Was the Buddha a vegetarian?

[buddhist]

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

I can appreciate that, with the understanding that you follow Buddha as an avatar - under the context of Advaitist Hinduism.

I have a different context of him (early Buddhism, with the Lord Buddha as the Supreme Teacher), and so I interpret him differently.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The entire issue revolves around pain and suffering. For some reason, it's ok in one context as to the demise of living beings, yet in another, usually gauged by volume and quantity, it casts another light as being nefarious while the taking of life itself remains a constant.

It's why I see the Issue of meat eating as a matter of compassion, not an elimination of pain or suffering as it's impossible to do so.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. with the understanding that you follow Buddha as an avatar - under the context of Advaitist Hinduism.

Just for your information, in 'advaita', every form is an avatara of Brahman, even a mad dog. Nothing special about Buddha.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The entire issue revolves around pain and suffering.

Yes, it does, and animals have a higher capacity for pain and suffering. Pigs, for example, are physiologically very similar to humans.

In any case, it it about being mindful of the choices we make, and the consequences of those choices. Do we choose to minimise harm, or add to it?

When buying shrink-wrapped meat in a supermarket, it is easy to forget or ignore where it came from.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes, it does, and animals have a higher capacity for pain and suffering. Pigs, for example, are physiologically very similar to humans.

In any case, it it about being mindful of the choices we make, and the consequences of those choices. Do we choose to minimise harm, or add to it?

When buying shrink-wrapped meat in a supermarket, it is easy to forget or ignore where it came from.

There isn't much revelance on killing itself. There is no cosmic scorecard for infractions. All living beings kill and will be killed and consumed. Predator and prey relationships are just much a fact as the first nobel truth is. To deny such is delusion as I see it.

In that light, the fact that humans will always consume meat collectively will not go away. It can't. It won't.

This leaves compassion by which finding the most humane venue, weither it be growing crops or free range rearing, all the way to harvesting by which the animals involved are put down quickly and painlessly as possible.

I think moderation is a good thing too. Not to much, not too little overall striking a balance.

One day it's clear that we will die too, and become a living organisms supper ourselves.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Question(s):

Do Buddhists take it as a teaching/rule to never eat meat following Buddhism and that it's against Buddhism? If yes, to what extent do they do it? Muslims, for example, take it as a teaching/rule to not eat pork or drink alcohol (some do, but they are minority and not fixed practicing Muslims).

If we ask a Muslim about pork, they will straight say it's fundamentally forbidden. Is it the same reaction by Buddhists?

I'm not asking about person specific beliefs, I'm asking about the basic Buddhist belief.

Thank you in advance.

 

[Lyndon]

most Buddhists in Asia teach that vegetarianism is the highest ideal. not mandatory, but recommended. Some Chinese Buddhists make it practically mandatory for devout followers, western Therevada Buddhists seem to miss the whole point and claim that being a vegetarian is not important AT ALL and is just a choice like what colour shirt you wear, that its is not good karma to be vegetarian etc, complete rubbish in my opinion.

Just a couple days a go I was ready an informative article on the BBC, which try as I may is no longer available, they said if everyone was vegetarian something like 70% of the farmland would be freed up with a 40% reduction in green house gas emissions and huge savings in water consumption, they also claimed it would be harder for more primitive societies to get enough food and nutrition. But check this out they said standard meat eater by going vegetarian would reduce greenhouse gas emissions as much as if they quit driving their cars. Think about that. They said meat eating and animal husbandry contributes as much to global warming as all fossil fuels put together.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In that light, the fact that humans will always consume meat collectively will not go away. It can't. It won't.

This is another straw-man. Humans will always do all sort of things, but so what? The question here is one of personal ethics, it is about the choices we make and the consequences of those choices.
Compassion would be not buying meat regularly, and not adding to the tally of animals farmed and slaughtered.

 

[Lyndon]

I found the BBC article What would happen if the world suddenly went vegetarian;

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160926-what-would-happen-if-the-world-suddenly-went-vegetarian

 

[Smart_Guy]

most Buddhists in Asia teach that vegetarianism is the highest ideal. not mandatory, but recommended. Some Chinese Buddhists make it practically mandatory for devout followers, western Therevada Buddhists seem to miss the whole point and claim that being a vegetarian is not important AT ALL and is just a choice like what colour shirt you wear, that its is not good karma to be vegetarian etc, complete rubbish in my opinion.

This part is what I've been looking for. Thank you.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Question(s):

Do Buddhists take it as a teaching/rule to never eat meat following Buddhism and that it's against Buddhism? If yes, to what extent do they do it? Muslims, for example, take it as a teaching/rule to not eat pork or drink alcohol (some do, but they are minority and not fixed practicing Muslims).

If we ask a Muslim about pork, they will straight say it's fundamentally forbidden. Is it the same reaction by Buddhists?

I'm not asking about person specific beliefs, I'm asking about the basic Buddhist belief.

Thank you in advance.

If you'll notice or look into it, It's pretty much a monastic practice as subsequent religious writings are. It's also clear enough the Buddha ate meat. The contentions lay with one's view as to what suffering and compassion actually are. Some eat meat while others refrain based on their own convictions and views for various reasons.

Buddhism essentally is a practice of awakining/realisation through actuality. Not dogmatic fluff, although ironically, that's inclusive too. That includes meat and veggies which imo is a middle way in light of our omnivorous nature as human beings.

 

[Lyndon]

Its not clear that the Buddha ate meat at all, the monks at my Cambodian Therevada Temple taught that the Buddha was a vegetarian, and yet all but one of them ate meat, but they still taught that not eating meat was the ideal as outlined by the Buddha.

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=27802&hilit=cambodian+temple

 

[Twilight Hue]

This is another straw-man. Humans will always do all sort of things, but so what? The question here is one of personal ethics, it is about the choices we make and the consequences of those choices.
Compassion would be not buying meat regularly, and not adding to the tally of animals farmed and slaughtered.

No. Human beings collectively are hardwired for eating meat. The straw man is saying that isn't the case.

Addum


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/should-humans-eat-meat-excerpt/

 

[Rick O'Shez]

No. Human beings collectively are hardwired for eating meat. The straw man is saying that isn't the case.

"Collectively hard-wired for eating meat"? I don't even know what that means. Clearly some people choose not to eat meat, so it cannot be that "hardwired".

In any case it is still a straw-man, because as I explained it is not about group behaviour but about the ethics and consequences of personal choices.

 

[Lyndon]

What beats me is some of the pushiest outspoken meat advocates call themselves Buddhists, what gives, along with Hinduism, Buddhism is one of the most pro vegetarian religions on the planet, I guess SDA would be about the most.

 

[Ana.J]

Eating meat is not violent. Eating a live animal is violent.

In regards to the Mahaparinirvana Sutra you quoted, you'll have to wait for Mahayanists to give input on that ...

In the Maha-parinibbanna Sutta (DN 16), I don't see the same dialogue.

However, you have to kill the animal to eat it, right? Or do you think that if somebody kills the animal for you, you will not share any responsibility for taking a life?

 

[buddhist]

Just for your information, in 'advaita', every form is an avatara of Brahman, even a mad dog. Nothing special about Buddha.

As I am then an avatara of Brahman, why not accept my interpretation?

 

[buddhist]

However, you have to kill the animal to eat it, right? Or do you think that if somebody kills the animal for you, you will not share any responsibility for taking a life?

If your government uses your tax money to kill, are you responsible for those deaths?

 

[buddhist]

Yes he thinks that, it comes from a Buddhist cult group called the Forest Monk tradition from Thailand, mostly westerners living in the west telling people that they have no responsibility for killing the animal if they don't kill it themselves, total crap but people buy it, they have their own forum and call it Thervada, but its not anything like the Thervada I learned from that says Buddha was a vegetarian. They're fundamentalist scripture thumpers, quoting Buddhist scriptures selectively and ignoring others, they rely on proof texts, just like the Bible thumpers, they're very conservative literalists and not liberal at all in interpreting scripture, they don't believe in reincarnation or Gods and deities, atheists to the point of being Aholes about it, and basically nasty people online, no compassion for any views but their own, universally hate Muslims and a surprisingly high percent of Trump supporters.

Thanks for sharing this insightful post about yourself.

 

[Kartari]

Hi George and buddhist,

You are paying him to do it. Plus, I think the logic was from the Buddha's day when there was no refrigeration and animals were killed with their actual end user in mind. You can't use the same logic today.

Whether or not I pay him is irrelevant to the fact that he can decide to not do it. He can be given all the money in the world, and still choose to not do it.

Apologies if this thread already delved into this, I don't have the time to go through 13 pages at present, but...

I must agree with George's sentiments on this issue. Indeed, I think the Buddha's intentions were a bit different than you're thinking, buddhist. Even from the vantage point of the early Buddhist community alone. I agree Siddhartha's teachings were intention-oriented, but I think they did also point us to vegetarianism at least. Yes, the monastic discipline he described did allow some meats and fish to be consumed when the animal was not specifically killed for the monk or nun. The first relevant fact we need to remember however is that this was devised for a very different culture and time period than we know today. The early Buddhist monks and nuns did not prepare or grow their own food, they were required to passively beg (as per the Buddha's own code, and in a way consistent with preexisting Indian ascetic traditions) on a daily basis for their food. If they were restricted from eating meat, most of the food offered to them would have been forbidden, and they would not have survived as an order. So there was a practical concern in the allowance. Furthermore, the concept of generosity on the part of laypeople is another intrinsic Buddhist virtue. The giving of food to bhikkus was karmically important for laypeople, and not just a matter of supporting the monks and nuns. Placing restrictions on what they could give would therefore impair their spiritual practice. Ultimately, I think this allowance adds up to a compromise with the lay world and the times, and not a positive moral assertion. The allowance for meat if not specifically killed for the person was a way to allow laypeople to give what they had available, not a statement of the moral acceptability of meat consumption.

I think George is correct here with respect to a modern society as well. The argument that meat bought in a supermarket should be morally acceptable to a Buddhist since the animal was not butchered with the specific individual in mind ignores the clear logic that paying the butcher for the meat supports and encourages the further slaughtering of animals. It creates a demand for the violence and death of the animal, which is not at all dissimilar to the consequences of buying something specifically killed and prepared for you. And technically, monks and nuns did not purchase their food, so when the Buddha allowed the monastic discipline's acceptable meat rules, they did not financially support the killing of those animals. Furthermore, factory farming and its horrors did not exist in the Buddha's time, but it seems clear to me that we can easily interpolate his teachings to look down upon this institution.