Was the Buddha a vegetarian?

[psychoslice]

I don't think he was wrong, he was being pragmatic. Since you don't care what the Buddha thought, why are you participating in a Buddhist-themed thread?

I am not some thought of what you believe the the Buddha to be, I don't really care what the Buddha was, or was not, that doesn't mean anything to me, its you how are making up some big idea of what the Buddha is or is not, wake up !!.

 

[buddhist]

I'm guilty of all of those.
2 naughty dachshunds, 2 aged cats, 10 noisy ducks.
+ the medicines of course.

I don't think it's wrong for a vegetarian to own a leather wallet, or travel case etc. There are so many types of vegetarian, some for health, some for shape, some for ideology etc.

It's only when a person is self-righteous that I would turn scrutiny back upon them.

Indeed, and it appears there are many self-righteous vegetarians here in this thread.

If they wish to bend the Buddha to fit their idea of vegetarianism, then I suppose that is what they must follow & what they believe is right.

I follow the Buddha as described in the early suttas and vinaya, and so I must harmonize what I've read with my beliefs, and so I follow what I believe is right as well.

Everyone must know for ourselves - that's the beauty of the Buddha's teachings.

 

[buddhist]

Namaste

The Buddha did accept meat with certain rules, I will bow out, everyone can see your twisting the teachings to fit your own habits, if you think thats early Buddhism be my guest, but you will not find anyone who knows about this subject agreeing with you.

The Buddha accepted meat, and allowed his monks to eat meat = pure vegetarianism? That's like saying 1 = 0. How can that possibly be reconciled? Looks like far more twisting is actually needed here.

 

[David1967]

Namaste

Well, just imagine if he did not accept that poisoned pork, he would have lived longer and gave more teachings.

I had asked the question earlier in this thread about how the Buddha died but didn't receive an answer. Is it widely accepted that he died from eating contaminated pork?

 

[HarihOm]

Namaste

To harmonize with early Buddhism you would have to go back in time. Some things of that time will not be as applicable then as it is today. There is no self righteousness going in here as far as I can see, what is being refuted is your understanding of early Buddhism.

These talks should not come to blows, its all in the interest of growth and being more enlightened and causing as little harm as possible and spreading Dharma, that is the core teaching, and you have to make your choice based within that. If you think you cause little to no harm when eating then that is Buddhism.

 

[HarihOm]

Namaste

Yes it is considered he died from eating bad pork, weather it was naturally bad or poisoned is not sure, I am sure Siddharta had enemies at the time.

The act of accepting meat was to not isolate any being from his teachings, its a simple as that, but he preached non violence, he gave grace to gradual evolution, and barred nobody to practice his teachings.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Indeed, and it appears there are many self-righteous vegetarians here in this thread.

No, just self-righteous meat eaters, people who like the taste of meat and don't much care how it gets on their plate.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I had asked the question earlier in this thread about how the Buddha died but didn't receive an answer. Is it widely accepted that he died from eating contaminated pork?

Probably mushrooms.
See here: http://dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Diet_of_Buddha

Not magic mushrooms I hope.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have questions:-
Do any of you vegetarians use any animal products?
Would you wear a leather belt, shoes or coat?
Would you use any product made from animals, or tested upon animals?

Nice questions. Vegetarians (that is some 30% of Hindus) are permitted to use and relish all milk products. That is considered a gift from Mother Cow (or Aunti Buffalo). We do not have Vegans in India. After an animal has died naturally, there is no ban on using part of it, though strict Hindus will not use belts or leather shoes. We had wood slippers, some times with cotton/jute straps. My maternal uncle was the last one in our family to use them regularly at home. They made loud clicks when people walked. In religious places like Varanasi, you can still find people using them. Again many strict Hindus use only herbal products for medicine (Ayurveda). There was no ban on using wool or silk . They were considered to be ever-pure.

Wood sandals (Khadaun).

 

[oldbadger]

Nice questions. Vegetarians (that is some 30% of Hindus) are permitted to use and relish all milk products. That is considered a gift from Mother Cow (or Aunti Buffalo). We do not have Vegans in India. After an animal has died naturally, there is no ban on using part of it, though strict Hindus will not use belts or leather shoes. We had wood slippers, some times with cotton/jute straps. My maternal uncle was the last one in our family to use them regularly at home. They made loud clicks when people walked. In religious places like Varanasi, you can still find people using them. Again many strict Hindus use only herbal products for medicine (Ayurveda). There was no ban on using wool or silk . They were considered to be ever-pure.

Wood sandals.

I do like those sandals!
I fancy making a pair.
I delve into early 1st century Galilean life as far as I can, and it is possible that Jesus wore sandals made from woven flax, because the linseed crop was large, I think. Of course John the Baptist had a leather belt, but the mere fact that this was noteworthy might suggest that leather garments were rare amongst the peasant classes.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Its pretty sad and largely hypocritical whenever blame is being layed using the eightfold path when in fact that countless mammals are killed each year by farm machinery and equipment used to plant, cultivate, and process plant foods, pest control and storage, not limited to the transportation dangers posed as well.

Its actually a fabricated guilt trip layed out to the "guiltless" under false pretenses that a higher moral ground is taken when in fact that could be no further from the truth.

It's a denial of our omnivorous nature.

The contention lays with causing undue suffering, not the act of killing or eating for sustenence and health.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Although this is a General Debate thread, please excuse me for entering a mainly Bhuddist discussion.
We usually eat quorn meals now because it saves my wife from tummy pains, but we do eat chicken as well.
In my teens I was a wildfowler and spent every free hour out on the marshes and creeks.
So I guess that this would not impress some of you.

I have questions:-
Do any of you vegetarians use any animal products?
Would you wear a leather belt, shoes or coat?
Would you use any product made from animals, or tested upon animals?

Thankyou.

Don't forget a lot of vegetarians are proud owners of cats and dogs. ;0)

 

[Rick O'Shez]

....countless mammals are killed each year by farm machinery and equipment used to plant, cultivate, and process plant foods, pest control and storage, not limited to the transportation dangers posed as well.

Straw-man. Farming livestock for food is very wasteful, you have to grown about 8 times as much grain when feeding livestock, as compared to feeding people the grain directly. So 8 times the number of fields, 8 times the number of small creatures killed, and so on.

The contention lays with causing undue suffering, not the act of killing or eating for sustenence and health.

The contention is that some people choose to buy meat when nourishing alternatives are readily available, apparently not much caring how the meat gets onto the shop shelf.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Don't forget a lot of vegetarians are proud owners of cats and dogs. ;0)

A lot of meat-eaters are proud owners of pets too. They dote on their pets and wouldn't dream of killing and eating them, but these "animal lovers" are quite happy for countless pigs, cows and sheep to be slaughtered so they can have a bit of meat on their plate. Ironic.

 

[Twilight Hue]

A lot of meat-eaters are proud owners of pets too. They dote on their pets and wouldn't dream of killing and eating them, but these "animal lovers" are quite happy for countless pigs, cows and sheep to be slaughtered so they can have a bit of meat on their plate. Ironic.

The focus was on the fact that cats and dogs are predatory animals and require the consumption of meat products to stay healthy and well contrary to the philosophy of extreme vegetarianism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do like those sandals! I fancy making a pair.

Yeah, not difficult to make, worn by our Rishis and Gods. Worn by compiler of Vedas, Vedavyasa. If you know the story, Lord Rama's sandals adorned the throne of Ayodhya for 14 years, while his younger brother, Bharat, acted as the regent.

It's a denial of our omnivorous nature.

It is a conscious choice made by some people. Why should we have any complaint about that? Even our natural impulses are kept under control by society. Cruelty, enviousness, sex, etc.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The focus was on the fact that cats and dogs are predatory animals and require the consumption of meat products to stay healthy and well contrary to the philosophy of extreme vegetarianism.

I don't know any "extreme" vegetarians, but presumably such a person wouldn't have meat-eating pets.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Straw-man. Farming livestock for food is very wasteful, you have to grown about 8 times as much grain when feeding livestock, as compared to feeding people the grain directly. So 8 times the number of fields, 8 times the number of small creatures killed, and so on.

Not a straw man. While I agree statistically with you, it dosent negate the fact that large numbers of animals are going to be killed either way.

Vegetarianism is not deathless or sufferless by a far shot.

It's a denial of how it is. Not just human consumption, but all life everywhere of which everyone is inclusive and a partaker involving consumption, and the eventuality of being consumed.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Not a straw man. While I agree statistically with you, it dosent negate the fact that large numbers of animals are going to be killed either way.

I think it was a straw-man actually, but anyway.

The point here is surely about being mindful of our actions, and minimising the harm that we do. Choosing to buy meat is an example of increasing rather than reducing harm.

Are you familiar with TNHs Mindfulness Trainings?
http://plumvillage.org/mindfulness-practice/the-5-mindfulness-trainings/

 

[ShivaFan]

My Mother was influenced by Indian Buddhism. I use the term “Indian” in part to distinguish from the Sinhalese “Hinayana” or Theravada Buddhism of Sri Lanka, from Japanese Zen or Japanese and Chinese Mahayana Buddhism, or from Tibetan Thunderbolt Buddhism, Nepali style Buddhism (even though Buddha was from Nepal) and other forms of Buddhism, specifically I am referring to the Maha Bodhi Society of India (Kolkata, and other centers) style of traditional Buddhism that approximates the original Buddhism which was found in India the origin of Buddhism as an “organized religion” founded on the Sanghas formed carrying forward the teachings of Siddhartha.

Let me quote from the Maha Bodhi Journal of June 1896, “A hundred years ago there was no drunkenness and no meat eating among Sinhalese Buddhists. A hundred years of British rule has made the people what they are – drunkenness, slaughtering animals for food, and the increase of crime…”

Yes, there is the Maha Bodhi Society of Sri Lanka, responsible for many, many small publications since the 1800’s into the 1970s (staples became in use by the 1970s to hold the printed paper together instead of thin threads, many on cheap paper and have been lost - today such publications are not in vogue after the death of a major Maha Bodhi "leader", they continue however in Sri Lanka but while there was an attempt to have an internet face, this has gone somewhat null and the emphasis continues to be connecting with the local populations in India living in areas of Buddhist activity hundreds of years ago, opening hospitaliers and such things, and local temples of Buddhism rather than publications), but I want to mention the goal of the Maha Bodhi Society of India which also setup centers in Sri Lanka was the revival of Buddhism in India based on traditional Indian Buddhism.

I recall seeing these publications in my family house, some were published in the 1950s.

I am a Hindu. However, my strong opinion on this is:

* Buddha tried to reform Vedic traditions by his opposition to animal sacrifice in religious ceremony or function by priests.

* Buddha opposed hunting animals. However the Buddha was kindly to the peoples or tribes in India such as the Veddas who hunted animals but tried to enlighten them – the Buddha preached that anyone has the potential for “enlightenment” or detachment from the chains that bring suffering, including the hunting of animals and ultimately includes meat eating.

* The Buddha was a vegetarian. But the Buddha was accepting the offerings of food from yogis, devotees, bhikshus and the common man. In some cases, these were people who were early adherents to the teachings of the Buddha. Unfortunately, the Buddha was accepting food on occasion from some well meaning people. Unknowingly, the Buddha took some rice that was the pride of a local region for being their own special rice, and in that rice was some pork. The Buddha ate a small portion of this, not the entire meal but a portion, and thinking it was just rice with beaten bamboo in it, the beaten bamboo turned out to be pork. The pork was bad, and diseased or bacterial. This led to the death of the Buddha.

* Ever since, the Sanghas of India that were later expanded, always taught vegetarianism. Pork is especially looked down upon, as well as the eating of beef. One side note, however, is the Buddha was reforming aspects of the Vedic traditions (“Hinduism”, and yes Buddha was a Hindu), and the Buddha did not want the common man to over worship things such as the Cow. That does not mean the Buddha approved of eating beef. He did not.

This is traditional Buddhism in India, IMHO. Nor did the Buddha hate meat eaters, he welcomed all who would listen and that includes meat eaters which were common in India. In fact, meat eating declined under later Buddhist influence in India. This would change during the British occupation. Buddhism itself had declined hundreds of years prior. Amazingly, it grew in other areas of Asia. The first major blow to Buddhism that venerated the Buddha and the Sangha was the revival of Hinduism itself which the Buddha was, and later more so the impact of the invasion of the “White Huns”. Major centers of Buddhism underwent a shock of violent invasion. Ironically also, Jainism which once had Royal patronage and in fact Siddhartha Buddha himself was taught by Jains and so Jainism influenced his Hinduism, had declined as Buddhism arose. There was an attempt by Jains to reclaim Royal patronage that lasted for about 80 years of “struggle”. Buddhism won out, however then Buddhism declined, many Buddhist temples or locations became Hindu temples.

As far out as into this period, the Buddhists were vegetarian, there is no doubt some ate meat but this would not have been common. Of course, many if most Hindus were also vegetarian.

Some artifacts of Buddhism, including bones or teeth from the Buddha, are in fact worshipped even today in the Murthis of Hindu temples, inside the Murti. Some of these however were later destroyed by the Muslims. Parading the artifacts of the Buddha were common up until even the Muslim invasions. Part of the celebrations was the celebration of various forms of locally grown rice as a sign of pride by the communities, “our rice is better than yours” sort of thing. They did not celebrate meats such as “my chicken is better than yours”.

Meats were not offered to the Indian murtis of the Buddha.

There is currently, since the late 1800s, an attempt to revive Buddhism in India by Indians. This is in part, a reaction to the cruelty of caste system. Buddha himself was a reformer of caste system. As a result, modern Indian Buddhism has been taking converts among the Dalits or other low caste or untouchable, including meat eaters. Modern Indian Buddhism, however, tries to promote vegetarianism. The Maha Bodhi Society of India is an example of this.

In my opinion – Buddhism promotes vegetarianism and always has, but Buddhism is open to have anyone including meat eaters to begin the path of understanding of the Great Wheel. The Buddha was not a Buddhist. Later Sanghas have done a wonderful job, in my opinion I do not see anything wrong in the worship of Buddha murtis, even if Buddha never said “worship me”. But later Sanghas and sects are not “traditional” Buddhism, i.e. the Buddhism of the first 500 years.

But for that matter, Buddhism of the first 500 years isn’t the Hinduism of the Buddha. But that is ok.

But I could be wrong.