Question to All
-
II believe some of the dharma brothers and sisters will have this experience. You saw an insect in danger, but for some reason, you didn't rescue it. You walked away, but feeling bad about it, you come back and then realised that poor insect died. You feel bad. There comes the question. You felt bad because :
1) You didn't do your part as a practising Buddhist, which is to liberate that insect from suffering.
2) You seriously felt for the insect, and regretted deeply for letting it go through the immense pain before it died.
which one are you?
Should we practise compassion towards sentient beings because it's our duty, or because we wanted to help them alleviate from suffering.
I came across a posting on a forum exposing the dirty trade of cat market (no prize for guessing the location), where cats were sold in cages and then slaughter for the dinner table. The cats were from everywhere, even from people's home. So as usually, it attracted alot of negative verbal attack by the rest of the forumners, then one forumner came in and said : " if you think slaughtering cats are cruel, whatever the pigs, lambs and cows you have consumed?, they too are going through the antagonising moment of facing the knife for human beings' dinner table. Just because the pigs, lambs and cows are not pet, doesn't mean that they deserve any worse treatment than our pet dogs and cats." His statement received alot of support.
Why are Buddhists still consuming meat where alternatives are widely available? -
I am a meat-eater , becos my parent refused to cook vegetarian meal
well I am still a meat-eater ,but that havent stop me from practising Buddhism
Ven Dhammika say in His good Question good answer
Which makes a good Buddhist ?a meat-eater who is kind or the vegetarian who is always hot -tempered ?
I have experience vegetarian who is so hot-tempered after chanting and can shout and yell at ppl .I think most impt is NOT TO RAISE A WEAPON TO SLAUGHTER FOR SURVIVAL.
thats the impt thing
and for the first question is , ask yourself how u can help .If you know u are endangering your life , pls pray silently for help to come to it,instead of acting hero and realise u become a victim of situation also
read Master Shengyen teaching on <> -
We stop eating meating not because of some beliefs. We refrain from eating animals because we realised the deep suffering experienced by them from our eating them.
Things shouldn't get so convoluted from all the beliefs and reasoning. We try to refraining from eating them out of our own experience of what pain feels like. -
Sometimes I deeply feel for other beings, but I can honestly say that I do not have much compassion yet. That's why I have not become a vegetarian.
However, I have seen many vegetarians who are truly compassionate. -
I want to separate subsistence from compassion. Looking at the natural world, you see creatures divided into carnivorous, herbivorous, etc. So a specie becomes part of the food chain. Big fish eats small fish. Small fish eats plankton. Frog eats flies. Cow eats grass. Squirrel eats nuts. Bird eats worms ..... so human beings eat? Everything he can lay hands on!!!!
Looking at human anatomy - the jaws, teeth, limbs and body mass - human cannot eat big game, deep seafood, birds that fly because human cannot outrun cheetah, swim deep, or fly high! Hence, leopards, sharks and hawks cannot be human's 'normal' staple. That leaves pigs, chicken, cows, frogs and small fishes that human can catch. Vegetables are within human reach and so are fruits that when ripen should fall to the ground. If not, then it is not for human consumption.
My view is simple. Whether meat or non-meat, the food we eat are living things. Some you have to 'kill' while others you cultivate or pluck.
When you see a tiger going for its prey, do you feel bad? -
It is a cycle
Nothing more -
first , you have to define living things .Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:I want to separate subsistence from compassion. Looking at the natural world, you see creatures divided into carnivorous, herbivorous, etc. So a specie becomes part of the food chain. Big fish eats small fish. Small fish eats plankton. Frog eats flies. Cow eats grass. Squirrel eats nuts. Bird eats worms ..... so human beings eat? Everything he can lay hands on!!!!
Looking at human anatomy - the jaws, teeth, limbs and body mass - human cannot eat big game, deep seafood, birds that fly because human cannot outrun cheetah, swim deep, or fly high! Hence, leopards, sharks and hawks cannot be human's 'normal' staple. That leaves pigs, chicken, cows, frogs and small fishes that human can catch. Vegetables are within human reach and so are fruits that when ripen should fall to the ground. If not, then it is not for human consumption.
My view is simple. Whether meat or non-meat, the food we eat are living things. Some you have to 'kill' while others you cultivate or pluck.
When you see a tiger going for its prey, do you feel bad?
Living things as in Plants and trees are without brain functions
I am sure you study biology of plants before .
Where is the brain of the plants and trees ?stem? roots? or leaves ?
on the other hand ,animal are found to have brain ,memory function and can tap their experience .
Yes , you can say we are basically eating living things ,but put yourself in the animal shoes ,would you want to be lying in the kitchen ,waiting for that moment to come ?
Buddha define living things as both with brain and memory function and those without
While there is also karma created eating plants and trees ,but that is negligible compared to karma created eating animals .No animal will want to be eaten ,and the hatred it generate can spread through the whole body ,create cancerous cell .
Human who eat it ,have a deposit of those cancer agent , will in turn get very sick and develop into cancer
the food revolution is appalling , we should try to be vegetarian as much as possible , and SHOULD NEVER RAISE A WEAPON TO KILL FOR OUR OWN CONSUMPTION -
I think you have a very basic flaw in understanding.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:I want to separate subsistence from compassion. Looking at the natural world, you see creatures divided into carnivorous, herbivorous, etc. So a specie becomes part of the food chain. Big fish eats small fish. Small fish eats plankton. Frog eats flies. Cow eats grass. Squirrel eats nuts. Bird eats worms ..... so human beings eat? Everything he can lay hands on!!!!
Looking at human anatomy - the jaws, teeth, limbs and body mass - human cannot eat big game, deep seafood, birds that fly because human cannot outrun cheetah, swim deep, or fly high! Hence, leopards, sharks and hawks cannot be human's 'normal' staple. That leaves pigs, chicken, cows, frogs and small fishes that human can catch. Vegetables are within human reach and so are fruits that when ripen should fall to the ground. If not, then it is not for human consumption.
My view is simple. Whether meat or non-meat, the food we eat are living things. Some you have to 'kill' while others you cultivate or pluck.
When you see a tiger going for its prey, do you feel bad?
That is, vegetables have NO consciousness and does not feel pain, whereas animals have consciousness, feel pain and suffer.
Therefore they deserve our compassion, they are just like us in a lot of sense. -
Perhaps, my reasoning is different from yours, and my understanding limited. It is not FLAW. That's is presumptous!
I didn't speak about consciousness, I spoke about living things as part of the food chain.
Vegetables and plants appear to be without consciousness just because they have no brains? But plants can also feel and react to external stimuli - this part of biology you have probably forgotten.
We all know the an unconscious person cannot react to external stimulus, not even pain! Therefore, by your reasoning ...... if an animal or human drop dead (not killed), we can eat it for food? Am I right to say that the dead (animal or human) has no consciousness and therefore cannot feel pain? Would you say that this understanding (knowledge) of mine is FLAW? -
You are holding onto a wrong understanding.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:Perhaps, my thinking is different from yours, not FLAWED. That's is presumptous!
I didn't speak about consciousness, I spoke about living things as part of the food chain.
Vegetables and plants appear to be without consciousness just because they have no brains? But plant can also feel and react to external simulus - this part of biology you have probably forgotten.
We all know the an unconscious person cannot react to external stimulus, not even pain!
Plants do NOT have consciousness, nevertheless they can react to external stimulus through their biological function due to changes in turgor pressure and things like that. There is no nervous system that sends messages the various plant cells, therefore plants function naturally without mental consciousness.
I just can't understand why so many people have this silly idea that just because plants react to external stimulus, they are conscious beings. My only advise is: Please read biology.
Sorry for being so direct, don't mean to be rude.Therefore, by your reasoning ...... if an animal or human will do drop dead (not killed), we can take it for food?
Then that's fine. But who wants to eat corpses? -
Your response is faster than mimosa. I have just edited my post. So my take on consciousness is stated clearly there, biological functions aside.
As to eating corpse, it is no different when you eat pork, beef, etc. because they are all dead (carcass similar to corpse). Certain animals eat their preys live, and in the process kill their preys. These animals do not being with killing in mind. They have only food in mind! -
Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:
Yes but reacting to external stimulus does not mean having consciousness. There are many biological articles on google before that can tell you plants have no consciousness whatsoever, though they can act seemingly intelligently and react to external stimulus like sunlight and other environmental factors.
[Your response is faster than mimosa. I have just edited my post. So my take on consciousness is stated clearly there, biological functions aside.As to eating corpse, it is no different when you eat pork, beef, etc. because they are all dead (carcass similar to corpse). Certain animals eat their preys live, and in the process kill their preys. These animals do not being with killing in mind. They have only food in mind!
Yes there are a lot of ignorance among animals out there, so they engage in killing, in stealing, etc. Yes they are not conscious about other beings feeling.
That's why they're from the animal realm. They are ignorant and are different from Humans who are intelligent creatures and can feel for others.
Secondly, it is true that when we eat pork, beef, etc, we do not directly kill those animals (though we must avoid eating live seafood, because you are directly ordering them to be killed).
That is why Buddha allowed practitioners to eat meat if the meat is not directly killed by him, order to be killed by him, or witnessed by him. In this way, one does not commit against the 1st Precept of No Killing. The karma is lighter, nevertheless we are still indirectly killing them and indirectly responsible for their deaths. There is still karma, though not as strong.
http://www.jenchen.org.sg/vol5no4a.htm
...Buddha understands the ignorance and habits of sentient beings that have accumulated from aeons of their many past lives. In order to provide sentient beings with an expedient means of embracing Buddhism, those who are not able to convert to a vegetarian diet on a long term basis are permitted to consume meat provided:
(1) That he did not slaughter the animal personally
(2) That he did not instruct others to slaughter
(3) That the slaughter was not committed for his sake
(4) That he did not witness the slaughter
(5) That he did not hear the cries associated with the slaughter... -
(1) That he did not slaughter the animal personally
Do not kill personally, instruct, see, hear, witness the killing .... does not mean there is no killing. The animal was indeed 'killed' for food! And when you eat it, you must 'consciously' know that the animal was slaughtered unless it just drop dead naturally on your plate!
(2) That he did not instruct others to slaughter
(3) That the slaughter was not committed for his sake
(4) That he did not witness the slaughter
(5) That he did not hear the cries associated with the slaughter...
I disagree with what the Buddha said in order to encourage those to convert to vegetarianism.
Let's not bring in the other realms of being. This aspect is impossible to prove or disapprove!
I see animals as having its natural instinct, not some humans reincarnated as animals. So, animal kills for food - not for money, possession, revenge, hatred, love, etc. If animal don't eat, it will die. If human don't eat - he will become ...... arahant or bodhisattvas? -
Yes, I think I need to change my previous statement regarding the 1st precept.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:Do not kill personally, instruct, see, hear, witness the killing .... does not mean there is no killing. The animal was indeed 'killed' for food! And when you eat it, you must 'consciously' know that the animal was slaughtered unless it just drop dead naturally on your plate!
I disagree with what the Buddha said in order to encourage those to convert to vegetarianism.
Eating meat that is not killed directly does not mean we are keeping the 1st precept. It just means we do not kill the animals directly, and therefore the karma is not as strong.
So my point here is not whether you are conscious of eating meat. It is that all Buddhists should follow the Buddha's guidelines on the 'Pure Meat' -- that is, not directly involved in any sort of killing.
Indirect killing is still bad but not so bad in terms of karma, because the volition/karma involved in direct killing is much stronger. The intention involved in killing, demanding killing, and the seed planted when one witnesses killing, is much much stronger and the karmic fruition is also worse.Let's not bring in the other realms of being. This aspect is impossible to prove or disapprove!
?I see animals as having its natural instinct, not some humans reincarnated as animals. So, animal kills for food - not for money, possession, revenge, hatred, love, etc. If animal don't eat, it will die. If human don't eat - he will become ...... arahant or bodhisattvas?
If you don't eat meat, you will have less negative karma, you can become more compassionate and practise the Bodhisattva way.
On the other hand, the 5 pure meat guideline is the minimum. Just like 5 precepts are the minimum of morality in Buddhism. -
The precept on not killing is perfectly right, noble and the truth. I have no opposing view on this.
Life is precious and we see every specie struggling to survive, whether animal, plant or human. And food is one item that keeps them alive! If in the preservation of life, another life is sacrificed - that is unfortunate but perfectly natural. Big fish eat small fish. Big fish lives, small fish died. So, what are we to make of this? Tell the big fish not to eat?
The same applies for human. -
Originally posted by bohiruci:first , you have to define living things .
Living things as in Plants and trees are without brain functions
I am sure you study biology of plants before .
Where is the brain of the plants and trees ?stem? roots? or leaves ?
on the other hand ,animal are found to have brain ,memory function and can tap their experience .
Yes , you can say we are basically eating living things ,but put yourself in the animal shoes ,would you want to be lying in the kitchen ,waiting for that moment to come ?
I am simple-minded and my biology teacher taught me about living things. All living thing has life whether got brain or not, it is still a living thing!
Btw, jelly-fish has no brain. But it can move about to hunt for preys.
Buddha define living things as both with brain and memory function and those without
Buddha's definition served his purpose. My simple mind tells me that a living thing has life whether or not there is brain, memory, etc.
While there is also karma created eating plants and trees ,but that is negligible compared to karma created eating animals .No animal will want to be eaten ,and the hatred it generate can spread through the whole body ,create cancerous cell .
A little pregnant is not pregnant?
Human who eat it ,have a deposit of those cancer agent , will in turn get very sick and develop into cancer
the food revolution is appalling , we should try to be vegetarian as much as possible , and SHOULD NEVER RAISE A WEAPON TO KILL FOR OUR OWN CONSUMPTION
It is OK to encourage vegetarianism for health reason but I think the karmic thingy and the compassion thingy have been taken too far. -
Getting so complicated....
IMHO, just eat more fruits and vegetables, good for health. If can avoid meat, then avoid meat. If no choice, try not to kill one and eat (Singaporeans no need to do hunting. Most of the hunting is done in NTUC). If still a meat eater then just reduce the intake amount. Don't eat meat will not die one.
-
Who says humans can't hunt?
If there's a choice, we can choose not to eat meat.
If there's no choice, can we make a choice not to eat meat? -
Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:
No need to tell animals that. In the first place animals are too ignorant to understand the dharma, that's why Human birth is so precious.
The precept on not killing is perfectly right, noble and the truth. I have no opposing view on this.
Life is precious and we see every specie struggling to survive, whether animal, plant or human. And food is one item that keeps them alive! If in the preservation of life, another life is sacrificed - that is unfortunate but perfectly natural. Big fish eat small fish. Big fish lives, small fish died. So, what are we to make of this? Tell the big fish not to eat?The same applies for human.
Why are you comparing humans with animals? Don't insult us lah. Obviously, we are not ignorant like them. You tell an animal to follow 5 precepts, not to kill, not to steal, etc, they don't understand at all.
For us, if we are true Buddhists we MUST do our best to keep the precepts, practise and understand the dharma.
Also, I never said everyone must become vegetarian. I said one must at least follow the 5 precepts, as well as the 5 pure meat guidelines. That is the minimum. -
Did anyone said about not being able to hunt or not? The question here is, like you said, if there is a choice we should not.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Who says humans can't hunt?
If there's a choice, we can choose not to eat meat.
If there's no choice, can we make a choice not to eat meat? -
Sorry, I dont understand....
What is wrong with doing nothing?
Buddha says that everything is a cycle of life and death and everything is futile because emotions and relationships only cause needless pain and suffering.
Therefore, your emotions of sadness and regret are futile and needless suffering onto you because the animals will die one day.
Death happens to some creatures so that others may live and these that live will one day die also that others may live. So, death and life is transient.
Everything is nothing and nothing is everything.
By doing nothing, you did everything you can.
Therefore, we do right not doing anything to cause needless suffering to ourselves. If you save that animals, you will only prolong their suffering and your own.
Its best to let nature take its course like Buddha has taught.
Your concept of doing something to "save" those creatures has been influenced by the monotheist religions that preach a loving God and the value of life more than death.
These values have inflitrated our society and education so much that you have diviated from the original Dharma teachings. Life is not greater than death, Buddha teaches, life is death and death is life, all is nothing and nothing is all. -
Originally posted by Rephidim:
If you look at someone going to die, and you do nothing to save him, that is equivalent to cruelty.
Sorry, I dont understand....
What is wrong with doing nothing?Buddha says that everything is a cycle of life and death and everything is futile because emotions and relationships only cause needless pain and suffering.
Emotions and relationships often bring alot of sufferings.
However, they are not the main cause of suffering (including those negative emotions). The main cause is ignorance (i.e identification to the notion of a separate self/ego), causing the mind to grasp, seek, and give rise to aversion. Obviously such a mind is never still.Therefore, your emotions of sadness and regret are futile and needless suffering onto you because the animals will die one day.
The ordinary emotion of sadness is different from Compassion and Love. Compassion is something very noble -- it is feeling NOT for oneself, or one's ego, but for Others. It is inherently not a self-serving attachment, but encompasses all other beings. So don't confuse sadness and regret with Compassion. Compassion is selfless.
Next, compassion is not attachment to the other person, as if it is a 'romantic' relationship. A compassionate person may feel a little sad for others -- but one does not become identified and attached to that other particular person and developes strong passionate attachment such that strong negative emotions arise. As such, compassion is different from the mundane kind and superficial 'love' of ordinary people -- Compassion is Unconditioned love for all beings equally. Compassion does not discriminate and does not attach.Death happens to some creatures so that others may live and these that live will one day die also that others may live. So, death and life is transient.
Yes. So?Everything is nothing and nothing is everything.
This is very vague. Explain what you mean by that.By doing nothing, you did everything you can.
Sorry for being direct, but that's bullshit, really. If someone is drowning in front of you, and you know how to swim, will you say that by doing nothing you did everything you can? If you do think so, you're just sick in the mind.Therefore, we do right not doing anything to cause needless suffering to ourselves. If you save that animals, you will only prolong their suffering and your own.
If you see someone drowning into the sea, do you excuse yourself by not saving that drowning and saying 'let nature take its course, that person is supposed to drown'?
Its best to let nature take its course like Buddha has taught.
All the talk about nature and not nature is bullshit. It is nature that you save that person. In fact, it would be unnatural if you don't, yet have the ability to.Your concept of doing something to "save" those creatures has been influenced by the monotheist religions that preach a loving God and the value of life more than death.
I'm afraid to say you show no understanding at all about what Buddha views the preciousness of life. Did Buddha ever said something like, Life is equal to death? On the other hand the Buddha always emphasize so much on the preciousness of the human life, because of this rare opportunity to practise the Dharma and attain Enlightenment.
The Buddha also taught so much about compassion and metta/loving kindness for all beings alike, and taught that we should help other sentient beings on what we can help. And then there is also the Bodhisattva path that teaches practitioners not to enter into Nirvana but to come back to Samsara life after life to help SAVE other Sentient Beings, guide them to enlightenment and liberation.
You said monotheist religions preaches a loving God and the value of life. But most Monotheist religions are the ones that engage in lots of religious violence throughout history. Also, I've never seen monotheist religions advocate animal rights, or appreciate an animal's value of life.
On the other hand, Buddhism is the one that is strongly advocating non-violence towards all beings whether humans or non-human, as well as vegetarianism especially in Mahayana Buddhism.
Also, Buddhism is the only religion that has no religious wars in history. All other religions, especially monotheist religions have many religious wars. Old testament and many scriptures contains lots of teachings about the wrath of God, and the violence that God inflicted upon people. I shall not dwell on this topic.
But basically, Monotheistic God and Compassion are two different things.These values have inflitrated our society and education so much that you have diviated from the original Dharma teachings. Life is not greater than death, Buddha teaches, life is death and death is life, all is nothing and nothing is all.
You have taken a nihilistic misinterpretation of the words of Buddha.
Buddha never taught that there is no life after death. Life does not simply end at death. There is rebirth.
The Buddha taught a whole lot about love and compassion, and if you weren't aware about that, you probably didn't read the scriptures.
BTW, what religion are you from? Or free thinker?