my well-being and giv[ing] them thanks in heart" is a noble gesture, but specifically speaking i do not think animals offer themselves to us as sacrifices. it seems to me honoring their sacrifice and their suffering would be better made by not eating the meat, and not tacitly, or rather overtly acknowledging that deliberate slaughter of an animal is an ok thing to do.

    in the act of eating the deer's meat, even though i lamented the root action of killing the deer and making that meat possible, i retroactively approve of the deer's murder. it doesn't matter if killing and eating are the same action, but that does not exclude the fact that they are still very closely related.

    deliberate killing for food, too, is much different from unintentional, inevitable death that is a result of food production. that no matter what we do living beings die as a result of our food consumption, does not mean we should not discontinue our purposeful slaughter of living beings.
  • Quiet_witnessQuiet_witness Veteran
    edited December 2009
    I agree that animals do not offer themselves as sacrifice but they have made a sacrifice nonetheless and that is what I give thanks for.
  • ValtielValtiel Veteran
    edited December 2009
    deliberate killing for food, too, is much different from unintentional, inevitable death that is a result of food production. that no matter what we do living beings die as a result of our food consumption, does not mean we should not discontinue our purposeful slaughter of living beings.

    You're a rabbit in a field. A hunter shoots you for food. Or a tractor harvesting the crop runs over you or the farmer lays out traps because you'd eat the crops etc. etc. Do you have a preference? As the rabbit, do you see a difference? Your preference is only a result of your attachments.

    Just try to eat in ways that causes as little harm, directly or indirectly, as possible, whether you're eating meat or eating as a vegan.
    in the act of eating the deer's meat, even though i lamented the root action of killing the deer and making that meat possible, i retroactively approve of the deer's murder.

    Then you approve of all the murder and harm that allowed you to eat your vegan meal?
    my friends want to go hunting so they shoot and kill a deer and bring it back to the cabin for dinner: this makes me sad, how could i delight in and actually enjoy eating it when i know this was once a living being with pain and feelings and emotion that had to die because of my friends' greed?

    To be perfectly honest, that is probably one of the ways a person can cause as little harm and suffering as possible in order to surive. Less harm, in fact, than buying produce from the market. It would be nice if we could all grow our own crops to fully sustain us and provide all the nutrition we need year-round, but we can't. Soooo.....
    but specifically speaking i do not think animals offer themselves to us as sacrifices.

    Well of course they don't. No one here has been deluded enough to suggest that the animals people eat paint targets on their back and run around saying "shoot me!" Nor do the animals that die as a result of your choices run around saying "don't shoot me; spray my home with poison and trample me with your tractor instead so that someone can feel morally superior!" :wtf:
  • shenpennangwashenpennangwa
    edited December 2009
    Pietro Pumokin wrote: »
    emotionally, that argument has more gravity, but logically the one i offered hasn't been refuted only denied.
    i wish you were right.
    it would be much easier to convince Buddhists to stop eating meat if you were.
  • PietroPumokinPietroPumokin
    edited December 2009
    o0Mundus-Vult-Decipi0o wrote: »
    You're a rabbit in a field. A hunter shoots you for food. Or a tractor harvesting the crop runs over you or the farmer lays out traps because you'd eat the crops etc. etc. Do you have a preference? As the rabbit, do you see a difference? Your preference is only a result of your attachments.
    my preference is none of them, anything that a rabbit eats is negligible, i would assume. i can't prefer that a rabbit get's inadvertently torn up by the tractor, precisely because it is inadvertent. and in owning a tractor, it's not guaranteed that you will actually kill anything, even though it is most likely that some deaths might occur. as humans though, it's not impossible to devise methods and technologies where this can be avoided.
    Just try to eat in ways that causes as little harm, directly or indirectly, as possible, whether you're eating meat or eating as a vegan.
    yes, i agree, though i don't believe eating meat is consistent with that.
    Then you approve of all the murder and harm that allowed you to eat your vegan meal?
    well, there is first of all a difference between murder/slaughter and death that happens in the way of things. would i approve of it? i don't know, this is a rather complex issue, and i'm being pressed as if i am being accused of something. i simply know that intentionally harvesting animal's flesh and participating in the cycle and system that it is involved in does not seem to be a very good idea according to the first precept.

    To be perfectly honest, that is probably one of the ways a person can cause as little harm and suffering as possible in order to surive. Less harm, in fact, than buying produce from the market. It would be nice if we could all grow our own crops to fully sustain us and provide all the nutrition we need year-round, but we can't. Soooo.....
    it was only an example, and we are bordering into more complex social and political issues i think which is making things convoluted. it may be, but if you're out in an area where you can hunt for deer, i am sure there is also an equal amount of nuts and fruits and plants to live off of. besides i could equally say that it would be nice to say it would be nice if we could all shoot our own deer to sustain us and provide us with all the nutrients, but we can't according to the argument. hehe
    Well of course they don't. No one here has been deluded enough to suggest that the animals people eat paint targets on their back and run around saying "shoot me!" Nor do the animals that die as a result of your choices run around saying "don't shoot me; spray my home with poison and trample me with your tractor instead so that someone can feel morally superior!" :wtf:
    i don't know if you are saying i think i am morally superior or not, but i do not think that, that wouldn't be a very buddhist thing for me to do. even if i thought that it wouldn't really be me. like i said this is a complex issue, all i know is that it appears that blatantly killing animals for a source of food is the lesser option than heading in the vegetarian direction if one is to follow buddhist teachings.
    shenpen nagwa wrote:
    i wish you were right.
    it would be much easier to convince Buddhists to stop eating meat if you were.
    i still don't know why i am wrong, unless the points i have made are addressed and refuted in front of my eyes, then they still stand. unless i am mistaken that hasn't been done yet, which i might be. but then i'd have to be shown again.
  • ValtielValtiel Veteran
    edited December 2009
    anything that a rabbit eats is negligible

    :confused:
    i don't know, this is a rather complex issue, and i'm being pressed as if i am being accused of something.

    No, you were the one suggesting that anyone who eats meat is approving of murder.
    it was only an example, and we are bordering into more complex social and political issues i think which is making things convoluted.

    How does what I said have anything to do with social/political issues? :confused: It's a simple fact. Shooting a dear yourself and eating the meat is going to cause less harm than harvesting all the crops necessary to equal that much sustanence and nutrition (from spraying crops, traps for animals that would ruin said crops, animals killed during cultivation of said crops, transportation, etc.). No?
    it may be, but if you're out in an area where you can hunt for deer, i am sure there is also an equal amount of nuts and fruits and plants to live off of.

    In the middle of winter? What if you're unsure of what's safe to eat? What if you're not getting all the nutrients from what's available? Yeah, we can play this game forever. The point is that the issue isn't black and white as you're suggesting, so we're back to my original suggestion of just trying to be mindful of what you eat and cause little harm.
    besides i could equally say that it would be nice to say it would be nice if we could all shoot our own deer to sustain us and provide us with all the nutrients, but we can't according to the argument. hehe

    ...What? And what is your point...? Now you find killing our own food to be just as good an option as growing our own crops? Ok, but you said it, not me. :confused:
    it's not impossible to devise methods and technologies where this can be avoided.

    If you think it's possible for us to live without causing any death, then this conversation will not go anywhere.
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited December 2009
    For anyone that's interested, some of my past thoughts on this subject can be found here and here. But the short version is, more important than what you eat is how you eat.
  • PalzangPalzang Veteran
    edited December 2009
    Before we all get too sanctimonious about eating vegan, read this.

    Also this.

    Palzang
  • MaxHMaxH
    edited December 2009
    Life feeds on life. It is very difficult to get around this. Our bodies are sustenance for organisms as well.
  • AureliusAurelius
    edited December 2009
    Jason wrote: »
    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.


    This is the same stance I have. Non-harming is a great ideal but sadly one which shall never be perfected in this world. The best thing you can do is to bring awareness to your actions and try and limit their harmful effects. If after investigating this you are happy not to eat meat then that is fine. I am equally convinced that eating meat with sufficient reverence and appreciation for what you are doing is fine too.

    The worst thing we can do - imo - is to accept someone else's interpretation of the precepts without examining our own true feelings towards them.
  • Quiet_witnessQuiet_witness Veteran
    edited December 2009
    I just watched a documentary last night called Food, Inc.

    After that I don't think I can look at food again be it vegetables or animals. Can anyone say Soylent green.
  • PalzangPalzang Veteran
    edited December 2009
    Max H wrote: »
    Life feeds on life. It is very difficult to get around this. Our bodies are sustenance for organisms as well.

    Yup, it's all one big web of life/death. You can't get away from it. We all feed off each other (well, not people feeding off people, 'cept for the vampires and cannibals). You know how many pounds of microorganisms we tote around? It's scary. We've got a whole world living inside of us (and outside as well).

    mmmm, Soylent Green... You're right about Food Inc. Seeing how most of our so-called food is processed is enough to make anyone turn to a nettles-only diet!

    Palzang
  • sukhitasukhita
    edited December 2009
    We are involved directly or indirectly in the death of countless sentient beings. Sentient beings are killed in the cultivation of crops, transportation (ants, etc. being run over on the roads), harvesting marine resources, meat and poultry industry, poisons used in building materials to prevent termite damage, pesticides, .... the list is endless. Birth... death is an unavoidable fact of life.

    Is meat eating ethical or not for Buddhists? Approximately 2500 years after the Buddha walked the earth... we still do not have an answer... and we probably never will. Buddhists must make their own choices for themselves and not preach to others as to what is right or wrong in this regard.

    Personally, with the exception of fish, I am a vegan. This is a choice I am comfortable with. This started out of the blue when I just resolved not to eat meat, eggs, and milk harvested from animals kept in "captivity". I felt that these animals (especially dairy cows and egg laying chicken) endure too much suffering by the greedy industries. Again, as I said... these are just my personal choices.

    Just eat what you have to eat...
    Try convincing Eskimos to become vegans... :)
  • EvieSenCallaEvieSenCalla
    edited December 2009
    Hi all.
    I am quite new to this forum as far as posts, but I have been lurking for quite a while. I like it here :).
    This is the first thing I've read since feeling comfortable enough with the content to post that I felt the need to address (as lots of people have, in many conversations about this subject). I am a vegan. I do not think you are evil if you are not.
    My reasons for being vegan are solely to avoid causing as much suffering as humanly possible, but I am not ignorant of the process. I realize that quite a few things have lost their lives for me to eat my salad and hummus. The reason I avoid animal products is industry. I'll spare the details, as I'm sure many of you already know a bit about slaughterhouse "etiquette". I cannot allow myself to condone such a thing. This is the way I look at it. My husband, however, does eat meat. My family eats meat. In face, I am one of the few people I am ever around that does not. If there is some (insert meat product here) in the fridge, obvious that it is going to go bad and be wasted, I've been known to eat it. Wait, what? I'm a vegan, right? Thing is, I feel worse about it having died for nothing just spoiling in the fridge. Does this make me a bad vegan? Does this make me a bad Buddhist? I don't think so.
    My point is, I eat as I do because I feel that it is the best way that I have found to cause as little suffering as possible. I am not there when most of my food is being harvested. I do not know for a fact what happened, who died, who lived, who suffered. I take my best guess, and go with that. And I feel that anyone who does that, regardless of what they think to be the right thing to eat, is doing exactly as they should.


    Sorry for my run-on paragraph, didn't intend for it to be that long! Thanks you guys for listening, I hope I'm not out of bounds for posting on such a tender subject as a newbie!

    -Christi
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited December 2009
    EvieSenCalla wrote: »
    Hi all.
    I am quite new to this forum as far as posts, but I have been lurking for quite a while. I like it here :).

    Welcome to the forum, Christi. :)
    My reasons for being vegan are solely to avoid causing as much suffering as humanly possible, but I am not ignorant of the process. I realize that quite a few things have lost their lives for me to eat my salad and hummus. The reason I avoid animal products is industry. I'll spare the details, as I'm sure many of you already know a bit about slaughterhouse "etiquette". I cannot allow myself to condone such a thing. This is the way I look at it.

    It's a perfectly understandable position to take. In fact, that's more or less the gist of the two posts I referenced above.
    Sorry for my run-on paragraph, didn't intend for it to be that long! Thanks you guys for listening, I hope I'm not out of bounds for posting on such a tender subject as a newbie!

    No worries. If you think that's bad, you should read half of what I write! And you're certainly not out of bounds. Feel free to speak your mind about any subject. All thoughtful replies are appreciated, and even some not-too-thoughtful ones too. As one of our admins put it:
    [O]ur position in moderating the site is that no one can curse at other people, attack people, or generally be jerks. Beyond that, it's up to you all to set whatever tone you are comfortable with.
  • PalzangPalzang Veteran
    edited December 2009
    I think Christi and Sukhita have it right. You have to make your own decision on this. Like Christi says, try convincing an Eskimo to be a vegan! Or a Mongolian for that matter. They have a saying, "Plants are for animals, meat is for men." And they eat accordingly. As one Minister of the government put it (in classically diplomatic style), "Mongolia is entirely self-sufficient in vegetables."

    From a purely nutritional point of view, to eat vegetarian is much healthier, and it generally is better for the earth (no methane belching cows). But whatever you choose, as Trungpa Rinpoche used to say, "Don't make a big production of it." Just do it.

    Palzang
  • PietroPumokinPietroPumokin
    edited December 2009
    o0Mundus-Vult-Decipi0o wrote: »
    :confused:
    :)
    i'm just a farmhand and a minstrel. did i not put fences around the garden and pet the rabbit when it dug too close?

    No, you were the one suggesting that anyone who eats meat is approving of murder.
    your bold letters accuse me of a murder! ha ha ha ha ha ha
    who approves of murder? only the vegetarian one that ate the deer approved of the murder, not all meat-eating is a murderer's greedy mind, but like i keep saying, they are distant, though unaware "murderers", and thus innocent. whence reasoning becomes in harmony, there is no murderer and there never was a murderer.

    How does what I said have anything to do with social/political issues? :confused: It's a simple fact. Shooting a dear yourself and eating the meat is going to cause less harm than harvesting all the crops necessary to equal that much sustanence and nutrition (from spraying crops, traps for animals that would ruin said crops, animals killed during cultivation of said crops, transportation, etc.). No?
    yes, but shooting a deer to feed a few people and cultivating a farm to feed hundreds or thousands is different. killing a deer could certainly be a better thing to do if you were to understand the utilitarianism involved, such and such, but this is only a hypothetical carrying into muddy dust that's staining our shoes.
    In the middle of winter? What if you're unsure of what's safe to eat? What if you're not getting all the nutrients from what's available? Yeah, we can play this game forever. The point is that the issue isn't black and white as you're suggesting, so we're back to my original suggestion of just trying to be mindful of what you eat and cause little harm.
    cause little harm or as little as you're able to? yes, do what's mindful
    ...What? And what is your point...? Now you find killing our own food to be just as good an option as growing our own crops? Ok, but you said it, not me. :confused:
    hehe
    If you think it's possible for us to live without causing any death, then this conversation will not go anywhere.
    isnt that what nirvana is.... in all the ten directions?
  • ValtielValtiel Veteran
    edited December 2009
    isnt that what nirvana is.... in all the ten directions?

    Nibbana is living without causing any direct or indirect, intentional or unintentional death? What? :confused:
  • KundoKundo Sydney, Australia Veteran
    edited December 2009
    Max H wrote: »
    Life feeds on life. It is very difficult to get around this. Our bodies are sustenance for organisms as well.

    This sums up my stance as well.

    Respectfully,
    Raven
Sign In or Register to comment.