Buddha and Non-vegetarianism.

[Smoke]

Vegetarians are responsible not only for the deaths of plants but also for the deaths of insects killed in the planting and harvesting of crops.

If people are really opposed to all killing, they should be fruitarians. They should also avoid antibiotics, germicides, and virucidal cleansers -- and make sure to go to the filthiest barber shop in town.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Not to mention the relinquishing of ownership of all predatory pets held by vegetarians.

Even the cuddly ones. :fox:uppy::kat::bkcat:

 

[xkatz]

Not to mention the relinquishing of ownership of all predatory pets held by vegetarians.

Even the cuddly ones. :fox:uppy::kat::bkcat:

NO!!! NOT MY DOG!!!!111

Also to add on, if you really want to save the lives of other organisms you shouldn't drive a car (could overrun small animals), shouldn't buy pencils/paper (killing plants), nor should you wear clothes (uses animals skin/fur), nor can you ever shave your head if you have lice (you'll kill them), and not to mention not being able to clean your home (you'll kill the innocent bacteria)

Conclusion: Trying to save other lives is too inconvenient/hazardous.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Xkatz,

While I understand what your trying to say, wouldn't vegetarianism go against the principle of the middle-path anyways? If one starves because they cannot eat meat isn't that asceticism, which is something the Buddha frowned upon?

The hypothesis is based on false premises or wrongful interpretation of facts.

Most humans no more live in deserts and even in deserts they could eat dates, milk etc.
Milk itself contains most ingredients required by the body like protein which meat gives.

However if someone still wishes to continue killing or eating meat is free but no need to take it in the name of someone. What one does is his own karma which matters not how!

Love & rgds

 

[zenzero]

Friend Nowhere Man,

I really appreciate the sensitivity that vegetarians show in regards to suffering, but its just not a realistic view of how things are.

Yes, agree!. It is only a question of sensitivity. Reality also points to the facts that humans have killed many species of animals by killing them mostly for wrong reasons and today even humans are ravaging / plundering the oceans and the fish population is depleting rapidly. Yes, we should eat only animals reared for food which is more understandable at this point.

The question of vegetarian here was respect to Gautama Buddha and was responded accordingly. However, personally still eat non-veg food which are remnants of the animals days during the evolutionary process and as a BEING evolution towards being more sensitive to LIFE is growing.

Love & rgds

 

[nameless]

Friends, kindly stick to the topic, we are here to discuss 'Buddha and non-vegetarianism', that is to investigate whether buddha was a non-vegetarian with the available facts. Might be vegetarianism is non-sense but still not valid here.

 

[zenzero]

Friend xkatz,

Also to add on, if you really want to save the lives of other organisms you shouldn't drive a car (could overrun small animals), shouldn't buy pencils/paper (killing plants), nor should you wear clothes (uses animals skin/fur), nor can you ever shave your head if you have lice (you'll kill them), and not to mention not being able to clean your home (you'll kill the innocent bacteria)

No one is asking one to eat vegetarian food.
One simply states that whatever you do, do consciously.
Your life is your life, your karma yours.
Results of your karma too is yours.
As you ow, so your reap, is the eternal law.

Love & rgds

 

[Smoke]

Friends, kindly stick to the topic, we are here to discuss 'Buddha and non-vegetarianism', that is to investigate whether buddha was a non-vegetarian with the available facts. Might be vegetarianism is non-sense but still not valid here.

The available data do not indicate that Sakyamuni was a vegetarian. The tradition that he was a vegetarian is a late, Mahayana tradition.