Is buying meat compatible with Buddhist ethics?

[buddhist]

Your dietary preferences are every bit as selfish as mine.

Agreed, it can be argued that people harm plants by killing them for food too. Some believe that plants are conscious too.

I wonder what's left for the vegetarians to eat?

 

[Osal]

Why stoop to a personal attack?

Great question. It's called an ad hominem attack and is meant to deflect an arunment by calling an opponent's character into question.

It's a logical fallacy. It's really meaningless and irrelevant.

Much like the OP, it's seems obvious that for our friend Norman, the answer to his OP was a foregone conclusion and he had no real interest in any statment that didn't agree. I get the distinct impressing from watching numerous threads on the subject that Norm either started or contributed to, that he feels that Buddhism must be a vegetarians-only club but lacks the fortitude to come right out and say so. I wish he would.

Waddiya say Norm? Wanna come clean?

 

[ratikala]

Namaste Spiny ji , ...Buddhist ji

That is why the thread is about buying meat rather than consuming it - specifically our personal decision to purchase meat when alternatives are available.

By deciding to purchasing meat we cause animals to be killed, directly or indirectly, which is a breach of the first precept.
By deciding to purchase meat we neglect Right Intention by putting a selfish dietary preference before the development of harmlessness.
By deciding to purchase meat we go against the principle of the 3-fold rule, which was clearly designed to minimise the killing of animals for food.

I think I have demonstrated that purchasing meat isn't compatible with Buddhist ethics and practice, .....

personaly I am in full agreement , ....

although I have made these points before I will reitterate , ....

Firstly , ......we are not a nation of small villages and subsistance farmers as was the case in Lord Buddhas day , ...we have an abundant chioce of very nice vegetarian foodstuffs , ...we do not need to rely on animal flesh to augment a very limited diet .

Secondly , ...the rule permiting a monk to accept foodstuffs containing flesh is literaly due to the simple fact that a monk in the days of Lord Buddha renounced the keeping of a fixed residence , therefore was to exist on alms alone thus he must accept the generosity of his host or benifactor regardless of what he is served , ....unless a modern day Buddhist is taking up robes and following the forest tradition to the extent of seeking all sustinance from the colection of alms this rule need not apply , ...for a western Buddhist providing for his or her own needs this rule becomes superfluous , ....

and Finaly , .....yes if we see the benifit of ourselves practicing the Buddhist Principles of Non harming we should also encorage others , Buddhist or not , to follow the same course of action , not only in the premiss of wishing to prevent them from the negative reations of their Karma , but also to save other Sentient beings from suffering .

However it is up to the individual to examine this personaly , ....however it is my personal feeling that we should not cling to rules just to justify our own dissinclination to renounce something which clearly causes suffering , ...nor should we need rules to dictate what levels of Comassion we should addopt , ....Compassion should be naturaly self-occuring , .......

How is it possible or acceptable for a layperson to somehow(??) obtain meat to give to a monk or nun to eat, but it's not acceptable for the layperson to obtain meat the same way, to eat it himself?

what may have once been acceptable does not nececarily still stand , .....as I have just said above , .....
''we are not a nation of small villages and subsistance farmers as was the case in Lord Buddhas day , ...we have an abundant chioce of very nice vegetarian foodstuffs , ...we do not need to rely on animal flesh to augment a very limited diet .''......

and as for B12 , ...Vegetarians can gain ample B12 from dairy products , therefore if one supports a crueltuy free dairy industry one might feel happy to take milk products , ...For Vegans who still dont trust that cruelty free farming methods are all they claim them selves to be , .....theres allways ....

 

[Osal]

Namaste Spiny ji , ...Buddhist ji



personaly I am in full agreement , ....

although I have made these points before I will reitterate , ....

Firstly , ......we are not a nation of small villages and subsistance farmers as was the case in Lord Buddhas day , ...we have an abundant chioce of very nice vegetarian foodstuffs , ...we do not need to rely on animal flesh to augment a very limited diet .

You could also stop eating vegatables and eat only meat. You could supplement your diet with vitamins to make up for what meat can't provide.

Secondly , ...the rule permiting a monk to accept foodstuffs containing flesh is literaly due to the simple fact that a monk in the days of Lord Buddha renounced the keeping of a fixed residence , therefore was to exist on alms alone thus he must accept the generosity of his host or benifactor regardless of what he is served , ....unless a modern day Buddhist is taking up robes and following the forest tradition to the extent of seeking all sustinance from the colection of alms this rule need not apply , ...for a western Buddhist providing for his or her own needs this rule becomes superfluous , ....

Especially considering the rule was for monks, anyway.

and Finaly , .....yes if we see the benifit of ourselves practicing the Buddhist Principles of Non harming we should also encorage others , Buddhist or not , to follow the same course of action , not only in the premiss of wishing to prevent them from the negative reations of their Karma , but also to save other Sentient beings from suffering .

That amounts to evangelism. It's something most people, including myself find repulsive.

However it is up to the individual to examine this personaly , ....however it is my personal feeling that we should not cling to rules just to justify our own dissinclination to renounce something which clearly causes suffering , ...nor should we need rules to dictate what levels of Comassion we should addopt , ....Compassion should be naturaly self-occuring , .......

The doors swings both ways. We should not cling to either inclination or disinclination.

what may have once been acceptable does not nececarily still stand , .....as I have just said above , .....
''we are not a nation of small villages and subsistance farmers as was the case in Lord Buddhas day , ...we have an abundant chioce of very nice vegetarian foodstuffs , ...we do not need to rely on animal flesh to augment a very limited diet .''......

Simply because there's an alternative doesn't mean we have to accept it.

And there is no alternative to a good Ribeye from Ruth's Chris.

 

[ratikala]

namaste ,....

You could also stop eating vegatables and eat only meat. You could supplement your diet with vitamins to make up for what meat can't provide.

you could if you were totaly unconcerned about compassion towards animals as sentient beings ?

however I beleive the thread was asking the question as to weather or not buying meat was or was not in line with Budist principles

That amounts to evangelism. It's something most people, including myself find repulsive.

not if one beleives that a person acrues a Karmic reaction for killing meat to sell , as if one belives that killing accrues a 'Reaction'.. then it would be hypercritical l to care about ones own wellbeing and dietry requirements at the expence of others .

and if ''the doors spring both ways'' in one instance then we shouldnt cling to likes, disslikes or repulsion towards anothers concern for others .

The doors swings both ways. We should not cling to either inclination or disinclination.

Simply because there's an alternative doesn't mean we have to accept it.

And there is no alternative to a good Ribeye from Ruth's Chris.

no you dont 'Have to' , ....it is your choice , ..just as it is our own individual choice as to the extent one wishes to adhere to Buddhist principles , ......

 

[Rick O'Shez]

you could if you were totally unconcerned about compassion towards animals as sentient beings ?

Indeed. As if animals are exempt from Right Intention and compassion. It seems we draw the lines to suit our own selfish desires.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.08.amar.html

 

[buddhist]

it is your choice , ..just as it is our own individual choice as to the extent one wishes to adhere to Buddhist principles , ......

Your personal interpretation of Buddhist principles may not be the same as others' personal interpretation of those same Buddhist principles.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Your personal interpretation of Buddhist principles may not be the same as others' personal interpretation of those same Buddhist principles.

The problem is that you seem intent on ignoring important Buddhist principles, including the first precept, Right Intention and compassion.

You also seem determined to ignore the purpose and principle of the 3-fold rule, and want to interpret it in a shallow legalistic way.

 

[Osal]

namaste ,....



you could if you were totaly unconcerned about compassion towards animals as sentient beings ?

You are being unfair. Simply because i eat meat doesn't mean I'm unconcerned. Here's an example to illustrate my point.

I make regular trips to a race trck about an hour east of town. On that drive I pass through millions of acres of ranch land, mainly used for wheat and other grain production. Right now is Winter Wheat time. In a few more months it will be harvest. In the neantime that land will be blanketed with pesticides and herbicides that will kill literally billions of sentient beings. Then, when harvest time arrives, the process of harvest will kill millions more - reptiles, insects, birds and rodents. And keep in mind this is within an hour drive of my home. Multiply that by the entire United States ........

Also ad that all those pesticides as well as the fertilizer used get into the watershed and kills god-only-knows how many animals there.

If you stop for a moment and consider the level of death is involved to put one loaf of bread on the table.......

So if I quit eating vegatables, I accomplish the same thing as vegetarians, being so out of "compassion".

however I beleive the thread was asking the question as to weather or not buying meat was or was not in line with Budist principles

No, it's about Spiny Norman principles

and if ''the doors spring both ways'' in one instance then we shouldnt cling to likes, disslikes or repulsion towards anothers concern for others .

Where does it say we "should". The Buddha taught suffering, it's cause, it's cessation and the path to cessation. What we do about that is up to us. Im my personal case it's up to me. Not you.

And, as I've stated before, my guru hasn't said a word to me about it, why should I give your admonitions a moment of consideration? That's not a rhetorical question. Why should I listen to you? Or Norm?[/QUOTE]

 

[Osal]

The problem is that you seem intent on ignoring important Buddhist principles, including the first precept, Right Intention and compassion.

You also seem determined to ignore the purpose and principle of the 3-fold rule, and want to interpret it in a shallow legalistic way.

Nice ad hom, there Norm.

 

[Chakra]

You are being unfair. Simply because i eat meat doesn't mean I'm unconcerned. Here's an example to illustrate my point.

I make regular trips to a race trck about an hour east of town. On that drive I pass through millions of acres of ranch land, mainly used for wheat and other grain production. Right now is Winter Wheat time. In a few more months it will be harvest. In the neantime that land will be blanketed with pesticides and herbicides that will kill literally billions of sentient beings. Then, when harvest time arrives, the process of harvest will kill millions more - reptiles, insects, birds and rodents. And keep in mind this is within an hour drive of my home. Multiply that by the entire United States ........

Also ad that all those pesticides as well as the fertilizer used get into the watershed and kills god-only-knows how many animals there.

If you stop for a moment and consider the level of death is involved to put one loaf of bread on the table.......

So if I quit eating vegatables, I accomplish the same thing as vegetarians, being so out of "compassion".

I hope the Buddhists here will allow me to add in my thoughts on a non-Buddhist topic.

Veganism is not about perfectionism, it is about reducing harm. Killing fewer animals is better than killing more, no?
By the way, all those harvests you are talking about, around 50-60 (or even more) percent of the crops harvested are used to feed animals from the meat industry. So essentially, you are killing more rodents, insects, birds, and reptiles (along with the farm animals that you eat) than vegans/vegetarianism.

If more people became vegan, then we would need less farm land, and fewer animals would be killed. If you were truly concerned about animals, you'd be vegan.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Veganism is not about perfectionism, it is about reducing harm. Killing fewer animals is better than killing more, no?
By the way, all those harvests you are talking about, around 50-60 (or even more) percent of the crops harvested are used to feed animals from the meat industry. So essentially, you are killing more rodents, insects, birds, and reptiles (along with the farm animals that you eat) than vegans/vegetarianism.

Growing grain and feeding it direct to people is far more efficient than feeding the grain to animals and then killing them to feed people. In other words you have to grow far more grain when people are on a meat diet, up to 7 or 8 times, so 7 or 8 times more insects and small mammals will be killed going down this route, plus the animals that are killed and eaten.

In any case, Buddhist ethics is very much concerned with minimising harm.

 

[Chakra]

Growing grain and feeding it direct to people is far more efficient than feeding the grain to animals and then killing them to feed people. In other words you have to grow far more grain when people are on a meat diet, up to 7 or 8 times, so 7 or 8 times more insects and small mammals will be killed going down this route.

In any case, Buddhist ethics is very much concerned with minimising harm.

Yes, thank you for this. I'm not too familiar with the Buddhist aspect of this discussion, and hence only brought up the environmental aspect of this discussion.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Nice ad hom, there Norm.

Nonsense. You are the one indulging in ad hom attacks and I am getting tired of them.

 

[Osal]

Nonsense. You are the one indulging in ad hom attacks and I am getting tired of them.

Then you can leave the conversation.

You didn't know what a straw man is, why should I believe that you know what ad hominem means?

 

[Osal]

If you were truly concerned about animals, you'd be vegan.

Not true. Case in Point:

Back in the the 1920s a group of outdoor sportsmen, mostly those who were avid duck hunters, became concerned with the dimishing numbers of ducks in North Amerca. They formed the organization Ducks Unlimited. These losses were not solely the result of hunting, and it was determined that the loss of nesting and living habitat ducks require was being reduced through wetland and forest reclaimation for agricultural purposes. They set to work to reducce the damage being cost by preserving existing wetlands, estabishing new and improving habitat for nesting. They also lobbied the federal government to reduce bag limits on a hunter's daily take and in some cases made outright prohibitions on those species who were in the greatest danger.

The succes is unparalleled. One example is the the Wood Duck

When I was a kid the "Woodie" was kinda rare. Today - maybe 50 years later - there are more Wood Ducks in North American than at any time in history. It's an amazing story and one of men and women who hunted, killed and ate these animals - people who care enough about the natural world and a legacy for all, that the worked tirelessly to ensure not only survival but prosperity of the species. True compassion. True humanity.

I don't think there's a single vegan who's a card-carrying member.

I don't think there's a single vegan-oriented group that does anything near what DU does.

 

[von bek]

If you want a diet that does the least harm to the natural world, adopt a hunting/gathering lifestyle. Large-scale agriculture is harmful to animal life as it encroaches on natural habitats and reduces the diversity present in an ecosystem. Take food from the plants that are available instead of diverting water to grow edible food that would not naturally appear.

Or, you could try to minimize how often you eat and to make sure your primary intention is to put nutrients into your body as opposed to enjoying any specific taste.

 

[buddhist]

The problem is that you seem intent on ignoring important Buddhist principles, including the first precept, Right Intention and compassion.

You also seem determined to ignore the purpose and principle of the 3-fold rule, and want to interpret it in a shallow legalistic way.

I prefer to think that I am interpreting all of those precepts in harmony with 1. Buddha's additional precept which allows the consumption of meat, 2. and regarding the acceptability of giving of meat to monastics, and 3. the thought that even plants have a form of consciousness.

My premises:

1. I myself should not kill,
2. I should possess right intention,
3. I should possess compassion for others,
4. I am allowed to consume meat,
5. I am allowed to give meat to monastics, and
6. even plants probably have consciousness.​

then my personal interpretation and harmonization of those premises is this:

I surmise that I should be compassionate by minimizing the amount of suffering done to both plants and animals, to ingest the minimal amount of food I need to sustain my body and mind for the ultimate purpose of spiritual development towards nibbana. I should be thankful for the sacrifices of both plants and animals, and share my merit with all that I consume. Great merit accrues to those who sacrifice in such a way for the ariya sangha, and it is my hope that through such merit, lower creatures will thereafter possess the opportunity to be reborn as a human. I will not kill an animal myself, and I am sad if a butcher decides to inherit the negative kamma involved with such killings. However, the dead flesh itself which he sells has no negative kamma associated with it as it is not alive, so I have no problem purchasing it for myself or to give to monastics. If the butcher decides to stop slaughtering animals and to stop selling animal meats, then I encourage their decision.​

On the other hand, I'm still not sure how you reconcile the precepts you listed (the first three points in my list), along with the last three points I've made, as you seemingly refuse to address the latter.

 

[ratikala]

namaste , ....

Growing grain and feeding it direct to people is far more efficient than feeding the grain to animals and then killing them to feed people. In other words you have to grow far more grain when people are on a meat diet, up to 7 or 8 times, so 7 or 8 times more insects and small mammals will be killed going down this route, plus the animals that are killed and eaten.

In any case, Buddhist ethics is very much concerned with minimising harm.

Thank you , ...yes ,If you hadnt answerd this l would have answered the exact same to @Osal ji , .....further more this intensive farming that Osal ji coments upon is exasabated by the desires of the meet industry for its execive demands for grain both to feed cattle and poultry , ...however if we simply needed to grow enough grain to feed a human population we would not have to rely so heavily on chemical firtilisers because we would not have to place such heavy demands on the soil , .....as unfortunatly it is only due to our modern methods of intensive farming that the soils have become so depeated and are in need of chemical intervention to maintain the excessively high yealds demanded by cattle and poltry farming .

When I was a kid the "Woodie" was kinda rare. Today - maybe 50 years later - there are more Wood Ducks in North American than at any time in history. It's an amazing story and one of men and women who hunted, killed and ate these animals - people who care enough about the natural world and a legacy for all, that the worked tirelessly to ensure not only survival but prosperity of the species. True compassion. True humanity.

I don't think there's a single vegan who's a card-carrying member.

I don't think there's a single vegan-oriented group that does anything near what DU does.

it is very nice of these guys to care about one endangered species , ...that is one step in the right direction however Vegetarians and Vegans regard all animal life as equaly entitled to live a natural life free from human interference , .....

I don't think there's a single vegan-oriented group that does anything near what DU does

prehaps this is because vegetarians and vegans dont nececarily act as one unified group they just get on with their lives trying to limit all manner of harm both on an enviromental level and on the level of animal rights , ...many many vegetarians and vegans here are very actively behind the Organic movements that advocate the abolition of chemical fertilisers and chemical insecticides , .....I think this is called a multi lateral approach , as it takes all manner of enviromentaly harmfull practices into considderation , ...now this to me is truely practicing 'Right lntention' , 'Right Action' and 'Right Livlihood' , .......

 

[buddhist]

If you were truly concerned about animals, you'd be vegan.

Vegetarians and Vegans regard all animal life as equaly entitled to live a natural life free from human interference

Don't you care about plants?