BellaOnline Forums Religion and Spirituality Buddhism Your Thoughts on Killing

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.