Vegetarianism

Opinions?

 

I don't have an opinion on vegitarianism. I choose to be an omnivore, others choose to be herbavores. It's a decision that some people choose and others do not. It doesn't bother me one way or the other.

 

There comes a point in a path-seeker's life where he contemplates the decision to continue eating meat.

The decision to continue eating meat is much like the decision to squash a bug because it is there, or perhaps because it is annoying, even though it is a needless death.

These decisions to continue killing for no reason, like all things dukkha, are borne of ignorance and ceased in wisdom.

One cannot claim to have wisdom if he takes life to eat, when it is not necessary to take life to eat.

That being said, the Buddha did not impose vegetarianism on his followers because he felt that it was too great a burden for all of his followers to bear in their early stages of wisdom-seeking. This may very well be true -- not all seekers are immediately willing to make such a dramatic change in diet. But there comes a point where one cannot progress unless decisions that result in suffering (i.e. bad karma) continue to manifest themselves without control or regard for the life of living beings.

 

Well it depends on the particular vegitarian and especially upon their reasons for, and even more upon their words and actions regarding it. If you are a vegitarian and happen to be a self-righteous proselytizing holier-than-thou type about it then your kind of vegitarianism sucks and is rather corrupt. What really burns me up is people who are vegetairians for the purpose of feeling morally superir to other people. For example, take Hikaru's post above me. With all respect to Hikaru, that is one big piece of arrogant self-righetous moral masturbation.

Here is an anaolgy for you all. So Mr. Evangelical far right fundi Christian comes up to you and says.
"The decision to continue to deny the Truth of the Gospel is much like the decision to hate the teachings of Jesus because they are good, or perhaps because they speak against hatred and evil. These decisions to continue to hate God and morality, like all things of the devil, are borne of ignorance and ceased in wisdom. One cannot claim to have wisdom if he denies Jesus. Following Jesus can seem a great burden to the weak and inferior, and those still in their moral infancy, but still there comes a point where one cannot progress unless decisions that show a hatred of Christ cease to manifest themselves"

Same snippit (more or less) of silly moralizing, different subject. After hearing that from Mr. Evangelical would you have a more positive attitude towards Evangelicals? Would you say, "Oh hallelujah Mr. preacher man, I want to be saved"?

That said, people who are veggies for religious reasons are just fine with me, just don't come knocking on my door with your religious tracts and high-and-mighty moralizing. Not that vegetarians actually go door-to-door, but you get the point.

Now my sister, for example, is a veggie because one, she hates the taste of meat, and two, thinks that dead animals in general are fairly gross and far to gross to eat. That's just fine with me.

Finally there are those who are veggies for health reasons, which is probably a very good idea, and one which I have seriously considered. Though still I would eat certain kinds of white fish, as they can be very good for your health. So I guess I wouldn't really be a vegetarian if I did that.

 

Yeah, I'm hardly the type to go telling people they have to do what I do.

 

If that's how you want to take it ...

... I was merely regurgitating other monks' words. Go look it up and see for yourself what they have to say.

"In Mahayana Buddhism, there is also a distinctive Vinaya and ethics contained within the Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra (not to be confused with the Pali text of that name) for Bodhisattvas, where, for example, the eating of meat is frowned upon and vegetarianism is actively encouraged (vegetarianism in Buddhism)." - Wikipedia :: Buddhism

"The first lay precept in Buddhism is usually translated as "I undertake the precept to refrain from taking life." - Wikipedia :: Vegetarianism in Buddhism

Nowhere did I say that I had wisdom because I don't eat meat. I still kill bugs in my room without much of a second thought.

Either way, these are the Buddha's (translated) words on the matter:

"... meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten." - Jivaka Sutta, MN 55

The Buddha would not eat meat if the animal was specifically killed to provide meat to himself. Otherwise if the meat was, say, an offering of leftovers, the Buddha would eat it -- in that way the meat would not go to waste, since the animal is already dead.

"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison. These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in.
" - Vanijja Sutta, AN 5:177

Here the Buddha strictly says that the business of trading or producing & harvesting meat is something a follower should not do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_in_Buddhism

More information can be found at this location.

And Professor Jumbo: For future reference, please don't misjudge my words on vegetarianism as holier-than-thou. I suggest you go back and learn about vegetarianism as it pertains to Buddhism, before you begin dismissing opinions.

Either way, just out of curiosity, I'd be interested to hear any defense of killing animals for any purpose, to be accepted by the Buddha.

Perhaps you, Professor Jumbo, can find him stating that killing animals for meat is alright? Because I can't seem to find anything along those lines ... in fact, I don't think they exist. So prove me wrong if you can.

Would you be in a position to think less of such a person, if you had gone to a Christianity forum, and read a thread which asks for opinions?

Also, consider that, even as you have twisted my words around unduely, what you have written here is in no way, shape, or form, attempting to convert anyone.

I don't know about you -- but I wouldn't think less of someone for stating their opinions when asked for them. Especially when their goal isn't to convert anyone.

So, all of that is fine with you? What other reasons ARE there to be a vegetarian? For health ... for disliking the taste ... for moral/religious reasons ...

By the way, friend, this is a public forum. I did not come "knocking on your door" in any way whatsoever, to try and convert you. That has nothing to do with this post, but you seem to have taken it as such.

Yourcrazedpoet asked for opinions. If you can't handle reading my opinions, (not to mention the opinions of the Buddha himself) perhaps you should not be reading threads that ask for them! (or perhaps even Buddhism threads in general?)

Now please, in the future, don't launch a tirade against my personal being simply because you disagree with what I have to say.

Thanks in advance.

... and I hope you don't get me wrong, that was not my intent -- Jumbo here just seems to have a thing for twisting my words around to sound like I am telling people what they have to do.

This is my opinion, so for all of you, I ask you not to think any less of me for posting it, because of what one other person wants to believe I am saying.

 

Telling people what to do and telling people that what they are doing is morally wrong and reprehensible, while not indentical, are certainly close siblings, perhaps twins even. That was half the point in my analogy of Mr. Evangalical. Never once does he ask for conversion, but merely states his opinion on not following Jesus.

Stating that people who eat meat are engaged in pointless killing; that their decisions "like all things dukkha, are borne of ignorance and ceased in wisdom." ,that they "cannot claim to have wisdom if [they] take life to eat." may not be a conversion attempt per se. However, unless you believe wisdom to be a bad thing and ignorance and pointlessness to good, it is inescapably implicit in that that you see those who do eat meat as being inferior to yourself in at least the areas of wisdom and good use of ones efforts. It is further implicit that one would be wiser if they shared your views and adopted your behaviors vis-a-vis the eating of meat. Such a conclusion is unaviodable. Not that you claim to have tons of wisdom by this, but rather that those who do eat meat have even less. Am I twisting your words? Or have you not fully considered the meaning of your words? I remined you, "dukkha" is a nasty thing.

Now to alter this slightly to refer only to Buddhists who eat meat would be something entirely different. Yet, as you reminded me, this is a public forum, and just as the public Christianity forum involves non-Christians as much as it involves Christians, this forum involves non-Buddhists just as much as it involves Buddhists. It is not a forum for Buddhists it is a forum about Buddhism.

Unless you quoted them in order to take issue with them that changes nothing. Did you not believe those quotes to be illustrative of your own position?

Tell you what, I can find no edivence of the Buddha addressing any of the following at all.

How about killing the lion that has been terrorizing the village (still happens in africa sometimes)? How about killing rabid feral dogs and cats? How about killing poultry infected with the bird flu? Would the Buddha object to a snake eating a mouse, or a lion eating a Zebra? How about a black bear eating a fish? Snakes and Lions cannot live without eating meat; black bears on the other hand can. How about bugs eating other bugs? Or birds eating bugs? How about a blue whale eating millions of krill? These are all examples of the inevitable life cycle of the planet and humans are no exception, we are omnivores like blue whales and black bears. Granted we have somewhat removed ourselves from that in recent centuries, but that's another topic. If nothing ever killed and ate anything else the entire world ecosystem would wither and die. What would the Buddha have to say about that, and why did he say nothing about it? Of course the Buddha wouldn't have known about bird flu, blue whales, or krill, but you get the point.

Well, that all depends upon what his opinion was. Lets assume that I have strong objections to his opinion. I could have such objections to his opinion without thinking anyless of him. There are in fact plently of people on the Christianity forum whose opinions I strongly disagree with without thinking anyless of the person; and I don't think any less of you even though my opinion on vegetarianism is incompatible with yours in certain vital areas.

Yes, he did ask for opinions on vegetarianism. And my opinion is that the kind of vegetarianism that says "These decisions to continue killing for no reason, like all things dukkha, are borne of ignorance and ceased in wisdom." and "One cannot claim to have wisdom if he takes life to eat" is, among other things, self-righteous.

Anyhow, it was not my intent to launch into any kind of tirade. It was my intent to post essentially the opinion that I did post. What got me going (perhaps a bit too strongly) was the fact that the latest post was of almost exactly the kind of vegetariamism that I have certain objections to.

 

There's only two sources for food. Animal life, and plant life. What do you suppose one eats to avoid taking life?

You say it's not necessary to take life to eat, but I beg to differ. Even if you're not killing a cow or a chicken, creatures are dying because of what you're eating. Pesticides are used on crops with the intention of killing the bugs that nibble on the crops. Worms, beetles, and who knows what else are crushed and destroyed when fields are plowed, tilled, harvested etc.

Are you saying the life of worms and beetles is more expendable than the life of cows and chickens?

 

Firstly, stop it with the name-calling and the "Mr. Evangalical" stuff, because it doesn't have a point, and you're not good at it.

Secondly, I did nothing to suggest that eating meat is something which is reprehensible. Nobody is perfect, and nobody has a monopoly on wisdom. Nobody is better than any other person -- a penny is worth one cent by virtue of being a penny, not because it is shinier than the others, or antiquated.

As for the morally wrong part, morals are relative. If you don't like hearing my opinions, don't read them. Skip my posts or something. There is no need to start an insult war over something as insignificant as this.

Who said it had to be a conversation attempt? The OP asked for opinions, not conversations, and certainly not a flame war.

My morals are aligned with the goals of harming no sentient beings without a good reason. The Buddha had a similar view on morality. Killing for food when it is not necessary, under that moral alignment, is both pointless and ignorant.

If you want to post your opinion on the matter, go ahead, you are more than welcome and I'd be happy to agree to disagree with you on the matter if that's what it comes down to. But all you are doing here is disrupting any potential worthwhile conversation with your insults and assumptions.

Paraphrased. They were paraphrased, not quoted. And I paraphrased them because they resonate with my stance.

This is worth discussing in more detail, but seeing as it's off-topic now, why don't you start a new thread about this? Perhaps someone can pull a few lines from a sutra to shed some light on this.

I highly doubt that referring to someone as "Mr. Evangalical," calling them self-righteous and moral masturbators, and twisting their words around to humiliate them in a public forum is evidence that you think anything higher of them than dirt.

Your opinion is more than welcome but your insults are not.

Except you directed your hatred at me, personally.

Beyond that, if you do any research into Buddhism, you will quickly see why the first quote you posted here is championed by the Buddha and is very prominent in Buddhism.

Read up about dependent origination -- the Buddha himself said that all things dukkha are borne of ignorance and ceased in wisdom, and that the decision to kill without a reason is a decision made in ignorance.

If you don't want anything to do with that idea, then go stir up some contempt on the Vegetarianism board -- but here, we are talking about Buddhism.

In fact, this has less to do with vegetarianism than it does with Buddhism, because your objection is not with vegetarianism, it is with the major tenents of Buddhism -- the first noble truth, dependent origin, and the noble eightfold path. The fact that these three things converge at a vegetarian morality is more or less nominal.

I suppose that you have objections to anything that is held with a high level of conviction by other people then, right?

My point is, your "opinion" (laced with insults and demonizations) has nothing at all to do with Buddhism.

I'm not sure I could even call it an opinion because of how spattered it is with things like that is one big piece of arrogant self-righetous moral masturbation," and "If you are a vegitarian and happen to be a self-righteous proselytizing holier-than-thou type about it then your kind of vegitarianism sucks and is rather corrupt."

Your opinion on vegetarianism in Buddhism is more than welcome, but again, your insults and flagrant contempt for me, or anyone else who posts their views, is not.

That's a good question -- I believe the answer lies in the respect of sentience.

What is "life?" If you consider "life" to be explainable and calculable functions of growth, reproduction, and decay, then yes, plants have life.

However, the goal of Buddhism (and in many cases, veg*nism) is to end suffering. Plants, though they grow and die, cannot feel. They do not have a central nervous system, nerves, a brain, or even desires or reactions. Because they are incapable of desire and sensation, they are also incapable of suffering. This, in my opinion, is sentience.

And so, consuming plant matter causes no suffering, where consuming animal matter does, which is why a vegetable-based diet is preferred.

This is one of the many, many reasons why I try to eat organic and from small gardens or co-op grocers whenever possible. Unfortunately, the world isn't perfect -- it would be impossible to survive in this world without consuming *something* linked to suffering.

The goal of veganism, for example, is to reduce suffering as much as possible. This doesn't mean we all starve to death because we boycott grocery stores and restaurants. We eat to survive, choosing (and promoting) foods that cause the least amount of suffering.

Another important thing to note about this is that, our mere existance, as large beings, is a threat to small life -- every day we walk on grass stamping on ants, and every day we accidentally walk through spider webs.

But are we to blame for being so large that it is impossible to prevent death just due to our existance?

Or is it acceptable enough to avoid needless and purposeful death when possible? I believe that the latter is acceptable, because I believe that survival precedes morality -- to survive we must eat, and to eat we must move, and to move we will end up having to kill accidentally, whether we like it or not.

I could go further into detail on this idea (survival preceding morality -- a.k.a. the sociobiological stance) but I fear it's going too far off topic. If you still want to listen, I'd be more than willing to continue.

 

Wow, I love it when I start stuff like this.
Well, at least the good parts that it brings out in people.

 

Yeah.

It's all good.

But I want to hear your opinions -- Yourcrazedpoet and Meagain, I'm sure you guys have something to say about the matter, no?

 

Well, this is the beginning of my second day as a vegetarian, so I'll be sure to let you guys know how it all works out for me.
As for my opinion, for a long time I've felt that it's something that I should do, because I always felt very hypocritical talking about peace and love for everyone, then having a big hamburger.
So I started it yesterday, and so far its not a big change for me at all, I was almost vegetarian before
Breakfast= RED BULL!
Lunch= Green Peeper Loaf of bread crackers
Supper= varies, but usually has meat.
now....
Breakfast= RED BULL! and CHERRY COKE!
Lunch=Green Peeper Loaf of bread crackers and peanuts
Supper= dunno yet, haven't eaten supper since I started, probably fries or a salad at work.

 

my reasons for being vegetarian:
1. my mom is kind of a hippie and raised me not eating meat when i was young, so it seems like if i ever did eat it it would make me sick also i've tried eating meat a couple times but cant because i think it either smells, tastes, looks, bad, probably for the same reason or the texture is gross probably for the same
2. seems kind of gross to eat dead animals that were only raised and let to live so they could be eaten
3. nice side benefit is its more healthy to just eat veggies and stuff...i think

 

@ Crazedpoet:

Supper = VEGETABLE STIR FRY!! *yum*

Add some assorted nuts (walnuts, pecans, etc.) and just a little bit of garlic if you really want to kick it up.

 

I've read that thread a couple times. It's actually what I thought about when I posed the idea of killing hundreds of insects to cultivate farm land as opposed to killing a handful of cows for almost as much food.

 

Personally i'm a veggie.

Reasons? To begin with it was solely for the health benefits, but gradually i've become more sensitive when it comes to other living beings. I can't bring myself to kill insects, even bees and moths that I have phobias of I now catch and release harmlessly despite how difficult this is for me...So logically I don't want to eat meat anymore. I consider it a very personal choice and so I don't like to tell anyone unless it's bought up in conversation or on the net. I can honestly say I have absolutely no problem with people who choose to eat meat. Some people just cannot do it and so I say if they are happier eating meat then by all means continue to eat meat and be happy.
I realise that even by eating a vegetarian diet animals and other living beings are being killed in the process. But for me personally I feel that i'm limiting the suffering by only eating vegetables. That makes me feel better and brings more peace to my mind. For others it does not.
My only wish is that other people stop assuming i'm a self-righteous person because of my vegetarian diet, and a lot of people do assume that and immediently and very needlessly go on the defensive and judge me.

Silliness really.