In the Dalai Lama's book he talks about the one most important activity to avoid is killing. It's not just maliciously slaying another human being, although of course you should try not to do that It's the killing of any sentient life form.

Hopefully few if any of us have had to kill another person - but think about your life. Have you killed other things? Does becoming "desensitized" to killing them affect you in larger ways - sort of like how they say kids who abuse animals as a child then grow up to abuse their spouses and kids?

I used to not like spiders but now I will really try to save them, put them in a box and take them outside. I don't want to live with them but I don't stomp on them either. In some of the early James Bond films he nastily kills spiders and snakes and now when I watch them I call out "No! Don't do it!" (like a super spy has to really fear from a spider??)

But I do admit I will have Bob spray hornets and things, because my son is allergic to them. And I will swat a mosquito who is on me. I consider those health issues - that at some point you're allowed to defend your own health from danger.

My actions with regard to killing seem to echo yours, Lisa. If a mosquito is attacking, I'll swat it. Also, if I see the odd insect in my home that could go after food (grain beatles for example or a fruit fly), it's probably history too. I don't like it though. I'll go out of my way to save most things, if possible. I work a part-time job at a gym and I see mouse traps set out back and always set them off myself and hide them somewhere I can not (absolutely not) understand or condone hunting, fishing, etc. Of course, I am vegan too and don't (or try as much as I can not to) kill animals by consuming them directly or harming them indirectly by eating dairy, eggs, etc. Although I've never thought of this in terms of any spiritual practice, it's still the way I live.

I do think it's easy to become desensitized to killing, and do try and save insects and things when possible. I view it as a part of my spiritual practice - noticing insects and taking the time to save them is part of trying to stay connected to my heart and everyone/everything around me in a caring way.

But, I also studied martial arts for a long time, including a lot of the Zen writings regarding fighting and killing, and many take a different approach to the Buddhist precept of doing no harm. They emphasize that in the physical world, everything is transient, everything must live and die, and we are all part of that truth and that cycle. At times, we are each agents of other beings destruction - consciously or unconsciously (for example, we all probably drive over or step on ants and other small insects without realizing.) So, in the samurai Zen code, they believed there were times when a greater good was served through their fighting or killing, and the same principle applied to daily living. That would be where the examples you have related to health or your own well-being (like spraying a hornet's nest or swatting a mosquito) come in.

I feel this way about killing, also. As a Taoist, I understand all things have a season and a reason. I don't believe one can box up a concept and adhere to it without fail - even if they think that they are. As you said, we unconsciously kill bugs and insects just by stepping on them, all the time. It is my belief that it is the intention behind the action that matters. In the animal kingdom, killing is surviving. It is the way of nature. Even entities who do not eat mammals, have to kill some kind of life form to survive. Plants are just as alive and sentient as we are!

Shay

In the "indirect" sense, I do eat meat. So I am causing animals to be slain "for me". Cute cows with big brown eyes. Fluffy little chickens with their happy outlooks. The commercial world makes it easy by completely separating consumers from the death. All we get is a completely clean, sterilized, packaged chunk of meat and never have to think about the animal it came from.

I eat a ton of vegetables - and there are stretches I go without eating any meat at all - but I do sometimes eat it. I realize that raising animals for meat puts a strain on our environment. I'm just not sure nutrition-wise that I'm ready to make that transition yet. I'm not really sold on high levels of soy being healthy. So I'm taking it slowly. I can at least try to eat "healthier meats" (free range, organic) etc. to go in the right direction.

I'm by far no expert on the subject of killing, and I do believe that there is a reason for everything that happens whether good or bad. I have had the experience of taking a life back in 1985, and what i had to work through and deal on a social level. Its something very few people could imagine. No, I was not the aggressor, but in harms way-and under no circumstance did i intend on taking someones life or meant to.I called myself a born-again christian before this tragedy, and spiritually it took its toll. The guilt and tears, the prison, the embarrassment, the heartache and pain that ensued. Has the years passed and i started my spiritual quest- things became clear to me, and even though i reflect on the past, i also use it in a positive way. And i understand the ying-yang of the universe and the part of killing, has well as living.Life is to be cherished and all living things will eventually die- humans, animals, and plants. I believe that death is the beginning of our true life-which is spiritual.

Wow, babydoll, I could never even imagine being in that situation, what you must have felt. Thank you for talking about it. I imagine that is something that stays with you for your entire life.

Wow, Babydoll. I am humbled and amazed by your experiences and journey to transformation. You exemplify my beliefs on killing and its mind altering role in transcendence.

Shay

This is how I view it also...I do eat meat, and view it as part of the natural cycle of things (although I know many vegans who argue humans are not meant to eat meat), but I try to buy free range/organic and support those movements in other ways so that these businesses will become more viable, and eventually the norm in the whole industry...

I do eat some meat as well, and also keep it organic, very much for the same reasons that you do. Also because of the antibiotic and hormone levels in commercial meats that are unhealthy. I feel it's silly for one group of people to claim to know what all humans are meant to do and not do. I was a strict vegetarian for many years, and I was totally unhealthy. In the book "Eat Right 4 Your Type" the consensus is that one's blood type determines what foods are needed for optimum health. I'm a type O, and do need some meat in my diet.

I do feel however that Americans eat more meat than is necessary, and if everyone cut back to having meat once a day or less, a lot of issues with deforestation and slaughterhouse animal abuse would be solved.

Shay

All this organic meat talk is twaddle. What makes eating an animal reared organically, any better than eating a non-organic animal? It's an animal, and regardless of the way it was raised, had to be killed so that you could enjoy it for your pleasure.

To wilfully deprive another living being of life is against Dhammic teachings. The first precept is that you will do no harm.
Waving the organic flag (because it's so much more ecological...??) changes nothing and is a red herring.

There is no difference between you killing your family's pet puppy, and killing a little lamb, just so's you can enjoy a good roast on Sunday. Except that you'd have to kill and skin the puppy.
And dogs get eaten in parts of the world, just like horses, and crocodiles and kangaroos..... It seems all is fair game.
So this Organic conscientiousness simply comes down to letting someone else do the dirty work. Providing it's behind the scenes, and we don't have to get involved, it makes it all ok.



Martial arts and Buddhism do not necessarily corelate. If you practice a Martial Art as an offensive means, then it is not compatible with Buddhist teaching.
if you practice a Martial art as a defensive means, then there is nothing to stop you using it, providing it is a last resort and not a first.
The main objective of learning a martial Art is to acquire such a high level of skill that you actually avoid using it.

Alexandra, from my perspective you are representing the view of only some Buddhists, which of course is your right...but I am sure you are aware there are many branches, and some DO eat meat and consider that in line with the first precept, and some Zen lineages have and DO find martial arts, offensive and defensive, in line with Buddhist teachings also (although of course it all comes down to how you define offensive and defensive)...so I respect your point of view but personally don't believe either thing violates the first precept...

anyway, I think the issue with organic, or more specifically free range, animals and the like is that the goal is to treat the animals humanely, and the farming is done in a sustainable way...of course there are a lot of stories of fraud out there, but that is the goal...it's not about whether or not you see (or don't see the killing), it is how they are allowed to live and how they are killed...

I've thought about this topic for a while. I agree that killing, the taking of life, is not good. It makes me work toward being a vegetarian. It may not provide 100 percent nutrition but I have a hard time eating flesh when I know it came from a feeling being.

There is a group that does not believe in killing even plants to eat. They only harvest the fruit and leaves IF it does not result in the killing of a plant. That is why they do not eat root vegetables.

What do you think about that?

I like the "sentient life" phrase to define higher life forms.

I eat meat because I was raised on it and it has been hard to abstain from it. But, the more I understand animals, the harder it is to eat them.

Good question, Alexandra. Animals raised organically are generally treated like they matter. They are not penned up, they are treated like they alive, and not abused.

Regardless of how an entity dies, (and I believe plants are just as alive and conscious as humans, cows and fish) nature is designed that in order for there to be life, there has to be death to sustain it. It's the circle of life. Whether it's killed by you, someone else, disease, or old age, it still going to reach death. Either it dies and decays, supplying nutrients to the earth, then the plants, then the animals; or it dies to feed the animals directly. Tribal man understood the sacred act of killing and eating, as much as the sacred act of entering a forest. What is lost in our age is the ritual gratitude for one life giving it's own for another.

As much as many humans are horrified by the fact that we are animals, the truth remains that we are. In all of nature, animals and plants alike rely upon other animals to live. To me, it isn't repulsive and something to try to rise above; it is beautiful. It's creation. But again, I'm not a Buddhist, I'm a Taoist.

Eating meat is not necessarily pleasurable. For some people, it is a necessary means of getting proper nutrition. If humans weren't meant to eat meat if they choose to do so, it would not be edible. It would be poisonous, wouldn't it? Or at the very least, have no nutritional value.

Shay

The question is not about organic foodstuffs.
The question is about killing.
And it matters not how an animal was raised, the fact that we take a sentient being's life purely and simply for our own pleasure, and it's "OK" because it was raised organically, is a ludicrous argument.

THis is a Buddhist forum. The Buddha would disagree with you.

If it were to die a Natural death, as nature intended, I would agree with you.,
If it were to die by accident, I would agree with you.
Wilful killing is not part of the cycle of life.
If it were, we wouldn't have such problems with over-fishing and depletion of stocks.

Oh, asuredly so. But tribal man didn't kill animals by their millions in order to put them into pretty blue polystyrene packs for people to grab off the shelves, did he?

Replaced by the wanton, lacsadaiscal, mindless destruction of countless lives just so's we can enjoy that good ol' BBQ sauce grandma just whipped up.


Well then you'll understand why I disagfree with you. A bit like the ol' poke at the Marines:
Join the Marines. Hone great skills! Sail the world! Explore new territory! Visit new Countries! Meet new People! And kill them all!

Yes for some.
Know anyone like that in downtown Orlando?


This is utter bulldroppings.
Water has very little nutritional value but we still need it to live.
Meat has nutritional value that is easily replaceable with compound and complex proteins found in nuts, seeds, tofu, some meat substitutes like quorn and other nutritious foods.
The plain fact is that we eat meat because we can, and because we want to.
Your last argument is really quite lame and one I come across all the time. Humans are meant to eat meat because it tasted good.
Humans are still supposed to walk with a stoop and be polygamous, but we don't and we aren't.
So just what is your point?


Shay
[/quote]

You are of course absolutely right. But as in all matters Buddhist, it is up to the person's own conscience and free will to decide for themselves what would be most skilful.
In view of these clarifications, I am of the opinion that to even purchase meat pre-prepared is unskilful, because by needs we have had somebody kill it, gut it, skin it and make it visually acceptable.
if we all had to deal with our own slaughter of animals, I'm sure the number of carnivores would plummet overnight.
But how lucky. We don't.
So we'll just complacently go on doing so because nothing specific is written to prevent us from doing so.

In my opinion, Kamma says otherwise.


It also comes down to how you define Buddhist teachings. Zen is Mahayanan teaching. Also, Japanese, so somewhat removed and modified, to some extent, to accommodate Shinto.



perception is often deception.
If you really believe it is perfectly ok to continue as you do, that is of course your decision.
You'll forgive me if I strongly disagree.



Many established Theravadans, and the majority of people new to Theravada Buddhism, are becoming vegetarian for ecological, environmental and humane reasons.
There is absolutely nothing that prevents us, in our abundantly furnished Western society, from becoming vegetarian.
The only reason we don't is because we don't want to.

Let's not beat about the bush here.



THis is astrawnman argument, and not an issue here. The thread is discussing Killing. As I have said, it matters not a jot how the animal was raised - it still has to be dragged to a holding pen, forced to its knees and have a bullet shot into its skull.



Yes, I was all with you until we got to the last bit.

I'd prefer "how they are permitted to die naturally, having led a good life, then being able to dine upon their remains."
And as I have said, this thread originally sprang from a question relating to the Buddha's teachings on killing.
Why are we suddenly discussing the dubious virtues of raising animals for slaughter organically?

Either we're going to stick to discussing the topic, in accordance with Buddhist principles or we're just going to have a free-for-all.
I sem to remember that going off-topic and arguing against Christian scriptures used to be slapped down pretty hard.
This is a Buddhist forum. So if anyone else would like to find anything in the suttas about the Buddha permitting such practices, or giving them the green light, I await quotation and reference with interest.

Thank you all for a most bracing and stimulating discussion!

There is, of course, no sutra that I know of in which the Buddha 'permits such practices' or gives them 'the green light'. There is however, as the article you linked to referenced, considerable debate about how to interpret the first precept, and the teachings on refraining from the 'business of meat'. Here are three articles I found interesting on the topic, which do make some scriptural references.

As for the general direction of the thread (which came up on the rebirth thread as well) I guess there does seem to be a difference of opinion on what this forum is about, and how threads should be allowed to evolve. I don't know the history of the forum before I was the moderator, so can't speak to that. But I view this forum as a place for open discussion, and don't view it as my role to represent the views of one particular branch of Buddhism. You can of course represent your own views in your own posts, but I am not interested in holding back a discussion from evolving just because it has veered away from the original question, or away from a particular view of Buddhism. To me, that kind of evolution is just the nature of discussion, on and off-line.

There's not a person on this planet that "needs" meat in their diet, so if that's your thought you're sadly mistaken. Also, vegans will "argue" that humans are not meant to eat meat because they choose to see that the human body and its workings are that of a herbivore, not a carnivore. It really is that simple.

I have learned that there is no sense arguing with meat eaters on these topics because they don't listen. Just pawns in the hands of big industry.

The one thing I find amusing is that several times it is mentioned that "The Buddha also ate meat". There is absolutely no scriptual reference to this anywhere, and nowhere in any sutta does it say he partook of meat. Incidentally, the meal that killed him was supposed to contain meat that had one off. There is still today, a huge amount of controversy regarding this matter. Many eminent and intelligent scholars believe it may have been pork. Other equally eminent and intelligent scholars, believe it to have been a type of mushroom. But in actual fact, according to others, it would appear that what killed the Buddha, was an already existing condition.
fascinating.



That's not what my point is about. My point is that primarily, this forum should be about matters pertaining primarily to Buddhism, to encourage others to come and learn, and discuss matters from a Buddhist POV. Not a Buddhist Forum, that others may come and superimpose their Christian ideology and uninformed points of view on, so that it just becomes a place for people to air their own opinions, and not to study and learn Buddhist teachings. (When I say "uninformed" I mean with regard to Buddhist viewpoints, literature, teachings and scipture.) It seems unacceptable for anyone non-Christian to go into a chrsitian board and openly challenge and even contradict Christian teachings, but the same rule in reverse does not seem to apply here.

Just a point to ponder.


If the topic veers away from the original question, it's Off-topic. So you might as well say: "What did the Buddha have to say on Killing?" but if you start discussing how cute rabbits are, and how delicious lamb is, done with garlic and rosemary, that's fine.'
Off-topic posts are generally frowned upon in most forums.


I'm not complaining about it veering away from a particular view of Buddhism. I'm complaining that the only time Buddhism is mentioned or referred to by Posters is with reference to the original Post! if others wish to come on this forum, the primary objective and source of discussion should be with reference to Buddhism. Shouldn't it?! Not their 'well from my point of view'.... and 'well, what we think.....' It's not about general open anything-goes 'opinion.' It's about teaching - and learning about - Buddhist practices (and the wide diverity therein) regarding certain topics.
or am I wrong?
[/quote]

Honestly, I don't know - as I mentioned in the rebirth thread, I am open to both kinds of threads, as long as things stay respectful. So we will see how things evolve.

I didn't feel this thread wandered that far off topic, since the original post was an open question on how people felt about killing - it wasn't addressed to Buddhists only, and wasn't phrased as 'how do you feel about the Buddhist view on killing'. The topic of vegetarianism naturally arose out of that, and most of the views that were espoused are also espoused by various Buddhist branches/teachers, so it wasn't totally out in left field. I do appreciate that you brought the discussion back to Buddhist scripture, and overall I think a good, hearty thread evolved with lots of different views for others to read (which to me is the point.)

Obviously, I am a newbie here, and may be naive. At this point, I am just happy there is some activity going in this forum again.

Okay, lets take a deep breath.

Lisa, you are completely in line with the BellaOnline system. It is entirely up to you as the moderator to invite non-Buddhists into your threads, or to keep it strictly Buddhist based. Your intentions are clear and true, and you are in no way naive or off topic with this thread. As you made clear also, as long as things stay respectful. IMO, when angry name calling and insults are being tossed around, the respectfulness has diminished. Which I feel it unfortunately has in this thread, and not by non-Buddhists.

Having clarified the role of the moderator, I have to say that Alexandra, yes, you have misunderstood. Lisa gets to make the decision on the flavor and direction of her forum threads, and the participants get respectfully to blend into individual threads, or opt to sit certain ones out if they feel themselves getting too emotional to remain respectful.

Shay

Where has there been Anger and name-calling?

Where has there been disrepsect?

Why is feeling strongly about a subject such as this, and expressing that intensity, looked upon as being angry or disrespectful?

If you could but meet me, if you could but engage with me, you would find that I am devoid of Anger, and i have a deep and abiding respect for all beings.
But it doesn't mean that I cannot argue with them when I disagree with them.
Debate is one of the basic tenets of Buddhism.

Where do you therefore feel this thread has become rude angry or disrespectful?

Given that I had been primary choice of Moderator here, but was unable to take on the role due to excessive commitments, (So well done Lisa, for rightfully gaining this position) I do know what the role of Moderator entails. particularly as I am a Moderator on three other Fora.

Thank you for your comments, Shay.

OK, I've stayed out of this thread because I do eat meat, so didn't see where my opinion in this one would help.

Now I'm stepping in as a moderator.

Everyone needs to realize that these forums are global.

We here in the US speak very casually, other countries not so much.

Alexandra and I had just such an misunderstanding several months ago over our semantics. Once we realized that niether side was being snide or name-calling, the discussion went much smoother.

This is a common misunderstanding in discussions with folks from different countries.

So everyone take a deep breath. And just read the points being made, without trying to infer the emotion behind it. It is just too difficult to do when we are writing and not speaking and can't hear the voice of the other person.

Thanks guys!

Oh, and Alexandra - saying that you were the "primary choice" is not a good choice of words. You have no way of knowing whether Lisa had applied at the same time as you.

Ack- I tried, I really tried not to respond to this.

The argument I've always heard is; why do humans have incisors and canines if we are not meant to eat meat? We are equipped with the teeth to eat both meat and vegetables- so we function best on both. Ok, I'mreally leaving this time.

LOL, Michelle!

Just like Lisa said, even Buddhists vary in their beliefs about eating meat.

In the Taoist philosophy there is a season and a reason for everything, and every choice is an integral part of the whole. In the Tao, hard rules and dogma are for other people to indulge in! We just sit back and smile at it all...

Shay

I was accepted and began training. Then had to withdraw. In view of what is happening here currently, i think the right person got the job.

My point is that for me, the dogma of "shoulds" and "should nots" exists only in the minds of human beings who do not accept life as it flows before them, and has always flowed. It is perhaps against your belief system that there is a reason and a purpose for everything, and that nothing could happen on a quantum level that wasn't meant to - but this is my belief.

I didn't post here to argue, or to defend my beliefs. I posted upon moderator Lisa's invitation. I tend to lean toward her live and let live philosophy, and deeply respect her quiet acceptance of all philosophies. She is a good moderator.

[b]"Many are the paths which lead to Heaven or Earth, as the faith is not important. It is our actions and intentions which determine the rate of our ascention."

-Dharma Tsu, Tao Buddhist Master[/b]

Shay
...water is not nutrient rich, it is a nutrient...

This is very much in line with some Zen Buddhist thinking, which of course isn't a surprise because Zen emerged out of a combining of Taoist and Buddhist teachings. I want to do an article on this eventually...

Thanks for your vote of confidence. Obviously I do have a lot to learn on the moderator front.

I don't think any of your posts veered into outright anger or name-calling. But I will say, not knowing you at all and just reading these posts for the first time, that to me the tone did come off as overly judgmental/critical/aggressive, as opposed to just arguing your point. HOWEVER, I know that that can often happen when people are expressing their views in written form, as I have been told in the past that I came off that way, when I didn't feel that was my intention or tone at all. And I also know from other Buddhist forums that issues related to vegetarianism and interpretations of the first precept can be quite contentious as well.

Personally, I don't think I have anything more to add right now, but am leaving the thread open. Within Buddhism I think the whole debate re: vegetarianism is really part of a larger debate about the role of certain sutras, the Buddha's instructions re: monks vs. laypeople, the purpose of certain guidelines as interpreted by Theraveda vs. Mahayana vs. Vajrayana etc. so perhaps we can get some threads going on those themes in the future.

Ok, so I'm adding my two-cents and in this economy, it's worth less...

I don't know Buddhist or Taoist philosophy, and I don't know about man's biological dietary predispositions. Heck, I'm still unclear whether man can or cannot thrive on a meatless diet because there is so much conflicting research!

All I know is--and I say this at the risk of sounding like some teary child horrified at the lion eating the zebra on a nature show--the closer I observe animals, the more I see that ANIMALS DON'T LIKE TO BE EATEN!!!

I don't care about the circle of life and yadda yadda. This is my question for God: Why do animals have to eat animals? The food chain could be shortened to just plants and animals. Animals die and decay to nourish the soil for the plants. We eat plants. Period.

It's easy for us to "reason" why we should eat meat because we're at the top of the food chain. One might say humans are sentient with superior brain function, but even humans with low IQs know fear and the horror of being preyed upon.

I see animals with fear in their eyes...sadness and horror at having to watch their babies being taken from their sides and devoured. There was this show about taboo culinary food around the world:

1. Monkeys were under a dining table, with their head poking up from a hole in the center. While the monkeys were still alive, the tops of the skulls were sawed open so the diners could pick and eat their brains.
2. Whole carp would be tossed into a hot wok, stir fried and then plated. The chef sliced the tail end to halfway up the fish while it was still gasping for breath. Diners considered it fresh!
3. Speaking about freshness, the Japanese rever freshness so in one restaurant, they serve a bowl of hot broth next to a bowl of living little guppie-like fish. They scoop up some guppies and then dip into the hot broth and eat them.
3. They also cut up live octopus and eat the writhing tentacles. The danger is one can choke if the suckers attach to the throat.

I'm sure there are more examples, but why is there no respect for life there? Monkeys are sentient beings! Can you imagine the horror of watching someone chew at your arms? Gives a whole new meaning to having someone pick your brains!

I eat meat so I'm not putting anyone else down. It's just that in my perfect vision of a perfect world, animals would eat fruit. LOL. No killing, no suffering. Every animal would be free to enjoy the fullness of life.

Why, God, why did You create such a long food chain?

I PMmed Alexandra separately about her posts, that discussion is best a private one. To speak generally, our forums are open for all discussion from all points of view, and no points of view should be dismissed as invalid. We actively welcome all people to post on this topic and to share their thoughts, and we actively want as *part* of that to discuss what the various Buddhist ideas on the topic are so we can all learn and compare.

Lori - that sounds like a horrific show to watch. And yes I agree with you completely that, if we find that horrific, is it really that far removed to then have a chicken in your back yard as a "pet" and then chop its head off and eat it? I am trying to move in that direction by making sure the animals live long, happy lives and then are ended humanely. Just as I, as a human, hope my life is ended humanely. I would rather die swiftly if "my time has come" vs lingering for six months in agony. So I very much believe in a quick humane end for all living creatures.

I do agree that as a long term end goal that not eating meat is a good idea - but again that is a grey area. Why would you not eat meat and still eat plants? Plants can react to stimulus. They grow towards light. They avoid heat. I have a plant (which sadly died on me) which would close up when you touched it, a "sensitive plant". Why would it be OK to eat that, but not an oyster which is less "sentient"?

I so agree with this, Lisa. If plants could run away from preditors, they most certainly would.

I used to struggle with the idea of eating meat, terribly. It all started when I was 10 and watched my stepfather tie one of our chickens up by its feet and swiftly cut its head off, then I watched in horror as he cut it down and it ran around and around in a spiral until it eventually fell over. My mother then dropped it in a tub of hot water where she pulled all of the feathers out. I can still remember the smell of the wet feathers. She then prepared it and fixed chicken stew for supper. I could not bear to eat that stew, I felt so ill. That is when I vowed to become a vegetarian. But at age 10, I had to eat what my mother put in front of me, so when I turned 16 I stopped eating any kind of meat. I got so thin and weak, that when I got pregnant with my son at 22, I started craving meat and chose to eat it for my son's health as well as my own.

I began at that time to understand that all things that are alive want to stay alive. From plants to insects to fish and mammals. I began to see the poetic beauty in one life form sacrificing itself for the life of another. How altruistic nature is, and how humbling to be a part of it all.

Shay

Indeed, it's true, Lisa. I looked into the Zen long before I discovered the Tao. What I liked about it was the acceptance of all things, and the living in the moment philosophy. As it turned out, the Tao was a better fit for me, because it felt more loose and individual.

I look forward to reading your article!

Shay

I thought I was done on this topic, but just came across another discussion of this that I thought was worth noting. It was an interview (offline) with a Cambodian Buddhist monk and teacher who believes killing is warranted if it is the ONLY way to end injustice, particularly the suppression of dharmic teachings. He refers to the suppression of Buddhist teachings that is going on in Tibet under Chinese rule, and in other places like Myanmar and North Korea. It is his view that violence, including killing, may be necessary in those countries, in order to assure that Buddhist teachings survive. And he feels that the Buddha allowed for this, because the perpetuation of the dharma takes precedence over the first precept.

Many (in fact probably most) Buddhists do not hold this view, holding to the power of non-violent struggle instead. But it is an interesting argument, so I thought worth noting.

There is a sect of people who only eat the fruit of a plant so that the plant remains alive after harvest. They don't eat carrots or other root vegetables because to do so would kill the plant.

I don't know how "sentient" plants are. They react to stimulus, not as a conscious act, but as part of their biological make-up. It's not even an instinct, really, but a trait. There is no pain or emotion or cognition attached. Being heliotropic, for example, only allows the organism to move toward a food source. But they are alive...with life energy. I suppose on some cosmic level, they are sentient beings as well.

But we all need nourishment for survival. I only wish we could nourish ourselves in a humane, compassionate way.

I was raised in a religion that taught it was better to be killed than to kill so if threatened with death, it was better to lie down and die. But then I converted to another religion and now I'm told that we should defend ourselves against evil doing. And there is a difference between innocent blood and evil doers.

Maybe we should just eat the evil doers.

LOL I love that idea Lori!

And really, I would love some day for science to find a way to make all our nutrients in a tasty way so we could eat lovely foods that tasted great, that were not taken from living animals. I would gladly support that kind of research.

I think in a cosmic sense that, if the choice was between someone who loved to kill and went around killing everyone and someone who only killed when forced to and did it rarely, that I would want the rare-killers to survive and propagate. So I would want them to defend themselves and put an end to the killing spree. Otherwise genocides and slaughters go on for years, because nobody stops them.

Hmm... But how can we know this for sure? It seems that basic science was created by humans, based upon being human. If we are the "basis" how do we know anything that is truly beyond our own tests for "sentient" aliveness?

Here's what makes me ask this question...When I was in high school, I'm guessing it was the year 1979, I said to a wise friend, "yeah bees do what they do, but it's not like they are aware of their actions...they just act on instinct." My friend looked me square in the eye and said, "How do you know?" As I looked into his eyes, my mind went blank. I realized that I didn't know. Of course, since then, considerable studies have been conducted on bee behaviors. They have revealed that honey bees make a conscious effort via complicated dance patterns, to convey to other bees where certain flowers are and how to get there.

I do believe that things occur in nature that humans have no inkling of - and that one of them is the "secret life of plants!"

Shay

I agree completely that how plants and animals react is often due to instinct and heck a lot of what HUMANS do is based on instinct. If we draw a hand away from a hot stove that's instinct! That means we are alive and care about ourselves. It should be just as valuable if a plant does something similar ...

It may be that your wishes have been granted.