Author Topic: On the impossibility of eating meat  (Read 3129 times)

Offline allen-uk

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
On the impossibility of eating meat
« on: April 02, 2018, 02:05:58 pm »
The Buddha taught us to do no harm to any living being.

When the mendicant monks were going hungry, he told them that if kind people put a little meat in their begging bowls, they could eat it, but ONLY if it had not been killed for them, a sort of accidental eating of meat.

From that simple truth, millions of Buddhists now ignore his first directive - to harm no living thing - and happily buy and eat meat from any butchers.

It is impossible to harm no living being and eat meat.

When a Buddhist renounces his or her attachment to eating flesh, I listen to them.


Offline IdleChater

  • Member
  • Posts: 815
    • View Profile
Re: On the impossibility of eating meat
« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2018, 02:58:34 pm »
The Buddha taught us to do no harm to any living being.

When the mendicant monks were going hungry, he told them that if kind people put a little meat in their begging bowls, they could eat it, but ONLY if it had not been killed for them, a sort of accidental eating of meat.

From that simple truth, millions of Buddhists now ignore his first directive - to harm no living thing - and happily buy and eat meat from any butchers.

It is impossible to harm no living being and eat meat.

When a Buddhist renounces his or her attachment to eating flesh, I listen to them.

Yes, I know that my meat diet will result in rebirth as an intestinal parasite.  I'm ok with that.

So, we begin another stupid, boring, pointless thread about diet. 

Let's make this interesting.  I'll bet you $100 USD that I'll become enlightened before you.  You in?

Offline khragthung

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • I want to learn.
    • View Profile
Re: On the impossibility of eating meat
« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2018, 04:47:56 pm »
I agree that it could be an issue if you look at whether or not affecting supply and demand constitutes having it killed for you.  Pragmatically speaking, the meat in a store is already dead, and was not specifically killed for you.  But if you want to personally not eat meat because you believe that the minascule,  invisible effect you have on supply and demand constitutes killing for you, then you should not eat meat. But if you decide not to, your focus should not be accusing others of eating meat, or of showing off how you do not.  It should be that you let go of meat eating for yourself, and if and when anyone asks why, you can explain your point of view on how you decided for yourself, based on your logic that eating meat was bad for your personal practice.  I think it really was meant for alms rounds, if someone gave you what they were already having, then it causes no harm because its already dead.  The distinction between that, and supply and demand, is in my opinion- not worth worrying about other peoples choices.  Only concern yourself with your own choices and be humble.  I made a compromise, I would take the non meat option as much as possible, unless I felt like I needed  vitamin B, omega 3-6-9  amino acids and protein. Good luck making the conscientious decision that does not hinder your practice.
K

Offline Lotusmile

  • Member
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: On the impossibility of eating meat
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2018, 01:23:54 am »
Being vegetarianism is one of many kind deeds and compassion in buddhism teaching. Thus being vegetarianism alone will not be able to achieve enlightenment. Enlightenment ought to love all beings but not blindly. For instance, if you would to discover that someone harboured evil intention to kill another or a group of people, killing him or reporting him or prevent the materialisation of his evil act is kindness,  to both the evil doer and his targets. If he would to succeed in conduct of killing those people, he would be decenting to very deep hell thus killing the evil doer is also kindness

Offline stillpointdancer

  • Enlightenment through insight
  • Member
  • Posts: 441
  • Dancing at the Still Point describes my meditation
    • View Profile
    • Enlightenment for Grown Ups
Re: On the impossibility of eating meat
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2018, 02:23:50 am »
Plants are living beings too, as are fungi.
“You do not need to leave your room. Remain sitting at your table and listen. Do not even listen, simply wait, be quiet, still and solitary. The world will freely offer itself to you to be unmasked, it has no choice, it will roll in ecstasy at your feet.” Franz Kafka

Offline Lotusmile

  • Member
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: On the impossibility of eating meat
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2018, 02:49:26 am »
Some buddhists may claim that their world recognised masters are meat eater, thus they presumed is nothing improper to rejoice over meaty meals for path towards enlightenment and so followed them as well. But these buddhists failed to realise that their grade are so far away from their masters.
The only evidence of exception for meat eaters, who could be completely out on the cycle of six realms in their current one lifespan, is the pureland tradition

Offline IdleChater

  • Member
  • Posts: 815
    • View Profile
Re: On the impossibility of eating meat
« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2018, 03:12:21 am »
The only evidence of exception for meat eaters, who could be completely out on the cycle of six realms in their current one lifespan, is the pureland tradition

Getting a little pushy with the pure land thing, Lotusmile.  You might consider a different approach.

Offline Lotusmile

  • Member
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: On the impossibility of eating meat
« Reply #7 on: April 03, 2018, 03:23:20 am »
The only evidence of exception for meat eaters, who could be completely out on the cycle of six realms in their current one lifespan, is the pureland tradition

Getting a little pushy with the pure land thing, Lotusmile.  You might consider a different approach.
Not actually. Many meat eaters in their late life really benefited upon death, and also because they have no time or does not want to find time for buddhism exploration and buddhism retreat.
Buddhism is about compassionately wisdom of daily living, but it has to cater for late comers or acquaintances and intellectually less able, the agedly sick, mentally weak aged groups where exploring the buddhism teaching on wisdom is impossible

Offline allen-uk

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Re: On the impossibility of eating meat
« Reply #8 on: April 03, 2018, 04:03:19 am »
Why am I bothered? Not for my own 'enlightenment', although I do work towards that goal. But it's not a race. If you (anyone) gets to 'it' before me, all well and good. And I don't think the discussion is stupid, on any level.

Why am I bothered? For two reasons, I suppose.

One, the animals. Humans in general, and in particular meat-eaters, need to maintain the myth of total superiority over the rest of the animal kingdom - if they weren't superior, they would have no right to kill and eat their fellow beings. Animals might not be able to articulate their fears and sufferings, but this does not mean they do not have fears or sufferings. If by our actions we can lessen the sufferings of others, I think it is our duty (as humans, as Buddhists) to do so.

Two, the twisted logic which says that if the slaughterman doesn't say "Oh, I think I'll kill this cow for Idlechater (chatter?)", it is okay for Idlechater to eat it. The slaughterman DOES kill it for you - he kills it for you and for all the other nameless meat-eaters.

I want to be part of the community of Buddhists because of the Buddha's Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path that follows from the truths. When I hear or read of fellow-Buddhists writhing and twisting to prove that meat can be eaten willy-nilly, that last Tuesday is in fact next Thursday week, that the Truths or the Path can be ignored or trodden just as you please, I do feel lonely.

This is a plea for honesty as much as anything. If you can't give up alcohol or tobacco because you LIKE it too much, fair enough, I feel for you; it is difficult. If you can't give up eating flesh because you LIKE it too much, just say so! You will have the sympathy of others who have made it through the barrier, and be offered help getting there.

But don't pretend there is any justification or logic to your decision. It is just an attachment you can't shake off.

Allen.

Offline VincentRJ

  • Member
  • Posts: 254
    • View Profile
Re: On the impossibility of eating meat
« Reply #9 on: April 03, 2018, 06:09:07 am »
I think some of you are missing the main point about eating meat, or other living creatures such as fish, or eggs or insects.

They are essential for human health, at least in the long term, in the absence of the knowledge of modern dietary science which can identify certain plants, such as sea weed, that might be able to provide at least some of the essential nutrients that are usually obtained only from animal flesh.

The following link lists 7 essential nutrients that are either very difficult to get from a pure vegan diet, or maybe even impossible to get in sufficient quantities.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-nutrients-you-cant-get-from-plants

Offline Lotusmile

  • Member
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: On the impossibility of eating meat
« Reply #10 on: April 03, 2018, 06:29:51 am »
Why am I bothered? Not for my own 'enlightenment', although I do work towards that goal. But it's not a race. If you (anyone) gets to 'it' before me, all well and good. And I don't think the discussion is stupid, on any level.

Why am I bothered? For two reasons, I suppose.

One, the animals. Humans in general, and in particular meat-eaters, need to maintain the myth of total superiority over the rest of the animal kingdom - if they weren't superior, they would have no right to kill and eat their fellow beings. Animals might not be able to articulate their fears and sufferings, but this does not mean they do not have fears or sufferings. If by our actions we can lessen the sufferings of others, I think it is our duty (as humans, as Buddhists) to do so.

Two, the twisted logic which says that if the slaughterman doesn't say "Oh, I think I'll kill this cow for Idlechater (chatter?)", it is okay for Idlechater to eat it. The slaughterman DOES kill it for you - he kills it for you and for all the other nameless meat-eaters.

I want to be part of the community of Buddhists because of the Buddha's Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path that follows from the truths. When I hear or read of fellow-Buddhists writhing and twisting to prove that meat can be eaten willy-nilly, that last Tuesday is in fact next Thursday week, that the Truths or the Path can be ignored or trodden just as you please, I do feel lonely.

This is a plea for honesty as much as anything. If you can't give up alcohol or tobacco because you LIKE it too much, fair enough, I feel for you; it is difficult. If you can't give up eating flesh because you LIKE it too much, just say so! You will have the sympathy of others who have made it through the barrier, and be offered help getting there.

But don't pretend there is any justification or logic to your decision. It is just an attachment you can't shake off.

Allen.
Simply put it for discussion.

According to buddhism, every beings are naturely buddha and ought to be treated with equal respect and kind. Buddhism also stated that the living beings that one had eaten was actually their own loved ones of past lives, who fell in the cycle realms of reincarnation, and their past forms were not visible by their current loved ones (human). This is because, as human beings, they only recognised form of human as a clan to be treasured due to its humanity value and under law against killing another human being, and animals are form of another clan not generically under law against killing by human. You just could not imagine the deepest degree of unkindness to rejoice in meat of animals such as those goat and cow who are so kind only eats grass

Offline IdleChater

  • Member
  • Posts: 815
    • View Profile
Re: On the impossibility of eating meat
« Reply #11 on: April 03, 2018, 06:39:56 pm »
And I don't think the discussion is stupid, on any level.

Not trying to gain-say, but it is, in fact,  stupid, pointless and boring.



Quote
One, the animals. Humans in general, and in particular meat-eaters, need to maintain the myth of total superiority over the rest of the animal kingdom - if they weren't superior, they would have no right to kill and eat their fellow beings.

well, one of the sb&p things is the question of superiorty.  Your attitude about what you eat is all about superiority.  You're opening post read,

Quote
When a Buddhist renounces his or her attachment to eating flesh, I listen to them.

What you seem to be saying here is that Meaters are inferior in that unless, like you, they are vegetarians.  You clearly don't harbor enough respect for these people to listen to what they have to say, they are beneath that.   

I think that's kinda stuip and many will agree.  Dispite your recorded protestations to the contray, not better that the rest of us.  It's also boring.  Many vegetarians take a similar course.  We hear it all the time.  It's boring.
 
Quote
Animals might not be able to articulate their fears and sufferings, but this does not mean they do not have fears or sufferings.

No and and that's why I advocate a swift painless death for these animals we use for food.  Bad enough we have to kill them.  There's no point in drawing it out.

Quote
If by our actions we can lessen the sufferings of others, I think it is our duty (as humans, as Buddhists) to do so.

The meat we eat is already dead.  According to law it was a quick end.  Unlike our wilder fellow beings.  Preadators and scavengers will seldom wait for death.  They will eat their prey alive.  At least we Meaters demonstrate a modicum of compassion and respect.

Quote
Two, the twisted logic which says that if the slaughterman doesn't say "Oh, I think I'll kill this cow for Idlechater (chatter?)", it is okay for Idlechater to eat it. The slaughterman DOES kill it for you - he kills it for you and for all the other nameless meat-eaters.

They ALL have names.  Every one of them.  You just don't know what it is, and it would seems that you don't care, either.  Sowething else appears - dehumanizing those who you disagree with.  Even a pet dog has a name, but not those Meaters.  They're nameless.

Quote
I want to be part of the community of Buddhists because of the Buddha's Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path that follows from the truths. When I hear or read of fellow-Buddhists writhing and twisting to prove that meat can be eaten willy-nilly, that last Tuesday is in fact next Thursday week, that the Truths or the Path can be ignored or trodden just as you please, I do feel lonely.

It's not surprising, really.  Considering your attitude about Meaters I would imagine you have a fairly focused circle of friends.

And why even put it that way?  Do you want us to feel sorry for you because you're lonely?

Quote
This is a plea for honesty as much as anything.

Seeing as you're the one who started this thread.  You're the one who needs to be honest here. 

Quote
If you can't give up alcohol or tobacco because you LIKE it too much, fair enough, I feel for you; it is difficult. If you can't give up eating flesh because you LIKE it too much, just say so! You will have the sympathy of others who have made it through the barrier, and be offered help getting there.

And then you and  your buddies will offer sympathy? 

You should fess up to holding meaters in very low esteme.  So low that you don't want to hear a word they might say, anyway.  You seem to want nothing more than to put down Meaters and leave it at that.  Just admit it.

Quote
But don't pretend there is any justification or logic to your decision. It is just an attachment you can't shake off.

I'd like to hear why you can jutify holding people,  like you,  in such low esteem.  They are beneath housepets, deserve no attention and you feel really sorry for them.

What logic makes this a Good Thing?
« Last Edit: April 04, 2018, 01:57:25 am by IdleChater »

Offline allen-uk

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Re: On the impossibility of eating meat
« Reply #12 on: April 04, 2018, 06:17:34 am »
I suppose bhikkhus and bhikkhunis were encouraged to dispute points with which they disagreed, so in that spirit, I'll answer Idlechatter.

No, funnily enough it's not meat-eaters that I find most disturbing, but dishonest people. A farmer might say to me "I raise animals, then they are killed, and then they are eaten. So what? They are only animals after all!" And while I might not like the sentiment, as least it is HONEST.

I think that people who eat meat and who claim to have some regard for the lives of animals are fundamentally dishonest. They don't give a flying duck for other beings, and are only interested in satisfying their own hungers.

(And VincentRJ: consider the millions of us who eat no meat, and then ask yourself why are we so darned healthy? We do NOT need meat or its byproducts to maintain healthy lives!)

Allen.

Offline Lotusmile

  • Member
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: On the impossibility of eating meat
« Reply #13 on: April 05, 2018, 12:37:50 am »
Buddhism teaching is not about demanding, perceiving or arguing against others based upon scripture or personal understanding. But to live compassionately like you are a buddha and to present or share such delights in an impartiality of good or bad like buddha

Offline Dairy Lama

  • Member
  • Posts: 5217
  • Cool baby yeah!
    • View Profile
Re: On the impossibility of eating meat
« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2018, 02:01:11 am »
When the mendicant monks were going hungry, he told them that if kind people put a little meat in their begging bowls, they could eat it, but ONLY if it had not been killed for them, a sort of accidental eating of meat.

Yes, the purpose of the 3-fold rule seems to have been to avoid additional slaughter of animals.  This reflects harmlessness, which is an important aspect of Right Intention in the 8-fold path.

In a modern context I think that choosing to buy meat when alternatives are available is ethically dubious from a Buddhist point of view.  When we buy meat we expect somebody else to break the first precept and do wrong livelihood, things we wouldn't want to do ourselves - this seems to me like hypocrisy.
"My religion is very simple - my religion is ice-cream"

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal