Vegetarianism and Buddhism

[ChiangMaiFun]

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?

There is quite alot of data on the net and in veggie literature on the subject of kilo's of meat produced by the amount of grain they consume... not sure this is the place to debate that?

On the other point - it is UPWARD and so mineral/vegetable/animal groups souls evolve UP the evolutionary chain - every opportunity to advance (as we humans have) one day becoming human.

[Brucenkhamen]

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?

This makes perfect economic sense.

The trouble is what do we do with the sheep and cows etc who would otherwise be eating that grain? Starve them to death? Kill them? Neuter them so they can't breed?

If we say we want to keep all that grain for ourselves then one way or another we need to get rid of the all the animals we currently feed it to.

This appears to be genociode dressed up as compassion.

[ChiangMaiFun]

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?

This makes perfect economic sense.

The trouble is what do we do with the sheep and cows etc who would otherwise be eating that grain? Starve them to death? Kill them? Neuter them so they can't breed?

If we say we want to keep all that grain for ourselves then one way or another we need to get rid of the all the animals we currently feed it to.

This appears to be genociode dressed up as compassion.

Good morning... this is, of course, a very good point... but... not one that should stop us from approaching the subject and considering the ethical thing (Buddhist thing?) to do. It would be like saying let's not help Africa because then we have to find food for them - the point is that - at the beginning there would be a slow decline which would 'cost' us grain - it's our fault after all - but that without factory insemination the population would decline very, very quickly to a stable, more natural, level? One day the Sheep WILL lie down with the Lamb.

No one really believe that Buddha would approve of the methodologies for mass factory slaughter? I'm right? will anyone actually step up and say they REALLY (really) believe that this is ethical???

I don't believe anyone, who really things and meditates on it, can possibly support eating meat (except for emergencies we have discussed earlier - not when we have a choice). Factory mass slaughter? cruelty? we are not really saying this is ok on a Buddhist forum right?

Om Shanti

[rockyysdt]

There is quite alot of data on the net and in veggie literature on the subject of kilo's of meat produced by the amount of grain they consume... not sure this is the place to debate that?

Incubated meat production is leading edge technology. Most net information on grain vs meat ratios involve current production techniques.

I thought it was important as it addresses your aversion to eating meat. This was due to the methodologies for mass factory slaughter as well as its high cost vs grain ratio.

When test tube meat is economical (acceptable grain vs meat ratio) produced in factories without life (absence of soul, nervous system, consciousness, & feeling), would this overcome the issues you raised against eating meat?

The reason why l ask is that this technology is real & we're on the cusp of it becoming economical, not only for the benefit of Buddhists but also in order to reduce our destructive impact on the planet.

On the other point - it is UPWARD and so mineral/vegetable/animal groups souls evolve UP the evolutionary chain - every opportunity to advance (as we humans have) one day becoming human.

Are you talking about natural evolution physical evolution of life on earth or are you talking about the evolution of khamma & re birth?

If your belief is of of upward evolutionary re birth then wouldn't eliminating 26 billion cows, sheep, pigs, & fowl by adopting vegetarianism result in the elimination of countless opportunities for lower life forms striving to move up the chain?

Is one way "UPWARD and so mineral/vegetable/animal groups souls evolve UP the evolutionary chain" re birth mentioned in the Dharma?

It's just that this concept is new to me. I was of the belief that if re birth is real, then the accumulation of negative khamma can result in many things including re birth to a lower form.

Edited December 2, 2009 by rockyysdt

[ChiangMaiFun]

There is quite alot of data on the net and in veggie literature on the subject of kilo's of meat produced by the amount of grain they consume... not sure this is the place to debate that?

Incubated meat production is leading edge technology. Most net information on grain vs meat ratios involve current production techniques.

I thought it was important as it addresses your aversion to eating meat. This was due to the methodologies for mass factory slaughter as well as its high cost vs grain ratio.

When test tube meat is economical (acceptable grain vs meat ratio) produced in factories without life (absence of soul, nervous system, consciousness, & feeling), would this overcome the issues you raised against eating meat?

The reason why l ask is that this technology is real & we're on the cusp of it becoming economical, not only for the benefit of Buddhists but also in order to reduce our destructive impact on the planet.

On the other point - it is UPWARD and so mineral/vegetable/animal groups souls evolve UP the evolutionary chain - every opportunity to advance (as we humans have) one day becoming human.

Are you talking about natural evolution physical evolution of life on earth or are you talking about the evolution of khamma & re birth?

If your belief is of of upward evolutionary re birth then wouldn't eliminating 26 billion cows, sheep, pigs, & fowl by adopting vegetarianism result in the elimination of countless opportunities for lower life forms striving to move up the chain?

Is one way "UPWARD and so mineral/vegetable/animal groups souls evolve UP the evolutionary chain" re birth mentioned in the Dharma?

It's just that this concept is new to me. I was of the belief that if re birth is real, then the accumulation of negative khamma can result in many things including re birth to a lower form.

It's a Theosphical/Buddhist view - no you would not be denying those creatures the chance to go UP as when humanity reaches the stage where it implements this it will be karmically (world karma) right for the lower chains too... hence we would have progressed enough...

[rockyysdt]

It's a Theosphical/Buddhist view - no you would not be denying those creatures the chance to go UP as when humanity reaches the stage where it implements this it will be karmically (world karma) right for the lower chains too... hence we would have progressed enough...

What is Theosophical Buddhism?

Did the Buddha support or teach Theosophical Buddhism?

[Xangsamhua]

It's a Theosphical/Buddhist view - no you would not be denying those creatures the chance to go UP as when humanity reaches the stage where it implements this it will be karmically (world karma) right for the lower chains too... hence we would have progressed enough...

What is Theosophical Buddhism?

Did the Buddha support or teach Theosophical Buddhism?

Rocky, CMF will no doubt explain why he used the term "Theosophical/Buddhist", but in the meantime you might find the following interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Theosophy

It seems people in the earlier part of the 20th century saw a clear link between Theosophy and Buddhism. The London Buddhist Society was founded by Christmas Humphreys, who was a Theosophist. The Tokyo Lodge of the Theosophical Society included among its members D. T. Suzuki, the Zen scholar, and his wife, Beatrice Lane, who was a Mahayana scholar. Suzuki believed that Madame Blavatsky had been initiated into occult forms of Mahayana. Colonel Henry Olcott, co-founder and President of the Theosophical Society, played a crucial role in the Buddhist Revival in Sri Lanka. Olcott is also said to have designed the Buddhist flag.

[LazyYogi]

It's a Theosphical/Buddhist view - no you would not be denying those creatures the chance to go UP as when humanity reaches the stage where it implements this it will be karmically (world karma) right for the lower chains too... hence we would have progressed enough...

What is Theosophical Buddhism?

Did the Buddha support or teach Theosophical Buddhism?

No he didn't. Minerals and vegetables don't have consciousness, much less souls. And animals don't have "souls" either. Buddha never talked about groups of beings evolving though rebirths either upward or downward.

Individual beings take rebirth according to their karma, good or bad, from life to life. Up and down, up and down. That's why samsara sucks so much. There is no security anywhere. The gods can easily be reborn in the hells.

[ChiangMaiFun]

It's a Theosphical/Buddhist view - no you would not be denying those creatures the chance to go UP as when humanity reaches the stage where it implements this it will be karmically (world karma) right for the lower chains too... hence we would have progressed enough...

What is Theosophical Buddhism?

Did the Buddha support or teach Theosophical Buddhism?

Yes He did... Theosophical perspectives on Buddhism are as valid an interpretation as any... never go down the path of 'this is Thai version so must be right... etc.' the Theosophical Buddhist stance is mature and part of the Buddhist canon. Indeed Humphries introduced the West to Buddhism and many noted Buddhists are/were also Theosophists. I believe it is a pure form of Buddhist practice - Annie Besant also was a noted Buddhist - as was A.P.Sinnett who wrote a book 'Esoteric Buddhism'. Be careful when people say 'Buddha said this or that' there are many practices that Thais undertake that are more animistic/Hindu than Buddhist!

This might be better transferred to a new thread about Theosophy and Buddhism?

[ChiangMaiFun]

It's a Theosphical/Buddhist view - no you would not be denying those creatures the chance to go UP as when humanity reaches the stage where it implements this it will be karmically (world karma) right for the lower chains too... hence we would have progressed enough...

What is Theosophical Buddhism?

Did the Buddha support or teach Theosophical Buddhism?

No he didn't. Minerals and vegetables don't have consciousness, much less souls. And animals don't have "souls" either. Buddha never talked about groups of beings evolving though rebirths either upward or downward.

Individual beings take rebirth according to their karma, good or bad, from life to life. Up and down, up and down. That's why samsara sucks so much. There is no security anywhere. The gods can easily be reborn in the hells.

That's true they don't but they develop one over a greta dealof time... groups souls etc. I differ on your view about being born an Ant or a Sheep - IF this were true my arguements AGAINST meat eating are all the more real - you maybe eating your GRANDMOTHER!!!

[Yamantaka]

After I had been a vegetarian for many years, I was told by Lama Zopa Rinpoche to eat meat. His reason was that my being a vegetarian had added to my sense of ego by thinking how compassionate I was and thereby stifled my spiritual progress. He also reminded me that vast numbers of sentient beings die in the cultivation and processing of fruit, grains and vegetables. And that since one essential element of the Dharma is that all life is sacred and equal, I was not "saving" life by not eating meat, only again feeding my own ego by being compassionate to those animals I could relate to. It was better he said to eat the dead animal and be reminded of the suffering it endured at every meal so that I would be even more motivated to seek enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings.

[rockyysdt]

Yes He did... Theosophical perspectives on Buddhism are as valid an interpretation as any... never go down the path of 'this is Thai version so must be right... etc.' the Theosophical Buddhist stance is mature and part of the Buddhist canon.

Can you quote the canonical passage which covers the ascendancy of species through rebirth?

I'd like to study it.

Indeed Humphries introduced the West to Buddhism and many noted Buddhists are/were also Theosophists. I believe it is a pure form of Buddhist practice - Annie Besant also was a noted Buddhist - as was A.P.Sinnett who wrote a book 'Esoteric Buddhism'. This might be better transferred to a new thread about Theosophy and Buddhism?

I still haven't been able to learn what Theosophical Buddhism is?

Apart from the ascendancy of species through rebirth what does Theosophical Buddhism prescribe which differs from Theravada n Buddhism?

Be careful when people say 'Buddha said this or that' there are many practices that Thais undertake that are more animistic/Hindu than Buddhist!

I'm vigilant of this. Thankfully key people on this forum are quick to point out the Buddhas teachings vs Animism & practice which might depart from original teachings.

[ChiangMaiFun]

After I had been a vegetarian for many years, I was told by Lama Zopa Rinpoche to eat meat. His reason was that my being a vegetarian had added to my sense of ego by thinking how compassionate I was and thereby stifled my spiritual progress. He also reminded me that vast numbers of sentient beings die in the cultivation and processing of fruit, grains and vegetables. And that since one essential element of the Dharma is that all life is sacred and equal, I was not "saving" life by not eating meat, only again feeding my own ego by being compassionate to those animals I could relate to. It was better he said to eat the dead animal and be reminded of the suffering it endured at every meal so that I would be even more motivated to seek enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings.

With all due respect... that could be ego too? to feel one must eat meet to 'be reminded'? I decide for myself in all things - the great teacher Krishnamurti commented that 'Truth is a Pathless Land' and however much respect I have for a teacher I decide for myself... you alone are responsible for your karma. I feel 'uncomfortable' following any guru but I respect and learn from many great teachers - ultimately I decide and there is no doubt (for me) that killing when you have a choice is wrong - and not a campassionate path.

[Brucenkhamen]

After I had been a vegetarian for many years, I was told by Lama Zopa Rinpoche to eat meat. His reason was that my being a vegetarian had added to my sense of ego by thinking how compassionate I was and thereby stifled my spiritual progress. He also reminded me that vast numbers of sentient beings die in the cultivation and processing of fruit, grains and vegetables. And that since one essential element of the Dharma is that all life is sacred and equal, I was not "saving" life by not eating meat, only again feeding my own ego by being compassionate to those animals I could relate to. It was better he said to eat the dead animal and be reminded of the suffering it endured at every meal so that I would be even more motivated to seek enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings.

Putting aside whether this meant you did what your teacher told you or whether you decided it for yourself this is a very good point.

As has been pointed out not eating meat doesn't really save lives, all it seems to do is add to ones potential for spiritual pride.

If there was value in it in terms of gaining enlightenment the Buddha would have instructed his monks not to eat meat, I mean he was pretty thorough in compiling 227 precepts why miss the obvious 228th one. Vegetarianism was pretty common in Indian religious circles those days as it is today.

Living beings consuming other living beings is a major part of the cycle of samsara, if one is confronted with the reality of this then this is a good thing in terms of ones awakening. While on the surface it does seem virtuous to take a stand on this issue it doesn't really have the desired affect in saving lives.

Having said that if I had to kill my own food I couldn't do it, I'd be a vegetarian overnight, partly because it would be breaking the precepts but mostly because I'd find it abhorrent.

At the end of the day one has to do what one feels is right, but applying awareness and checking for pride in this is an important part of the process of insight, as it is with any practice one undertakes on the path.

There are stories about how in Ajahn Chahs monastery there would be periods where there was some seperation of vegetarian and non vegetarian food so that monks who preferred could abstain from meat, then periods where he noticed his monks attachment to this so he mixed it all together saying there is no vegetarian food today.

[ChiangMaiFun]

After I had been a vegetarian for many years, I was told by Lama Zopa Rinpoche to eat meat. His reason was that my being a vegetarian had added to my sense of ego by thinking how compassionate I was and thereby stifled my spiritual progress. He also reminded me that vast numbers of sentient beings die in the cultivation and processing of fruit, grains and vegetables. And that since one essential element of the Dharma is that all life is sacred and equal, I was not "saving" life by not eating meat, only again feeding my own ego by being compassionate to those animals I could relate to. It was better he said to eat the dead animal and be reminded of the suffering it endured at every meal so that I would be even more motivated to seek enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings.

Putting aside whether this meant you did what your teacher told you or whether you decided it for yourself this is a very good point.

As has been pointed out not eating meat doesn't really save lives, all it seems to do is add to ones potential for spiritual pride.

If there was value in it in terms of gaining enlightenment the Buddha would have instructed his monks not to eat meat, I mean he was pretty thorough in compiling 227 precepts why miss the obvious 228th one. Vegetarianism was pretty common in Indian religious circles those days as it is today.

Living beings consuming other living beings is a major part of the cycle of samsara, if one is confronted with the reality of this then this is a good thing in terms of ones awakening. While on the surface it does seem virtuous to take a stand on this issue it doesn't really have the desired affect in saving lives.

Having said that if I had to kill my own food I couldn't do it, I'd be a vegetarian overnight, partly because it would be breaking the precepts but mostly because I'd find it abhorrent.

At the end of the day one has to do what one feels is right, but applying awareness and checking for pride in this is an important part of the process of insight, as it is with any practice one undertakes on the path.

There are stories about how in Ajahn Chahs monastery there would be periods where there was some seperation of vegetarian and non vegetarian food so that monks who preferred could abstain from meat, then periods where he noticed his monks attachment to this so he mixed it all together saying there is no vegetarian food today.

Hi - I do understand this - but I do not believe in 'mixing' up ones self-development with killing (number 1 precept - why add a 228th?).

To take it a stage further why stop hunger in Africa? why stop violence against women? why stop Darfur? Afghanistan? Iraq? let's let it continue because we don't want to suffer pride?

Your honesty in not killing the meat yourself is revealing... that's the point - don't expect others to do what you would not. I hestitate to use the word 'hypocritical' as my intention is NOT to be rude or insulting - but... by consuming you are encouraging and indeed supporting!

[Samuian]

It's a Theosphical/Buddhist view - no you would not be denying those creatures the chance to go UP as when humanity reaches the stage where it implements this it will be karmically (world karma) right for the lower chains too... hence we would have progressed enough...

What is Theosophical Buddhism?

Did the Buddha support or teach Theosophical Buddhism?

No he didn't. Minerals and vegetables don't have consciousness, much less souls. And animals don't have "souls" either. Buddha never talked about groups of beings evolving though rebirths either upward or downward.

Individual beings take rebirth according to their karma, good or bad, from life to life. Up and down, up and down. That's why samsara sucks so much. There is no security anywhere. The gods can easily be reborn in the hells.

Excerpt from above post:

"

No he didn't. Minerals and vegetables don't have consciousness, much less souls. And animals don't have "souls" either."

A rather far fetched, baseless conclusion!

Don't divide, one from the other, it can;t be only under the influence of ignorance or not knowing!

All material and even immaterial is ONE, if not then the Buddhas teaching would be wrong!

"...if you watch his astonishing experiments with plants and flowers, you have to leave an old world behind and enter a new one. The world where plants are merely plants becomes mercilessly out of date, and you are forced abruptly into a world where plants are almost human beings. Professor Bose makes you take the leap when he demonstrates that plants have a nervous system quite comparable with that of men, and makes them write down their life-story."

Now, lest metal should be displeased with him, the seer scientist revealed to the world that metal, too, possesses signs of life. Life is within, life is without each object. To quote Sri Aurobindo, the Master of Integral Yoga, "A bridge has been built between man and inert matter. If we take Dr. Bose's experiments with metals in conjunction with his experiments on plants, we may hold it to be practically proved for the thinker that Life in various degrees of manifestation and organisation is omnipresent in Matter and is no foreign introduction or accidental development, but was always there to be evolved. Mind, which modern Science has not yet begun to rightly investigate, awaits its turn."

from:

To be vegetarian has several other reasons, if one just thinks about,

uses his mind to understand why, frutis and veggies are prefareable to meats.

It's all about the ancient cosmic concept of tamas, rajas and sattva,

understood as the 3 doshas or progressions as:

(Greed. Delusion, lack of direction, indecisiveness, sadness, grief.

Desire. Hyperactivity, fear, nervousness, anxiety, ungroundedness, space-cadet / air-head. Forgetfulness, isolation, loneliness, separation, divorce, non-filial respect: Alzheimer’s Disease

Clarity, creativity, lightness,

4: Unlimited renunciation / equanimity, aloneness – solitude

In Samkhya philosophy, there are three major guṇas that serve as the fundamental operating principles or 'tendencies' of prakṛti (universal nature) which are called: sattva guṇa, and rajas guṇa, tamas guṇa. The three primary gunas are generally accepted to be associated with creation (satva), preservation (rajas), and destruction (tamas).[2] The entire creation and its process of evolution is carried out by these three major gunas

-wiki-

Sattvic foods :

* Are fresh, juicy, light, unctuous, nourishing, sweet and tasty.

* Give the necessary energy to the body without taxing it.

* The foundation of higher states of consciousness.

* Examples : juicy fruits, fresh vegetables that are easily digestible, fresh milk and butter, whole soaked or also sprouted beans, grains and nuts, many herbs and spices in the right combinations with other foods,…

Rajasic foods :

* Are bitter, sour, salty, pungent, hot and dry.

* Increase the speed and excitement of the human organism.

* The foundation of motion, activity and pain.

* Examples : sattvic foods that have been fried in oil or cooked too much or eaten in excess, specific foods and spices that are strongly exciting, …

Tamasic Foods :

* Are dry, old, decaying, distasteful and/or unpalatable.

* Consume a large amount of energy while being digested.

* The foundation of ignorance, doubt, pessimism, …

* Examples : foods that have been strongly processed, canned or frozen and/or are old, stale or incompatible with each other - meat, fish, eggs and liquor are especially tamasic.

Source:

only fruit and veggies, nuts and grains are sattvic, common sense will tell!

There are no "must's" on the spiritual path, but one is knowing it or not, absolutely responsible for ones deeds!

Hope this brings some clarification into this matter....

[Brucenkhamen]

Hi - I do understand this - but I do not believe in 'mixing' up ones self-development with killing (number 1 precept - why add a 228th?).

Killing and eating are two separate and different acts.

To take it a stage further why stop hunger in Africa? why stop violence against women? why stop Darfur? Afghanistan? Iraq? let's let it continue because we don't want to suffer pride?

If you feel you want to stop suffering in Africa, Darfur, Afghanistan, or Iraq you are welcome to try, you might do a lot of good, but ultimately you are likely to fail. The best place to start in reducing the suffering of mankind is to fully understand how greed aversion and delusion operates in your own life, eradicating suffering in your own life is the first step in eradicating the sufferings of the world, once you've done it yourself you really have something to offer others.

Your honesty in not killing the meat yourself is revealing... that's the point - don't expect others to do what you would not. I hestitate to use the word 'hypocritical' as my intention is NOT to be rude or insulting - but... by consuming you are encouraging and indeed supporting!

Yes I'm aware of that, I am aware that my need to survive causes suffering for others. Just as you should be aware that you are encouraging and indeed supporting farmers to kill animals that would otherwise eat your vegetables before they arrive at your table.

This is just one part of the suffering inherent in life as we know it. The Buddha taught the way out of this, and it wasn't a teaching about going around telling others what to do.

[LazyYogi]

I'll say that I don't really know much about Theosophy. And anyone is certainly free to hold whatever religious views they are personally inclined to.

But it is pretty clear from the Buddha's own sermons that he at least held the view that humans could be reborn as animals after death.

For example, please read the Kukkuravatika Sutta: The Dog-duty Ascetic.

[rockyysdt]

It's a pity board members are split on this subject.

l hope that we can all see each other as fellow travelers on the same quest.

I can see valid argument for both cases.

I minimise my meat diet these days but find I would not thrive if l eliminate it totally due to my food intolerances & constitution.

Coincidentally l've been learning more about the background of my new work colleague . He left school as a fifteen year old to learn butchering. It shocked me to learn he slaughtered 30 or more cattle daily for many years. He described the gruesome technique. He also described his awareness of these animals fear whilst they tried to avoid their turn.

Whilst he revealed his former work to me, as a meat eater I observed myself feeling quite disturbed knowing that my diet facilitated this mans work.

Edited December 3, 2009 by rockyysdt

[sabaijai]

Hi - I do understand this - but I do not believe in 'mixing' up ones self-development with killing (number 1 precept - why add a 228th?).

Killing and eating are two separate and different acts.

To take it a stage further why stop hunger in Africa? why stop violence against women? why stop Darfur? Afghanistan? Iraq? let's let it continue because we don't want to suffer pride?

If you feel you want to stop suffering in Africa, Darfur, Afghanistan, or Iraq you are welcome to try, you might do a lot of good, but ultimately you are likely to fail. The best place to start in reducing the suffering of mankind is to fully understand how greed aversion and delusion operates in your own life, eradicating suffering in your own life is the first step in eradicating the sufferings of the world, once you've done it yourself you really have something to offer others.

Your honesty in not killing the meat yourself is revealing... that's the point - don't expect others to do what you would not. I hestitate to use the word 'hypocritical' as my intention is NOT to be rude or insulting - but... by consuming you are encouraging and indeed supporting!

Yes I'm aware of that, I am aware that my need to survive causes suffering for others. Just as you should be aware that you are encouraging and indeed supporting farmers to kill animals that would otherwise eat your vegetables before they arrive at your table.

This is just one part of the suffering inherent in life as we know it. The Buddha taught the way out of this, and it wasn't a teaching about going around telling others what to do.

Well said.

For those of us following the Theravada path, a key point remains that there is no endorsement for a strictly vegetarian diet in the Pali canon. That makes it a personal decision, not a Buddhist one, for most of us.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Hi - I do understand this - but I do not believe in 'mixing' up ones self-development with killing (number 1 precept - why add a 228th?).

Killing and eating are two separate and different acts.

To take it a stage further why stop hunger in Africa? why stop violence against women? why stop Darfur? Afghanistan? Iraq? let's let it continue because we don't want to suffer pride?

If you feel you want to stop suffering in Africa, Darfur, Afghanistan, or Iraq you are welcome to try, you might do a lot of good, but ultimately you are likely to fail. The best place to start in reducing the suffering of mankind is to fully understand how greed aversion and delusion operates in your own life, eradicating suffering in your own life is the first step in eradicating the sufferings of the world, once you've done it yourself you really have something to offer others.

Your honesty in not killing the meat yourself is revealing... that's the point - don't expect others to do what you would not. I hestitate to use the word 'hypocritical' as my intention is NOT to be rude or insulting - but... by consuming you are encouraging and indeed supporting!

Yes I'm aware of that, I am aware that my need to survive causes suffering for others. Just as you should be aware that you are encouraging and indeed supporting farmers to kill animals that would otherwise eat your vegetables before they arrive at your table.

This is just one part of the suffering inherent in life as we know it. The Buddha taught the way out of this, and it wasn't a teaching about going around telling others what to do.

We will have to agree to disagree friend...

YOU cannot EAT meat without KILLING and any clever arguements to justify that behaviour but AVOID the issue that YOU KILL (even by proxy) is an INVALID and ILLOGICAL one - and UN-BUDDHIST. The point is you like to eat meat... say that and be honest with yourself and those you kill (by proxy).

[Xangsamhua]

Annie Besant also was a noted Buddhist

I'm sorry to be so pedantic, but as one who has had an interest in Annie Besant over many years, I don't see how she could be described as a Buddhist. Her primary orientation was Hindu. She was a co-founder of the Banaras Hindu University and, following Colonel Olcott's death she moved the Theosophical Society away from Olcott's and Blavatsky's Buddhist activism towards Hindu activism. Her work in education and, probably, her election as the first president of the Indian National Congress reflected her Hindu sympathies.

Incidentally, despite her pioneering work for native education in India, I suspect Mrs Besant has been written out of the post-colonial version of Indian history. Having recently toured the Banaras Hindu University and admired the statue of Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, the co-founder, I asked the guide about Mrs Besant. He obviously hadn't heard of her and was insistent that the Pandit was the sole founder. (She has, however, been memorialised in several Annie Besant Colleges in different parts of India.)

This might be better transferred to a new thread about Theosophy and Buddhism?

Yes, but I doubt there's much interest in the topic really. However, for those who are interested, here are some links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banaras_Hindu_University

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Besant

[Brucenkhamen]

We will have to agree to disagree friend...

YOU cannot EAT meat without KILLING and any clever arguements to justify that behaviour but AVOID the issue that YOU KILL (even by proxy) is an INVALID and ILLOGICAL one - and UN-BUDDHIST. The point is you like to eat meat... say that and be honest with yourself and those you kill (by proxy).

There is no need to shout.

Actually I prefer vegetables and if my wife and daughter felt the same I'd probably be virtually a vegetarian, I just don't see why they should be inconvenienced for my preferences, and I don't see the point in making a religion out of it.

You can shout that my argument is invalid and illogical and unbuddhist if you want, that's your opinion and you are entitled to i.

However I'd say that saying it's ok to kill animals that compete with you for food and it's not ok to kill animals for food is equally invalid and illogical and unbuddhist.

Killing is killing, it's part of what makes life dukkha. The Buddha recognised this by not requiring for killing to never happen at all but instead requiring his disciples not be directly involved in the process. Being directly involved in the process requires an act of violence that disturbs the mind and the concience, a disturbed mind and concience can't find it's way to enlightenment.

Now if you find eating also disturbs your mind and concience then best not to do it, it will make you feel better but I think it just shifts the problem rather than solves it.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Brucenkhamen

[phetaroi]

Well said.

For those of us following the Theravada path, a key point remains that there is no endorsement for a strictly vegetarian diet in the Pali canon. That makes it a personal decision, not a Buddhist one, for most of us.

Probably the wisest posting in this thread. I have no problem with people posting their thoughts, opinions, and interpretations. I do have a problem with people posting their thoughts, opinions, and interpretations as Buddhist law.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Xangsamuha,

You have not read her Buddhist Lectures 1908 book then?

As a Theosophist she had an ecclectic mix of Hinduism and Buddhism

I am an admirer too... and have many of her books here - as well as many other Theosophical volumes including First Additions if you are interested...

She was a GIANT (not shouting just emphasising ) and I am humble to inhabit the same planet as a Being such as her. I lived (and worked) in India and they still have roads named after her down in Channai (Madras) but sadly, as time passes, people forget how important she was for Indian Home Rule (a founder of the Congress Party etc.)

[phetaroi]

YOU cannot EAT meat without KILLING and any clever arguements to justify that behaviour but AVOID the issue that YOU KILL (even by proxy) is an INVALID and ILLOGICAL one - and UN-BUDDHIST. The point is you like to eat meat... say that and be honest with yourself and those you kill (by proxy).

Around the globe, some of the people who suffer most are those who harvest the vegetables and fruits and grains you eat. They are among the poorest people, often live in horrible conditions, and work insufferable hours for incredibly low wages. I guess one could make a case that by eating those veggies you are creating suffering. That seems to indicate YOU CAUSE SUFFERING (even by proxy), WHICH is an INVALID and ILLOGICAL action - and UN-BUDDHIST.

I am free to make that conclusion (although I actually don't). In the end, since it is not clearly stated anywhere in Buddhist law that you can't eat meat, it is a personal decision and interpretation of morality. In fact, everything about Buddhism -- including Buddhist law -- is still personal decision and interpretation of morality.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Well said.

For those of us following the Theravada path, a key point remains that there is no endorsement for a strictly vegetarian diet in the Pali canon. That makes it a personal decision, not a Buddhist one, for most of us.

Probably the wisest posting in this thread. I have no problem with people posting their thoughts, opinions, and interpretations. I do have a problem with people posting their thoughts, opinions, and interpretations as Buddhist law.

Good morning - I really don't want to keep going down the same road with this - the Pali Canon is only one view of Buddhism and there are many, many quoted texts by major Buddhist thinkers on vegetarianism... I do not think of Buddhism as Thai... or Tibetan but as Buddhism and I think I am quite within the boundaries of commenting on vegetarianism as 'Buddhist' and your rebuke is unwelcome as you are obviously a meat eater who has constructed a convenient arguement to justify your practice.

With respect please re-read my comments carefully and maybe re-think your position - read up on the net all the articles on the subject (I am too lazy to quote all the web sites) and you may find you are wrong and your well constructed edifice of being able to live off the suffering of innocent animals (unless you have no choice) will fall down with a thump!

First precept - not to kill - how can you eat meat without killing? please do not answer 'by buying at Rimping'!

[ChiangMaiFun]

YOU cannot EAT meat without KILLING and any clever arguements to justify that behaviour but AVOID the issue that YOU KILL (even by proxy) is an INVALID and ILLOGICAL one - and UN-BUDDHIST. The point is you like to eat meat... say that and be honest with yourself and those you kill (by proxy).

Around the globe, some of the people who suffer most are those who harvest the vegetables and fruits and grains you eat. They are among the poorest people, often live in horrible conditions, and work insufferable hours for incredibly low wages. I guess one could make a case that by eating those veggies you are creating suffering. That seems to indicate YOU CAUSE SUFFERING (even by proxy), WHICH is an INVALID and ILLOGICAL action - and UN-BUDDHIST.

I am free to make that conclusion (although I actually don't). In the end, since it is not clearly stated anywhere in Buddhist law that you can't eat meat, it is a personal decision and interpretation of morality. In fact, everything about Buddhism -- including Buddhist law -- is still personal decision and interpretation of morality.

I DO agree we should all decide for ourselves as only WE are responsible for our actions... I'm not convinced it is not stated in Buddhist Law but it is an interesting debate... however, yes, each individual should decide - and pay the karmic consequencies - and even if there is doubt (which I don't agree there is) it may be wise to err on caution and not eat meat. I am comfortable with this position.

[Xangsamhua]

Xangsamuha,

You have not read her Buddhist Lectures 1908 book then?

As a Theosophist she had an ecclectic mix of Hinduism and Buddhism

I am an admirer too... and have many of her books here - as well as many other Theosophical volumes including First Additions if you are interested...

She was a GIANT (not shouting just emphasising ) and I am humble to inhabit the same planet as a Being such as her. I lived (and worked) in India and they still have roads named after her down in Channai (Madras) but sadly, as time passes, people forget how important she was for Indian Home Rule (a founder of the Congress Party etc.)

Thanks CMF. Looks like I need to update myself. I wonder if the book is available on Amazon? I was pleased to see that she gets some acknowledgement at the Gandhi Memorial Museum in Delhi.

[sabaijai]

.... your rebuke is unwelcome as you are obviously a meat eater who has constructed a convenient arguement to justify your practice.

And an ad hominem approach does not advance your argument. One could as well point out that you are merely trying to justify your preferred diet.

In fact you are promoting your personal interpretation of Buddhism, just like everyone else.

If your interpretations are 'right view' than you'll be fine. And if not, you too will suffer the consequences. Karma is more efficient than anger.

....

First precept - not to kill - how can you eat meat without killing? please do not answer 'by buying at Rimping'!

That question has already been answered - more than once. Perhaps you need to reread the responses.