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

**maxfieldj1** · 01-28-2011, 02:24 PM

Actually, I am very troubled by this subject. I cannot compute in my brain how a Buddhist monk can possibly eat meat under any circumstances. I could not sleep last night and could not enjoy reading about Buddhism as I have been doing. I cannot get past it until I have sorted it out for myself. I have printed a load of stuff from Wikepedia (not to be relied upon 100% I am aware).

I read last night that the Dalai Lama eats meat 'only' ever other day, apparently because his doctors have told him he needs it. Sir Paul McCartney wrote to him and took him to task over this but received no satisfactory explanation. Could this story be true? The Dalai Lama sets THE example so if he is only partially doing it, what chance has anyone else? There are millions of vegetarians who are healthy and well, certainly prominent ones like Paul McCartney and Joanna Lumley (such a marvellous lady) who look absolutely fine without killing and eating anything.

Part of the very foundation of Buddhist belief is never to hurt fellow sentient beings. I cannot equate the image of a nice peaceful Buddhist monk going out of his way not to hurt so much as an insect and then sitting down to eat a bowl of meat for lunch! Does not the knowledge of the cycle of Karma mean we come back as any being? So when we eat meat we could be eating our own ancesters? Far-fetched maybe, but Buddhism's own belief indicates this could be so.

I have been eating meat all my life through ignorance but what can a self-professed Buddhist's excuse be?

Vegetarianism was never practised or recommended by the Buddha for either monks or laypeople, as far as I can determine. It's a cultural accretion totally unrelated to the teachings.

The Buddha, unlike most other-worldly, pie-in-the-sky teachers, was supremely realistic. He undoubtedly knew that people would continue killing animals despite his advice against it. Not only was Buddhism not the only religion in the world, he never claimed that his advice was either divine or absolute, qualities that many have since tried to pin on it.

He acknowledged reality as it was/is. People eat animals. He made it abundantly clear that he did not consider eating meat to be ethically equivalent to killing the animal. Even a monk who accepted meat from an animal that was killed specifically as an offering to that specific monk did not incur the same punishment as one who killed, and laypeople weren't enen included in this precept. Neither were novice monks, as far as I know. (I'll check if you want.)

There is no ethical dilemma here. Reading the Pali suttas should make this perfectly clear. Why cling to values that have nothing, in the Buddha's estimation, to do with attainment? That very clinging seems itself to be a potentially major obstacle, directly proportionate to the amount of importance you assign to it. While I was ordained, the other monks and I simply accepted what was offered, with no metaphysical attachments.

01-28-2011, 02:24 PM	#33
maxfieldj1 Join Date Dec 2005 Age 66 Posts 488 Senior Member	Actually, I am very troubled by this subject. I cannot compute in my brain how a Buddhist monk can possibly eat meat under any circumstances. I could not sleep last night and could not enjoy reading about Buddhism as I have been doing. I cannot get past it until I have sorted it out for myself. I have printed a load of stuff from Wikepedia (not to be relied upon 100% I am aware). I read last night that the Dalai Lama eats meat 'only' ever other day, apparently because his doctors have told him he needs it. Sir Paul McCartney wrote to him and took him to task over this but received no satisfactory explanation. Could this story be true? The Dalai Lama sets THE example so if he is only partially doing it, what chance has anyone else? There are millions of vegetarians who are healthy and well, certainly prominent ones like Paul McCartney and Joanna Lumley (such a marvellous lady) who look absolutely fine without killing and eating anything. Part of the very foundation of Buddhist belief is never to hurt fellow sentient beings. I cannot equate the image of a nice peaceful Buddhist monk going out of his way not to hurt so much as an insect and then sitting down to eat a bowl of meat for lunch! Does not the knowledge of the cycle of Karma mean we come back as any being? So when we eat meat we could be eating our own ancesters? Far-fetched maybe, but Buddhism's own belief indicates this could be so. I have been eating meat all my life through ignorance but what can a self-professed Buddhist's excuse be? Vegetarianism was never practised or recommended by the Buddha for either monks or laypeople, as far as I can determine. It's a cultural accretion totally unrelated to the teachings. The Buddha, unlike most other-worldly, pie-in-the-sky teachers, was supremely realistic. He undoubtedly knew that people would continue killing animals despite his advice against it. Not only was Buddhism not the only religion in the world, he never claimed that his advice was either divine or absolute, qualities that many have since tried to pin on it. He acknowledged reality as it was/is. People eat animals. He made it abundantly clear that he did not consider eating meat to be ethically equivalent to killing the animal. Even a monk who accepted meat from an animal that was killed specifically as an offering to that specific monk did not incur the same punishment as one who killed, and laypeople weren't enen included in this precept. Neither were novice monks, as far as I know. (I'll check if you want.) There is no ethical dilemma here. Reading the Pali suttas should make this perfectly clear. Why cling to values that have nothing, in the Buddha's estimation, to do with attainment? That very clinging seems itself to be a potentially major obstacle, directly proportionate to the amount of importance you assign to it. While I was ordained, the other monks and I simply accepted what was offered, with no metaphysical attachments.
	Quote