Is buying meat compatible with Buddhist ethics?

[LuisDantas]

People most certainly can and do adopt vegetarian diets without a downside to speak of.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Perhaps if we all stop eating meat, our world wide need for fruit and vegetables would became such that we would completely destroy the animals habitats to put in enough farms to feed the masses.

No, because you can feed 7 or 8 times the number of people if you feed them grain instead of feeding the grain to animals and then killing the animals for food,

 

[Machavelle]

That isn't what the thread is about. It's a discussion about the ethics of buying meat in a Buddhist context. Have you given this any serious thought? Have you actually read the thread?

Yes, the post of mine you quoted was in response to a post within the thread.

Did you give that any thought.

 

[Osal]

People most certainly can and do adopt vegetarian diets without a downside to speak of.

There is a downside.

Oftentimes, when someone chooses to become a vegetarian/vegan they become what I like to call "Born Again" Vegetarians. All of a sudden everyone needs to be a vegetarian, just like them, and they cite all sorts of reason, most of which will be found in this thread, to try and convince everyone around them of the righteousness of their new-found lifestyle. They become, in a word, evangelistic, in the worst sense of the word.

This makes their company accutely irritating. Like a bad case of jock itch.

Fortunately they are easier to get rid of than jock itch.

 

[LuisDantas]

That happens, but it is not like it has to happen, nor does it consistently happen all the time and without remedy.

 

[Osal]

You're right. One of my best friends in a vegetarian and we get allong famously.

It's easy to remedy. Stop calling them, and if they call me, suggest they try calling back when they're not so inclined to be an a-hole about what I eat.

It's not that big of a deal really. People just tend to make it one. Especially online. I've been a student of my guru for more than 10 years. Not once in that time has he offered a teaching that had anything to do with diet. There are far more important things.

 

[LuisDantas]

I guess I agree. I do advocate vegetarianism, but I am far too attached to my own eating habits to feel entitled to call anyone else on theirs.

I am more than willing to talk about the matter and I often do. But never with the understanding that others should emulate my habits. It is bad enough that I give them reason to worry about what I will have to eat.

 

[Osal]

I guess I agree. I do advocate vegetarianism, but I am far too attached to my own eating habits to feel entitled to call anyone else on theirs.

I am more than willing to talk about the matter and I often do. But never with the understanding that others should emulate my habits. It is bad enough that I give them reason to worry about what I will have to eat.

That's cool, but when you try to discuss the ethics of dietary choice, it follows that one party will end up with the fuzzy end of the lollipop, wich is what we're doing here.

Personally, I think it's one of those subjects, that should be prohibited on forums siuch as this. It's a complete waste of time, same to bolster the spiritual materialism of some.

 

[LuisDantas]

Discussing ethics always demands some care. Is dietary ethics all that noteworthy in this regard?

 

[Osal]

Discussing ethics always demands some care. Is dietary ethics all that noteworthy in this regard?

Buddhist fora tend to make it noteworthy.

Buddhists out in the real world, not so much, if at all.

 

[crossfire]

Buddhist fora tend to make it noteworthy.

Buddhists out in the real world, not so much, if at all.

To quote another wise man in this regard: “It’s not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.”

 

[Aupmanyav]

This makes their company acutely irritating.

Don't worry. You can join me in having pork, lamb, chicken, duck or fish (just not beef, even that is OK with buffalo meat). I relish it. I am a slave of taste. But do not talk to me about 'ahimsa' and 'compassion' during our meal.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But do not talk to me about 'ahimsa' and 'compassion' during our meal.

Indeed.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Personally, I think it's one of those subjects, that should be prohibited on forums such as this.

Who are you, the Dharma Thought Police?

If the discussion makes you feel uncomfortable then you might do better to examine why instead of just whingeing.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Buddhists out in the real world, not so much, if at all.

I've heard it discussed regularly by Buddhists in the "real" world. Maybe it's a taboo subject in your sangha, I don't know.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's not that big of a deal really.

Nothing we do is a "big deal" until it is challenged. That's what the precepts are for in Buddhism. We are very good at rationalising our behaviour of course.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Indeed.

You did not notice the previous sentence. 'I am a slave of taste'.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You did not notice the previous sentence. 'I am a slave of taste'.

Oh I did.

 

[Osal]

Who are you, the Dharma Thought Police?

Nope, but if you caan fancy yourself as a lay teacher/authority, you can, of course forgive me if I assume the mantle of armchair moderator.

 

[Osal]

Nothing we do is a "big deal" until it is challenged. That's what the precepts are for in Buddhism. We are very good at rationalising our behaviour of course.

But precepts aren't, by definition, challenges. If the word translated to "challenge" that's what they would have used.

Challenges are oftentime the result of ego. It's something Trungpa called Spiritual Materialism.

Here's a challenge: go for five years with out starting or contributing to a thread about vegetarianism. I'm sure that will be a pretty big deal.

We are very good at rationalising our behaviour of course.

True enough, but we are oftentimes better at rationalizing the behavior of others. I have a black belt in it myself.