Vegetarianism and Buddhism

[Pepe']

Side note.

I grow at least 50% of what I eat here in San Diego and I'm going to try growing some rice this year, really.

I do all my home remodeling and most auto repairs.

Fortunately I rarely get a cavity these days so I don't plan on drilling my own teeth anytime soon...

[kebo]

I was born and raised vegitarian, and I still am -- except for eggs or milk or fish if I feel I need that for my health.

However, I am not vegitarian for any religious reason-- my reasons are mostly health oriented.. but also I believe a plant based diet cultivates a mind that is more appropriate for understanding and practicing religion. (due to gentiler hormones, etc.)

I feel that some people don't understand Buddhist eating habits, in that mindfullness is the real issue, not what you eat.

For example, there is a difference between living eating a stray dog who has been tortured to death, becaue it is believed that the adrenalyn and fear hormones will make the meat taste better--

or eating a horse who had broken his leg, and been shot (because horses can't survive with broken legs)

How many lay Buddhsts would fail to see the difference between those, and only see the issue as black and white?

or further, suppose you are a starving beggar and you come upon the left-overs of the dog who was tortured to death.. I don't think it would be un-buddhist-like to eat the meat, even if you know how the animal died, because it comes down to your intention.

I think its unbuddhist to hunt for sport, but buddhist if you have to hunt to survive.

Then, the hunter could even pray for the animal that he killed.

[jitagon]

I was born and raised vegitarian, and I still am -- except for eggs or milk or fish if I feel I need that for my health.

However, I am not vegitarian for any religious reason-- my reasons are mostly health oriented.. but also I believe a plant based diet cultivates a mind that is more appropriate for understanding and practicing religion. (due to gentiler hormones, etc.)

I feel that some people don't understand Buddhist eating habits, in that mindfullness is the real issue, not what you eat.

For example, there is a difference between living eating a stray dog who has been tortured to death, becaue it is believed that the adrenalyn and fear hormones will make the meat taste better--

or eating a horse who had broken his leg, and been shot (because horses can't survive with broken legs)

How many lay Buddhsts would fail to see the difference between those, and only see the issue as black and white?

or further, suppose you are a starving beggar and you come upon the left-overs of the dog who was tortured to death.. I don't think it would be un-buddhist-like to eat the meat, even if you know how the animal died, because it comes down to your intention.

I think its unbuddhist to hunt for sport, but buddhist if you have to hunt to survive.

Then, the hunter could even pray for the animal that he killed.

Oh well that's alright then. What are you on?

[sabaijai]

There have been many threads discussing vegetarianism and Buddhism in Thailand in this subforum. Use the 'Search' box in the upper right-hand corner if you'd like to review them.

In the meantime I've merged the three most relevant and recent threads into one, with a new title.

Back to the discussion ....

[fabianfred]

My Thai wife refuses to eat Beef or Buffalo meat, because they were used to help farmers plough the land and pull the ox-carts, and are large animals.

The only danger with vegetarians is the possibility of committing 'white sins' .....by thinking one is better than those who are not vegetarian, or showing scorn or berating them.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Awhile ago we veered off the main subject of another thread and got into a very interesting discussion about veggies and Buddhism - the discussion ended as this was not the topic for the thread - though it might be interesting to have a thread about this crucial subject.

I was quite shocked when I came to Thailand to see Monks consuming meat - I know the arguements (hollow in my view) about they have to 'accept' what is offered on alms rounds and that they personally do not kill so 'it's ok' - but for many (me included) it's a basic tenent of Buddhism being abusedand karmically a no-no.

[camerata]

It's only considered mandatory in Mahayana Buddhism, which has its own scriptures. In the Theravada Buddhism of SE Asia, based on the Pali Canon, monks are allowed to eat any meat put in their alms bowl and the Buddha specifically rejected mandatory vegetarianism. If you search on the subject you'll find we've covered the topic before.

[mauGR1]

I agree with you,i was vegetarian long before being interested in Buddhism.

Not that i follow any religion or philosophy,but i try to refrain from criticizing other people's habits too..

And this is very Buddhist,isn't it

[babuhavas]

i am veggie,i belive in if i dont eat they wont kill any animals,

if monks are eating meat it means they are flexible and can not control their desire,

if any monk can tell me real name of buddha i will bow him.(i know)

dose anyone from TV knows?

[camerata]

Excerpts from Buddhism and Vegetarianism by Ajahn Jagaro, former abbot of Wat Pah Nanachat in Thailand, and later resident monk for the Buddhist Society of Western Australia:

Is it a prerequisite for a Buddhist to be a vegetarian according to the teachings of the Buddha, as far as we can assess? I would have to say, No, according to the Buddhist scriptures it is not a prerequisite for a person to be a vegetarian in order to be a Buddhist.

If we study these scriptures very carefully we will find that nowhere is there any injunction to either lay people or to monks with regard to vegetarianism. There is not a single mention of it as a Buddhist injunction on either the monks and nuns or lay people. If the Buddha had made vegetarianism a prerequisite it would have to be somewhere in the scriptures. Quite to the contrary, one does find a number of instances where the Buddha speaks about food, especially on the rules pertaining to the monks, indicating that, during the time of the Buddha, the monks did sometimes eat meat.

If you'll bear with me I would first like to present to you some of this historical evidence. In these scriptures, particularly in the Books of Discipline, there are many references to what monks are and are not allowed to do. A lot of these rules have to do with food; there are rules about all sorts of things pertaining to food, some of them very unusual. If the monks had to be vegetarian then these rules would seem to be completely useless or irrelevant.

For instance there is one rule which forbids monks from eating the meat of certain types of animals, such as horse, elephant, dog, snake, tiger, leopard and bear. There are about a dozen different types of meat specified by the Buddha which are not allowed for monks. That he made a rule that certain types of meat were not to be eaten by monks would indicate that other types of meat were allowable.

There is another rule: a monk was ill, and as he was quite sick a devout female disciple asked him if he had ever had this illness before and what did he take to cure it? It was some sort of stomach problem, and he said that he'd had it before and last time he had some meat broth which helped to relieve the symptoms. So this woman went off looking for meat to prepare a meat broth for the sick monk. However it was an uposatha (observance) day, so there was no meat available anywhere. It was a tradition in India not to slaughter animals on such days. Out of great devotion this lady decided that the monk could not be left to suffer, so she cut a piece of her own flesh and made a meat broth. She took it to the monk, offered it to him, and apparently he drank it and recovered. When the Buddha heard about this, he made a rule that monks are not allowed to eat human flesh. Thank goodness for that!

So here is another strange rule that would be completely pointless if there had been a stipulation that the monks never eat meat. There are many similar instances both in the Rules of Discipline and in the Discourses. When the Buddha heard a charge that Buddhist monks caused the killing of animals by eating meat, he stated that this was not so. He then declared three conditions under which monks were not to eat meat: if they have seen, heard or they suspect that the animal was killed specifically to feed them, then the monks should refuse to accept that food. At other times, when the monks go on almsround, they are supposed to look into their bowls and accept whatever is given with gratitude, without showing pleasure or displeasure. However, if a monk knows, has heard or suspects that the animal has been killed specifically to feed the monks, he should refuse to receive it.

There are many more examples than I have given here, scattered throughout the scriptures, indicating that it was not a requirement that either the monks or the lay people be vegetarian.

Furthermore, we can see that throughout the history of Buddhism there has not been one Buddhist country were vegetarianism was the common practice of the Buddhist people. This would indicate that it hasn't been the practice right from the very beginning. Although some Mahayana monks, in particular the Chinese, Vietnamese and some of the Japanese, are vegetarian, the majority of lay people are not. Historically, right up to the present day, Buddhist people in general haven't been strictly vegetarian. This would seem to support the conclusion drawn from an examination of the scriptures, that it has never been a prerequisite for people who want to be Buddhists to be vegetarian.

There is a big difference between eating meat and killing animals, although it can be argued that when we eat meat we indirectly support the killing of animals. There's something to that, and I'll go into it in greater detail later on. There is a big difference between the two, however, because the killing of animals refers to intentionally depriving an animal of life or intentionally causing or directly telling somebody else to kill an animal. That is what the first precept is about - the intention to kill an animal. That is the purpose behind the action. There is intention, there is purpose and there is the actualisation of that purpose in killing.

When people eat meat what is their intention? How many people eat meat with the intention to kill cows, pigs and sheep? If their intention in eating is to kill more cows, that would be very close to killing. If you consider why people really eat meat you will see that it is for very different reasons. Why did people in more basic, rural societies, such as in northern Thailand where I lived, where most of the people were Buddhist, eat meat? They ate frogs, grasshoppers, red ants, ant larvae .... all sorts of things. Why? For protein, they had to survive, they had to have food and it's very hard to get food. What did a caveman eat? He ate whatever he could get. Due to the fundamental drive to survive he would eat whatever he could get. That has a lot to do with what we eat - the primary instinct of survival. It depends on what is available.

It is important to make this distinction. Eating meat is not the same as killing animals, because the intention is different. The Buddha laid down this rule, to refrain from intentionally killing any living creature, as the first step towards respecting life, both human and animal. It's just a start, not the end. And most people can't even do that. How many people in the world can truly refrain from killing living beings? We could get into an idealistic battle as to why everybody should be vegetarian, but you have to admit that the great majority of people on this planet cannot even keep to the level of not intentionally killing. If they could keep to that level, things would be a lot better. The Buddha had a pragmatic approach to things, so he said to at least start at this level.

Thus far I have given you reasons why Buddhism doesn't make vegetarianism compulsory. Does Buddhism then encourage the eating of meat? Nowhere in the scriptures do we read that the Buddha said, "Eat more meat, it is good for you." Nowhere does it say to "give the man meat." There is not a single reference to giving the monks more meat. The scriptures certainly do not encourage the eating of meat; there are no references to it, no suggestion of encouragement for it. What are we to make of this? Simply that each individual must consider this matter carefully, come to his or her own conclusions and take responsibility for them.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Excerpts from Buddhism and Vegetarianism by Ajahn Jagaro, former abbot of Wat Pah Nanachat in Thailand, and later resident monk for the Buddhist Society of Western Australia:

Is it a prerequisite for a Buddhist to be a vegetarian according to the teachings of the Buddha, as far as we can assess? I would have to say, No, according to the Buddhist scriptures it is not a prerequisite for a person to be a vegetarian in order to be a Buddhist.

If we study these scriptures very carefully we will find that nowhere is there any injunction to either lay people or to monks with regard to vegetarianism. There is not a single mention of it as a Buddhist injunction on either the monks and nuns or lay people. If the Buddha had made vegetarianism a prerequisite it would have to be somewhere in the scriptures. Quite to the contrary, one does find a number of instances where the Buddha speaks about food, especially on the rules pertaining to the monks, indicating that, during the time of the Buddha, the monks did sometimes eat meat.

If you'll bear with me I would first like to present to you some of this historical evidence. In these scriptures, particularly in the Books of Discipline, there are many references to what monks are and are not allowed to do. A lot of these rules have to do with food; there are rules about all sorts of things pertaining to food, some of them very unusual. If the monks had to be vegetarian then these rules would seem to be completely useless or irrelevant.

For instance there is one rule which forbids monks from eating the meat of certain types of animals, such as horse, elephant, dog, snake, tiger, leopard and bear. There are about a dozen different types of meat specified by the Buddha which are not allowed for monks. That he made a rule that certain types of meat were not to be eaten by monks would indicate that other types of meat were allowable.

There is another rule: a monk was ill, and as he was quite sick a devout female disciple asked him if he had ever had this illness before and what did he take to cure it? It was some sort of stomach problem, and he said that he'd had it before and last time he had some meat broth which helped to relieve the symptoms. So this woman went off looking for meat to prepare a meat broth for the sick monk. However it was an uposatha (observance) day, so there was no meat available anywhere. It was a tradition in India not to slaughter animals on such days. Out of great devotion this lady decided that the monk could not be left to suffer, so she cut a piece of her own flesh and made a meat broth. She took it to the monk, offered it to him, and apparently he drank it and recovered. When the Buddha heard about this, he made a rule that monks are not allowed to eat human flesh. Thank goodness for that!

So here is another strange rule that would be completely pointless if there had been a stipulation that the monks never eat meat. There are many similar instances both in the Rules of Discipline and in the Discourses. When the Buddha heard a charge that Buddhist monks caused the killing of animals by eating meat, he stated that this was not so. He then declared three conditions under which monks were not to eat meat: if they have seen, heard or they suspect that the animal was killed specifically to feed them, then the monks should refuse to accept that food. At other times, when the monks go on almsround, they are supposed to look into their bowls and accept whatever is given with gratitude, without showing pleasure or displeasure. However, if a monk knows, has heard or suspects that the animal has been killed specifically to feed the monks, he should refuse to receive it.

There are many more examples than I have given here, scattered throughout the scriptures, indicating that it was not a requirement that either the monks or the lay people be vegetarian.

Furthermore, we can see that throughout the history of Buddhism there has not been one Buddhist country were vegetarianism was the common practice of the Buddhist people. This would indicate that it hasn't been the practice right from the very beginning. Although some Mahayana monks, in particular the Chinese, Vietnamese and some of the Japanese, are vegetarian, the majority of lay people are not. Historically, right up to the present day, Buddhist people in general haven't been strictly vegetarian. This would seem to support the conclusion drawn from an examination of the scriptures, that it has never been a prerequisite for people who want to be Buddhists to be vegetarian.

There is a big difference between eating meat and killing animals, although it can be argued that when we eat meat we indirectly support the killing of animals. There's something to that, and I'll go into it in greater detail later on. There is a big difference between the two, however, because the killing of animals refers to intentionally depriving an animal of life or intentionally causing or directly telling somebody else to kill an animal. That is what the first precept is about - the intention to kill an animal. That is the purpose behind the action. There is intention, there is purpose and there is the actualisation of that purpose in killing.

When people eat meat what is their intention? How many people eat meat with the intention to kill cows, pigs and sheep? If their intention in eating is to kill more cows, that would be very close to killing. If you consider why people really eat meat you will see that it is for very different reasons. Why did people in more basic, rural societies, such as in northern Thailand where I lived, where most of the people were Buddhist, eat meat? They ate frogs, grasshoppers, red ants, ant larvae .... all sorts of things. Why? For protein, they had to survive, they had to have food and it's very hard to get food. What did a caveman eat? He ate whatever he could get. Due to the fundamental drive to survive he would eat whatever he could get. That has a lot to do with what we eat - the primary instinct of survival. It depends on what is available.

It is important to make this distinction. Eating meat is not the same as killing animals, because the intention is different. The Buddha laid down this rule, to refrain from intentionally killing any living creature, as the first step towards respecting life, both human and animal. It's just a start, not the end. And most people can't even do that. How many people in the world can truly refrain from killing living beings? We could get into an idealistic battle as to why everybody should be vegetarian, but you have to admit that the great majority of people on this planet cannot even keep to the level of not intentionally killing. If they could keep to that level, things would be a lot better. The Buddha had a pragmatic approach to things, so he said to at least start at this level.

Thus far I have given you reasons why Buddhism doesn't make vegetarianism compulsory. Does Buddhism then encourage the eating of meat? Nowhere in the scriptures do we read that the Buddha said, "Eat more meat, it is good for you." Nowhere does it say to "give the man meat." There is not a single reference to giving the monks more meat. The scriptures certainly do not encourage the eating of meat; there are no references to it, no suggestion of encouragement for it. What are we to make of this? Simply that each individual must consider this matter carefully, come to his or her own conclusions and take responsibility for them.

Rubbish - killing is killing - Buddhas first precept applies

Buddhist writings:

from The Extended Circle by Jon Wynne-Tyson.

• For the sake of love of purity, the Bodhisattva should refrain from eating flesh, which is born of semen, blood, etc. For fear of causing terror to living beings let the Bodhisattva, who is disciplining himself to attain compassion, refrain from eating flesh...
  It is not true that meat is proper food and permissible when the animal was not killed by himself, when he did not order others to kill it, when it was not specially meant for him Again, there may be some people in the future who .. . being under the influence of the taste for meat will string together in various ways sophistic arguments to defend meat eating .
  But... meat eating in any form, in any manncr, and in any place is unconditionally and once for all prohibited... Meat eating I have not permitted to anyone, I do not permit, I will not permit . - Lankavatara
  
• The reason for practising dhyana [concentration of mind and seeking to attain Samadhi [equilibrium; tranquility; heightened and expanded awareness] is to escape from the suffering of life, but in seeking to escape from suffering ourselves why should we inflict it upon others? Unless you can so control your minds that even the thought of brutal unkindness and killing is abhorrent, you will never be able to escape from the bondage of the world's life. . . After my Parinirvana [complete extinction] in the last kalpa [the time between the start of a world cycle and its extinction] different kinds of ghosts will be encountered everywhere deceiving people and teaching them that they can eat meat and still attain enlightenment . . . How can a bhikshu, who hopes to become a deliverer of others, himself he living on the flesh of other sentient beings? - Surangama
  
• The eating of rneat extinguishes the seed of great compassion. - Mahaparinirvana
  
• I have enforced the law against killing certain animals and many others, but the greatest progress of righteousness among men comes from the exhortation in favour of non-injury to life and abstention from killing living beings. - Asoka's Edicts
  
• Hurt not others with that which pains yourself. - Udanavarga
  
• By whomsoever no evil is done in deed, or word, or thought, him I call a brahmin who is guarded in these three. - Dhammapada
  
• The Buddha has mercy even on the meanest thing. - Vinaya, Cullavagga Khandhaka
  
• To serve the creatures is to serve the Buddha. - Indian Proverb
  
• All beings seek for happiness; so let your compassion extend itself to all. - Mahavamsa
  
• The sacred eightfold path or middle way - right views, right resolve, right speech, right action, right living, right effort, right attention, right meditation . . which lead to the extinction of suffering and Nirvana. - Buddha's first sermon 4th truth. Vinaya, Mahavagga
  
• The Goddess of Mercy has a thousand hands - and needs them all. - Japanese Proverb
  
• He who, seeking his own happiness, punishes or kills beings who also long for happiness, will not find happiness after death. - Dhammapada
  
• Let him not destroy, or cause to be destroyed, any life at all, nor sanction the acts of those who do so. Let him refrain from even hurting any creature, both those that are strong and those that tremble in the world. - Sutta-Nipata
  
• Because he has pity on every living creature, therefore is a man called 'holy'. - Dhammapada
  
• Full of love for all things in the world, practising virtue, in order to benefit others, this man alone is happy. - Dhammapada
  
• One act of pure love in saving life is greater than spending the whole of one's time in religious offerings to the gods - Dhammapada
  

[awd]

It doesn't seem very buddhist to kill vegetables by yanking them out of the ground violently, then throwing them into hot oil. How would you feel?

[ChiangMaiFun]

It doesn't seem very buddhist to kill vegetables by yanking them out of the ground violently, then throwing them into hot oil. How would you feel?

'kill'? killing can only be of a concious being... notmany vegtables fall into that catagory - seems a shame you reduce a debate into farce...

In the Shurangama Sutra, the Buddha states:

After my extinction, in the Dharma-Ending Age, these hordes of ghosts and spirits will abound, spreading like wildfire as they argue that eating meat will bring one to the Bodhi Way. . . . You should know that these people who eat meat may gain some awareness and may seem to be in samadhi, but they are all great

rakshasas

. When their retribution ends, they are bound to sink into the bitter sea of birth and death. They are not disciples of the Buddha. Such people as these kill and eat one another in a never-ending cycle. How can such people transcend the triple realm?

(SS VI 20-22)

[ChiangMaiFun]

The Mahayana Attitude to Animals

In the Lankavatara Sutra of the Mahayana sect (whose monks are strict vegetarians), The Buddha forbids his followers to eat the flesh of animals, fish and fowl because they can sense their violent intentions and this causes them terror. He adds that lions and wolves wait in the forests to devour the eater of flesh.

In fact, Chinese and most Korean monks and nuns (followers of the Mahayana) are strict vegetarians.

In Angulimala Sutra, The Buddha says: "In the sequence of lives during our beginningless and endless coming and going in samsara, there is no being that has not been our mother, that has not been our sister. Even dogs have been our fathers before. . . Therefore, since our own flesh and that of others is the same flesh, the buddhas do not eat meat."

Vegetarian Diet Helps to Free one from the Wheel of Rebirth

According to The Buddha, life brings suffering. Therefore, the goal of life is to attain freedom from rebirth. Rebirth stems from a cause. If one plants the cause by eating animals, he will face the result. The animals he eats will eat him.

[camerata]

Rubbish - killing is killing - Buddhas first precept applies

As I said before, it's only considered mandatory in Mahayana Buddhism, which has its own scriptures (some of which you quoted) and its own take on what the Buddha said and meant. Eating is not killing. Intention is everything. According to the Pali Canon, that's how the Buddha saw it, and that's how Theravada Buddhism sees it. Mahayana and some other religions see it differently. Different strokes for different folks.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Rubbish - killing is killing - Buddhas first precept applies

As I said before, it's only considered mandatory in Mahayana Buddhism, which has its own scriptures (some of which you quoted) and its own take on what the Buddha said and meant. Eating is not killing. According to the Pali Canon, that's how the Buddha saw it, and that's how Theravada Buddhism sees it. Mahayana and some other religions see it differently. Different strokes for different folks.

You do not believe it is fairly basic? even if the killing is second or third person? forget for a second canons etc. there ARE circumstances where humans wil eat humans - and although I have been veggie for 35 years if I were... say in a boat with only a sheep and a knife for company I would, without doubt, kill the sheep and eat - but that is necessity not choice:

Should Buddhists be vegetarians?

By Dr. D. P. Atukorale

All Buddhists are expected to observe the five precepts. Out of these, when we observe the first precept, we promise not to take the life of any living being and not to harm any such being.

It is guise clear that we cannot consume flesh without someone else killing the animals for us. If we do not consumer meat or meat products, there will be no killing of animals. The first precept is an injunction against destroying life and hurting others.

The Buddha also tells us not to hurt others according to the first precept. According to passage number 131 of Dhammapada. "He who, for the sake of happiness hurts others who also want happiness, shall not hereafter find happiness". Therefore according to Buddhism not killing and not hurting living beings are very important.

Passage no 225 of Dhammapada says "The wise who hurt no living beings and who keep their bodies under self-control, may go to immortal "Nirvana" where once gone they sorrow no more".

Again Dhammapada passage no. 405 says " A man is not a great man because he is a warrior and kills others, but because he hurts not any living beings, he in truth is called a great man".

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".

According to Buddhism all animals such as fish, mammals and birds are sentient creatures and should not be killed or hurt. According to Buddhism, Buddhists should not be hunters, fishermen, trappers, slaughterhouse workers, vivisectors etc.

What About Eating Meat?

Some people argue that, as long as people don’t kill animals themselves, it is all right to eat meat. But passages nos 129 and 130 of Dhammapada specify that we should not kill or cause to kill. When somebody buys meat and meat products he or she must necessarily cause someone to kill these animals.

By accepting meat served to us by someone else, we are causing others to kill. Dhammapada passage no. 7 says " He who lives only for pleasures and whose soul is not in harmony, who considers not the food he eats, is idle and has not the power of virtue, such a man is moved by "Mara", is moved by selfish temptation even as a weak tree is shaken by the wind".

Why Should Buddhists Be Vegetarians?

The main reason is mercy. Mcrcy is an important way of learning to be a better person. Being without mercy is incompatible with being a Buddhist. Having a merciful and a compassionate heart will show up in all aspects of ones life. Think of the intense pain you would get when a bee or a wasp or a centipede attacks you. A person who has ever seen how a crab is cooked in boiling water and its desperate and doomed efforts to crawl and jump out betray the unbearable pain it experiences, will never eat crabs. Finally the crab gives up the life in sorrow as it turns bright red. What a painful end.

A person who has ever seen the excruciating pain suffered by a cow when the slaughterer cuts a part of the neck, bleeds the animal and skins the animal long before it dies will never have the heart to eat beef. Not eating the flesh of these animals is an expression of mercy.

For meat-eaters, every banquet, every wedding and every birthday party and every wedding anniversary means death of thousands of animals.

Preventing the suffering of living creatures by not using their flesh to satisfy our taste buds and hunger is the minimum expression of compassion we as Buddhists can offer.

To shoot, knife, strangle, drown crush, poison, bum or electo or otherwise intentionally to take life of a living being, purposefully to cause pain on a human being or an animal is to defile the first precept. Another way to defile the first precept is to cause another to kill, torture or harm any living creature. Therefore to put flesh of an animal into one’s belly is another way to cause another to kill.

If fowls, cows and fish are not eaten, they would not be killed. Therefore meat eaters are responsible for the violence and destruction of animals.

Buddhism also teaches us that there is not a single being that has not been our father, our mother, husband, wife, sister, brother, son or daughter, in the ladder of cause and effect through countless rebirths. In other words the creature that is the cow today might have been our mother during the last birth. The chicken you are going to eat for your dinner to night might have been your brother or sister during your last birth. Therefore rights of nonhumans should not be ignored or trampled upon. How can a monk seeking liberation from suffering, persistently eat the flesh of animals, knowing the excruciating pain and terror caused to them at the time of their slaughter?

Did The Buddha Sanction Meat Eating?

The laymen and Buddhist monks who eat meat quote the Jeewaka sutra in which the Buddha is said to have been addressed by one Jeewaka. Buddha is quoted as saying.

"I forbid the eating of meat in 3 cases. If there is evidence either of your eyes, or of your ears or if there are grounds of suspicion. In three cases, I allow it, if there is no evidence of your eyes or of your ears and if there is no ground of suspicion".

Are not domestic animals such as cows, goats, pigs and hens slaughtered for those who eat their flesh? If no one eats their flesh, obviously they would not be killed.

Can anyone imagine a monk saying to his "dayakaya" who had offered him meat, "Sir, it is kind of you to donate this meat to me. But as I have reason to believe that the animal from which it came was killed just for me, I cannot accept it."

Jeewaka sutra also implies that the Budda approved of butchering and the horrors of the slaughter house. Yet slaughtering is one of the trades forbidden to the Buddhists and with good reason. To say that on the one hand that the Buddha condemned the blood trades of slaughtering hunting? fishing and trapping and on the other hand allowed Buddhists and Buddhist monks to eat flesh of slaughtered animals when the animals have not been killed specifically for them is an absured contradition.

Who else but the meat eaters are responsible for the blood trades of butchering, hunting and fishing? After all the slaughterers and the meat packing houses that sustain them are only responding to the demands of the flesh eaters.

"I am only doing your dirty work" was the reply of a slaughterer to a gentleman who was objecting to the brutality of slaughtering harmless dumb animals.

Every individual who eats flesh whether the animal is expressly killed for him or not, is supporting the trade of slaughtering and contributing to the violent death of harmless dumb animals.

Was the Buddha so obtuse that, He failed to understand this, He who has been described as the "Perfect one", in whom, all mental, spiritual and psychic faculties have come to perfection and whose consciousness encompasses the infinity of the Universe?

Was the Buddha so imperceptive as not to see that only by abstaining from flesh eating can one effectively end both killing of defenceless and dumb animals and the infliction of terror and suffering upon them.

The Budda, we are told forbade his monks to eat flesh of such animals as dogs, elephants, bears and lions. Why should the Buddha sanction the eating of one kind of flesh and condemn another? Does a pig or a cow whose meat is supposed to be approved for eating, suffer any less pain, when it is slaughtered than a dog or a bear?

All Buddhists who are familiar with numerous accounts of the Buddha’s extra-ordinary compassion and reverence for living beings, for example, his insistence that, his monks carry filters to strain water they drink, lest the death of micro organisms in the water could occur, could never believe that he would be indifferent to the suffering and death of domestic animals caused by their slaughter for food.

As all Buddhists are aware, monks have a separate code of conduct called the "Vinaya". Surely the Buddha could have demanded of his monks what he could not have demanded of his lay followers.

Monks by virtue of their training and their strength of character, are different from the lay people and are better able to resist the pleasures of senses to which ordinary people succumb. That is why, they renounce sexual pleasure and also not eat solids beyond 12 noon. Why is taking solids after 12 noon a more serious offence than eating animal flesh? Did the Buddha really say the things the compilers of the Pali Sutras would have us believe, he said on the subject of meat eating?

Mahayana Version of Meat Eating

Let us now consider the Sanskrit version as regards meat eating. I quote from "Lankavatara" sutra which devotes one whole chapter on the evils of meat eating.

"For the sake of love, of purity’ the Bodhisatva should refrain from eating flesh which is born of semen, blood etc. For the fear of causing terror of living beings let the Bodisatva who is disciplining himself to attain compassion refrain from eating flesh".

"It is not true that meat is proper food and permissible when the animal was not killed by himself, when he did not order others to kill, and when it is not specially meant for him".

"Again there may be people in the future who being under the influence of taste for meat, will string together in various ways sophistic arguments to defend meat eating".

But meat eating in any form, in any manner, and in any place is unconditionally and once and for all, is prohibited. I will not permit".

Surangama Sutra says "The reason for practising "dhyana" and seeking to attain "Samadhi" is to escape from suffering of life. But in seeking to escape from suffering ourselves, why should we inflict it upon others. Unless you can control your minds, that even the thought of brutal unkindness and killing is abhorrent you will never be able to escape from bondage of world’s life".

"After my parinirvana in the last kalpa, different kinds of ghosts will be encountered everywhere, deceiving people, and teaching that they can eat meat and still attain enlightenment. How can a bhikku who hopes to become a deliverer of others himself, be living on the flesh of other sentient beings?"

The "Mahaparinirvana" Sutra (Sanskrit version) states "The eating of meat extinguishes the seeds of compassion".

Even before the Buddha’s time various religions in India condemned flesh eating as not conducive to spiritual progress. If elder bhikkus of Mahayana were satisfied with Theravada version of flesh eating, they would have remained silent. The fact that they spoke out so vehemently against flesh eating, shows how deeply disturbed the elder bhikkus who wrote the Sanskrit version of Buddha’s teachings were.

The Encyclopaedia of Buddhism points out that in China and Japan, flesh eating was looked upon as an evil and was ostracized and any kind of meat was not used in temples and monasteries. Meat eating was taboo in Japan until the middle of the 19th century. People avoided giving alms to flesh eating bhikkus.

Dr. Kosheliya Wali in her book, "Conception of Ahimsa In Indian Thought" says, "meat can never be obtained without injuring creatures and injury to sentient beings and is detrimental to heavenly bliss and therefore one should shun meat eating".

"One should consider the disgusting origin of flesh and the cruelty of slaughtering sentient beings and entirely abstain from flesh eating".

"He who permits the slaughter of animals, he who cuts up, kills, buys, sells, serves it up and eats, every one is a slayer of animals".

"He who seeks to increase his own flesh with the flesh of others and worshipping the gods is the greatest of all sinners".

"Meat cannot be obtained from straw or stone. It can be obtained only by slaughtering creatures. Hence meat is not to be taken".

A Chinese monk once said "You form a company with whatever type of meat you eat. You form a corporation with whatever type of animals you eat. For example if you eat a lot of pork you will become tied up into a company of pigs, same applies to cows, chicken, sheep fish and so forth".

A British vegetarian named Dr. Watch once said "To prevent human, bloodshed one must start at the dinner table".

If a person wants to take joy in Buddhism and enter into mercy and knowledge of the Buddha he must begin at the dinner table.

In Sri Lanka, a wedding party takes hundreds if not thousands of animal lives. A birthday party or a wedding anniversary takes hundreds of animal lives. Before the death, living creatures experience, not joy, but anger and hatred and resentment.

It is just by not killing with body that you observe the first precept. If in your thinking you allow the killing to go or, you also break the first precept.

We must be determined not to condone killing even in our minds. According to Buddhism mind is the base of all actions.

Did Buddha Die From Eating Meat?

Buddhist monks who eat meat under certain circumstances, justify their flesh eating, saying that, Buddha himself ate a piece, of pork at one of his follower’s houses rather than hurt the feelings of his "dayakaya". Some monks who eat flesh, say that, they eat whatever put before them without any aversion.

But most of the Buddhist scholars contend that it was not a piece of meat that caused the Buddha’s death and all Mahayana scriptures unequivocally condone meat eating as mentioned earlier.

According to Mrs. Rhys David what Chunda offered to the Buddha is some mushrooms. Rhys David says that the term "sukara maddara" has at least 4 meanings.

[1] Food eaten by pigs.

[2] "Pigs delight?’

[3] Soft parts of the pig and

[4] Food trampled by the pigs.

Chunda being a follower of the Buddha, surely, would not have offered a piece of pork, well knowing that flesh was not a part of the Buddha’s diet. Very likely Chunda did not eat meat himself as many Indians did not eat meat during the Buddha’s time. Why then would he have offered meat to the "World Honoured one", a person so sensitive to suffering of all living beings, that he would not drink milk from a cow during the first 10 days after its calf is born.

Any monk who has been offered meals at the home of a Buddhist knows that, the "dayakaya" usually asks the monk or his attendant or other "dayakayas" known to the monk, what kind of food, the monk normally eats, so that the "dayakaya" can avoid serving food that does not agree with him physically or spiritually. During the Buddha’s days the would be donors of meals to the Buddha often consulted yen. Ananda, the Buddha’s attendant.

Buddhist monks who do not like any item of diet offered to them have a pleasant way of rejecting such food, without uttering a single word.

As far as I know the majority of Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka eat meat and meat products. Some monks sometimes mention to the dayakaya, items of diet such as chicken which they eat when the dayakaya meets them to book a date for "dana". Quite a number of Buddhist monks especially those living in temples such as "Sasuna" and hermitages do not consume any form of meat, fish or eggs, because that kind of food rouses passion and is not conducive to their spiritual upliftment.

It is note-worthy that more and more dayakayas give vegetarian diet for almsgivings and the number of vegetarian monks has been increasing during the past few years.

Buddhist monks can play a great role in reducing the slaughter of animals and the terror and suffering associated with slaughter by requesting their followers not to serve flesh when they meet the monks to invite them for an almsgiving as there are lots of Buddhists who follow the good examples set by Buddhist monks. The majority of Buddhists have a higher respect for vegetarian monks than for monks who eat flesh. Buddhist monks who preach "Dhamma" can in no way accept flesh for food without getting into a conflict with "Ahimsa".

Buddhism is a religion to be practised. If the body of Buddhist monks makes a proper drive for vegetarianism it would save a lot of animals from slaughter and cruelty and terror that accompanies slaughter. The body of Buddhist monks should lead the way and lay Buddhists, at least a good proportion of them would follow.

With acknowledgements to

(1 ) "A Buddhist case for Vegetarianism" by Roshi Philip Kapleau.

(2) Dharma Bhandagaraya by Ven. Weragoda Sarada.

[sabaijai]

As there are two earlier, lengthy threads, on this topic, including one with the identical title, I've merged the latest with the latter. Basically the same arguments repeated As Camerata notes, vegetarian dogma appears to be non-existent in the Pali canon. I know of no Theravadin source that would agree with interpretations such as "Vegetarian Diet Helps to Free one from the Wheel of Rebirth" or "The animals he eats will eat him." Kamma, in the Theravada system, doesn't work that simply.

All available evidence suggests the Buddha himself ate meat. Many arahans in the Theravada world ate meat. At any rate, the Kalama Sutta applies as usual, ie test the beliefs thrust upon you by others, and use common sense.

[Brucenkhamen]

For a Theravadin Monk non preference is a very important practice, beggars can’t be choosers as they say, it would be inappropriate for Theravadin Monks to say we are going to accept this food and not that food (other than in the cases outlined in scripture).

So the onus is on the lay people to give what they consider appropriate. Personally I prefer not to give monks meat and I think most westerners are the same but the reasoning for this seems lost on Thai people.

As far as lay practice is concern killing and eating are two separate acts, while I think it would be better to not support killing by eating it isn’t so much a moral issue as a practice issue.

The five precepts aren’t moral absolutes, they are not commandments. They are practices, they are guidelines upon which one reflects and measures ones actions with the purpose of developing wisdom. This is why it’s not really appropriate that Buddhists try to impose their morality on others the way for example fundamentalist Christians try to impose their morality on others.

If someone chooses vegetarianism as a practice I think that’s good, I wish I was in a position to do the same without causing a lot of inconvenience to others. If it becomes a source of pride or self righteousness though then that’s counterproductive in terms of the path.

If one sees non killing as a moral absolute then I would think growing vegetables is also immoral, how does one grow crops without killing pests that would eat them? How does one till the soil without killing bugs that live there? Driving cars, even walking around set one up as a killer also.

On this thread much has been made of Mahayanists not eating meat but don’t forget that the Tibetans are an exception to this rule. They simply couldn’t survive in that part of the world without living off animals, growing crops there is very difficult. Of course the Thais have no such excuse.

In terms of biology or ecology what defines a successful organism? A successful organism is one that has been able to breed and multiply. What’s the difference between say cows and chickens on one hand, and dodo birds and bengal tigers on the other? There are a lot more of them because man eats them, if man didn’t eat them there would be far far fewer of them alive today. I’m not convinced it’s better to have never lived at all than to have lived for a time in order to feed others.

Buddhism is a pragmatic path, not an idealistic religion.

[ChiangMaiFun]

For a Theravadin Monk non preference is a very important practice, beggars can't be choosers as they say, it would be inappropriate for Theravadin Monks to say we are going to accept this food and not that food (other than in the cases outlined in scripture).

So the onus is on the lay people to give what they consider appropriate. Personally I prefer not to give monks meat and I think most westerners are the same but the reasoning for this seems lost on Thai people.

As far as lay practice is concern killing and eating are two separate acts, while I think it would be better to not support killing by eating it isn't so much a moral issue as a practice issue.

The five precepts aren't moral absolutes, they are not commandments. They are practices, they are guidelines upon which one reflects and measures ones actions with the purpose of developing wisdom. This is why it's not really appropriate that Buddhists try to impose their morality on others the way for example fundamentalist Christians try to impose their morality on others.

If someone chooses vegetarianism as a practice I think that's good, I wish I was in a position to do the same without causing a lot of inconvenience to others. If it becomes a source of pride or self righteousness though then that's counterproductive in terms of the path.

If one sees non killing as a moral absolute then I would think growing vegetables is also immoral, how does one grow crops without killing pests that would eat them? How does one till the soil without killing bugs that live there? Driving cars, even walking around set one up as a killer also.

On this thread much has been made of Mahayanists not eating meat but don't forget that the Tibetans are an exception to this rule. They simply couldn't survive in that part of the world without living off animals, growing crops there is very difficult. Of course the Thais have no such excuse.

In terms of biology or ecology what defines a successful organism? A successful organism is one that has been able to breed and multiply. What's the difference between say cows and chickens on one hand, and dodo birds and bengal tigers on the other? There are a lot more of them because man eats them, if man didn't eat them there would be far far fewer of them alive today. I'm not convinced it's better to have never lived at all than to have lived for a time in order to feed others.

Buddhism is a pragmatic path, not an idealistic religion.

As I have said... in certain circumstances it would be acceptable - if unavoidable (maybe in the Tibetan case for instance). BUT if we have CHOICE we should choose not to kill or kill by proxy. For several reasons - firstly the obvious one which doesn't need repeating but also for the larger one in that it contributes to world hunger by consuming more grain than is produced as meat - therefore by abstaining we are contributing to the larger well-being of humankind. We cannot use the 'there is evidence that Buddha ate meat card' - for several reasons - the first the most obvious - we do not know - the second was my other point - maybe He had no choice. We DO have choice.

With all respect to Thai Buddhists many are fairly lazy in their practise (mai pen rai) - I have met very few Buddhists in Thailand - but 1000s who say they are Buddhists - not the same thing. I guess it is up to individuals to CHOOSE but Karmically I find it clear - do not kill or have killed for you. Pests are a different ball game - cannot use that arguement as they contaminate and are a threat to human health (a good reason to kill them) sheep, cows, pigs are not... (and I won't even go into the consciousness arguement).

Please do not use the intellectual and spurious - we seperate the killing from the consuming arguement - it is convenient at best and murky at worst.

Edited November 25, 2009 by camerata
Fixed broken quotes. And no need to quote an entire post anyway.

[Brucenkhamen]

As I have said... in certain circumstances it would be acceptable - if unavoidable (maybe in the Tibetan case for instance). BUT if we have CHOICE we should choose not to kill or kill by proxy. For several reasons - firstly the obvious one which doesn't need repeating but also for the larger one in that it contributes to world hunger by consuming more grain than is produced as meat - therefore by abstaining we are contributing to the larger well-being of humankind.

If that’s the case then it’s a situational ethic you are talking about rather an absolute ethic. If you believe there are certain circumstances where killing is ok and others where it is not then I don’t think you can try to impose your set of morals on others. If somebody sets the bar at a different place from where you set it then that’s their problem and their responsibility, your responsibility is to live according to what you consider right.

For example I have a friend who is a vegetarian however he eats meat if it’s put in front of him. He doesn’t buy or cook meat so he’s not supporting people who kill, but he’s also practicing non preference, similar to Theravadin monks, and not creating a fuss when invited over for dinner. I think this is a good approach.

With all respect to Thai Buddhists many are fairly lazy in their practise (mai pen rai) - I have met very few Buddhists in Thailand - but 1000s who say they are Buddhists - not the same thing.

Fair comment.

Pests are a different ball game - cannot use that arguement as they contaminate and are a threat to human health (a good reason to kill them) sheep, cows, pigs are not... (and I won't even go into the consciousness arguement).

This would indicate you have no problem with killing, just with eating. Killing is killing, and that’s what the precept is about.

Please do not use the intellectual and spurious - we seperate the killing from the consuming arguement - it is convenient at best and murky at worst.

If that’s your view then you need to look into the law of Dependant Origination, this is a core teaching of Buddhism where actions and reactions etc are broken down into a step by step causal chain.

For example, if I eat meat I am not guilty of killing, however I am guilty of supporting butchers who get their livelihood from killing.

If I eat vegetables I am not guilty of killing, however I am guilty of supporting farmers who have to kill to prevent pests from eating their livelihood.

In both cases I indirectly cause suffering, I don’t want to cause suffering but in order to maintain this life I have to. Buddhist practice offers the way out of the proliferation of suffering and I agree with you that when given the choice one should make choices that minimise suffering. This process of change comes from within, however, not by an external standard of moral absolutes.

[ChiangMaiFun]

There are situations where killing is acceptable? an animal in pain? the 'intention' is everything? to kill to eat for pleasure is not in line with the pathway (in my view).

There are times when one has to stand for one's beliefs, however inconvenient, and this may mean refusing, politely, meat if offered.

I agree with your last sentance... I just find it surprising that (some) Monks do not practise it! I agree it is MY personal responsibility - I discuss not to preach but debate

[LazyYogi]

I just wanted to point out some confusion that I saw at the beginning of this thread.

Somebody had said that monks in other countries drink alcohol and have wives.

This is not true.

In Japan, it is common for Buddhist priests to marry and drink alcohol, and engage in many other worldly activities. But although they shave their heads and wear robes, these people are not actually monks. They do not take the 200+ vows of a bhikkhu. At one time Japan did have true monks, but that was put to an end by Emperor Meiji.

In Tibet, there are true monks who hold all the vows and are celibate. Some confusion is caused by the fact that a lama (guru or teacher) can be either a monk or a family man who doesn't hold the same vows.

[Xangsamhua]

I suppose, in an ideal dhamma-friendly environment, we would live off vegetables grown without pesticides in our own gardens (so we don't support air pollution, consumption of limited resources and global warming through transportation of produce). My wife actually does this to some extent by growing edible plants on the balconies of our apartment. She also buys organically grown vegetables from different outlets.

Where this kind of environment is not available, we compromise: we choose the best path available in keeping with the ethical principles and priorities we have arrived at from reflecting on the dhamma or whatever first premises we proceed from.

It seems to me that ChiangMaiFun's position is consistent with the precept not to kill or support killing when it isn't necessary. I don't think I have an argument in principle against that position. However, as brucenkhamen said, the process of change from one's current practice to a more dhammic one must take place from within, not be externally imposed, if it is to have good karma effect.

In the meantime, one's practice takes place in the context of many different influences bearing upon it. For people who are not ready or able for one reason or another to follow a full vegetarian regime, the compromise position of brucenkhamen's friend seems an acceptable "middle path" to me.

[camerata]

Incidentally, the Dalai Lama promotes vegetarianism but is not a vegetarian himself. Paul McCartney, that paragon of virtue, has taken him to task for this. As Ajahn Brahm once said, "We Westerners are neurotic fault-finders."

Sir Paul McCartney’s advice to the Dalai Lama

Sir Paul McCartney reveals this week in Prospect, the political magazine, that he once wrote to the Dalai Lama to criticise him for eating meat after the religious leader stated: “As Buddhists we believe in not causing any suffering to any sentient beings.”

Sir Paul, 66, said: “Then I found out he was not a vegetarian, so I wrote to him saying, ‘Forgive me for pointing this out, but if you eat animals then there is some suffering somewhere along the line’.

“He replied saying that his doctors had told him he needed it, so I wrote back saying they were wrong.”

Source: The Times.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Incidentally, the Dalai Lama promotes vegetarianism but is not a vegetarian himself. Paul McCartney, that paragon of virtue, has taken him to task for this. As Ajahn Brahm once said, "We Westerners are neurotic fault-finders."

Sir Paul McCartney's advice to the Dalai Lama

Sir Paul McCartney reveals this week in Prospect, the political magazine, that he once wrote to the Dalai Lama to criticise him for eating meat after the religious leader stated: "As Buddhists we believe in not causing any suffering to any sentient beings."

Sir Paul, 66, said: "Then I found out he was not a vegetarian, so I wrote to him saying, 'Forgive me for pointing this out, but if you eat animals then there is some suffering somewhere along the line'.

"He replied saying that his doctors had told him he needed it, so I wrote back saying they were wrong."

Source: The Times.

IF, in this case, there is a necessity I for one would not critisise anyone - my position is IS it necessary? His Holiness may have a condition that makes it thus. of course killing pests IS necessary - killing animals (fellow travellers on our Planet) is not (unless they are in pain) - I believe in more enlightened times this will be common (I pray for it anyhow). Om Shanti

[rockyysdt]

I suspect there are some human subsets who would either not thrive or live shortened lives without animal protein.

There are many vegetables, nuts & legumes which contain protein but these are considered incomplete.

Some people do better than others on a non meat diet.

There are also many who are dairy intolerant making it difficult to supplement their diet.

Many of us are faced with this catch 22 situation.

I know I would eat even less meat if I had to personally slaughter animals to obtain it.

Maybe the answer is in technology, by using stem cells to grow animal muscle & offal tissue separate from any brain & associated consciousness.

Edited November 26, 2009 by rockyysdt

[sabaijai]

Further food for thought:

http://www.khandro.net/dailylife_food.htm

http://soulcurrymagazine.com/sc/buddhism-vegetarianism.html

[rockyysdt]

BUT if we have CHOICE we should choose not to kill or kill by proxy. For several reasons - firstly the obvious one which doesn't need repeating but also for the larger one in that it contributes to world hunger by consuming more grain than is produced as meat - therefore by abstaining we are contributing to the larger well-being of humankind. We cannot use the 'there is evidence that Buddha ate meat card' - for several reasons - the first the most obvious - we do not know - the second was my other point - maybe He had no choice. We DO have choice.

With all respect to Thai Buddhists many are fairly lazy in their practise (mai pen rai) - I have met very few Buddhists in Thailand - but 1000s who say they are Buddhists - not the same thing. I guess it is up to individuals to CHOOSE but Karmically I find it clear - do not kill or have killed for you. Pests are a different ball game - cannot use that arguement as they contaminate and are a threat to human health (a good reason to kill them) sheep, cows, pigs are not... (and I won't even go into the consciousness arguement).

Please do not use the intellectual and spurious - we seperate the killing from the consuming arguement - it is convenient at best and murky at worst.

Hi CMF.

It sounded like science fiction but within a few years we'll have access to test tube meat grown in factories.

Research is well advanced in the Netherlands & USA to develop cheaper options with an animal biopsy of satellite cells grown in a mushroom serum. The biopsy material would eventually be harvested from factory grown meat meaning no slaughter would ever be required.

The beauty of this is that it's many times more efficient to grow choice cut meat with healthy attributes compared to on the hoof without the detrimental impact on the environment (no methane, wasteful grain vs meat yield, land degradation, water wastage etc).

With a total absence of a nervous system, brain or consciousness, the biggest factor for Buddhists is that there's no killing of life involved.

Would this alter ones position on meat eating?

On the flip side, if everyone became vegetarian over night there would no longer be a need to farm livestock anywhere near current numbers.

With a world population of approximately 1 billion cattle, 1 billion pigs, 1.1 billion sheep, & 24 billion chickens, wouldn't vegetarianism lead to the disappearance of countless opportunities for re birth even though these maybe considered second class or limited?

Edited December 1, 2009 by rockyysdt

[ChiangMaiFun]

BUT if we have CHOICE we should choose not to kill or kill by proxy. For several reasons - firstly the obvious one which doesn't need repeating but also for the larger one in that it contributes to world hunger by consuming more grain than is produced as meat - therefore by abstaining we are contributing to the larger well-being of humankind. We cannot use the 'there is evidence that Buddha ate meat card' - for several reasons - the first the most obvious - we do not know - the second was my other point - maybe He had no choice. We DO have choice.

With all respect to Thai Buddhists many are fairly lazy in their practise (mai pen rai) - I have met very few Buddhists in Thailand - but 1000s who say they are Buddhists - not the same thing. I guess it is up to individuals to CHOOSE but Karmically I find it clear - do not kill or have killed for you. Pests are a different ball game - cannot use that arguement as they contaminate and are a threat to human health (a good reason to kill them) sheep, cows, pigs are not... (and I won't even go into the consciousness arguement).

Please do not use the intellectual and spurious - we seperate the killing from the consuming arguement - it is convenient at best and murky at worst.

Hi CMF.

It sounded like science fiction but within a few years we'll have access to test tube meat grown in factories.

Research is well advanced in the Netherlands & USA to develop cheaper options with an animal biopsy of satellite cells grown in a mushroom serum. The biopsy material would eventually be harvested from factory grown meat meaning no slaughter would ever be required.

The beauty of this is that it's many times more efficient to grow choice cut meat with healthy attributes compared to on the hoof without the detrimental impact on the environment (no methane, wasteful grain vs meat yield, land degradation, water wastage etc).

With a total absence of a nervous system, brain or consciousness, the biggest factor for Buddhists is that there's no killing of life involved.

Would this alter ones position on meat eating?

On the flip side, if everyone became vegetarian over night there would no longer be a need but only because of artificto farm livestock anywhere near current numbers.

With a world population of approximately 1 billion cattle, 1 billion pigs, 1.1 billion sheep, & 24 billion chickens, wouldn't vegetarianism lead to the disappearance of countless opportunities for re birth even though these maybe considered second class or limited?

Hi - very interesting ethical debate - I honestly do not know... to answer the second part...

Yes - but as the result of artificial insemmination - stop that and the population will decrease rapidly to a stable size. The second thing to consider is the amount of 'feed' (grain) they eat to produce one kilo/pound of meat - for each kilo/pound produced would feed 4 times as many people on grain - a thought?

Re-birth? I do not believe we are re-born as animals but in a continuing upward spiral as humans - I'm a Theosophical Buddhist - we don't support the retro-rebirth theory only the evolving human being.

Edited December 1, 2009 by ChiangMaiFun

[rockyysdt]

Hi - very interesting ethical debate - I honestly do not know... to answer the second part...

Yes - but as the result of artificial insemmination - stop that and the population will decrease rapidly to a stable size. The second thing to consider is the amount of 'feed' (grain) they eat to produce one kilo/pound of meat - for each kilo/pound produced would feed 4 times as many people on grain - a thought?

I haven't seen any data yet but factory cultured meat is hugely more efficient than on the hoof bringing the wasteful grain vs meat yield to acceptable levels.

As well, there is no waste (bones, fat, offal) nor degradation to the environment, nor disease.

Re-birth? I do not believe we are re-born as animals but in a continuing upward spiral as humans - I'm a Theosophical Buddhist - we don't support the retro-rebirth theory only the evolving human being.

Didn't the Buddha himself quote remembering past life/lives in animal form?

If you don't support retro-rebirth (that is moving up the chain) then what about all the beings still living as lower forms?

Wouldn't they miss out on opportunities moving up the chain?