Misconception on meat eating

ariyamusafir

Vegetarianism
One should not judge the purity or impurity of man simply by observing what he eats.

In the Amagandha Sutta, the Buddha said:

'Neither meat, nor fasting, nor nakedness,
Nor shaven heads, nor matted hair, nor dirt,
Nor rough skins, nor fire-worshipping,
Nor all the penances here in this world,
Nor hymns, nor oblation, nor sacrifice,
Nor feasts of the season,
Will purify a man overcome with doubt.'

Taking fish and meat by itself does not make a man become impure. A man makes himself impure by bigotry, deceit, envy, self-exaltation, disparagement and other evil intentions. Through his own evil thoughts and actions, man makes himself impure. There is no strict rule in Buddhism that the followers of the Buddha should not take fish and meat. The only advice given by the Buddha is that they should not be involved in killing intentionally or they should not ask others to kill any living being for them. However, those who take vegetable food and abstain from animal flesh are praiseworthy.

Though the Buddha did not advocate vegetarianism for the monks, He did advise the monks to avoid taking ten kinds of meat for their self respect and protection. They are: humans, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears hyenas. Some animals attack people when they smell the flesh of their own kind. (Vinaya Pitaka)

When the Buddha was asked to introduce vegetarianism amongst His disciples, the Buddha refused to do so. As Buddhism is a free religion, His advice was to leave the decision regarding vegetarianism to the individual disciple. It clearly shows that the Buddha had not considered this as a very important religious observance. The Buddha did not mention anything about vegetarianism for the lay Buddhists in His Teaching.

Jivaka Komarabhacca, the doctor, discussed this controversial issue with the Buddha: 'Lord, I have heard that animals are slaughtered on purpose for the recluse Gotama, and that the recluse Gotama knowingly eats the meat killed on purpose for him. Lord, do those who say animals are slaughtered on purpose for the recluse Gotama, and the recluse Gotama knowingly eats the meat killed on purpose for. Do they falsely accuse the Buddha? Or do they speak the truth? Are your declaration and supplementary declarations not thus subject to be ridiculed by others in any manner?'

'Jivaka, those who say: 'Animals are slaughtered on purpose for the recluse Gotama, and the recluse Gotama knowingly eats the meat killed on purpose for him', do not say according to what I have declared, and they falsely accuse me. Jivaka, I have declared that one should not make use of meat it is seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. I allow the monks meat that is quite pure in three respects: if it is not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk.' (Jivaka Sutta)

In certain countries, the followers of the Mahayana school of Buddhism are strict vegetarians. While appreciating their observance in the name of religion, we should like to point out that they should not condemn those who are not vegetarians. They must remember that there is no precept in the original Teachings of the Buddha that requires all Buddhists to be vegetarians. We must realize that Buddhism is known as the Middle Path. It is a liberal religion and the Buddha's advice was that it is not necessary to go to extremes to practise His Teachings.

Vegetarianism alone does not help a man to cultivate his humane qualities. There are kind, humble, polite and religious people amongst non-vegetarians. Therefore, one should not condone the statement that a pure, religious man must practise vegetarianism.

On the other hand, if anybody thinks that people cannot have a healthy life without taking fish and meat, it does not necessarily follow that they are correct since there are millions of pure vegetarians all over the world who are stronger and healthier than the meat-eaters.

People who criticize Buddhists who eat meat do not understand the Buddhist attitude towards food. A living being needs nourishment. We eat to live. As such a human being should supply his body with the food it needs to keep him healthy and to give him energy to work. However, as a result of increasing wealth, more and more people, especially in developed countries, eat simply to satisfy their palates. If one craves after any kind of food, or kills to satisfy his greed for meat, this is wrong. But if one eats without greed and without directly being involved in the act of killing but merely to sustain the physical body, he is practising self restraint.

Initially, me too tought that Buddha do not eat meat. However, as I study further, I found out that that was not so. Many Buddhism of Mahayana tradition is vegetarian or vegetarian for a session in the day. Also, Bhikkhus and Bhikkhunis of Mahayana tradition does not eat meat but Bhikkhus and Bhikkhunis of Theravada tradition do eat meat. My girl friend have a Mahayana master. Base on what my gf told me, her Master, verified that on meat eating. However, she (her master) totally restrain on meat for because is like now in Pasar like that, though we do not kill, saw it is being killed, heard it being killed or is killed for us, yet we paid them is like it is already so. Perhaps that is one of the reason why other Mahayanist bhikkhus and bhikkhunis does not eat meat.

However, most of the lay Buddhist who does not know much do not know about this. They tought that the Buddha himself did NOT eat meat which I believe is not true (base on study). I read once that sammasam buddha -to -be Metteya will have meat for his last meal.

Thus, we can say that though vegetarian is good, however, we cannot say that to practise Buddhism, we should be vegetarians.

At the end of the day, we should all remind ourselves to follow the original teachings, unmix and pure teachings of the great Buddha Gotama.

Asiafever

Interesting!

ariyamusafir

Originally posted by Asiafever at 2/12/2006 02:15
Interesting!

Great to know that

ariyamusafir

There is misconception among buddhists in Malaysia & Singapore on meat eating. Many believe that a Buddhist ought to be a vegetarian and refrain from eating meat. However, this is a very serious misconception among many Buddhist mostly in the Mahayana tradition. In fact, the Buddha himself also ate meat, and also had meat as his last meal before his maha-parinibbana.

Once Devadatta, a cousin of the Buddha, who was ordained, but mixed with the world and become very worldly, seek to suceed the Buddha after the Buddha's parinibanna, tried to create chaos, by asking the Buddha to prohibit meat eating among his deciples, knowing that the Buddha would surely reject the request. Indeed true it is, the Buddha rejected such request.

Meat eating is NOT a sin, as long as the meat we eat, we neither see, nor heard it being killed nor was it killed as offerings to us. Such was the condition.

Some might argue that though such is true, however, when we purchase meat in the market, we are creating a demand in which there exist the supply thus, causing others to kill. However, if we look at another point, demanding good vegetation, causes farmers to kill living beings, thus being a vegetarian also causes people to kill generally, unless one plant their own crops without using any pesticide. Another good anology is that those vegetarians cannot use motor vehicles (such as cars, motorcycles etc.) because when the vehicle is moving at high speed, lots and lots of insects and also, birds (not most of the time for birds) get killed along the way. when one is sick due to bacteria infection such as flu etc. He/she should not take any medication because it will only kill that bacteria. Thus such argument does not hold. The only time when such argument holds is only when one pre-order for meat which once order, then only the meat seller or butcher slaughter the animal to sell it to one. However, if it is already devoid of life on the market table, then buying such does not constitue an offence of killing the living.

Very contradictory.

If the killing of living beings is not to be done, then the eating of meat should not have been justified.

Killing FOR meat is intentional no matter what.

Abstention of meat is ultimately about compassion. It's not just about purity per se.

Human actions should not be confined to just on what the scriptures says. What was written may not be accurate. The Buddha spoke Magadhi but the earliest Buddhist literature accepted as authentic in every branch of Buddhism is Pali. I know about Ananda's superduper ultra powerful memory. But it's not for me. We ought to weigh everything with our head not texts.

ariyamusafir

It is not contradictory. Point of argument. First, if there is a dead animal on the ground. It is already dead. Eating it or not will not cause that animal to come back to life. Therefore, it is already dead isn't it. If it is alive, then that is different. That is why the Buddha mentioned, meat NOT killed as offering to one. Meaning, the meat we eat are not killed for us. If it is killed for us, then eating such meat is like maybe, I don't know, killing itself. However, when it is not killed for us, then by the time we got that meat, it is already dead not not because of us that it is dead, but for other reason, then the point whereby "if there is a dead animal on the ground. It is already dead. Eating it or not will not cause that animal to come back to life" holds.

The buddha teaches middle path, not extreme path. If we go through extreme path, then we should not walk on the floor because we might kill an insect or ants etc. We should also not go on motor vehicles because when we are speeding, many flying insects would die.

I still disagree.

How do you know the meat on the market table died of natural cause?

If there are no demand forces how does the abundance of meat on the market table comes about?

This is dishonesty of the highest order, I should say. Everybody knows the meat offered in the market are dead animals which are not died of natural causes. They were KILLED...FOR YOU.

The argument of dead animals on the ground are edible is only valid when one can verify its cause of death. The meat in the market do not.

And eating of meat should not be encouraged in Buddhism. Doing so runs contrary to Lord Buddha's teaching of Compassion. It should not be justified unless in extreme conditions. By extreme conditions I mean to survive because taking care of one's own body and life is a form of filial piety, a lofty virtue espoused by the Buddha. All else, under most circumstances, meat eating will induce a craving for its taste and form a habit.

ariyamusafir

Originally posted by Adm_Cheng_Ho at 24/3/2007 10:15
I still disagree.

How do you know the meat on the market table died of natural cause?

If there are no demand forces how does the abundance of meat on the market table comes about?

This i ...

For you information, the Buddha also eat meat after his enlightenment. Monks of the Theravada tradition, which is more original also eat meat. The Buddha had his last meal,before parinibbana, meat. In the market, yes they killed. but it was not killed as offerings to us nor under our instruction, with money as the medium. No. They mercyless killed those animals to sell. Sudah mati, wether we buy it or not.

Also, if such is your logic, then you should not be driving car because you would had killed countless of lives, insect lives while driving at high speed. You should not walk on the road, because this too, you would have killed countless of lives (insects and ants etc.).

SONofODIN

Is there any proof that by eating meat one cannot attain enlightenment?

Lord Buddha ate meat. I know that. That's why he fell seriously ill and died!

Remember, the Lord said, nobody can escape from karma even himself. He showed his disciples on numerous times of this truth. He hit a fish 3 times as a child and he had great headache for 3 days even when he had become a Buddha.

He took the kind gesture of his guest. His way of approaching and expound his teaching to his guest was by taking the offer of the meal. That showed his compassion even at the expense of him committing a sin. But he did not escape the karma.

We the laymen are not at his level. We can't act like him as if we're all mighty and lofty. Human should abstain from meat unless necessary.

The meats in the market are for people to buy. The animals are killed FOR a purpose. Those who buy CONTRIBUTES to the butchers' cause!

Lastly, abstaining from meat isn't extreme path. But trying to justify meat eating is extreme thought.

SONofODIN

[quote]Originally posted by Adm_Cheng_Ho at 26-3-2007 09:05 AM
Lord Buddha ate meat. I know that. That's why he fell seriously ill and died!

As far as I have read he fell ill because he ate unclean food. It was never mentioned he ate meat, fell ill and died.
All along when he was alive, he ate food given by his devotees. Not all the foods were vegetarian food. He did not fall ill and died.

ariyamusafir

Originally posted by Adm_Cheng_Ho at 26/3/2007 09:05
Lord Buddha ate meat. I know that. That's why he fell seriously ill and died!

Remember, the Lord said, nobody can escape from karma even himself. He showed his disciples on numerous times of t ...

There is no harm in one who eat "pure" meat. By definition of "pure" meat, meat that we neither see, nor heard of being killed nor was it killed for us. Now, the Buddha did not "die" because of he eating meat or some sort like that. The Buddha passed because he chose to pass, and the issue was already being talked about if not mistaken about 3 months prior to the Buddha's parinibbanaHe had chosen the place where he will attain his parinibbana.

When one had achieved nibbana, there will no more be becoming.

There is also a verse in the dhammapada  that sound something like this: neither for the sake of others should one neglect one's own welfare.

It shows that neither for the sake of others should one do something which one should not do. When devadatta approached the Buddha in an attempt to cause chaos, he asked the buddha to forbid his decples to take any meat and this the Buddha refused. Thus devadatta tried to use that to get deciples to follow him instead of the Buddha himself.

[ Last edited by  ariyamusafir at 27-3-2007 08:40 AM ]