DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**CathBraun** · 10-30-2011, 08:23 PM

I think that there is a very rational line between what killing is accpetable and which is not. Since we do not need to eat meat to survive, eating meat is a pleasure, and thus you are killing a living being for your own pleasure, which, according to Buddhas teachings, is wrong.

Now you may say "well Buddha ate meat" take this into consideration..

Buddha lived from 563–479 BC, in which time people still believed that it was necessary to eat meat to survive, and thus it would not be following The Middle Way to refrain from eating meat.

As has been said by others, if a living creature or being poses a threat towards you or another living being, then it is a suitable time to conclude that it is appropriate for the sake of survival that you take the life of that being.

I am not a scholar or a monk nor an experienced Buddhist, but please take this advice for what it is worth.

10-30-2011, 08:23 PM	#2
CathBraun Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 502 Senior Member	I think that there is a very rational line between what killing is accpetable and which is not. Since we do not need to eat meat to survive, eating meat is a pleasure, and thus you are killing a living being for your own pleasure, which, according to Buddhas teachings, is wrong. Now you may say "well Buddha ate meat" take this into consideration.. Buddha lived from 563–479 BC, in which time people still believed that it was necessary to eat meat to survive, and thus it would not be following The Middle Way to refrain from eating meat. As has been said by others, if a living creature or being poses a threat towards you or another living being, then it is a suitable time to conclude that it is appropriate for the sake of survival that you take the life of that being. I am not a scholar or a monk nor an experienced Buddhist, but please take this advice for what it is worth.
	Quote