Vegetarianism and Buddhism

[phetaroi]

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'!

So, your edict is that: The Thai Sangha is breaking their vows on a daily basis since many, if not most, eat meat.

See, here's the problem. I trust the Sangha's judgment more than I trust yours. They are more expert than you. Of course, you have the right to do as you believe, but please don't condemn me to Buddhist hel_l.

[phetaroi]

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.

And that is your freedom of belief. Many, perhaps even most of us, are not comfortable with that position. Do we also have freedom of our belief?

[ChiangMaiFun]

.... 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.

AsI have stated I come from a Theosophical/Buddhist stance... the answer to the first precept has not been answered at all! HOW can you eat meat without killing? no one has answered... please feel free to do so

[ChiangMaiFun]

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'!

So, your edict is that: The Thai Sangha is breaking their vows on a daily basis since many, if not most, eat meat.

See, here's the problem. I trust the Sangha's judgment more than I trust yours. They are more expert than you. Of course, you have the right to do as you believe, but please don't condemn me to Buddhist hel_l.

and the basis for your postulation is...??? young monks do tend to eat meat - I would say you're way, way out in suggestion senior monks do - but we don't know right? I condemn you nowhere my friend - the Sangha do not say 'eat meat'.

[Samuian]

Anyway before this thread escapes into the obliviousness - one or word:

If all those who do consume meat would have to engage in the act of

slaughtering, skinning...

I think many would prefer to eat vegan!

The existing "Soya meat", well prepared, is a very good substitute for meat.

personally the rush or the extraordinary experience of consuming meat, always escaped me.

Take a nice bite from an Apple, a Mango, a Strawberry, a Carrot and then try a piece of uncured, uncooked meat!

Just to understand....

many, many of today have not clue what is involved, the blood, the gut's,

in indulging in just some humble chicken curry...

I do know a woman who is very strict buddhist and vegetarian, goes regularly to Vipassana retreats

and observes fasting periods and all "buddha days" she's off to the temple.

She inherited a butcher business from her family, it is the core income supporting the family!

Which I personally think is a wee bit strange, it is like running someone over and then honking the horn!

Isn't it?

Ah; well guess it's all part of the big wheel.... stages, cycles, planes of the very different steps in ones life.

The first Buddhist precept is not to take lives and deprive other beings of opportunities for enlightenment.

However, without any intention of doing so, we take thousands of lives every day, with every step and with every breath. But Buddhism does not see species of animals as arranged in a hierarchy where the life of a larger animal is of greater value than that of a smaller one.

Buddhism emphasizes the inter-relatedness of all beings.

The story of a boy who found fish stranded

on the shore, as the tide receded. He started to pick

them up one by one, and threw them back into the sea.

A passer-by said, "There are millions of fish stranded

on the shore as far as the eye can see. What does it

matter if you save a few?"

The boy replied, "It matters to the ones I threw back."

Everyone has a choice..... and is fully responsible for the choices being made!

imho I think it doesn't really matter, it is an ethical consideration and last notleast it can be a

question of survival.

However everyone has to find an answer for him/herself!

Edited December 4, 2009 by Samuian

[ChiangMaiFun]

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.

And that is your freedom of belief. Many, perhaps even most of us, are not comfortable with that position. Do we also have freedom of our belief?

You're at it again... 'perhaps even most of us' you do NOT know that and are insinuating that most Buddhists eat meat - I would say that is a huge leap in imagination - if you have evidence that points to 'most' please share it.

I thinkyou are wrong - several people here have tried to justify their eating through paper-thin arguement - including insinuating that I am out-of-step with Buddhism and the Sangha... with all due respect I am debating not saying 'you have to do this or that' - up to you! but eating meat is wrong - and breaks the first precept - period.

[ChiangMaiFun]

I didn't want to get into quoting as there is tons of literature on Buddhism and not eating meat - but... a morsal (veggie of course)

Within the Mahayana the situation is quite different. There are many sutras which clearly see the connection between meat-eating and the suffering of animals. In the Lankavatara a lengthy passage explains why one should not eat meat.

Also certain Mahayanists follow the Brahmajala Sutra (not the Pali version) as their moral code, and this prohibits meat-eating. This code is followed in China by both monks and lay-people. Three years ago I stayed for a few days in a Ch’an monastery in Wu Tai Shan, the mountain region in China sacred to Manjushri, and was served, along with the monks, only vegetarian food.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Don't view if you do not want your limiting beliefs in being 'allowed' to eat meat as a Buddhist challenged - free will prevails always of course

www.buddhistfood.org

For those with an open mind...

http://www.buddhistfood.org/download/pdf/B...getarianism.pdf

[sabaijai]

Stylistically that web page strikes me as propagandistic, rather than a subject for open-minded investigation. Its basic premise is fallacious, ie there is no compelling logic to the notion that a vegetarian diet takes fewer lives than an omnivorous diet. First it addresses only vegetable production and very few vegetarians live on vegetables alone. They also consume beans, nuts and grain. If one acre of land produces one cow a year for consumption, one life is taken. If one acre of land is put into grain or vegetable production the number of lives lost is dozens, if not hundreds, of times greater, whether from the plough, spade, hoe or other harvesting and weeding technology, from pest control (even organic), from damage to burrows and nursing young, and the deprivation of small animal habitat. That applies no matter what crop is being cultivated and harvested. On top of that unless you do all the planting, cultivating and harvesting yourself, you have no idea how many animals were killed.

[phetaroi]

As I have stated I come from a Theosophical/Buddhist stance... the answer to the first precept has not been answered at all! HOW can you eat meat without killing? no one has answered... please feel free to do so

Okay, now you are saying something slightly different...that the question has not been answered. I have discussed this with several Thai friends. They say that forest monks mostly don't eat meat, but most others do.

[phetaroi]

the Sangha do not say 'eat meat'.

They don't say "don't eat meat", either.

[phetaroi]

...

If all those who do consume meat would have to engage in the act of

slaughtering, skinning...

I think many would prefer to eat vegan!

...

personally the rush or the extraordinary experience of consuming meat, always escaped me.

...

The first Buddhist precept is not to take lives and deprive other beings of opportunities for enlightenment.

However, without any intention of doing so, we take thousands of lives every day, with every step and with every breath. But Buddhism does not see species of animals as arranged in a hierarchy where the life of a larger animal is of greater value than that of a smaller one.

...

Everyone has a choice..... and is fully responsible for the choices being made!

imho I think it doesn't really matter, it is an ethical consideration and last notleast it can be a

question of survival.

However everyone has to find an answer for him/herself!

I don't always find myself agreeing with you...but this time I like your post.

I was brought up in a farm-like atmosphere, so at least in my early youth I was used to seeing chickens slaughtered. Later, even after we bought virtually all our meat the grocery store, my grandfather still hunted, and many times I watched him slaughter pheasants and butcher parts of deer, not to mention gutting and cleaning fish. While not "my thing" I try to remember that man has incisor teeth...the mark of a carnivore.

In talking with my Thai SO, who is from Issan, the Buddhists there do see a hierarchy of animal life. They would not feed beef to a monk, but would give them chicken or pork without hesitation...and that comment was based on morality, not the cost of beef.

But you are correct. Each must find his own answer.

[phetaroi]

You're at it again... 'perhaps even most of us' you do NOT know that and are insinuating that most Buddhists eat meat - I would say that is a huge leap in imagination - if you have evidence that points to 'most' please share it.

I thinkyou are wrong - several people here have tried to justify their eating through paper-thin arguement - including insinuating that I am out-of-step with Buddhism and the Sangha... with all due respect I am debating not saying 'you have to do this or that' - up to you! but eating meat is wrong - and breaks the first precept - period.

Well, when I go to virtually any Thai restaurant here in Thailand, I see mostly meat dishes on the menu. Even in some Thai vegetarian restaurants, I see a separate menu with meat. After many years of visiting and now living here, I have never once gone out to eat with a Thai person who has not eaten meat.

And once again, I close by saying, I listen more to the Sangha than I do to you. And I see them eating meat often.

[Brucenkhamen]

and the basis for your postulation is...??? young monks do tend to eat meat - I would say you're way, way out in suggestion senior monks do

So you think young monks eat what they are given but senior monks pick and choose? You obviously haven't been to a Theravadin Monastery, the senior monks are first in line, sure, but they eat the same food as the junior monks and according to the 227 precepts they can't pick and choose.

[Brucenkhamen]

I didn't want to get into quoting as there is tons of literature on Buddhism and not eating meat - but... a morsal (veggie of course)

Within the Mahayana the situation is quite different. There are many sutras which clearly see the connection between meat-eating and the suffering of animals. In the Lankavatara a lengthy passage explains why one should not eat meat.

Also certain Mahayanists follow the Brahmajala Sutra (not the Pali version) as their moral code, and this prohibits meat-eating. This code is followed in China by both monks and lay-people. Three years ago I stayed for a few days in a Ch’an monastery in Wu Tai Shan, the mountain region in China sacred to Manjushri, and was served, along with the monks, only vegetarian food.

Nobody is disputing that vegetarianism is common in north asian Mahayanist monasteries, nor that they wrote suttas about it. If that's the style of practice you prefer then you should follow it.

It's also very common amongst western Buddhists, all retreat centres I've been to unless part of a monastery only served vegetables.

This is a Buddhism in Thailand forum and while while we talk about all kinds of Buddhism you'll find Theravadin Buddhism is the prevailing POV here. If you can find something in the Pali Canon that tells us not to eat meat then we'll have learnt something new.

If Theravadin monks wanted to not eat meat they'd have to give up their mendicant status and grow their own food like their Mahayanist brothers. Their mendicant status is central to their practice of letting go of attachment and identity and creates an interdependency between lay people and the monastastics.

[sabaijai]

and the basis for your postulation is...??? young monks do tend to eat meat - I would say you're way, way out in suggestion senior monks do

So you think young monks eat what they are given but senior monks pick and choose? You obviously haven't been to a Theravadin Monastery, the senior monks are first in line, sure, but they eat the same food as the junior monks and according to the 227 precepts they can't pick and choose.

That is correct. Young or old, forest or city, monks are not entitled to choose the diet they eat, and in fact it is a violation of the Vinaya to do so.

[ChiangMaiFun]

I didn't want to get into quoting as there is tons of literature on Buddhism and not eating meat - but... a morsal (veggie of course)

Within the Mahayana the situation is quite different. There are many sutras which clearly see the connection between meat-eating and the suffering of animals. In the Lankavatara a lengthy passage explains why one should not eat meat.

Also certain Mahayanists follow the Brahmajala Sutra (not the Pali version) as their moral code, and this prohibits meat-eating. This code is followed in China by both monks and lay-people. Three years ago I stayed for a few days in a Ch'an monastery in Wu Tai Shan, the mountain region in China sacred to Manjushri, and was served, along with the monks, only vegetarian food.

Nobody is disputing that vegetarianism is common in north asian Mahayanist monasteries, nor that they wrote suttas about it. If that's the style of practice you prefer then you should follow it.

It's also very common amongst western Buddhists, all retreat centres I've been to unless part of a monastery only served vegetables.

This is a Buddhism in Thailand forum and while while we talk about all kinds of Buddhism you'll find Theravadin Buddhism is the prevailing POV here. If you can find something in the Pali Canon that tells us not to eat meat then we'll have learnt something new.

If Theravadin monks wanted to not eat meat they'd have to give up their mendicant status and grow their own food like their Mahayanist brothers. Their mendicant status is central to their practice of letting go of attachment and identity and creates an interdependency between lay people and the monastastics.

As I have said many times I follow the Theosophical/Buddhist path -and whilst I have the greatest respect for our Brothers (including everyone here) I do not follow the Sangha here and have more affinity with the approach of not concentrating on ones own 'salavation' but helping and considering others too (animals included). The Theosophical approach is definitly hierarchal and it's seems strikingly obvious to me (evolutionary) - but I think we will never agree on that and if you really believe we may return as an cow or a sheep (I cannot believe you really believe that) then why eat your relatives???

BTW this is a 'Vegetarianism and Buddhism' thread so I felt free to comment on this issue.

Yes I have found very, very few Thais who are vegetarian - but also very, very few who care... which is deeply disappointing and I would not hold up Thais as an example of Buddhism! (lovely though some of them are).

I'm sure if most of you had to kill your own meat you would not do so... and so I rest my case.

The UNANSWERED question is not these monks do this, these Thais do that, where is the 228th precept etc. - it is HOW do you eat meat without breaking the FIRST PRECEPT? all my detractors have failed to answer - because it is unanswerable.

[Brucenkhamen]

The UNANSWERED question is not these monks do this, these Thais do that, where is the 228th precept etc. - it is HOW do you eat meat without breaking the FIRST PRECEPT? all my detractors have failed to answer - because it is unanswerable.

The exact same way you eat vegetables without breaking the first precept, you didn't kill the pests that tried to eat your food before you, the farmer did.

[Xangsamhua]

The UNANSWERED question is not these monks do this, these Thais do that, where is the 228th precept etc. - it is HOW do you eat meat without breaking the FIRST PRECEPT? all my detractors have failed to answer - because it is unanswerable.

The exact same way you eat vegetables without breaking the first precept, you didn't kill the pests that tried to eat your food before you, the farmer did.

Wouldn't this suggest we should eat only organically-grown veggies?

[Brucenkhamen]

The UNANSWERED question is not these monks do this, these Thais do that, where is the 228th precept etc. - it is HOW do you eat meat without breaking the FIRST PRECEPT? all my detractors have failed to answer - because it is unanswerable.

The exact same way you eat vegetables without breaking the first precept, you didn't kill the pests that tried to eat your food before you, the farmer did.

Wouldn't this suggest we should eat only organically-grown veggies?

It would probably be a step closer to utopia, I doubt it can be done with zero loss of life though.

Edited December 5, 2009 by Brucenkhamen

[Xangsamhua]

The UNANSWERED question is not these monks do this, these Thais do that, where is the 228th precept etc. - it is HOW do you eat meat without breaking the FIRST PRECEPT? all my detractors have failed to answer - because it is unanswerable.

The exact same way you eat vegetables without breaking the first precept, you didn't kill the pests that tried to eat your food before you, the farmer did.

Wouldn't this suggest we should eat only organically-grown veggies?

It would probably be a step closer to utopia, I doubt it can be done with zero loss of life though.

Yes, that would be unavoidable. I don't know how practicable it would be either for poor families living in high-density urban environments.

But it's something some of us could do. My wife is now speaking (for the first time ever, being a lifelong urbophiliac) of retiring to a non-urban setting and growing all our food organically. It's a luxury we can afford (until the next global financial crisis anyway), but not something one could demand of others.

[sabaijai]

The UNANSWERED question is not these monks do this, these Thais do that, where is the 228th precept etc. - it is HOW do you eat meat without breaking the FIRST PRECEPT? all my detractors have failed to answer - because it is unanswerable.

1. Your question has been answered more than once but you have neglected to rebut.

2. Using the same logic, how do you eat vegetables without 'breaking' the first precept?

[sabaijai]

The UNANSWERED question is not these monks do this, these Thais do that, where is the 228th precept etc. - it is HOW do you eat meat without breaking the FIRST PRECEPT? all my detractors have failed to answer - because it is unanswerable.

The exact same way you eat vegetables without breaking the first precept, you didn't kill the pests that tried to eat your food before you, the farmer did.

Wouldn't this suggest we should eat only organically-grown veggies?

No because even using organic methods, animals are still killed during vegetable/grain/fruit/nuts/legumes/beans cultivation. Anyone who has ever practiced organic farming knows this.

[Samuian]

So you think young monks eat what they are given but senior monks pick and choose? You obviously haven't been to a Theravadin Monastery, the senior monks are first in line, sure, but they eat the same food as the junior monks and according to the 227 precepts they can't pick and choose.

That is correct. Young or old, forest or city, monks are not entitled to choose the diet they eat, and in fact it is a violation of the Vinaya to do so.

"...n fact it is a violation of the Vinaya to do so....."

......okay some food for thought from the tea kettle:

One major reason why I am thinking that any religion, any club style membership, how exclusive this "club" ever might be, si any good for the genuine seeker on the path!

One does not need prescribed thought control and regulations of what to do and not to do, after all this is all man made!

Who makes the earth, the planets rotate, revolve, who hung them in the universe?

Who makes the heart beat, the lungs breathe while we sleep, who makes wounds heal,

mind think, eyes see, ears hear, tongue taste, hands feel?

Who makes the rain, water the plants, feed the sparrows, nourishes the myriads of beings?

Who makes the wind blow, the sun shine, the stars twinkle?

Where could this place, what could this state of "nirvana" be?

How to "liberate" oneself if one has to apply evermore bonds,

shackles and trammels to captivate and lock down the "mind"?

How can ever more restriction and self denunciation lead to true

wisdom and thus to a liberated mind, thus to a liberated soul?

How?

Is ti the emptiness that makes a vessel useful or it's hard and solid surrounding?

Is it the bricks and the mortar, the beams and the trusses which make a house useful or it's space and emptiness?

is it the food which nourishes or the rejection of the same?

?

the Buddha found no useful purpose in such speculation since it would not lead to release from suffering. As one scholar put it, Buddha never taught that there is no "self," only that such a self cannot be understood. Since he didn't find theological disputation helpful in achieving liberation, the Buddha maintained a "noble silence" about metaphysical questions as to whether the universe is eternal or infinite, whether an enlightened being continues to exist in some form after death, and whether there is a Supreme Being on the order of the Hindu Brahman. The Buddha was preoccupied with much more tangible problems, chief among them the suffering caused by the illusion of the separate ego, and the rampant violence of the age into which he was born, violence that he believed to be a direct outgrowth of the separation between the individual and the rest of society. His solution to the problem of human suffering is contained in what he called the Four Noble Truths.

....then there is the eightfold path"... one may chose to walk these clearly defined and outlined highways,

with all it's rules and shortcomings of luring promises!

Where will this road lead to?

It's like looking down a long,long straight section of a road, it looks like it ends, that it will get ever narrower, is it so or is it an just an optical illusion?

So what if someone looks this truth in mind at any "path" and it's luring promises?

Where could "nirvana"be hidden then?

[ChiangMaiFun]

The UNANSWERED question is not these monks do this, these Thais do that, where is the 228th precept etc. - it is HOW do you eat meat without breaking the FIRST PRECEPT? all my detractors have failed to answer - because it is unanswerable.

The exact same way you eat vegetables without breaking the first precept, you didn't kill the pests that tried to eat your food before you, the farmer did.

Not at all... vegetable are not 'alive' in a concsiousness sense and so cannot be 'killed'. Animals have family units? feel, think... vegetables do not.

[Samuian]

The UNANSWERED question is not these monks do this, these Thais do that, where is the 228th precept etc. - it is HOW do you eat meat without breaking the FIRST PRECEPT? all my detractors have failed to answer - because it is unanswerable.

The exact same way you eat vegetables without breaking the first precept, you didn't kill the pests that tried to eat your food before you, the farmer did.

Not at all... vegetable are not 'alive' in a concsiousness sense and so cannot be 'killed'. Animals have family units? feel, think... vegetables do not.

The tricky and seemingly "unanswerable" part of this question is in the way this question is formed!

Nor could one follow that, if one is not a buddhist, no precept can be broken!

reminds me of the part in the bhagavad gita where arjuna is finally convinced through krisnas cosmic form

that everything is happening, according to the divine plan, once the individual leaves his ego-cage and visualizes the divine

- not the bits and parts, but the whole, one is able to "see", to understand what this "cosmic dance" is all about, the curtain lifts and illusion disappers.

The illusion of the perceived "me", "I", is the barrier, if this realization, that there is no "me", "mine", nor "I" and has taken fully place in ones nature of perception, then how can there be a "broken precept", broken by whom?

That is why monks aren't allowed to make choices of eating or not eating meat it's like the "perpeteum mobile" and will in it's core never lead to a satisfying answer - like the hen and the chicken thing!

Typical for the inquisitive mind, which looks all the time for the verification of it's assumed boundless existence!

"The movement of nature is twofold: divine and undivine. The distinction is only for practical purposes since there is nothing that is not divine. The undivine nature, that which we are and must remain so long as the faith in us is not changed, acts through limitation and ignorance and culminates in the life of the ego; but the divine nature acts by unification and knowledge!"

Synthesis of Yoga

-Sri Aurobindo-

Edited December 5, 2009 by Samuian

[ChiangMaiFun]

The UNANSWERED question is not these monks do this, these Thais do that, where is the 228th precept etc. - it is HOW do you eat meat without breaking the FIRST PRECEPT? all my detractors have failed to answer - because it is unanswerable.

The exact same way you eat vegetables without breaking the first precept, you didn't kill the pests that tried to eat your food before you, the farmer did.

Wouldn't this suggest we should eat only organically-grown veggies?

Pests are not animals and are only 'accidently' killed in the cultivation of vegetables - I guess if you have no 'hierarchy' then you would not differentiate? having no hierarchy of evolution would lead to some bizzare conclusions - if you have a hierarchy (as I believe) then vegetable eating is not killing as they have no concsiousness and are not re-born souls.

[Samuian]

Pests are not animals and are only 'accidently' killed in the cultivation of vegetables - I guess if you have no 'hierarchy' then you would not differentiate? having no hierarchy of evolution would lead to some bizzare conclusions - if you have a hierarchy (as I believe) then vegetable eating is not killing as they have no concsiousness and are not re-born souls.

Seems this entire matter is being drawn and stretched into intellectual masochism.

One may look into how far Jain's go to avoid even accidentally killing life forms.

Then how much is known about the rebirth cycle of microbes and prokaryotes?

The mind creates ever knew obstacles - it doesn't matter what one eats - but that the body is taken good care of to reach FINISH!

[ChiangMaiFun]

Pests are not animals and are only 'accidently' killed in the cultivation of vegetables - I guess if you have no 'hierarchy' then you would not differentiate? having no hierarchy of evolution would lead to some bizzare conclusions - if you have a hierarchy (as I believe) then vegetable eating is not killing as they have no concsiousness and are not re-born souls.

Seems this entire matter is being drawn and stretched into intellectual masochism.

One may look into how far Jain's go to avoid even accidentally killing life forms.

Then how much is known about the rebirth cycle of microbes and prokaryotes?

The mind creates ever knew obstacles - it doesn't matter what one eats - but that the body is taken good care of to reach FINISH!

You see my point is this... we are all struggling up the chain of evolution... we all have individual responsibility for what we do or eat - if we are to live a more compassionate life then we should not encourage killing animals by eating meat - my point is that simple and for some posters to argue that they do so because animals are no better than vegetables or pests is ludicrous...

My late Father had a good point he said:

yes I eat meat, yes its wrong - no I would not kill it myself, yes it's hypocritical - I eat it because I like it - at least he was honest!!!

no amount of clever articulation of debate can avoid the fact that killing is forbidden - of course there are occasions where it is unavoidable but if one can avoid it one should- comparing pests and vegetables with animals is nonsensical and wrong and its usually given to mask the fact the it is inconvenient to change or they just don't care...

The question remains unanswered - how can we eat meat without killing? (animals ok not bugs and vegetables). The answer is we cannot.

[Brucenkhamen]

The question remains unanswered - how can we eat meat without killing? (animals ok not bugs and vegetables). The answer is we cannot.

Your questions have been answered several times by several people, judging by your response to my last post you didn't even read it.

There is no point in starting a discussion if you aren't interested in different points of view, I see no point wasting more time on this.