What the Buddha said about eating Meat

[just]

Survival being the basic fact of life and humans being the most intelligent of all, vegetarian humans are only arguments just like time travelling, i guess people wont stop making theories or stop arguing about it but at the same time its never gona become practical either..

 

[earthling]

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.

Yes I think the author knows what he is talking about..I thought it was interesting so I posted it...

So if u dont agree with what this article says then disprove his points... knock your self out..

the last time I looked any damn person can have any godamn view on any godamn thing..

 

[alagakkonara]

Its my choice to believe or not to believe... The author has made his points in this article & I thought it was interesting so I published it...

No wrong in what you did, I only had a problem with one thing you said which I will explain. But maybe you did not want to express it like that. If so It's my mistake. But what your words is what I have for I do not know what you thought.

all that "how can u be the judge" or what not... what r u on about ?

you said,

I just posted this to share where Buddhism stands on eating meat

. So you said that this is where(The article) Buddhism stands on eating meat. Am I wrong????? You posted this to share where Buddhism stands on eating meat. Right??? You simply accepted the facts on the article(or maybe you didnt, but seemed like that), and you immediately went to the conclusion, ok this is where buddhism stands on eating meat. That's what suggests from your comment. Maybe you intended something else. But thats the meaning of words. My question was how can you say that where Buddhisms stands on eating meat is this(what article says)? You get my point now? Dont think there's anything difficult to get anyway..You simply pointed out it like a fact, 'this is where buddhism stands', although you clearly know that each individual has to understand himself. If you dont get my point just drop it. I apologize, rest of my comment was not fired at you....

 

[alagakkonara]

Survival being the basic fact of life and humans being the most intelligent of all, vegetarian humans are only arguments just like time travelling, i guess people wont stop making theories or stop arguing about it but at the same time its never gona become practical either..

Well vegitarian humans concept can be real if you define it in a logical frame with logical boundries. But time travel concept is not real. So no they are different.

 

[amila_90210]

Yes, written but not by the Buddha Himself. Tripitaka was written many centuries after the Buddha's parinirwana. And it was written by some others. So, we don't know for sure what the Buddha said.

agreed..but it is a BIG but... then What can you believe..are there any recordings of Buddha's teachings

 

[alagakkonara]

agreed..but it is a BIG but... then What can you believe..are there any recordings of Buddha's teachings

This is a very good question, Something I have asked myself. If I may, I will point out something given in Walpola Rahula Himi's "Budhun wadala dharmaya" , which is by far the best book of dhamma I have read.(Mind you I havent read many).

He says, "There is no room for beliefs in Buddhism. You do not believe but you understand. Buddha did not say come and believe, but he said come and look at dhamma." Rahula Himi says " Believing is not important, but realizing is. Once you realize you do not have doubts."
Of course there are doubts as in "Why should I go in this road, if I dont believe in it.?" Yes, these questions are deep. I have the same questions, And I'm looking.

 

[Savyna]

This is a very good question, Something I have asked myself. If I may, I will point out something given in Walpola Rahula Himi's "Budhun wadala dharmaya" , which is by far the best book of dhamma I have read.(Mind you I havent read many).

He says, "There is no room for beliefs in Buddhism. You do not believe but you understand. Buddha did not say come and believe, but he said come and look at dhamma." Rahula Himi says " Believing is not important, but realizing is. Once you realize you do not have doubts."
Of course there are doubts as in "Why should I go in this road, if I dont believe in it.?" Yes, these questions are deep. I have the same questions, And I'm looking.

very good post here. thanks for your contribution to this thread. and i happen to agree with it

 

[dmsupun]

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.”

!we know people kill animals for us! dont u

 

[alagakkonara]

very good post here. thanks for your contribution to this thread. and i happen to agree with it

It's my pleasure to be here. You are quite welcome.

 

[alagakkonara]

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.”

!we know people kill animals for us! dont u

Agreed 100%. This is exactly my point. But people are blinded by greed. They cannot overcome their desire for meat, so they will bring various arguments, without seeing this simple logic. Just wait and see, someone will say to this, since the animal is killed by someone else the all 5 actions will not be fullfilled, therefor this is not pranaghatha. Sometimes to see the true self of even a simple thing, one need wisdom. Thereby "The dhamma is for those who are wise".

 

[danukapeiris]

okata Buddhism wala mehema kiyanawa...

"giya athma wala sattu wela hitapu unta ame aathme owa eka parata nawattanna be" itin un eka sadaranee karanaya karanawa..

budu hamuduruwo mas kanna kiyai kiyala ubalata therenne nettam ekan ubalage gon kama therenawa????

thopita onanam mas kapan agama kannethuwa..

lejjawak nethi yakku... mas kewata aagama kanna epa..

math mas kanawa... eth eka agamata gawala shape wanne..

pawa pawamai...

pls do not post this type of articles. ape unma thama apiwa kanne.

 

[alagakkonara]

Yes I think the author knows what he is talking about..I thought it was interesting so I posted it...

So if u dont agree with what this article says then disprove his points... knock your self out..

the last time I looked any damn person can have any godamn view on any godamn thing..

You have completely edited your post to the last word, out of anger. I don't know why you edited this without posting your opinion. However anger will not give anything but cloud your judgment.

I agree with you any damn person can have any goddamn view on any goddamn thing.

I do not have anything to prove, Nor I have any problem with anything you or anyone else do, as long as you do not try to pin it to dhamma. I will raise my opinion only on this latter case, because as a Sri Lankan I somewhat feel responsible that I should act my best to preserve dhamma, the best I understand. This is not for you, or anyone who will refuse simplest of logics, but for those who will come seeking the real value. People wanting to alter dhamma to suit their beliefs is the same reason, that we are having different ideas today. People today trying to do the same will result in greater changes in dhamma.

I know that I have errors and maybe my understandings are wrong. If I understand this myself one day, or if someone explains that I'm wrong, I will accept that and immediately change my views.

Someone asked me a question the other day, He asked me "How will you overcome hunger?" I said "I eat food". He asked me "But won't you feel hungry again?" I said "yes". "How will you overcome hunger?". The answer is not eating food, it is temporary. The answer is something else. But he who understands that the answer is something else, will seek it. He only has to go little further from his normal thinking to understand that answer lies somewhere else. It's simple, but yet people refuse to see. Therby "Dhamma is only for the wise."

For such people, few things to think when reading the above article.

(1) 'Buddha charithaya' is a story, written at a later time. The story is biased and reflects the ideas of the writer no matter what the real story is. The value of 'buddha charithaya' to us is taken as long as we filter the logics of the story.
(2) Killing a 'gadawila' and eating its meat is same as killing a 'haraka' and eating its meat.
(3) Can there be contradictions between "Vinaya pitakaya" and dhamma?
(4) If "Vinaya Pitakaya" is so clear why "Thewana dhamma sangayana" was a result of a dispute over "Vinaya?". Why were there several groups among monks, at the time, if 'Vinaya' was so clear?
(5) What is the reflection from dhamma in the article?
(6) Is this article totally based on "Buddha charithaya and some Vinaya Karana?"

(7) Despite all the examples, can one really believe that buddha would ever encourage in anyway, in any simple way, killing an animal?

 

[chethiyakb]

The article only refers to the monks, on my point of view...Because the article is about eating meat offered...not buying meat and eating yourself....So as far as eating meat by "us" is concerned it is a sin...(because we are buying meat in the sole purpose of eating...)

 

[earthling]

You have completely edited your post to the last word, out of anger. I don't know why you edited this without posting your opinion. However anger will not give anything but cloud your judgment.

I agree with you any damn person can have any goddamn view on any goddamn thing.

I do not have anything to prove, Nor I have any problem with anything you or anyone else do, as long as you do not try to pin it to dhamma. I will raise my opinion only on this latter case, because as a Sri Lankan I somewhat feel responsible that I should act my best to preserve dhamma, the best I understand. This is not for you, or anyone who will refuse simplest of logics, but for those who will come seeking the real value. People wanting to alter dhamma to suit their beliefs is the same reason, that we are having different ideas today. People today trying to do the same will result in greater changes in dhamma.
..............

sorry I edited it cause..the first post didnt exactly said what I wanted to say...

Again... the bottom line is People who eat meat will eat it ..& people who dont eat meat will not eat it... no matter how hmuch we preach that facts not gonna change..

anyway no matter what has been written in books..we have the intellect & the choice to make our own decisions...

if anyone follows a set of rules just because it is in a book..then that person is an idiot in my view.. thats why humans have a brain to think & make a choice...

what ever is said in a book or scriptures or what ever..a person can read, understand & come up with his own intepratation of what was said & come to his/her own decision...

& thats the end of it

 

[poorna1]

Monawa kiwwath mata moko mamanan kanawa

 

[earthling]

I rest my case...LOL

 

[just]

Well vegitarian humans concept can be real if you define it in a logical frame with logical boundries. But time travel concept is not real. So no they are different.

I would like to know more about what logical frameworks and boundries you are talking about? and then why these logical frameworks are not applied upto now.
The simple logic i based my point being the most intelligent creature humans will take any step to survive, using any resource thats available..its the fact from the dawn of the mankind.

 

[alagakkonara]

I would like to know more about what logical frameworks and boundries you are talking about? and then why these logical frameworks are not applied upto now.
The simple logic i based my point being the most intelligent creature humans will take any step to survive, using any resource thats available..its the fact from the dawn of the mankind.

I was thinking that your logic was something else, that's why I put all this frames and boundries thing, to define my point well. Anyway it is irrelevant now.

Well to answer your question, My point was that time travel is a false thing but the vegetarianism is not. I was arguing that you can not compare vegetarian humans with time travel.

Not only humans but any living thing will take any step to survive. In fact the only species, that deliberately go beyond their natural instincts of survival are humans. That's why they suicide. I can see what you are trying to say but there's no need to talk about it, because I think your point is irrelevant. Why? Simply because despite "being the most intelligent creature humans will take any step to survive, using any resource thats available..and that being a fact from the dawn of the mankind" vegetarian humans do exit. So that concept is not false. It's a living thing.

 

[Vishnu123]

it upto your likeness and kind to all animal....unslove argue ....

 

[Wal Bada]

Meat-eaters: have claws
Herbivores: no claws - sorry they have hoofs.
Humans: no claws, no hoofs

Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue - utter BS
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 - OK so?

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. - utter BS. Human intestine is about 6 -10m in length. So it's only 5-6 times as height

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 - another BS. The pH in human stomach is around 2.2 - 4.0, which is damn acidic. Infacts human create more acids than any of the mammals

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 - Human's have semi developed salivary glands. Only parotids and sub mandibulars. Others are very small

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

What does that mean/ Human is omnivorus