Was the Buddha a vegetarian?

[Smart_Guy]

It is not about who is "better", it is a debate about the ethics of dietary choices. Buddhist ethics are based on the principle of harmlessness.

But don't worry, Buddhists are not cannibals, so you are safe.

That's not the impression I get from some angree posts!

And good for them. I'd give them heartburn and indigestion

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That's not the impression I get from some angree posts!
And good for them. I'd give them heartburn and indigestion

It can be a contentious issue for Buddhists, though fortunately there are not too many of those.

You would taste nice in a curry though, much like chicken - Smart-guy korma perhaps.

 

[Lyndon]

Are Muslims allowed to eat dogs??

 

[Lyndon]

And you claimed meat eaters were the more reasonable, Smart Guy

 

[Smart_Guy]

It can be a contentious issue for Buddhists, though fortunately there are not too many of those.

You would taste nice in a curry though, much like chicken - Smart-guy korma perhaps.

Dude, you're creeping me out

Disclaimer:
I don't have problems with Buddhists. I'm pointing at vegetarians/vegans and meat eaters.

Are Muslims allowed to eat dogs??

No, they aren't. Also, it's like asking if vegetarians/vegans eat poison ivy. Do they?

And you claimed meat eaters were the more reasonable, Smart Guy

I don't remember I did, for when it comes to eating meat. As a matter of fact, eating meat is normally not really better than eating plants (sometimes it is tho). I believe most meat eaters already know that and not claim such a thing. It's an impression some vegetarians/vegans wrongfully get for some reasons.

Oh, and the discussion's meat eaters are humans too. They could be more reasonable just like any other humans, why not? It is not like being vegetarian/vegan makes one automatically reasonable

Wait... is my thought here:

What are you guys doing? I mean seriously, the thread is about Buddha's diet and all you guys care about is hey I'm better than you because I eat this and that? Deal with it, both sides are not innocent if you look at the whole picture. Not my profile picture. I know I'm super good looking, but I mean that picture over there.

true then?
@Rick O'Shez

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Dude, you're creeping me out

I was going to suggest a vindaloo curry, but you are already "hot".

 

[Smart_Guy]

I was going to suggest a vindaloo curry, but you are already "hot".

Err... well yeah, we do see +45C (+113F). Everyone is hot here

 

[buddhist]

I buy fruits that do not cause any death. And again, you cannot just put animals and plants in one row here.

Why not? I happen to believe that vegetables and fruits are just as alive as animals.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Why not? I happen to believe that vegetables and fruits are just as alive as animals.

So do have a pet carrot then?

 

[Aupmanyav]

And again, you cannot just put animals and plants in one row here.

That is biologically incorrect. Both have life.

 

[Lyndon]

Why not? I happen to believe that vegetables and fruits are just as alive as animals.

I happen to believe that statement is cuckoo!!!!

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yet another straw-man. This is about the ethics of personal decision making. If you choose to buy meat regularly you are causing more animals to be slaughtered, therefore you are adding to the harm rather than minimising it. There is no getting away from this simple truth.

So here's a challenge for the meat-addicts. Come up with an argument which is not a straw-man. Come up with an argument which is more than self-justifying rhetoric. I'm not holding my breath.

No it's all denial and delusion that abstinence from meat will somehow cause less suffering. That's a huge strawman givin your fondness of the term. ;0)

Its undue cruelty and abuse by which suffering is inflicted. Not proper stunning, or captive bolt where the animal dosent know what even hit it. The cycle of life and death is universal and like it or not, everyone plays into that role.

Meat is still essential for proper brain health. I won't put it against anyone for eating meat no more than a person who insists on a vegetarian pallet touting an ethical platform. Either way, death of animals occur no matter what, and in vast quantity. I do find balence and moderation favorable. Too much meat is not good, nor too little.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yet another straw-man which was dealt with earlier in the thread. Meat farming is very inefficient, so you need to grow a lot more grain to feed animals for meat, more grain fields means more animals killed for planting.

I haven't seen a single valid pro-meat argument in this thread, it is just a succession of lame straw-men and self-justifying rhetoric. The sub-text is: "I LIKE meat, how DARE anyone suggest it is an ethically questionable choice."

I'll raise you another straw man for the one you tout here as well.


Supposing meat was discontinued for sake of argument. Nutritional needs, especially the additional quanity of plants to make up the equivalent from meat, plant production and consumption will still grow exponentially to make up the vacuum anyways. Can't win either way on the long run.

 

[George-ananda]

Thank you for your respectful post. I understand your position, but disagree with it.

I do not perceive a realm of "life" which is opposed to other realms of "no life". What I mean by that is this: Whereas I perceive many vegetarians and vegans who promote their lifestyle as a way to avoiding killing, I on the other hand see them as killing vegetables.

I see vegetables and other plant life, and things like trees, as possessing a form of consciousness. I do not condemn them for killing vegetables in order to justify their vegetable cravings. When I eat, I thank all of the life - whether vegetable or otherwise - and wish them much positive metta for their sacrifice.

Here's my take on the above.....Man must eat living things. Vegetables have a less sophisticated ability to experience fear, pain and stress than animals and so farming and killing vegetables causes far less suffering than farming and killing animals.

I understand most vegetarians and vegans here might disagree with my understanding, and I respect them for following their personal convictions. I can only wish that they would respect mine as well, but so far I've largely only seen quite the condescending, "holier than thou", "I'm the only right and authorized interpreter of the Buddha," disrespectful attitude from their camp. I am not proclaiming that my position is or should be the only position for all Buddhists, but just that it is the position for me.

I am actually not a hard-lined vegetarian type though you perceived me as so because I made the argument that vegetarianism causes less suffering. I also got involved to question your logic in your 'the butcher is the one responsible' argument.

 

[Lyndon]

Judging by the lame pro meat arguments they employ I would say definitely the meat eaters brain power is not as strong.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Judging by the lame pro meat arguments they employ I would say definitely the meat eaters brain power is not as strong.

Eat your veggies now. ;0)

 

[buddhist]

Here's my take on the above.....Man must eat living things. Vegetables have a less sophisticated ability to experience fear, pain and stress than animals and so farming and killing vegetables causes far less suffering than farming and killing animals.

I am actually not a hard-lined vegetarian type though you perceived me as so because I made the argument that vegetarianism causes less suffering. I also got involved to question your logic in your 'the butcher is the one responsible' argument.

I think we're in agreement that vegetables are alive, just as animals are also alive - whether that life is less or more is another argument altogether.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What are you guys doing? I mean seriously, the thread is about Buddha's diet and all you guys care about is hey I'm better than you because I eat this and that? Deal with it, both sides are not innocent if you look at the whole picture. Not my profile picture. I know I'm super good looking, but I mean that picture over there.

Note:
By both sides I mean the side that eats only plants and the side that eats both plants and meats. This note clearly shows who usually starts trouble

You should see Buddhist forums on a good day. *grin*

 

[George-ananda]

I think we're in agreement that vegetables are alive, just as animals are also alive - whether that life is less or more is another argument altogether.

I was not talking what life was less or more...I said; Vegetables have a less sophisticated ability to experience fear, pain and stress than animals.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Noting the venus flytrap and pitcher plant happens to be on the meat eating side, nature's "turncoat" advocates.

Who knows in a million or so years? The argument could change sides. *grin*