Was the Buddha a vegetarian?

[Rick O'Shez]

Why? You don't have to feed your cat living animals like you would if you had a snake. I give my kitty plenty of dried food, occasionally some wet food, and sometimes when I am eating a sandwich, I will share the lunch meat with her. Other than that, she eats the occasional fly or june bug that finds itself inside the apartment...

I was thinking of cats killing birds and small mammals and such.

 

[von bek]

I was thinking of cats killing birds and small mammals and such.

Fair enough. If your cat is indoors only, that problem can be avoided. There are a lot of cats sitting in shelters, needing a good home. If you have an interest in a cat, you can definitely create some good kamma by rescuing one.

 

[George-ananda]

Surely you (or all insistent vegetarians here) should refrain from doing so, because you kill innumerable insects as a result - right? Or, perhaps your intention is not to kill those insects, but to travel.

My intention is not to kill animals, but to eat. When I'm eating, I do not harbor the intention "let's kill more animals!"

If you can't understand the difference between 'intentional' and 'unintentional' killing, I give up.

 

[idav]

If you can't understand the difference between 'intentional' and 'unintentional' killing, I give up.

It seems that from what I've read that the scripts actually get into the issue, and the scripts explicitly say that buying meat from a store is not the same as hunting an animal for meat, but the acknowledgement of what your debating is there. Its the scripts which disagree, depending on the school of thought, and many may adhere to it.

 

[james dixon]

vegetarian

I wish I was. -

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You don't have to feed your cat living animals like you would if you had a snake

Heck you don't have to feed live to snakes either. In fact, it's discouraged among vets and zookeepers for a number of reasons (transmits mites to reptiles, greater chance of infected bites or serious injury as the prey animal knows the predator is there and removes the element of surprise ambush predators rely on). Every snake I've cared for, python, boa and colubrid were fed on frozen/thawed rodents.

 

[idav]

Jeez, peeps! No, Buddha was not a veterinarian, though I am pretty sure he liked animals.

I'm sure he liked animals fine while at the same time acknowledging the suffering thats almost a given in life. As for methods to end suffering, I don't think, stop animals from eating is on the list.

 

[james dixon]

Is there any issue then with you encouraging him to do it by buying more of his product? I would say 'Yes'.

In my view; If you encourage someone to murder you are an accomplice to the crime if the crime takes place. Except for one slight distinction/difference;

Can you guess what that is-?

Just asking -

 

[von bek]

Heck you don't have to feed live to snakes either. In fact, it's discouraged among vets and zookeepers for a number of reasons (transmits mites to reptiles, greater chance of infected bites or serious injury as the prey animal knows the predator is there and removes the element of surprise ambush predators rely on). Every snake I've cared for, python, boa and colubrid were fed on frozen/thawed rodents.

That really is good to know. I have seen those enclosures for rabbits intended as live food for large snakes. I know the snake is not being a villain; but, it would break my heart to give one of those bunnies to be eaten alive! When I was in college, my roommate had a reptile, (cannot remember the species) that he had to feed live pinky mice to.

 

[james dixon]

I say no. At most, I am responsible for encouraging him, and its associated kamma. I am not responsible for the butchering, or its kamma.

In my view; If you encourage someone to murder you are an accomplice to the crime if the crime takes place. Except for one slight distinction/difference;

The difference is:

[1] The one who thought up the crime and passed that thought on to another is still guilty whether or not the crime takes place.

[2] If the one who would have committed the crime decides otherwise and does not commit the crime; that person is innocent

What do you say-?


Just asking -

 

[james dixon]

That really is good to know. I have seen those enclosures for rabbits intended as live food for large snakes. I know the snake is not being a villain; but, it would break my heart to give one of those bunnies to be eaten alive! When I was in college, my roommate had a reptile, (cannot remember the species) that he had to feed live pinky mice to.

such is life -

 

[von bek]

such is life -

Yes. Food and eating teaches us a really important lesson, death feeds life.

 

[Unification]

According to Mahayana Buddhists, the Buddha was a vegetarian. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra teaches that he taught against eating meat:

Then Maha-Kasyapaika-gotra asked, “If it is very important to uphold the impropriety of meat-eating, would it not then be wrong to give meat to those who do not want meat?” [The question here is whether it is wrong to give meat to monks who do not want it, which by the Buddha’s reckoning should be every Buddhist monk, but clearly the implication extends to forcing one’s own food choices onto others, particularly their own children, who are vegans by nature—whence the practice of carnism ultimately originates.] [The Buddha replied:] “Excellent, noble son, excellent! You have understood my intention. One who protects the authentic Dharma should not do that. Noble son, henceforth I do not permit my disciples to eat meat. If I have said that [one should view] the country’s alms-food as the flesh of one’s son, how could I permit the eating of meat? I teach that the eating of meat cuts off maha-maitri.”

“Blessed One, why did you permit the eating of meat that was blameless in three respects?”

“Because I stipulated these three types of blameless as a provisional basis of training; I now discard them.”

“Blessed One, what was your intention in talking of the ninefold great benefit and the abandoning of the ten types of meat?”

“Because those pronouncements were stipulated to restrict the eating of meat; they are also withdrawn.”

“Blessed One, what was your intention in stating that meat and fish are wholesome foodstuffs?”

“I did not say that meat and fish are wholesome foodstuffs, but I have said that sugar-cane, winter-rice, ordinary rice, wheat, barley, green lentils, black lentils, molasses, sugar, honey, ghee, milk and sesame oil are wholesome foodstuffs. If I have taught that even the various garments for covering the body should be dyed an unattractive color, then how much more so attachment to the taste of meat foods!”

“In that case, does it not follow that the five milk products, sesame, sesame oil, sugar-cane sap, conch-shell, silk and so forth also violate the precepts?”

“Don’t cleave to the views of the Nirgranthas! I have imposed the bases of training upon you with a different intention: I stipulate that you should not even eat meat blameless in the three respects. Even those meats other than the ten [previously forbidden] kinds should be abandoned. The meat of corpses should also be abandoned. All creatures sense the odor and are frightened by meat-eaters, no matter if they are moving around or resting. If a person eats asafoetida or garlic, everybody else feels uncomfortable and alienated—whether in a crowd of many people or in the midst of many creatures, they all know that that person has eaten them. Similarly, all creatures can recognize a person who eats meat and, when they catch the odor, they are frightened by the terror of death. Wherever that person roams, the beings in the waters, on dry land or in the sky are frightened. Thinking that they will be killed by that person, they even swoon or die. For these reasons, Bodhisattva-mahasattvas do not eat meat. Even though they may appear to eat meat on account of those to be converted, since they do not actually eat ordinary food, then how much less so meat! Noble son, when many hundreds of years have elapsed after I have gone, there will be no stream-enterers, once-returners, non-returners or arhats. In the age of the Dharma’s decline, there will be monks who preserve the vinaya and abhidharma and who have a multitude of rituals, but who also look after their physical well-being, who highly esteem various kinds of meat, whose humors are disturbed, who are troubled by hunger and thirst, whose clothing looks a fright, who have robes with splashes of colour like a cowherd or a fowler, who behave like cats, who assert that they are arhats, who are pained by many hurts, whose bodies will be soiled with their own feces and urine, who dress themselves well as though they were munis, who dress themselves as shramana, though they are not, and who hold spurious writings to be the authentic Dharma. These people destroy what I have devised—the vinaya, rites, comportment and the authentic utterances that free and liberate one from attachment to what is improper, selecting and reciting passages from each of the sutras according to their inclinations. Thus there will appear [so-called] shramana, sons of Shakyamuni [so-called Buddhists], who will claim that, ‘According to our vinaya, the Blessed One has said that alms of meat-stuffs are acceptable’ and who will concoct their own [scriptures] and contradict each other.

“Moreover, noble son, there will also be those who accept raw cereals, meat and fish, do their own cooking and [stockpile] pots of sesame oil; who frequent leather-makers, parasol-makers and royalty ... The person I call a monk is one who abandons those things.”

“Blessed One, what should be done by monks, nuns, upasakas and upasikas, who depend upon what is offered to them, to purify alms-food that contains meat in such places where the food has not been verified?”

“Noble son, I have taught that it does not contradict the vinaya in any way if they wash it [the vegetarian food, after the meat has been picked out or it has been verified that it had none] with water and then eat it. If it appears that the food in such places contains a lot of prepared meat, it should be rejected. There is no fault if one vessel touches another but the food is not actually mixed together. I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and scraps of meat left over by others constitute an infraction. Previously, I taught this in cases arising from the needs of the situation. Now, on this occasion, I teach the harm arising from meat-eating. Being the time when I shall pass into Parinirvana, this is a comprehensive declaration.” Mahaparinirvana Sutra

So I don't see why vegetarianism is not a common practice among Buddhists as it is in Jainism.

For me, I see deeper. I see meat as "thoughts and ideas." I see hunger and thirst for thoughts and ideas. Whereas there is great harm in much eating of various kinds of thoughts and ideas. In other words, what the mind consumes.

I see my body and mind as a vessel, in which unclean ideas and thoughts should be rejected, if not verified. I see the harm in this.

I surely can tame the tongue and/or mind and not give thoughts and ideas to one who doesn't want them.

The only Buddah I know of is the light within me, as I have never met a literal man Buddah.

 

[buddhist]

I see what you mean. But I disagree. Interdependent Origination assures that the negative kamma is indeed ours.

In my perspective, my reasoning is my way of harmonizing the Buddha's 1. precept against killing, 2. right intention, and 3. his allowance for meat-eating.

I have yet to hear from naysayers which takes all 3 points into account together, especially point 3. They're either ignoring point 3, or they are presenting a completely different idea of Buddha and Buddhism altogether. Perhaps some later sects ignore point 3? I'm not sure.

I've heard of Dependent Origination, but not of Interdependent Origination. Care to elaborate?

Under dependent origination, I am kammically responsible for my own immediate intention & action, not the whole chain of intention and actions done by others preceding, or occurring after, my own. I do not see this latter idea taught in the early suttas.

 

[buddhist]

When you eat meat, you KNOW that your meat came from an animal that was murdered. Therefore your intention was for it to be killed so you could eat it. Every time people eat or buy meat, there is a demand for it. When there is a demand for it, animals die. Therefore, you demand the death of an animal when you eat it's meat whether you're thinking about its death or not. To say that no one who eats meat intends for the animal to die doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

No, I don't KNOW that. The animal could have died of natural causes, for example.

 

[buddhist]

If you can't understand the difference between 'intentional' and 'unintentional' killing, I give up.

I don't intend to kill an animal when I eat - I intend to eat.
I don't intend to kill insects when I travel in motor vehicles - I intend to travel.

If you are vegetarian because believe you intentionally kill animals when you eat, then using the same argument, IMO it follows that you must also refrain from traveling in motor vehicles. I see the avid vegetarians pretty much avoiding this point completely in this thread.

 

[buddhist]

In my view; If you encourage someone to murder you are an accomplice to the crime if the crime takes place. Except for one slight distinction/difference;

The difference is:

[1] The one who thought up the crime and passed that thought on to another is still guilty whether or not the crime takes place.

[2] If the one who would have committed the crime decides otherwise and does not commit the crime; that person is innocent

What do you say-?


Just asking -

I am not encouraging him to murder. He could have butchered an animal which passed away already.

 

[MountainPine]

It's not me saying that. It's what science has proven to be the case. Again you will find no vitamin B12 in any plant matter whatsoever. It dosent refute the any notion one bit. Our ancestors ate meat and animal products such as eggs for instance.

Keep on denying.

You're the one in denial since you refuse to read what I posted for you. I had the courtesy to read your source, but you won't read mine? Don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you won't bother checking out the resources you're given and then accusing your opponents of being in denial. Not only is it immature, it is also hypocritical.

 

[MountainPine]

No, I don't KNOW that. The animal could have died of natural causes, for example.

You can't be serious. The FDA doesn't allow meat from already deceased animals to be sold in stores. They all come from slaughterhouses.

 

[Unification]

You're the one in denial since you refuse to read what I posted for you. I had the courtesy to read your source, but you won't read mine? Don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you won't bother checking out the resources you're given and then accusing your opponents of being in denial. Not only is it immature, it is also hypocritical.

Now that you've answered your own question.... be the judge, is it wrong to give your meat(thoughts and ideas) to those who don't want them?