Was the Buddha a vegetarian?

[Rick O'Shez]

No. I have great regard for the Precepts, I just happen to disagree with your interpretation of those precepts.

You expect somebody to kill on your behalf. You expect somebody to do wrong livelihood on your behalf. It doesn't seem to bother you that buying meat regularly leads to more animals being killed. You don't seem to understand that harmlessness extends to animals. You just want the meat on your plate, and you don't seem to care care how it gets there.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Story 1 is clear: The woman said "'Bhante, my pork embellished with jujubes is agreeable. Let the Blessed One accept it from me, out of compassion.” The Blessed One accepted ...". Buddha will accept whatever is given to him and he will beg only once, at one household and not ask for a second helping. Please note that monks are not supposed to choose houses to beg. To prove that Buddha had a special liking for meat, you need to show that the woman prepared it just because of Buddha.

As for the Devdatta story, the rules are clear: "if they are not seen, heard or suspected (to have been killed on purpose for him".

-- [The arahant nun Uppalavanna took an offering of meat given to her] ", and went to her dwelling place. When the night was over, she got hold of the meat and made a bundle with her upper robe. She then rose into the air and appeared in the Bamboo Grove. When she arrived the Master had already entered a village to collect almsfood, but Venerable Udāyī had been left behind to look after the monastery. Uppalavaṇṇā approached Venerable Udāyī and said: “Bhante, where is the Master?” “He has entered a village to collect almsfood.” “Bhante, please give this meat to the Master.” “You will please the Master with that meat."" (Pi Tv Bu Vb NP 5)

That is a completely different story. It is not about meat. It is about what a monk can accept from non-relatives. The story does not mention what happened to the meat. Did Buddha eat it or gave it to someone else?

You are just trying to peg your preferences on Buddha. Buddha only advises you, he does not force you to act in a particular way. Then you are a thinking person. Do as you deem best.

 

[buddhist]

You expect somebody to kill on your behalf. You expect somebody to do wrong livelihood on your behalf. It doesn't seem to bother you that buying meat regularly leads to more animals being killed. You don't seem to understand that harmlessness extends to animals. You just want the meat on your plate, and you don't seem to care care how it gets there.

Good luck with your soapbox.

 

[buddhist]

That is a completely different story. It is not about meat. It is about what a monk can accept from non-relatives. The story does not mention what happened to the meat. Did Buddha eat it or gave it to someone else?

My point is, an enlightened Arahant offered meat to the enlightened Buddha!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Good luck with your soapbox.

Clearly you have run out of straw-men.

The bottom line here is I am not causing animals to be needlessly slaughtered, but you are.

 

[buddhist]

Clearly you have run out of straw-men.

The bottom line here is I am not causing animals to be needlessly slaughtered, but you are.

Move on.

 

[Aupmanyav]

My point is, an enlightened Arahant offered meat to the enlightened Buddha!

Yeah. That was the request with which Venerable Udāyi accepted the meat from Venerable Uppalavaṇṇā, so it is natural that he will give it to Buddha. But what Buddha did with it is not mentioned. If Buddha has begged and got him alms from another house, then he will not eat what Venerable Udāyi had to offer. That will be gluttony. It is not said that Buddha gulped the meat with delight and slept that whole afternoon. Probably Buddha gave it to some monk who had not gone out on 'bhikshatana' and was busy in his studies.

 

[Lyndon]

the monks at my immigrant Cambodian Therevada temple where I was briefly a monk taught that the Buddha was a vegetarian, and looked at vegetarianism as the best option. The idea that the Buddha supported eating meat is from cherry picking a few obscure references in the scripture, the overall picture is of a reverence for all life animal and human, and the idea of killing animals for eating is actually strictly prohibited by the precepts, repeated over and over throughout the scripture. Its the meat eaters that have the most unreasonable arguments, and have the nerve to accuse the vegetarians of being unreasonable, rubbish. The planet will not be able to sustain meat eating for more than another 50 years, something has to change or the planet will end up starving to death over an unhealthy and selfish addiction to excessive meat consumption. Calling yourself a Buddhist and ridiculing vegetarians is a sign that you are Buddhist in name only and don't begin to understand the most basic Buddhist concepts like the precepts.

 

[buddhist]

Calling yourself a Buddhist and ridiculing vegetarians is a sign that you are Buddhist in name only and don't begin to understand the most basic Buddhist concepts like the precepts.

That's quite an offensive statement.

When did the Buddha anoint you his authoritative successor to speak for all true Buddhists?

cherry picking a few obscure references in the scripture

That's fine if you choose not to follow those references, but I do, and they're authoritative for me and my ideas about Buddhism. I'd rather say you're "cherry tossing out important references in the scripture".

 

[MountainPine]

As far as I'm concerned, you've created your own new vegan/vegetarianism religion, with your own interpretations about Buddha and of Jesus - and that's fine, you cannot be anything but be true to your understanding.

My understanding, however, of these following texts (which I uphold as canonical) are different, and I am true to my interpretations and understanding:

Buddha:
-- "'Bhante, my pork embellished with jujubes is agreeable. Let the Blessed One accept it from me, out of compassion.” The Blessed One accepted ..." AN 5.44
-- "Devadatta spoke thus to the Lord: “Lord, the Lord in many a figure speaks in praise of desiring little … whoever should eat fish and flesh, sin would besmirch him.' [The Buddha answered:] "Enough, Devadatta,” he said. “Fish and flesh are pure in respect of three points: if they are not seen, heard or suspected (to have been killed on purpose for him).”" Pi tv kd17
-- [The arahant nun Uppalavanna took an offering of meat given to her] ", and went to her dwelling place. When the night was over, she got hold of the meat and made a bundle with her upper robe. She then rose into the air and appeared in the Bamboo Grove. When she arrived the Master had already entered a village to collect almsfood, but Venerable Udāyī had been left behind to look after the monastery. Uppalavaṇṇā approached Venerable Udāyī and said: “Bhante, where is the Master?” “He has entered a village to collect almsfood.” “Bhante, please give this meat to the Master.” “You will please the Master with that meat."" (Pi Tv Bu Vb NP 5)

Jesus: "And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them." Luke 24:42,43

TBH, I don't know much about the Buddhist scriptures to interpret the passage you gave. The point of this thread was to shed some light on the idea that the Buddha might have been a vegetarian by sharing the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, and to question how Buddhists can justify eating meat when it goes against the teachings of the Eight-fold Path (in which I didn't ask about, but was brought up by the other members).

As for the passage from Luke, I don't believe that actually happened. I don't believe that the gospels of Mark and Luke belong in the Bible, and here's why.

 

[buddhist]

TBH, I don't know much about the Buddhist scriptures to interpret the passage you gave. The point of this thread was to shed some light on the idea that he might have been by sharing the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, and to question how Buddhists can justify eating meat when it goes against the teachings of the Eight-fold Path (in which I didn't ask about, but was brought up by the other members).

As for the passage from Luke, I don't believe that actually happened. I don't believe that the gospels of Mark and Luke belong in the Bible, and here's why.

We uphold different texts, so there's really no discussion to be had in that case.

 

[Lyndon]

We uphold different texts, so there's really no discussion to be had in that case.

Yeah, you seem to not be upholding the texts that detail the 5 precepts for lay practitioners.

 

[buddhist]

Yeah, you seem to not be upholding the texts that detail the 5 precepts for lay practitioners.

How can someone who follows the "LORD GOD" authoritatively say that I'm not following the Lord Buddha correctly?

 

[Lyndon]

I practice Buddhism, I was trying to encourage you to do likewise, Vegetarianism is commended by most Asian Buddhist leaders, I don't know where you get the crazy idea it is not important.

 

[Chakra]

Indeed, like I've written throughout this thread.

My kamma applies to my intent and actions, not to the whole chain of intent and actions of others before mine.

I purchase meat with the intent to eat. The store delivers meat with the intent to sell & make a profit. The delivery person transports the meat with the intent to earn a salary. Likewise with the butcher, the animal farmer, the animal feed farmer, the seed provider, the seed-sorting equipment manufaturers, the machinists, et cetera, et cetera.

As I understand early Buddhism, I am *not* responsible for all of their intentions through the whole chain, nor are they responsible for mine either - I am only responsible for my own immediate intent and action.

So in your opinion, does that mean that if a person assassinates a prominent leader of the opposing side---for the sake of his own faction-- and the state becomes engaged in a civil war, the assassin is not responsible for said war?

 

[Lyndon]

Don't try to talk logic to him, these meat eating Buddhists make up their logic as they go!!

 

[buddhist]

So in your opinion, does that mean that if a person assassinates a prominent leader of the opposing side---for the sake of his own faction-- and the state becomes engaged in a civil war, the assassin is not responsible for said war?

No, he is not responsible for the war, he is only responsible for the murder.

Likewise to use another example, if we pay taxes, we are responsible for the taxes, not what the government does with those taxes (like engaging in senseless wars).

 

[buddhist]

I practice Buddhism, I was trying to encourage you to do likewise, Vegetarianism is commended by most Asian Buddhist leaders, I don't know where you get the crazy idea it is not important.

Forgive me if I don't take your claim that you practice Buddhism seriously, considering your signature and self-identifying quotes regarding the "GOD". I consider most "Asian Buddhist leaders" fraudulent.

 

[MountainPine]

Don't try to talk logic to him, these meat eating Buddhists make up their logic as they go!!

That applies to everyone who claims to walk a path of righteousness, not just Buddhists. Christians who eat meat are just as hypocritical. I'm sure Taoists and Confucians aren't supposed to eat meat either, Wiccans too.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am a disciple of Buddha. I know what Buddha meant and what he did. No problem about that.