The Question of Vegetarianism

[sri_lion]

You are wrong here bro, this is not the most common way of thinking. Instead its just the opposite. The most common way of thinking is 'ok since this animal is not killed for me its ok to eat it.' Most buddhist I meet think like that. So I think that is the most common way of thinking. But maybe most people you meet think the other way around...

I think there's no point arguing about this because, its just a matter of individual perception!

Anyway thats not our discussion.

I cannot agree with this, There's nothing to assume here, whether he assume or not, he will kill for others, Only if others are willing to buy that from himAnd he will continue to kill as long as there is the demand.

And clearly this is not what might have happened. what happend was that man always knew meat was something good to eat. Early man was a hunter. But it came to a time where killing is not neccessary. Buddha saw that killing is bad, and discouraged any activity related to it. To survive man does not need meat.
Buddha pointed this with one of his simplest teachings, pansil.

I think you are going a bit out of scope here... I'm in no way protecting the hunters or whoever that does kill according to what Buddhism says completing the 5 pre-requisites for a SIN.. those are SINNERS!!

My point here how can you be held responsible for eating dead meat? in pansil it says "Pana athi sthun nomarami" that is a pledge that you making to yourself, again comes back to those 5 criteria and if you full fill them personally you are sinned.... and everyone of us pledge it and someone decide to break it... and then the result is dead meat... how can another to blame for it?

Ok you say my scenario is not good enough... but how can you deny that this is not what might have happened? Human must have tried meat personally and then he decides to sell or exchange for something else! He does it because of his greed for money.. the person who takes it, takes for food.. but the killer always HAD a chance not to kill that animal...

I hope you are getting what I'm trying to say here!

But to the man, or buddhist who could not understand this and who has eaten meat and just couldnt get himself to get rid of that habit of eating dead animals(probably because they are tasty) had to justify his actions. So that's why people bring up all this things about "buddha never said eating meet was bad " " Buddha ate some sort of a food made from meat(Sukara Maggawa) before he died" and all.

Then why did Buddha himself ate meat?

Why do people eat meat? Ofcourse they are tasty.. that's why... there's simply no other alternative to it... that's why even vegetarian food trying to mimic the taste!

I eat chicken too for the same reason, but if anyday I see there's no more chicken out on the shelf.. I have no problem being a veg... because for me its just another source of food... its dead meat... for that person who kills for me.. well... he has a choice not to kill!! I'm still securing my "Paanathi Paatha", and he is not... though he has the power to do so!
So at the end of the day I buy the most tastiest food that I can find, why would I settle for anything less? unless ofcourse I don't have it there!

Let me point out some facts.

(1) In pansil first sil is "I will not kill others"
(2) In 'Arya ashtangika margaya' If we think about 'Samma Ajeewa'
buddha points out,
5 jobs that should not be done, and in this
1. Do not sell meat.
2. Do not sell animals/slaves ( I cant remember exaclty bro)
(3) Buddha always says wish others well ( 'Mithree')

And I may bring up some other points later when I remember... Anyway my point is buddha being wise and all saying all this never excpeted a buddhist will ever think that he said eating meet is ok.

How can you wish 'mithree' to all the animals and then eat it? What is the logic in that.

That comes down to the capability of your own mind! As for me personally.... I love animals, I dont get the feeling of a walking roasted chicken when I see a live one.... neither do I get the feeling of killing that animal and eating it on the spot!! infact I would never kill one myself ever..... I'm just eating a carcass!!

So I can love any animal.. and I do too... NO PROBLEM there!!!

Say for example, those people whom voluntary work for SPCA, are they all vegetarians? but they show maithree to animals than ordinary people st any given time.. for free!

Machan I have thought these things over and over through many years.I have raise my questions discussed with many wise poeple. I have come to the logical conclusion that, budhhist just try to justify whatever bad thing they do. Thinking logically I cannot think that buddha would ever encourage a killing in anyway. But people who want to justify what they do just make reasons. such as something illogical as eating meat is ok.

So do I!!

just foget buddhism, or what buddha said, just think out of box. If anyone had ever watched "Faces of Death" he would never eat meat again. Religion or no religion, how can one bear a poor animal being killed, taken the right to live away as if we have the right. Who are we? If eating meat is essential for us to live, I would be the first one to say its ok. But its not. And its wrong.

Well no matter what you watch it comes down to you.. this I think you said it yourself.... you think it should begin with the person who consume.. I think it should begin with the killer himself!

That's why I asked you where, those five conditions are from, To me either its a contradiction in buddha said or I did not understand what it is.

Those 5 are from Buddhism itself, I suggest you try to find them before you making such comments because I'm absolutely certain about it!

Again I disagree, In fact this is a point with no logic at all in my opinion. But if I'm wrong forgive me. Are you suggesting that people who do the killing should just stop? That's never gonna happen. The easiest way is that people who eat meat if they understand its wrong stopping it. Or if they dont understand thats also ok. What you do is for you, not for anyone else. But dont just justify your selves in front of the alter of buddhism. Coz its nothing in buddhism, its just you.

Then how does people in North and South pole survive? they must eat high fat meat! they must drink high fat milk to survive in those cold climates.. So that person cannot be a Buddhist? Ofcourse he can....

What do you think bro? Maybe I'm wrong but that's why I' m here for. To learn what I dont know and be a better person.

I think you are a better person already, maybe you are bit too sensitive on this matter... we can go on arguing about this.. but my 2 cents are whatever you do... DON'T KILL, but encouraging is NOT killing because the killer is the first person to get sinned so he has a choice to make and he can always make the right one..

 

[kalyanamithra]

Namo Buddhaya!
Pinath mithurani,

It's strange to see this discussion dragging on for months...

Please do not go beyond the definition given for Prana gatha by our Sasthurun wahanse: Samma sambuddha gautama. All percepts are well defined; there's nothing missing in them for us to add...

It is not a sin to eat meat; as long as
1. you have not seen the animal was killed for you
2. you have not heard that the animal was killed for you
3. you have no reason to suspect that the animal was killed for you

Please see "siha senadhipathi sutta" if you have any doubt....

It's a sin to kill animals; or get another to kill the animal. But it's not a sin for you to eat meat bought from a shop (if already killed) - why? it's NOT killed for you... The person killing you could not have know at the time of killing that you'd be buying the meat (so you have no reason to suspect that it was killed for you)...

It's not correct to think about supply and demand and logically infer buying meat is a sin...
Please note that the Truth cannot be realized merely by logical reasoning ('akara parivithakka')...

That person has killed assuming someone would by it; so he sins; and the sin is not shared with anyone else.
Suppose you order fresh meat and get a person do the killing. Then you are part of it; and the sin is shared with you...

A more subtle case: suppose you order meat from a shop which always has meat for sale. For some reason the shop is out of stock; the shop keeper kills an animal without your knowledge, a thing which you never imagined he would do; and serves you... Then you do not get the sin...

The percepts have been laid to help us control our actions so that we can follow the Path without getting detoured... Please have shraddha on that... Another thing: we should not just stop at Pancha sila - there's a long way to go...

Choosing to eat meat or not is a personal preference... We should only make sure that we never kill an animal; or persuade another to do so...
If we opt not to eat meat: we should never think high of us because of it; and we should never think of it as part of our sila...

I have another question to those trying to applying logical (=> avijjasahagatha! ) arguments on Dhamma:
"There are lot of small creatures (e.g. ants) on our pavements ; and we know that. Are we causing pranagatha because of walking without being on the lookout for them?" See how futile trying to infer things using 'our avijjasahagatha reasoning power'?

Let's stick to what preached by Sammasambuddha gautama... let's try to follow the Path...

Theruwan saranai!

 

[kalyanamithra]

DON'T KILL, but encouraging is NOT killing because the killer is the first person to get sinned so he has a choice to make and he can always make the right one..

Pinwath mithura,

I think I agree with you
True, encouraging is not killing; but you sin by encouraging (if it's direct).
But I got your point; the word "encouraging" may not be suited to explain the above situation...
Bohoma pin obata...

Pinwath mithurani,

Following is something I am not clear about; I have not come across this in Dhamma...
But I think following things are correct.. please let me know if not...

Buying meat from a shop is not an encouragement for killing...
iff you are careful in the way you interact with the butcher (or seller)...

You'd probably get involved if you request/say followings to him (probably if he would kill himself or order killing on behalf of you)
e.g.
can I have this kind of meat next day?
why you do not have this kind of meat these days?
can you deliver me this much of this & this meat every month?
I would be buying if you always provide me at this price...

Again: you may not sin that way if your seller just buys from another..

This is vague... So, I think (I may be wrong; because I haven't seen this in Dhamma) if buying meat;
it's best not to interact in above manner with the seller... perhaps it's best not to have the seller personalize what he sells for you...

What do you think?
I do not have access to "Nirmansha Prashnaya" pinwath kiribathgoda gnanananda swamin wahanse; please let me know if this concern is explained differently there...

Theruwan saranai!

 

[Bhavana]

Dear friends, eating meat or not eating meat is only a personal opinion. PLS don't argue on Dhamma.. Dhamma, it's Athakkavacara..

So try to understand what is the dukkha, try to eradicate thanha.. try to achieve the Bliss of Nibbana... try to develop the Magga, the ariya attangika magga.. it is the way..

but arguments on dhamma is not the way of understanding Dhamma...

Whether you are a vegetarian or not, you have to face death, decay, pain, sorrow, lamentation and all other stresses in life. So try get rid of dukkha..

PLS Don't argue

Read this sutta.. If you are real Buddhist you will stop this argument..

 

[kalyanamithra]

Dear friends, eating meat or not eating meat is only a personal opinion. PLS don't argue on Dhamma.. Dhamma, it's Athakkavacara..

So try to understand what is the dukkha, try to eradicate thanha.. try to achieve the Bliss of Nibbana... try to develop the Magga, the ariya attangika magga.. it is the way..

but arguments on dhamma is not the way of understanding Dhamma...

Whether you are a vegetarian or not, you have to face death, decay, pain, sorrow, lamentation and all other stresses in life. So try get rid of dukkha..

PLS Don't argue

Read this sutta.. If you are real Buddhist you will stop this argument..

Bohoma pin obata

Theruwan saranai!

 

[alagakkonara]

Dear friends, eating meat or not eating meat is only a personal opinion. PLS don't argue on Dhamma.. Dhamma, it's Athakkavacara..

So try to understand what is the dukkha, try to eradicate thanha.. try to achieve the Bliss of Nibbana... try to develop the Magga, the ariya attangika magga.. it is the way..

but arguments on dhamma is not the way of understanding Dhamma...

Whether you are a vegetarian or not, you have to face death, decay, pain, sorrow, lamentation and all other stresses in life. So try get rid of dukkha..

PLS Don't argue

Read this sutta.. If you are real Buddhist you will stop this argument..

First of all I'm not a real buddhist. I do not understand what a real buddhist is. In my opinion there arent a group called buddhists. But there are people who follow what buddha pointed out. For an example I know a muslim who is a vegetarian, and who to the best of my knoweledge at least do pansil(With out knowing of course). In my opinion he is a person who follows what buddha pointed out in his own, and I must say a if you want to divide in to a group called 'buddhists' he is a better buddhist than many people I know who call them selves buddhists.

Budhha said "eva balava' saying come and look at my dhamma, So I'm looking at it. And I will argue if neccessary to understand things better. In my understanding arguments on dhamma is a one way of understanding dhamma.
Thats why buhhda said in "maha mangala sutra' 'Kalena dhamma sakachcha'

These arguments or I'd prefer conversations are 'Kalena dhamma sakachcha'.

 

[geeth333]

First of all I'm not a real buddhist. I do not understand what a real buddhist is. In my opinion there arent a group called buddhists. But there are people who follow what buddha pointed out. For an example I know a muslim who is a vegetarian, and who to the best of my knoweledge at least do pansil(With out knowing of course). In my opinion he is a person who follows what buddha pointed out in his own, and I must say a if you want to divide in to a group called 'buddhists' he is a better buddhist than many people I know who call them selves buddhists.

Budhha said "eva balava' saying come and look at my dhamma, So I'm looking at it. And I will argue if neccessary to understand things better. In my understanding arguments on dhamma is a one way of understanding dhamma.
Thats why buhhda said in "maha mangala sutra' 'Kalena dhamma sakachcha'

These arguments or I'd prefer conversations are 'Kalena dhamma sakachcha'.

You are completely wrong in this manner.
Because Dhamma never can be understand using arguments..

Buddha has explained it with the word Atakkawacara..

If you say that you can understand the Dhamma by using argument, that dhmma is not Buddha's Dhamma.. Buddha's Dhamma is Atakkawacara... It must be realized by practicing.

Dhamma does not depend On personal opinions,

 

[alagakkonara]

Please see "siha senadhipathi sutta" if you have any doubt....

Thank you for your wisdom, Can you please be more specific? In what 'nikhaya' and in which part. Also if you have a softcopy maybe you can share it with us?

 

[alagakkonara]

You are completely wrong in this manner.
Because Dhamma never can be understand using arguments..

Ok, then I might not understand dhamma ever. I'm really sorry to hear that. Anyway I will continue to seek answers. arguments or not I want to know the truth.

If you say that you can understand the Dhamma by using argument, that dhmma is not Buddha's Dhamma..

Again your personal opinion.

 

[sri_lion]

Pinwath mithura,

I think I agree with you
True, encouraging is not killing; but you sin by encouraging (if it's direct).
But I got your point; the word "encouraging" may not be suited to explain the above situation...
Bohoma pin obata...

Pinwath mithurani,

Following is something I am not clear about; I have not come across this in Dhamma...
But I think following things are correct.. please let me know if not...

Buying meat from a shop is not an encouragement for killing...
iff you are careful in the way you interact with the butcher (or seller)...

You'd probably get involved if you request/say followings to him (probably if he would kill himself or order killing on behalf of you)
e.g.
can I have this kind of meat next day?
why you do not have this kind of meat these days?
can you deliver me this much of this & this meat every month?
I would be buying if you always provide me at this price...

Again: you may not sin that way if your seller just buys from another..

This is vague... So, I think (I may be wrong; because I haven't seen this in Dhamma) if buying meat;
it's best not to interact in above manner with the seller... perhaps it's best not to have the seller personalize what he sells for you...

What do you think?
I do not have access to "Nirmansha Prashnaya" pinwath kiribathgoda gnanananda swamin wahanse; please let me know if this concern is explained differently there...

Theruwan saranai!

kalyanamithra, first of all thank you for the earlier reply mentioning the "siha-senthdhipathi sutra", which was something I did not know!

Getting back to what I've asked, I think you are correct on the word I've used here... even I myself was not 100% clear what to use there, what I have been trying to convey is that you maybe a frequent customer but that does not make you a SINNER, my appologies for the WORD!

But I think if you've read my replies you can get the core idea of what I'm trying to say and I think its more or less what you trying to convey too! I think in a MUCH earlier POST in this thread I've mentioned that in this scenario you can only SIN upon your own request for a kill, So I assume that's what you trying to highlight too?

Thank you!

 

[sri_lion]

Thank you for your wisdom, Can you please be more specific? In what 'nikhaya' and in which part. Also if you have a softcopy maybe you can share it with us?

Second that!

 

[geeth333]

Ok, then I might not understand dhamma ever. I'm really sorry to hear that. Anyway I will continue to seek answers. arguments or not I want to know the truth.



Again your personal opinion.

That is not my personal opinion.. It's what the Buddha taught. PLS read the sutta named "Bodhiraja kumara" in Majjhima Nikaya...

 

[alagakkonara]

I think there's no point arguing about this because, its just a matter of individual perception!

I think we are going in circles here, So let me summerize what we say,

Lets say there are 100 poeple in the world and 1 person is the butcher. he kills 100 animals everyday for the others.

What you say is those hundred animals are not killed for any one of those 99 people. Only the butcher sinned because he had the chance to make the choices and not kill. Therefor people have not done 'panathipatha'

What I say is those 100 animals are killed for those people. Therefor they are responsible. And they have done 'panathipatha' .

I think we should leave it to that. If I understand I'm wrong I will come and tell you.

One small thing.

Then why did Buddha himself ate meat?

Did he? I never knew that. Actually I have done some research on this, and I never found a thing that strongly says he ate meat. I may be wrong

If you are refering to following 2 points, I dont think we should talk about it. Becuase I' m tired of arguing over these points.

(1) Buddha ate a food called 'Sukara maggawa' which is made of meat.
(2) When 'devdath' decided to do 'sangha bedhaya' he presented 6 conditions. One of them was 'Monks should not eat meat'
It is said that buddha said, 'If anyone wants he can do this. there is nothing wrong in this.'

And finally, If anyone eats dead animals, fine. I'm not agianst it. That's for you. Do what you want in the life man, and enjoy it.

 

[alagakkonara]

That is not my personal opinion.. It's what the Buddha taught. PLS read the sutta named "Bodhiraja kumara" in Majjhima Nikaya...

Thank you, I will try to find this suthra. I have part of Majjhima Nikaya with me in home, but dont know whether this suthra is in it. Anyway I will go through it in the weekend.

 

[Lightning_McQueen]

i was a vegetarian sometime ago... but, i couldn't be a vegetarian atleast 3 months... so, now i'm not...

 

[henderson]

I think we are going in circles here, So let me summerize what we say,

Lets say there are 100 poeple in the world and 1 person is the butcher. he kills 100 animals everyday for the others.

What you say is those hundred animals are not killed for any one of those 99 people. Only the butcher sinned because he had the chance to make the choices and not kill. Therefor people have not done 'panathipatha'

What I say is those 100 animals are killed for those people. Therefor they are responsible. And they have done 'panathipatha' .

There is another point of view, Just imagine the Butcher stopped killing animals and selling meat. Then will those 100 people kill themselves and eat meat? Only very few of them will do it. So I believe all of them are not done 'panathipatha' based on that point of view.

 

[alagakkonara]

There is another point of view, Just imagine the Butcher stopped killing animals and selling meat. Then will those 100 people kill themselves and eat meat? Only very few of them will do it. So I believe all of them are not done 'panathipatha' based on that point of view.

Ok, then it's another point. But at the end you also come to the conclusion that they have not done 'panathipatha' right? Ok.

 

[Nash_Node]

You know, for some unknown reason I always thought it's the PIG's job to be on my plate at dinner time as PORK !

I never asked him about how he felt about it. Nor the butcher, nor the cook nor the guy who marinated pork and neither the guy designed the menu.

Rules are actually simple right ?

When you are on the top of the food chain, you get to decide what type of meat your going to savor for the day... and when you jump into a river full of salt water crocodiles.. then the tables simply turn and it's your turn to swim the fuck out of their

But, with all due respect, why not anyone of your vegie's try negotiating with an Eskimo over this issue., I will come by with a camera to capture the moment when you are used as whale bait.

 

[henderson]

Ok, then it's another point. But at the end you also come to the conclusion that they have not done 'panathipatha' right? Ok.

yeah, correct. They are not done Panathpatha.

 

[henderson]

You know, for some unknown reason I always thought it's the PIG's job to be on my plate at dinner time as PORK !

well, that is another thought!!