What the Buddha said about eating Meat

lanasingh

Member
Jun 21, 2009
46
0
0
USA
Last Page

When I try to do these offers they are usually the points offers that say click at least one offer on the last page, I cant do that because it goes to tmobile sidekick and wants me to enter my email. So do I keep going on after I enter my email for the sidekick or am I done, because I never get to a last page to click an offer HELP Sorry for offtop: viagra girls
 

earthling

Well-known member
  • Jun 15, 2006
    5,873
    5,132
    113
    I also agree this , but we are civil ppl and these days we actually don't need meat. I am still vegetarian. and welcome others also to be vegs and please don't confuse the religon and veg concepts. why we should be vegs , because we are advanced beings so it's not civilized to eat other animals meat. and we can live without meat without no problem.But it will never helps to stop the animal cruvalty because nature itself is already a cruval place. But as human's as advanced beings we can think about it/ isn't it ? I'm pointing here about KFC , MC dollens like places...... even not only Buddhists among muslims there are ppl who are pure vegs , because of the my reason.Even muslim teachings doesn't say "you should eat meat" like that. I think muslim religon have more rules on eating meat than Buddhists. so I'm asking a problem here, when I went to a food shop there's nothing shortees for a vegeterian.There are 20% of the sri lankans are vegs. and most non-vegs are critizing about being vegs. My answer to them is we are advanced human beings so we can live without eating meating without giving pain to some animal for our tasty. But please don't mix this with you're religon.
    I agree that Eating meat or Not doesnt have to do with Religion.. People of all religions can be vegetarians or meat eaters...its their choice.. mainly its a health conscious decision or a moral one.. But I dont for an instance agree with this uncivilized to eat meat saying because its utter bullshit...

    Animals are animals & Men have always been meat eaters & will be meat eaters.. because we can think..we can decide for our selves & if we like to eat meat its also our choice... Some people tend to think that Being a Vegetarian is something cool...I've seen campaigns even trying to promote the idea that being a vegetarian is something cool..like Apple trying to promote its community using their products as a freaking social movement..:lol: Thats just utter bullshit ..its hilarious & lame...

    People can make up their own godamn minds & being a meat eater or a vegetarian is his choice....Eating meat is nothing wrong because our bodies are certainly designed to eat meat..our teeth our designed to chew meet if needed & our systems our well designed to process meat... so its his or her personal choice according to his or her view..its simple as that
     
    Last edited:

    xnote

    Member
    Jun 20, 2009
    373
    5
    0
    ‍උන් වහන්සේ නිතරම උත්සාහ කළේ ලෝක සත්වයා නිවන් මාර්ගයේ ගමන් කරවන්නයි.

    Realy this is a thread that great!; they've different kind of opening i'm not going to explain more it's may be going as a dialectic let's go to few videos;...given that below.


     

    KHz

    Member
    Feb 12, 2009
    10,722
    93
    0
    ගෙදර
    People can make up their own godamn minds & being a meat eater or a vegetarian is his choice....Eating meat is nothing wrong because our bodies are certainly designed to eat meat..our teeth our designed to chew meet if needed & our systems our well designed to process meat...
    Man is not actually well designed to eat meat by origin though he'd be able to digest it.. If you Need proof watch the video Posted above
     
    Last edited:

    earthling

    Well-known member
  • Jun 15, 2006
    5,873
    5,132
    113
    Man is not actually well designed to eat meat by origin though he'd be able to digest it.. If you Need proof watch the video Posted above

    If you search the net you can find a 100 other articles saying that man is.... so :)
     

    chriela

    Member
    Nov 22, 2007
    7,380
    175
    0
    Koheda danne na.........
    well well brother im a vegitarian from childhood so do my parents :)

    and also i dont like to eat meat and im also a human :)

    hehe may be u dnt like to belicve that im not eating meat but u can confirm it from asking members in here like GNS

    SO BROTHER ANY MORE :P

    I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT...RU A PURE VEGITARIAN???? DON'T U EAT EGGS?BUTTER??CHEESE ?? DRY FISH?? MALDIVE FISH??? OR CAKE?? WHAT I MEAN IS THAT....FOR ALL HUMANS...NOT SPECIALLY FOR U.....THIS IS SOMETHING MORE FOR U.....:cool::cool::cool:
     

    KHz

    Member
    Feb 12, 2009
    10,722
    93
    0
    ගෙදර
    If you search the net you can find a 100 other articles saying that man is.... so :)
    May be but these are some simple biological facts which we cannot deny ...
    Meat-eaters: have claws
    Herbivores: no claws
    Humans: no claws

    Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
    Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
    Humans: perspire through skin pores

    Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
    Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
    Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding

    Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly
    Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
    Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.

    Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat
    Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
    Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater

    Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
    Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits
    Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits

    Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains
    Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
    Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
    source-http://www.celestialhealing.net/physicalveg3.htm
    I'll stop here before getting far off topic :)
     

    sri_lion

    Member
    Sep 14, 2006
    12,908
    102
    0
    Kuala Lumpur
    Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
    Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
    Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding

    Wrong!

    There's an Animal called Pygmy Hippo with canivore teeth but its totally a Herbivore.. so this theory is completely false!

    Even other hippos (Big ones) are very very rarely eat meat, still they have tusk like canines! :)
     

    KHz

    Member
    Feb 12, 2009
    10,722
    93
    0
    ගෙදර
    Wrong!

    There's an Animal called Pygmy Hippo with canivore teeth but its totally a Herbivore.. so this theory is completely false!

    Even other hippos (Big ones) are very very rarely eat meat, still they have tusk like canines! :)
    Possible .... I was talking about the majority :) Not the rare exceptions .. If you take many comparisons in blgy; specially among two groups of animals there's plenty of exceptions can exist and you cannot expect 100 % similarities or differences among them :)
     
    Last edited:

    sri_lion

    Member
    Sep 14, 2006
    12,908
    102
    0
    Kuala Lumpur
    Possible .... I was talking about the majority :) Not the rare exceptions .. If you take many comparisons in blgy; specially among two groups of animals there's plenty of exceptions can exist and you cannot expect 100 % similarities or differences among them :)

    Yeah but it still does not explain why a 100% herbivore having canine teeth, thus you cannot come to a solid conclusion that a certain kind of animals are ONLY can / designed by nature to consume specific kind of food ONLY!
     

    KHz

    Member
    Feb 12, 2009
    10,722
    93
    0
    ගෙදර
    Yeah but it still does not explain why a 100% herbivore having canine teeth, thus you cannot come to a solid conclusion that a certain kind of animals are ONLY can / designed by nature to consume specific kind of food ONLY!
    :eek:
    Its not that easy(almost impossible)to find 100% similarities among a specific group by any means ... Since biology isn't a subject like mathematics there can be many exceptions .. We put them to the more appropriate group they'd seem to belong ... Its about the majority not the 100% :)
     
    Last edited:

    sri_lion

    Member
    Sep 14, 2006
    12,908
    102
    0
    Kuala Lumpur
    yes
    Its not that easy(almost impossible)to find 100% similarities among a specific group by any means ... Since biology isn't a subject like mathematics there can be many exceptions .. We put them to the more appropriate group they'd seem to belong ... Its about the majority not the 100% :)

    True! I understand what you are saying, but the stucture of the teeth is not a solid base to be associated with the definition of while trying to identifying a carnivore or herbivore..

    In Science "Most" does not mean "YES", it means possible but varies!
     

    KHz

    Member
    Feb 12, 2009
    10,722
    93
    0
    ගෙදර
    True! I understand what you are saying, but the stucture of the teeth is not a solid base to be associated with the definition of while trying to identifying a carnivore or herbivore..

    In Science "Most" does not mean "YES", it means possible but varies!
    Yes I agree ... In this fact There is a Limited possibility to prove we aren't designed to eat meat .. But there are some acceptable logics as well ....
    But when we take all in one I think there are enough to prove that we are NOT WELL DESIGNED for it
     
    Last edited:

    earthling

    Well-known member
  • Jun 15, 2006
    5,873
    5,132
    113
    Yes I agree ... In this fact There is a Limited possibility to prove we aren't designed to eat meat .. But there are some acceptable logics as well ....
    But when we take all in one I think there are enough to prove that we are NOT WELL DESIGNED for it

    what ever the theory is ..the bottom line is humans can eat meat without any problem...

    so who ever wants to eat meat will eat it & who ever doesnt like to eat meat will not ...

    Thats that !!!!!!!!
     

    wisal

    Member
    Jul 2, 2009
    7,624
    759
    0
    Israel
    I came upon this article in the Nation Newspaper... In brief it says its OK to eat meat like Beef, Chicken, Mutton, Fish, ect.

    This is the first time I've read anything like this & up to now I thought Buduhamudorowo had prohibited eating meat of any kind..Guess I was Wrong

    What the Buddha said about eating meat

    Since the very beginning of Buddhism over 2500 years ago, Buddhist monks and nuns have depended on alms food. They were, and still are, prohibited from growing their own food, storing their own provisions or cooking their own meals.

    Instead, every morning they would make their day’s meal out of whatever was freely given to them by lay supporters. Whether it was rich food or coarse food, delicious or awful tasting, it was to be accepted with gratitude and eaten regarding it as medicine.

    The Buddha laid down several rules forbidding monks from asking for the food that they liked. As a result, they would receive just the sort of meals that ordinary people ate - and that was often meat.

    Once, a rich and influential general by the name of Siha (meaning ’Lion’) went to visit the Buddha. Siha had been a famous lay supporter of the Jain monks but he was so impressed and inspired by the Teachings he heard from the Buddha that he took refuge in the Triple Gem (i.e. he became a Buddhist). General Siha then invited the Buddha, together with the large number of monks accompanying Him, to a meal at his house in the city the following morning. In preparation for the meal, Siha told one of his servants to buy some meat from the market for the feast. When the Jain monks heard of their erstwhile patron’s conversion to Buddhism and the meal that he was preparing for the Buddha and the monks, they were somewhat peeved:


    • “Now at the time many Niganthas (Jain monks), waving their arms, were moaning from carriage road to carriage road, from cross road to cross road in the city: ’Today a fat beast, killed by Siha the general, is made into a meal for the recluse Gautama (the Buddha), the recluse Gautama makes use of this meat knowing that it was killed on purpose for him, that the deed was done for his sake’...” [1].

    Siha was making the ethical distinction between buying meat already prepared for sale and ordering a certain animal to be killed, a distinction which is not obvious to many westerners but which recurs throughout the Buddha’s own teachings.

    Then, to clarify the position on meat eating to the monks, the Buddha said:
    “Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: If they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk.
    But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you.”

    There are many places in the Buddhist scriptures which tell of the Buddha and his monks being offered meat and eating it. One of the most interesting of these passages occurs in the introductory story to a totally unrelated rule (Nissaggiya Pacittiya 5) and the observation that the meat is purely incidental to the main theme of the story emphasises the authenticity of the passage:
    Uppalavanna (meaning ‘she of the lotus-like complexion’) was one of the two chief female disciples of the Buddha. She was ordained as a nun while still a young woman and soon became fully enlightened. As well as being an arahant (enlightened) she also possessed various psychic powers to the extent that the Buddha declared her to be foremost among all the women in this field.

    Once, while Uppalavanna was meditating alone in the afternoon in the ‘Blind-Men’s Grove’, a secluded forest outside of the city of Savatthi, some thieves passed by. The thieves had just stolen a cow, butchered it and were escaping with the meat. Seeing the composed and serene nun, the chief of the thieves quickly put some of the meat in a leaf-bag and left it for her. Uppalavanna picked up the meat and resolved to give it to the Buddha. Early next morning, having had the meat prepared, she rose into the air and flew to where the Buddha was staying in the Bamboo Grove outside of Rajagaha, over 200 km as the crow (or nun?) flies! Though there is no specific mention of the Buddha actually consuming this meat, obviously a nun of such high attainments would certainly have known what the Buddha ate.

    However, there are some meats which are specifically prohibited for monks to eat: Human meat, for obvious reasons; meat from elephants and horses as these were then considered royal animals; dog meat - as this was considered by ordinary people to be disgusting; and meat from snakes, lions, tigers, panthers, bears and hyenas - because one who had just eaten the flesh of such dangerous jungle animals was thought to give forth such a smell as to draw forth revenge from the same species!

    Towards the end of the Buddha’s life, his cousin Devadatta attempted to usurp the leadership of the Order of Monks. In order to win support from other monks, Devadatta tried to be stricter than the Buddha and show Him up as indulgent.

    Devadatta proposed to the Buddha that all the monks should henceforth be vegetarians. The Buddha refused and repeated once again the regulation that he had established years before, that monks and nuns may eat fish or meat as long as it is not from an animal whose meat is specifically forbidden, and as long as they had no reason to believe that the animal was slaughtered specifically for them.

    The Vinaya then is quite clear on this matter. Monks and nuns may eat meat. Even the Buddha ate meat.

    Unfortunately, meat eating is often seen by westerners as an indulgence on the part of the monks.

    Monks may not exercise choice when it comes to food and that is much harder than being a vegetarian. Nonetheless, we may encourage vegetarianism and if our lay supporters brought only vegetarian food and no meat, well... monks may not complain either! May you take the hint and be kind to animals.

    Ajahn Brahmavamso

    Source

    ----------------

    So What is all this talk about Budhists should not eat meat ?? :oo:
    first of all try to find out the source books of these stories. So we will know what is exactly true. I expect most parts of the article but some points. these stories do not make any sense.
    yes according to Buddhism history they ate meat which was specifically not prepared for them (What Buddha prohibited is to ask some one to prepare meat for specifically for him.)
    thanks for this information
    P.S.
    We cannot be lulled by westerns nor Buddhist monks need to avoid meat. but many of them believe if you avoid meat you will live long. but still this also do not have any evidence so far.but western people use to see the Asia as a spiritual area. I do not know why. some time It could be they act like little bit strange than them
     

    alagakkonara

    Member
    Sep 25, 2008
    200
    0
    0
    so as I said its up to each individual..I just posted this to share where Buddhism stands on eating meat..not to say if it is wrong or right

    You say that it's up to each individual, and yet you think that whoever wrote this article knows where the Buddhism stands on eating meat. How can you be the judge and say this is where Buddhism stands I do not know.

    From my study and research I have found out 3 things, occasions that Buddhists take out from the whole buddhist culture(I say this because 2 of them are not from dhamma to the best of my knowelege) to justify that eating meat is ok.

    (1) Buddha died from a sickness called 'lohitha pakkandika' which he got from eating a something called 'Sookara Maggawa'. Since Sookara means pig, obviously this food was made using pork.

    (2)Devdath came to buddha and said, I need this rule, "All bhikku should not eat meat though their life time". It is said that buddha said, anyone can take this as a rule, those who do not wish to go by such rule shouldnt.

    Now the third one is the one mostly admired by people who love to eat meat. They find justice in it.

    (3)Buddha has said there are five things to be completed for an action to be a "pranagatha". And few of these won't be completed if you eat meat killed by someone else, so its ok.

    I have my own ideas and thoughts on each one of these, I have studied them. But I do not wish to discuss this further more now. I will simply say one thing. I have seen in this thread that someone had said, thripitaka is not buddhist words, in fact it's written by someone else right? If you go and say that, what good are the words taken from "Buddha Charithaya" to us? (Not meaning that its not useful, but in the sense it's just a story written by someone else). The above first 2 points are taken from "Buddha Charithaya" so I drop it right there.

    The 3rd point is really interesting, and from Dhamma itself, but I do not discuss that now.

    Let me just point out from thousands of sayings that say value the life, do not harm it, do not encourage harming it, etc few things straight from dhamma.

    (1) Pansil
    (2) Maddyama prathipada


    Need I explain? I do not think so because I know many ppl in this thread are buddhists. Buddha himself said that the dhamma is for those who are wise.

    So the question is not really about whether buddha said eating meat is right or wrong. The question is about people who are afraid to loose their social position, just because they like something and it's said to be wrong. Therefor they try to justify it. And thereby keep their position.

    It all comes to this. Everyman is for himself. The journey is individual. Your justifications are for yourself. But do not use them to wrongly point out something in dhamma. Whatever you do is ok. There's no need to justify what you do, in front of dhamma. Just do what you think is right. It doesnt have to be the way of buddha, nor you need to find answers in dhamma to justify what you do.

    That being said, I might be wrong, if so please accept my apologies. I might be trying to justify my ways through dhamma. If so please accept my apologies. I only try to go through logics, as buddha said.