TSR Buddhist Society

Watch
savetheplanet
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#1
Ok so this is the first ever thread created in the TSR Buddhist Society. The question of vegetarianism in Buddhism is a very debatable and controversial topic. I would say the Theravadians dance a little too much with the fact that the Buddha was not a vegetarian to get away with eating meat, while the Mahayaniyans have very good points FOR vegeatarianism. So thus I would say I'm a Therevada buddhist with a pinch of Mahayana in me
My question is do you think buddhists eating meat is in accordance with the five precepts? My answer would be no and let me tell you why.
The first precept/guideline is DON'T KILL OR CAUSE TO KILL. Therevadians only think of the former and not the latter and give the pathetic excuse of "oh we never directly killed the animal..... we just bought the meat of an animal that was already kill".
Ever heard of demand and supply in economics? The only reason the butcher kills the animal is because of YOUR demand. By paying them, you're placing YOUR vote of approval thus you're CAUSING TO KILL.
Then let me debunk the Therevadians' most famous excuse ever ..... " Buddha was not a vegetarian so vegetarianism is not needed for spiritual enlightenment"
Dear Lay therevadians, unless you're a buddhist monk, you do realise that it is YOU who make the choice what to cook and eat. Buddha was a holy man. The lifestyle of the Buddha was such that they were required to make maximum possible use of the resources they have. They made their robes from the cloth wrappings of dead bodies and dyed them yellow/orange and they were required to live on leftover food from households.
Thus the term "begging alms" is not "begging food", the correct term would be "begging for leftovers". If the monks hadn't asked for those leftovers, people would've probably thrown them away thus wasting food.
The Buddha therefore consumed leftover meat. That is, the animal has ALREADY BEEN KILLED, so him consuming it does not cause additional animal suffering in his name. If the Buddha had the choice to cook/eat what he wants, do you think he would've chosen meat??? No. But here he had NO CHOICe but to take what was offered to him.
If the meat had been thrown away, the animal would've been killed for little reason. In addition, the Buddha told his monks not to eat meat if they knew,heard or suspected the animal to have been killed specifically for them.
Therevadians.....I'm sure YOU KNEW the meat was killed for you right? I mean YOU PAY FOR IT.
I'm disgusted and appalled at some monks in Sri Lanka who specifically ASK for chicken and fish curry citing buddha's meat eating as an excuse. Not only are you killing the animal indirectly......but you're also lying about the Buddha's vegetarianism. That's 2 precepts down *facepalm*
Third excuse for buddhists who eat meat. "Vegetarianism entails killing of insects when farmers use pesticide on vegetable crops."
Uhh .....again .....LAME EXCUSE. Of course vegetarianism entails killing of insects.......but then again life itself involves killing insects. Remember those times you slapped mosquitoes for biting you? or those times when you crushed ants unaware? Samsara traps us in a web of killing and suffering. It's inevitable.
Again think of the direct intentions of a vegetarian and a meat eater. After all, it's thought and intention that matters?
Vegetarian : " I want to eat tomatoes"
Meat eater : I want chicken.
BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!
A vegetarian wants tomatoes......it may or may not kill insects but he never specifically asks insects to be killed. An insect can ESCAPE from the use of pesticide.
A meat eater specifically asks the ANIMAL TO BE KILLED. A chicken cannot escape his requests. Animal suffering in his intention is not a probability, it definately does happen.
Secondly, as none of us can live our lives without killing animals intentionally or unintentionally, eating meat is not a valid excuse for NOT MINIMISING animal suffering. Our digestive systems are perfectly capable of digesting a vegetarian diet. We're omnivores.......vegetarianism or carnivorism is a choice. So why not choose the one causing minimal suffering to other living beings? Don't you dare say that insects killed on a crop field is more suffering than a cow being tortured , emotionally tormented and slaughtered to death. Even with the most humane ways of killing, an animal has emotions and feelings like you. They can sense when they're about to be killed ; I'm just curious as to how ignorant you really are when you incite fear,shock,pain,misery,sadness in these poor animals through your greedy meat based diet, not to mention the daily lies you tell to the Buddha at a buddhist temple when you recite the first precept :rolleyes:
Therevadians........ you have utterly failed at your excuses for non-vegetarianism.......stop using the Buddha's name as an excuse to hide your ignorance about animal suffering. If you can't treat an animal properly, how can you treat a human properly? After all, animals are like mentally disabled humans. They can't speak,act, think as well as humans but does that give you the right to dictate how they should live and for how long they should live? If yes......then you might as well go and kill mentally disabled people and human babies and make those lovely steaks and nuggets out of them you so love.

So yeah that's my vegetarian rant I'm not obsessed with vegetarianism to show them I'm spiritually superior to them or anything, but I couldn't help debunking the lame excuses they make :cool:


Besides that, if you are a buddhist or are interested in buddhism, don't hesitate to join!!!!
1
reply
Bakmouth
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 9 years ago
#2
1 Corinthians 10:25

Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience.
11
reply
savetheplanet
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#3
(Original post by Bakmouth)
1 Corinthians 10:25

Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience.
I wonder which part of the Corinthians also tell you to lie on public polls about being atheists and voting for your own religion because no-one else would? :rolleyes:
1
reply
jameswhughes
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 9 years ago
#4
(Original post by Bakmouth)
1 Corinthians 10:25

Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience.
What about pork?
1
reply
Three Mile Sprint
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report 9 years ago
#5
Buddhist Reporting in.

Meat eater to.
0
reply
Three Mile Sprint
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report 9 years ago
#6
(Original post by savetheplanet)
Ok so this is the first ever thread created in the TSR Buddhist Society. The question of vegetarianism in Buddhism is a very debatable and controversial topic. I would say the Theravadians dance a little too much with the fact that the Buddha was not a vegetarian to get away with eating meat, while the Mahayaniyans have very good points FOR vegeatarianism. So thus I would say I'm a Therevada buddhist with a pinch of Mahayana in me
My question is do you think buddhists eating meat is in accordance with the five precepts? My answer would be no and let me tell you why.
My answer would be yes, I will seek to explain why

The first precept/guideline is DON'T KILL OR CAUSE TO KILL.
Your the first person I have seen to make this little Addendum.
Ill let it pass

Therevadians only think of the former and not the latter and give the pathetic excuse of "oh we never directly killed the animal..... we just bought the meat of an animal that was already kill".
Ehh and Mahayan's and Zen, and Pure Land and Tibetan!

Ever heard of demand and supply in economics? The only reason the butcher kills the animal is because of YOUR demand. By paying them, you're placing YOUR vote of approval thus you're CAUSING TO KILL.
In theory yes, in practice no

Then let me debunk the Therevadians' most famous excuse ever ..... " Buddha was not a vegetarian so vegetarianism is not needed for spiritual enlightenment"
Dear Lay therevadians, unless you're a buddhist monk, you do realise that it is YOU who make the choice what to cook and eat. Buddha was a holy man. The lifestyle of the Buddha was such that they were required to make maximum possible use of the resources they have. They made their robes from the cloth wrappings of dead bodies and dyed them yellow/orange and they were required to live on leftover food from households.
Thus the term "begging alms" is not "begging food", the correct term would be "begging for leftovers". If the monks hadn't asked for those leftovers, people would've probably thrown them away thus wasting food.
The Buddha therefore consumed leftover meat. That is, the animal has ALREADY BEEN KILLED, so him consuming it does not cause additional animal suffering in his name. If the Buddha had the choice to cook/eat what he wants, do you think he would've chosen meat??? No. But here he had NO CHOICe but to take what was offered to him.
Firstly this reason is used by all schools of Buddhism, not just Theravadin's
Secondly, the Buddha's lifestyle was not always as dire as you made out, quite often he lived rather comfortably as well and there are reports of him eating meat that was freely given when he was in no "dire need". Just him chillin out with his descriples, not starving, in a comfortable house...eating that meat.

If the meat had been thrown away, the animal would've been killed for little reason. In addition, the Buddha told his monks not to eat meat if they knew,heard or suspected the animal to have been killed specifically for them.
Therevadians.....I'm sure YOU KNEW the meat was killed for you right? I mean YOU PAY FOR IT.
Bolded you say "specifically" then in the next line you change the context and make the incorrect claim that by paying for it you somehow change the context of the killing, as though the fisherman was catching the fish and thinking "Well this little fella, he's going to go feed Barry the Monk...hey BARRY THIS ONES FOR YOU MATE!"

"Cheers Rob thank's!" cry's Barry

Not really

I'm disgusted and appalled at some monks in Sri Lanka who specifically ASK for chicken and fish curry citing buddha's meat eating as an excuse. Not only are you killing the animal indirectly......but you're also lying about the Buddha's vegetarianism.
I am somewhat perplexed by that practice as well, it is my experience that Monk's will not ask for Meat, but will not refuse it if offered.
However it seems to be you who is lying(by virtue of being mistaken) regarding the Noble Sidharthas Vegetarianism, since he ate meat in all circumstances not just what he proverbially picked out of the trash when there was nothing else.


That's 2 precepts down *facepalm*
A piece of Advice brother, when forming an argument, be polite, not disrespectful or aggressive , this is also one of the Fiver Precept's ...it's actually two of them.

Third excuse for buddhists who eat meat. "Vegetarianism entails killing of insects when farmers use pesticide on vegetable crops."
Uhh .....again .....LAME EXCUSE. Of course vegetarianism entails killing of insects.......but then again life itself involves killing insects. Remember those times you slapped mosquitoes for biting you? or those times when you crushed ants unaware?
So what, those people should NOT have swotted those Mosquito's and they should have been more careful not to kill those ants.
You have just presented the argument of "We do it in small numbers...so why not do it in big numbers?"

Did you know that if you converted the world to Vegitaranism, "more" animals not just insects would die as a result, than if we remained meat-eaters?

Samsara traps us in a web of killing and suffering. It's inevitable.
Again think of the direct intentions of a vegetarian and a meat eater. After all, it's thought and intention that matters?
Vegetarian : " I want to eat tomatoes"
Meat eater : I want chicken.
BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!
Not really, now that you are aware that eating Vegetables, or transforming society into a Vegetarian one, would cause "more" deaths, you should be doing the merciful thing and eating meat.

A vegetarian wants tomatoes......it may or may not kill insects but he never specifically asks insects to be killed. An insect can ESCAPE from the use of pesticide.
Earlier you used the argument that "not sepcfically asking" for something to be killed was no excuse.

Have you not heard of economic supply and demand? by wanting a tomato you know insects and small woodland animals and birds will be killed , by reinforcing the demand you increase the deathcount, you may as well have killed them yourself, no?

This was your argument at least for Meat Supply and demand.
[quote[ Don't you dare say that insects killed on a crop field is more suffering than a cow being tortured , emotionally tormented and slaughtered to death. Even with the most humane ways of killing, an animal has emotions and feelings like you. They can sense when they're about to be killed ; I'm just curious as to how ignorant you really are when you incite fear,shock,pain,misery,sadness in these poor animals through your greedy meat based diet,[/quote]
You seem to misunderstand suffering.
You don't stack them like a point system and go well "X hurt a little bit more than Y..I guess X suffered more!" X and Y both lost a life, the loss of life is the greatest suffering, irregardless of the lead-up to it.
There is no difference, this is something the Buddha himself taught.

Therevadians........ you have utterly failed at your excuses for non-vegetarianism
And Mahayans, and Zen, and Tibettan, and Pureland, and..and..and ..and all the rest of them.

.......stop using the Buddha's name as an excuse to hide your ignorance about animal suffering. If you can't treat an animal properly, how can you treat a human properly? After all, animals are like mentally disabled humans. They can't speak,act, think as well as humans but does that give you the right to dictate how they should live and for how long they should live? If yes......then you might as well go and kill mentally disabled people and human babies and make those lovely steaks and nuggets out of them you so love.
This is a horrible argument and you know it.

So yeah that's my vegetarian rant I'm not obsessed with vegetarianism to show them I'm spiritually superior to them or anything, but I couldn't help debunking the lame excuses they make :cool:
Really?
Your "argument" was so full of insult's, aggressive phrasing and a general air of Superiority complex, that you sure fooled me.


Besides that, if you are a buddhist or are interested in buddhism, don't hesitate to join!!!!
I worry that your attitude might cause people to hesitate.
400 million Buddhist's across the world, only 8% of those are Vegetarian by most estimates.
It was never something taught by any Buddhist Movement as being mandatory, until over a Millennia after the Buddha's death.

The Buddha and many other Bodhisattva were meat eaters not the "When times were hard" kind, the.."all the time" kind, they achieved Enlightenment just fine.

There are undeniably benefits to being a Vegetarian in terms of increasing your Dharma, but there are many ways to benefit yourself in that area, and many paths to the same goal.
7
reply
savetheplanet
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#7
Your the first person I have seento make this little Addendum.
Ill let it pass
Hmm really?
"One must not deliberately kill any living creatures, either by committing the act oneself, instructing others to kill, or approving of or participating in act of killing. It is a respect to others' lives."
Looks like Mahayana buddhists agree with me too. Thus my point about causing to kill still stands as explained by the above verse.
Let me quote another verse from the Buddha himself.
Dhammapada passages 129 and 130 say "All beings fear before danger, life is dear to all. When a man considers this, he does not kill or cause to kill".
So again I suppose the buddha agrees with me too. So your statement "you're the first person to say that" is pretty ignorant/ ill-thought.


Ehh and Mahayan's and Zen, and Pure Land and Tibetan!
You do realise that a fundamental concept in Mahayana Buddhism is vegetarianism right? So I doubt they would give that same excuse.
Tibetan Buddhists do consume meat but don't give the reason you seem to think. Again they consume meat because the climate in Tibet is unfavourable for vegetable crops and they have no other choice. However after the recent trend of globalisation and imported food, Tibetan monks and the Dalai Lama have encouraged a vegetarian diet as much as possible.

In theory yes, in practice no
Then that's ignorance. If you're unable to practice what you know.
Firstly this reason is used by all schools of Buddhism, not just Theravadin's
Secondly, the Buddha's lifestyle was not always as dire as you made out, quite often he lived rather comfortably as well and there are reports of him eating meat that was freely given when he was in no "dire need". Just him chillin out with his descriples, not starving, in a comfortable house...eating that meat.
1) All schools of buddhism? Oh so maybe the Mahayana school of Buddhism is not a part of buddhism for you then? It's very well known that Mahayana Buddhists strongly encourage vegetarian diets based on the Lankavatara Sutta.
2) I never said his situation was "dire". He lived comfortably because an enlightened being is not supposed to moan/complain about their lifestyle. They happily accept whatever is given to them. Thus the word "comfortably" is very subjective. I'm sure you wouldn't find a lifestyle of wearing clothes made of rags and begging for leftover food and travelling for miles by foot to preach Dharma very comfortable.

3) A house? Where on earth do you pull these facts out from? o_O? The buddha never lived in a fixed/permanent place, let alone a fixed-abode monastary! Him and his disciples (not descriples as you seem to say) would travel from place to place by foot to preach his Dharma. As a result they begged for alms as they went along and they slept wherever they could during the night. Sometimes, it was recorded that if they had no place to stay, the Buddha would sleep under a tree for the night.
By house if you mean invited as a guest by his lay followers, then again even if he did eat meat at their homes, the meat wasn't specifically killed for the Buddha. It was killed for the lay followers for their dinners whether the Buddha visits or not.
The reason why the Buddha never specified/demanded a vegetarian meal from his hosts was because of their circumstances. What if the hosts were a poor family who only reared animals and didn't have enough land to grow vegetables? What if the climate where they lived allowed only animals to be grown and not vegetables? So was the buddha going to tell them "no no even if it costs you a 10000 bucks, get me those vegetables?" No he would merely accept what his hosts are willing and can provide him.
It's up to the hosts to decide for themselves (if they can afford it ) whether it's appropriate to kill animals and offer the meat to a holy man. It's them who makes the choice, not the buddha.

Bolded you say "specifically" then in the next line you change the context and make the incorrect claim that by paying for it you somehow change the context of the killing, as though the fisherman was catching the fish and thinking "Well this little fella, he's goingto go feed Barry the Monk...hey BARRY THIS ONES FOR YOU MATE!"

"Cheers Rob thank's!" cry's Barry

Not really
Your argument doesn't make much sense anyways but I'll try to reply from how I understand it. Why is my claim incorrect? By paying for it you are changing the context of the killing. You pay for it so you KNOW the animal is being specifically killed for you.
Compare this to a monk who has no idea what his host is preparing for him. He has no idea whether they're preparing vegetables or meat and so far he has not heard, seen, or suspected that an animal has been killed specifically for him. Thus the animal has been killed without the monk's knowledge and intention. (Refer Jivaka Sutta)

However it seemsto be you who is lying(by virtue of being mistaken) regarding the Noble Sidharthas Vegetarianism, since he ate meat in all circumstances not just what he proverbially picked out of the trash when there was nothing else
Yeah he ate meat whenever he was offered meat or if the meat was not killed specifically for him. If he knew the meat was specifically killed for him, he would politely refuse it.
Umm and he did not eat meat in ANY circumstance because in the Jivaka sutta he says thus :

"Jiivaka, I say that on three instances meat should not be partaken, when seen, heard or when there is a doubt. I say, that on these three instances meat should not be partaken. I say, that meat could be partaken on three instances, when not seen, not heard and when there is no doubt about it"

So it seems to me as if you are lying ......not me. And yes my point about buddhist monks lying about buddha's meat eating still stands. The buddha had a valid reason to support his consumption of meat. The monks don't....they're purely using the buddha as an umbrella to hide their guilt. The excuse buddha used for eating meat can't be used by these monks because nowadays, monks don't normally practice rounds of begging alms. They live in fixed-abode monastaries where food is specifically prepared for them.

A piece of Advice brother, when forming an argument, be polite, not disrespectful or aggressive , this is also one of the Fiver Precept's ...it's actually two of them.
How is facepalming myself being aggressive?
And how is it two precepts even if I was being aggressive as you say? I can only think of the fourth precept. Even that is not valid. Being rude doesn't even come under the five precepts.
I'm nt breaking the 1st because I'm not "killing" in anyone by facepalming myself.

So what, those people should NOT have swotted those Mosquito's and they should have been more careful notto kill those ants.
You don't have to kill the mosquito.... you could just wave your hand on them and make them go away. The need to kill them displays your anger towards a mosquito who's trying to live by feeding on your blood (they have nothing to feed on anyways).
I'm sure if you put your foot down hard on a bunch of ants which you clearly saw and were aware of....that's pure ignorance. You can be mindful by minimising damage to the ants by perhaps being more careful of your actions.
0
reply
Watch Key Phone
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#8
Report 9 years ago
#8
(Original post by Bakmouth)
1 Corinthians 10:25

Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience.
Well done, you successfully misunderstood the point of yet another thread. Bravo.
3
reply
savetheplanet
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#9
Not really, now that you are aware that eating Vegetables, or transforming society into a Vegetarian one, would cause "more" deaths, you should be doing the merciful thing and eating meat
It seems to me that YOU don't understand what suffering really is. In this context, the sin of killing constitutes two things :
1) Taking the right to live away from an animal. This is equivalent to both insects and cows.
2) The suffering and pain you make the animal undergo while being killed. This is not equivalent to both animals because a cow has a more complex nervous system than an ant and therefore can suffer more and feel more pain. Thus in terms of suffering this part carries more weight than the first part.
So by killing a cow you're causing more suffering than killing an ant.
By saying that more animals are killed while ploughing and growing crops, you're implying that one vegetarian eats a whole field of vegetables. This is not the case. Their meal would probably consist of SOME tomatoes grown in one part of the field. So if you take the amount of insects killed in that part versus a whole animal being killed to provide a meal for a meat eater, I would say the vegetarian diet has generated less suffering overall.
Also, like I keep saying and you keep ignoring..... Vegetarians don't specifically ask insects to be killed for the vegetables they eat. It may be grown in their own garden, nearby small farm where insecticides are not used. However, eating meat means that you will definately kill the animal (since that's your direct intention) whether you kill it in your own farm or in a factory.
Thus eating vegetables means that animals MAY or MAY NOT be killed. However a meat eater is directly demanding the animal to be slaughtered so an animal is DEFINATELY killed.
It's all about your intention.

And Mahayans, and Zen, and Tibettan, and Pureland, and..and..and ..and all the rest of them.
Mahayans don't normally eat meat and Tibetans have an excuse for eating meat because of their climate being unfavourable for vegetable growth. Therevadians are normally concentrated in Sri Lanka and Thailand; both countries have very favourable climates for crop growth thus they don't have an excuse for eating meat when their climate provides vegetables in abundance.

This is a horrible argument and you know it
Why is it horrible? I've backed up my argument. Animals are like mentally disabled humans. They just carry a different physical form. Buddhism tells you to forget about what you're physically and concentrate on your mind/personality.
Thus on mental levels, a baby or a person who can't talk or walk properly is equivalent to an animal who can't talk or walk on two legs.

Really?
Your "argument" was so full of insult's, aggressive phrasing and a general air of Superiority complex, that you sure fooled me
A general air of superiority complex? I'm a Therevada buddhist myself. o.O I never insulted Therevadians personally, I insulted their excuses for eating meat and debunked them.
I wasn't trying to be aggressive; sorry if it came out that way but I was angry at the use of the Buddha's name as an excuse for some greedy people to eat meat. "the buddha did it so why can't I?"
It's funny because the buddha told you pretty clearly to not do things just because he did it. Do things out of knowledge and understanding from your OWN experiences.


I worry that your attitude might cause people to hesitate.
400 million Buddhist's across the world, only 8% of those are Vegetarian by most estimates.
It was never something taught by any Buddhist Movement as being mandatory, until over a Millennia after the Buddha's death.

The Buddha and many other Bodhisattva were meat eaters not the "When times were hard" kind, the.."all the time" kind, they achieved Enlightenment just fine.
Well it may make people like you with no proper understanding of the buddha's lifestyle/teachings hesitate but people who are knowledgable about the subject especially Mahayanians won't hesitate to join.
And no your argument about the Buddha being an "all time" meat eater still fails because of what was said in the Jivaka Sutta.
0
reply
savetheplanet
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#10
(Original post by Amwazicles)
Well done, you successfully misunderstood the point of yet another thread. Bravo.
Lol we all learnt to ignore him. He's Bakmouth after all:rolleyes:
I'm pretty sure I said TSR buddhists :confused: ; don't remember saying christians
0
reply
Watch Key Phone
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#11
Report 9 years ago
#11
(Original post by savetheplanet)
Ok so this is the first ever thread created in the TSR Buddhist Society. The question of vegetarianism in Buddhism is a very debatable and controversial topic. I would say the Theravadians dance a little too much with the fact that the Buddha was not a vegetarian to get away with eating meat, while the Mahayaniyans have very good points FOR vegeatarianism. So thus I would say I'm a Therevada buddhist with a pinch of Mahayana in me
My question is do you think buddhists eating meat is in accordance with the five precepts? My answer would be no and let me tell you why.
The first precept/guideline is DON'T KILL OR CAUSE TO KILL. Therevadians only think of the former and not the latter and give the pathetic excuse of "oh we never directly killed the animal..... we just bought the meat of an animal that was already kill".
Ever heard of demand and supply in economics? The only reason the butcher kills the animal is because of YOUR demand. By paying them, you're placing YOUR vote of approval thus you're CAUSING TO KILL.
Then let me debunk the Therevadians' most famous excuse ever ..... " Buddha was not a vegetarian so vegetarianism is not needed for spiritual enlightenment"
Dear Lay therevadians, unless you're a buddhist monk, you do realise that it is YOU who make the choice what to cook and eat. Buddha was a holy man. The lifestyle of the Buddha was such that they were required to make maximum possible use of the resources they have. They made their robes from the cloth wrappings of dead bodies and dyed them yellow/orange and they were required to live on leftover food from households.
Thus the term "begging alms" is not "begging food", the correct term would be "begging for leftovers". If the monks hadn't asked for those leftovers, people would've probably thrown them away thus wasting food.
The Buddha therefore consumed leftover meat. That is, the animal has ALREADY BEEN KILLED, so him consuming it does not cause additional animal suffering in his name. If the Buddha had the choice to cook/eat what he wants, do you think he would've chosen meat??? No. But here he had NO CHOICe but to take what was offered to him.
If the meat had been thrown away, the animal would've been killed for little reason. In addition, the Buddha told his monks not to eat meat if they knew,heard or suspected the animal to have been killed specifically for them.
Therevadians.....I'm sure YOU KNEW the meat was killed for you right? I mean YOU PAY FOR IT.
I'm disgusted and appalled at some monks in Sri Lanka who specifically ASK for chicken and fish curry citing buddha's meat eating as an excuse. Not only are you killing the animal indirectly......but you're also lying about the Buddha's vegetarianism. That's 2 precepts down *facepalm*
Third excuse for buddhists who eat meat. "Vegetarianism entails killing of insects when farmers use pesticide on vegetable crops."
Uhh .....again .....LAME EXCUSE. Of course vegetarianism entails killing of insects.......but then again life itself involves killing insects. Remember those times you slapped mosquitoes for biting you? or those times when you crushed ants unaware? Samsara traps us in a web of killing and suffering. It's inevitable.
Again think of the direct intentions of a vegetarian and a meat eater. After all, it's thought and intention that matters?
Vegetarian : " I want to eat tomatoes"
Meat eater : I want chicken.
BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!
A vegetarian wants tomatoes......it may or may not kill insects but he never specifically asks insects to be killed. An insect can ESCAPE from the use of pesticide.
A meat eater specifically asks the ANIMAL TO BE KILLED. A chicken cannot escape his requests. Animal suffering in his intention is not a probability, it definately does happen.
Secondly, as none of us can live our lives without killing animals intentionally or unintentionally, eating meat is not a valid excuse for NOT MINIMISING animal suffering. Our digestive systems are perfectly capable of digesting a vegetarian diet. We're omnivores.......vegetarianism or carnivorism is a choice. So why not choose the one causing minimal suffering to other living beings? Don't you dare say that insects killed on a crop field is more suffering than a cow being tortured , emotionally tormented and slaughtered to death. Even with the most humane ways of killing, an animal has emotions and feelings like you. They can sense when they're about to be killed ; I'm just curious as to how ignorant you really are when you incite fear,shock,pain,misery,sadness in these poor animals through your greedy meat based diet, not to mention the daily lies you tell to the Buddha at a buddhist temple when you recite the first precept :rolleyes:
Therevadians........ you have utterly failed at your excuses for non-vegetarianism.......stop using the Buddha's name as an excuse to hide your ignorance about animal suffering. If you can't treat an animal properly, how can you treat a human properly? After all, animals are like mentally disabled humans. They can't speak,act, think as well as humans but does that give you the right to dictate how they should live and for how long they should live? If yes......then you might as well go and kill mentally disabled people and human babies and make those lovely steaks and nuggets out of them you so love.

So yeah that's my vegetarian rant I'm not obsessed with vegetarianism to show them I'm spiritually superior to them or anything, but I couldn't help debunking the lame excuses they make :cool:


Besides that, if you are a buddhist or are interested in buddhism, don't hesitate to join!!!!
I would consider myself a Buddhist in some or most respects, but I don't know if I would technically be 'accpeted' as an official Buddhist, so you may not care much about my opinion. But I'll give it anyway. As far as I'm concerned, we are part of the food chain. You say we're omnivores, which is exactly true. That means we eat both meat and non-meat. If you told all lions to stop eating meat, the entire ecosystem would collapse. The same thing would happen if all humans stopped eating meat. Of course, I would never wish unnecessary suffering on any creature which died for me to eat it, and so I always buy organic, fair-trade, high welfare standards meat. But I believe that if I was a prey animal - say a deer - in a previous or future life, I would see no unfairness in the fact that I may be killed by a predator animal. It is simply the way of life. It is natural for predators to kill, and it is natural for prey to be killed.
1
reply
blacklistmember
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#12
Report 9 years ago
#12
Not a problem, as long as you didnt kill.
1
reply
savetheplanet
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#13
(Original post by Amwazicles)
I would consider myself a Buddhist in some or most respects, but I don't know if I would technically be 'accpeted' as an official Buddhist, so you may not care much about my opinion. But I'll give it anyway. As far as I'm concerned, we are part of the food chain. You say we're omnivores, which is exactly true. That means we eat both meat and non-meat. If you told all lions to stop eating meat, the entire ecosystem would collapse. The same thing would happen if all humans stopped eating meat. Of course, I would never wish unnecessary suffering on any creature which died for me to eat it, and so I always buy organic, fair-trade, high welfare standards meat. But I believe that if I was a prey animal - say a deer - in a previous or future life, I would see no unfairness in the fact that I may be killed by a predator animal. It is simply the way of life. It is natural for predators to kill, and it is natural for prey to be killed.
Hi it's good that you buy high welfare meat or whatever but I disagree about the comment you made about omnivores. We have the choice to be vegetarian or not so why would you want to choose the one which generates the most suffering?
And I don't think you can equate a lion to a human because humans are omnivores (they can live without meat) while lions are carnivores (they would die without meat).
I doubt the ecosystem would collapse if humans stopped eating meat actually. Because the meat we eat are not part of an ecosystem as such. They're grown on farms and slaughtered for US to eat........not some other carnivore living in the forest.
It is natural for predator ANIMALS to kill because their brains aren't developed well enough to understand that what they do is not moral. A lion would never stop to think " Oh that poor deer what if it was me in a next life? " simply because they can't do so. Humans on the other hand have the ability for logical reasoning and to sort out what's moral and what's not.
Simply saying "if lions can do it why can 't I?" is pretty ignorant imo Lions and humans are very different in this context.
1
reply
Watch Key Phone
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#14
Report 9 years ago
#14
(Original post by savetheplanet)
Hi it's good that you buy high welfare meat or whatever but I disagree about the comment you made about omnivores. We have the choice to be vegetarian or not so why would you want to choose the one which generates the most suffering?
And I don't think you can equate a lion to a human because humans are omnivores (they can live without meat) while lions are carnivores (they would die without meat).
I doubt the ecosystem would collapse if humans stopped eating meat actually. Because the meat we eat are not part of an ecosystem as such. They're grown on farms and slaughtered for US to eat........not some other carnivore living in the forest.
It is natural for predator ANIMALS to kill because their brains aren't developed well enough to understand that what they do is not moral. A lion would never stop to think " Oh that poor deer what if it was me in a next life? " simply because they can't do so. Humans on the other hand have the ability for logical reasoning and to sort out what's moral and what's not.
Simply saying "if lions can do it why can 't I?" is pretty ignorant imo Lions and humans are very different in this context.
There are plenty of animals out there that eat some meat and some non-meat, and equally, the ecosystem would be in a bit of a state if they all became vegetarian.

You genuinely believe there would be no ill effects to the world ecosystem? How would we deal with all the currently living livestock which we no longer need or want? Obviously we couldn't slaughter them, that would be completely against the point. If we set them free, the ecosystem really would collapse. Think of all the damage that small numbers of foreign and introduces species have already done, imagine if that happened with thousands or even tens of thousands of animals. And we couldn't just keep them enclosed until they died of natural causes, because we would either have to keep feeding them ourselves (which we don't have the resources for) or let them starve - ie cause their death. We'd need the land they were previously on immediately to grow more plants in order to feed all the people whose diet previously consisted of a lot of meat. What would your suggestion be?

The trouble with morals is that they seem to convey the idea of an objective viewpoint. Perhaps I'm not a buddhist at all then. As I said, if I was that deer, I wouldn't be 'offended' by the idea of being used to feed a fellow living creature, it's just the 'circle of life'.
0
reply
username835236
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#15
Report 9 years ago
#15
I'm not a Buddhist personally, but I've studied Buddhism for the past year so thought I'd add to the debate

As far as I can see, a Buddhist should only eat meat if they have to do so in order to stay alive (ergo, if you were born as a lion in another life, you would inevitably have to eat meat to survive). The five precepts are quite clear on the fact that you should not intentionally take life. Buddha himself preached kindness to all living beings on the principle that all creatures are in some way related - the deer you shoot in this life could have been your brother in a previous life.

I don't think buying meat absolves you from breaking the precept, personally. If you contribute to the industry which routinely breaks one of the fundamental Buddhist precepts, that's just as bad as killing the animals yourself in my opinion.
3
reply
savetheplanet
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#16
(Original post by Amwazicles)
There are plenty of animals out there that eat some meat and some non-meat, and equally, the ecosystem would be in a bit of a state if they all became vegetarian.

You genuinely believe there would be no ill effects to the world ecosystem? How would we deal with all the currently living livestock which we no longer need or want? Obviously we couldn't slaughter them, that would be completely against the point. If we set them free, the ecosystem really would collapse. Think of all the damage that small numbers of foreign and introduces species have already done, imagine if that happened with thousands or even tens of thousands of animals. And we couldn't just keep them enclosed until they died of natural causes, because we would either have to keep feeding them ourselves (which we don't have the resources for) or let them starve - ie cause their death. We'd need the land they were previously on immediately to grow more plants in order to feed all the people whose diet previously consisted of a lot of meat. What would your suggestion be?

The trouble with morals is that they seem to convey the idea of an objective viewpoint. Perhaps I'm not a buddhist at all then. As I said, if I was that deer, I wouldn't be 'offended' by the idea of being used to feed a fellow living creature, it's just the 'circle of life'.
Well then in that case the best thing would be to wait till they die of natural causes. I mean no offense but the meat industry CREATED them to be killed so now they'd have to deal with the consequences should the world go vegetarian. Maybe they should've thought about that before bringing another life into this planet just so that their wants can be satisfied or because they think meat tastes nice. You can't necessarily suggest that meat eating must go on forever because we don't know what to do about "current livestock". That's like saying communism must go on forever because otherwise people working in state run industries would be unemployed and wouldn't have the skills to be re-employed.
There has to be a day when the practice must stop. The transition however should be gradual. That is, both meat supply and demand should be reduced gradually so that they don't "shock" the meat industry all of a sudden.
Or maybe they could use all those profits they gained from years of heartless torture of animals to now set them free of the vicious cycle of torture?


As for your last argument, you might think you won't be "offended" by someone eating you but I highly doubt you would be thinking "oh I'm not offended.....this is just the circle of life" when a lion rips your throat apart and starts indulging into your guts.
Every sentient being is scared of death and they will suffer pain upon death whether they are offended of being a prey or not.
0
reply
Watch Key Phone
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#17
Report 9 years ago
#17
(Original post by savetheplanet)
Well then in that case the best thing would be to wait till they die of natural causes. I mean no offense but the meat industry CREATED them to be killed so now they'd have to deal with the consequences should the world go vegetarian. Maybe they should've thought about that before bringing another life into this planet just so that their wants can be satisfied or because they think meat tastes nice. You can't necessarily suggest that meat eating must go on forever because we don't know what to do about "current livestock". That's like saying communism must go on forever because otherwise people working in state run industries would be unemployed and wouldn't have the skills to be re-employed.
There has to be a day when the practice must stop. The transition however should be gradual. That is, both meat supply and demand should be reduced gradually so that they don't "shock" the meat industry all of a sudden.
Or maybe they could use all those profits they gained from years of heartless torture of animals to now set them free of the vicious cycle of torture?


As for your last argument, you might think you won't be "offended" by someone eating you but I highly doubt you would be thinking "oh I'm not offended.....this is just the circle of life" when a lion rips your throat apart and starts indulging into your guts.
Every sentient being is scared of death and they will suffer pain upon death whether they are offended of being a prey or not.
1) By 'wait for them to die of natural causes', do you mean stop feeding them and let tem starve? (this surely constitues causing their death), or do you mean keep feeding them but stop eating them? Because in that case, animals have this nasty habit of reproducing in order to not go extinct, which may trouble your plans somewhat. I'm not saying "it would be difficult, so we won't bother", what I'm trying to do is explain what sort of 'ecosystem collapse' would actually occur if the whole world became vegetarian. It's not as simple as 'stop eating meat and the world is a better place', unfortunately.

2)Every sentient being is scared of death, yes, including myself, you, and everyone/thing else. But despite that fact, every sentient (and even non-sentient) being still dies. So there's no point in complaining about the way or cause of death, when we know it will happen anyway. I would rather my death contributed to another creature's survival, rather than simply have no effect whatsoever, wouldn't you?
0
reply
savetheplanet
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#18
(Original post by Amwazicles)
1) By 'wait for them to die of natural causes', do you mean stop feeding them and let tem starve? (this surely constitues causing their death), or do you mean keep feeding them but stop eating them? Because in that case, animals have this nasty habit of reproducing in order to not go extinct, which may trouble your plans somewhat. I'm not saying "it would be difficult, so we won't bother", what I'm trying to do is explain what sort of 'ecosystem collapse' would actually occur if the whole world became vegetarian. It's not as simple as 'stop eating meat and the world is a better place', unfortunately. 2)Every sentient being is scared of death, yes, including myself, you, and everyone/thing else. But despite that fact, every sentient (and even non-sentient) being still dies. So there's no point in complaining about the way or cause of death, when we know it will happen anyway. I would rather my death contributed to another creature's survival, rather than simply have no effect whatsoever, wouldn't you?
1) No I didn't mean starve and yes I did mean keep feeding them and stop eating them. They would probably reproduce but not in the dozens that the meat and milk industry used to make them reproduce. They would only reproduce when necessary and this number of births would be much smaller than if they were under the meat and milk industry.
So the population after some time would come to a stable state after some time.
Also, setting them free is fine as long as the animals aren't too different from their wild counterparts and if small numbers are released. This system has worked pretty well where I live and the ecosystem hasn't collapsed yet.
The problem with the livestock industry in the west is that capitalism has encouraged the industries to use genetic modification and artificial hormones/vaccines to get maximum meat/milk yield from animals. Little did they realise that this may cause them to be drastically different from the wild counterparts and would cause problems if they're reintroduced back into the wild.
Like I said, the meat industry (supported by your money) created this problem and I would expect them to be responsible enough to deal with the consequences. It's their fault they messed with the lives of animals both genetically and reproduction-wise in the first place so now they have to deal with it.
Another point, I never said the world should go vegetarian all at once. I said the transition should be gradual so that the industry has time to cope with the changes. Vegetarianism should be adopted slowly so that the demand for meat reduces gradually and the supply of meat will also follow that trend.
Eventually, meat companies would find it no longer profitable and diversify into other businesses.
A combination of setting animals free and letting them live would work quite well given that the numbers are small (and hence why I said the gradual transition to vegetarianism).

2) Why, yes I would love to sacrifice myself for another animal. But then again I'm a human and my brain and moral conscience is developed enough to think why sacrificing my life for the survival of another animal genertates a lot of merit.
You're making the assumption that all deer would think like you. I highly doubt a deer would go "oh look tht lion is charging after me....but that's okay I'll die for him anyway.......sacrificing myself for someone else's survival"
A deer's brain is not developed enough to distinguish morality from immorality and right from wrong whereas a human's brain is. Hence why you said that above.
Therefore, no deer is willing to sacrifice their life for a lion because they're scared and don't have the ability to reason properly. So you have to respect the fact that a deer is not as intelligent as you.
Secondly I don't know why you're bringing up the lion and deer scenario when it's clearly different from say human and cow (since humans have a highly developed moral conscience AND are ominovores whereas lions don't know what morality is AND they need meat for survival).
Humans being as intelligent as they claim to be should never use natural predators as an excuse for their greediness for meat. If they think they're intelligent (as they always claim to be) then it's high time they act intelligent.
0
reply
Watch Key Phone
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#19
Report 9 years ago
#19
(Original post by savetheplanet)
1) No I didn't mean starve and yes I did mean keep feeding them and stop eating them. They would probably reproduce but not in the dozens that the meat and milk industry used to make them reproduce. They would only reproduce when necessary and this number of births would be much smaller than if they were under the meat and milk industry.
So the population after some time would come to a stable state after some time.
Also, setting them free is fine as long as the animals aren't too different from their wild counterparts and if small numbers are released. This system has worked pretty well where I live and the ecosystem hasn't collapsed yet.
The problem with the livestock industry in the west is that capitalism has encouraged the industries to use genetic modification and artificial hormones/vaccines to get maximum meat/milk yield from animals. Little did they realise that this may cause them to be drastically different from the wild counterparts and would cause problems if they're reintroduced back into the wild.
Like I said, the meat industry (supported by your money) created this problem and I would expect them to be responsible enough to deal with the consequences. It's their fault they messed with the lives of animals both genetically and reproduction-wise in the first place so now they have to deal with it.
Another point, I never said the world should go vegetarian all at once. I said the transition should be gradual so that the industry has time to cope with the changes. Vegetarianism should be adopted slowly so that the demand for meat reduces gradually and the supply of meat will also follow that trend.
Eventually, meat companies would find it no longer profitable and diversify into other businesses.
A combination of setting animals free and letting them live would work quite well given that the numbers are small (and hence why I said the gradual transition to vegetarianism).
I still think you're oversimplifying how little an impact this would have. No matter how 'slowly' is could be done, we are still talking about collossal numbers of animals which would suddenly be fending for thenselves and overpopulating the wild.

2) Why, yes I would love to sacrifice myself for another animal. But then again I'm a human and my brain and moral conscience is developed enough to think why sacrificing my life for the survival of another animal genertates a lot of merit.
You're making the assumption that all deer would think like you. I highly doubt a deer would go "oh look tht lion is charging after me....but that's okay I'll die for him anyway.......sacrificing myself for someone else's survival"
A deer's brain is not developed enough to distinguish morality from immorality and right from wrong whereas a human's brain is. Hence why you said that above.
Therefore, no deer is willing to sacrifice their life for a lion because they're scared and don't have the ability to reason properly. So you have to respect the fact that a deer is not as intelligent as you.
Secondly I don't know why you're bringing up the lion and deer scenario when it's clearly different from say human and cow (since humans have a highly developed moral conscience AND are ominovores whereas lions don't know what morality is AND they need meat for survival).
Humans being as intelligent as they claim to be should never use natural predators as an excuse for their greediness for meat. If they think they're intelligent (as they always claim to be) then it's high time they act intelligent.
The point you make about a deer not thinking the same way as me does make some sense. However, I still believe that it is essentially pointless to try and prevent suffering for every individual creature all the time. A deer may not have any sense of morality, but just think - a deer dies and feeds a family of lion cubs, or a deer dies naturally a month later and feeds nothing but a few insects. I'm not suggesting that animals (or myself) should actively sacrifice themselves for other animals, I'm saying when animals die, it's better that they have some positive impact on other animal's lives at that time.
I am bringing up the lion-deer scenario because my whole point is that morality is completely irrelevant - simple as. And I'm not 'claiming' that my supposed intelligence makes my opinion any more relevant than any animal's, simply telling you what mine is.
0
reply
savetheplanet
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#20
I still think you're oversimplifying how little an impact this would have. No matter how 'slowly' is could be done, we are still talking about collossal numbers of animals which would suddenly be fending for thenselves and overpopulating the wild.
Collectively yes I am talking about large numbers of animals but if you consider the whole world, I'm talking about small numbers of animals released in each part of the world to different ecosystems and locations and throughout different courses of time ; this in combination with the "let them live till they die naturally" method, so the numbers are not as massive as you think.
If you add them all up then I'm sure it's a colossal number.
I'm not implying that current livestock should be all dumped into one part of the world/one ecosystem.

The point you make about a deer not thinking the same way as me does make some sense. However, I still believe that it is essentially pointless to try and prevent suffering for every individual creature all the time. A deer may not have any sense of morality, but just think - a deer dies and feeds a family of lion cubs, or a deer dies naturally a month later and feeds nothing but a few insects. I'm not suggesting that animals (or myself) should actively sacrifice themselves for other animals, I'm saying when animals die, it's better that they have some positive impact on other animal's lives at that time.
I am bringing up the lion-deer scenario because my whole point is that morality is completely irrelevant - simple as. And I'm not 'claiming' that my supposed intelligence makes my opinion any more relevant than any animal's, simply telling you what mine .
Well your point about the deer feeding many lions does make sense but there's a catch here. A deer dying naturally or being killed by a lion is a part of nature. Lions don't have the ability to think it's wrong and they need the meat to survive so they have no other choice but to kill animals. There's nothing humans can do about this.
Humans however are omnivores which provides them with a choice and the capability to live without meat. They also possess the moral conscience to think that killing other animals to appease their taste buds is wrong. Humans are hence fit both physically and mentally for a vegetarian diet.
Why not choose it then? Since it causes less suffering?
Just because a lion does it doesn't give the excuse for humans to do it. They're very different mentally and physically.
What do you mean morality doesn't matter? Morality itself is what sets humans above animals mentally. It's a unique skill/characteristic that we possess.
If a bird uses its wings to fly, then why can't humans make use of their moral conscience to cause less suffering for other sentient beings?
Saying morality is irrelevant is ignorance, according to buddhist teachings at least.
They require you to USE your morality when making conscious decisions.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (577)
34.45%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (689)
41.13%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (334)
19.94%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (75)
4.48%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed