[Koayrbzh]

With regard to meat and dairy animals mentioned previously, I've seen a number of harrowing things myself in connection with their treatment, because I lived on a farm for a while.

However, before this turns into another thread about vegetarianism, I was thinking about the precept of not killing in connection with humans, and wondering what practising Buddhists here think about capital punishment within a country's legal system ?

[Eeaquzyh]

eggs ? the conditions I saw chickens being kept in , was one of the reasons I became vegetarian

Perhaps free range would be ok for you.

However, before this turns into another thread about vegetarianism, I was thinking about the precept of not killing in connection with humans, and wondering what practising Buddhists here think about capital punishment within a country's legal system ?

This is such a difficult question for me because my heart wants to be 100% against capital punishment but my head finds it difficult to think why a child killer should not be put to death. I know thats not vey "Buddhist" but I can only be honest.

.

[V8V8V8]

From the Buddhist Studies section at the Buddhanet website:

As capital punishment entails killing and therefore requires breaking the first Precept it is incompatible with Buddhist ethics and Buddhist social and legal philosophy. The Buddha described the judges of his own time as practicing wrong livelihood as they often handed down cruel or lethal punishments.

If we go by this principle, then I think we'd have to conclude that meat-eating is incompatible with Buddhist ethics.

A standard argument is that the consumer is not directly engaged in the act of slaughtering animals, so therefore there is no precept violation and buying/eating the meat is OK. Buddhism does not prohibit us from gaining nutritional benefit or culinary pleasure from someone else's act of killing.

But by the same token, we could say that the average citizen is not directly engaged in the act of operating the electric chair switch or administering the lethal injection, so therefore there is no precept violation and capital punishment is OK. Buddhism does not prohibit the benefits (sense of security, the satisfaction of retributive justice) we feel we get from the state's act of killing.

Most Buddhists I know would not accept the second line of argument, so why do they accept the first? The logic is the same.

[clomoll]

On the whole meat thing I still eat meat but thats down to not having acquired sufficient knowledge in how to sustain an animal product free diet - something I intend to rectify in the near future though I have made some effort to cut down on the animal products I buy. I'd also like to reduce my meat intake. I might start by cutting out red meat.

[JonDopl]

If we go by this principle, then I think we'd have to conclude that meat-eating is incompatible with Buddhist ethics.

But then again you run up against the fact that the Buddha ate meat and did not forbid his followers form eating meat. Which would make the Buddha a hell of a hypocrite.

A standard argument is that the consumer is not directly engaged in the act of slaughtering animals, so therefore there is no precept violation and buying/eating the meat is OK. Buddhism does not prohibit us from gaining nutritional benefit or culinary pleasure from someone else's act of killing.

But by the same token, we could say that the average citizen is not directly engaged in the act of operating the electric chair switch or administering the lethal injection, so therefore there is no precept violation and capital punishment is OK. Buddhism does not prohibit the benefits (sense of security, the satisfaction of retributive justice) we feel we get from the state's act of killing.

Most Buddhists I know would not accept the second line of argument, so why do they accept the first? The logic is the same. Sounds like evangelism to me.

[BriKevin]

The logic is the same.

Are we sure?

The food the modern Buddhist eats is generally a matter of choice

That is why at most Buddhist events and retreats held in the West, the food served is vegetarian

Generally, the modern Buddhist can choose the food they eat (as opposed to those living a more subsistance existence)

Whereas if the state admininisters the death penalty for a crime, this is beyond the choosing of a Buddhist

[lzwha]

But then again you run up against the fact that the Buddha ate meat and did not forbid his followers form eating meat. Which would make the Buddha a hell of a hypocrite.

You seem to be misrepresenting the Buddha here, on two accounts

The Buddha and his monks were mendicants. They were required to accept what they were given. The Buddha made an explicit rule that if it was known or suspected an animal was killed specifically to feed to monks, that food was to be declined

In regards to the five precepts, they are training rules. The Buddha was not in the business of making prohibitions for laypeople, as you seem to be inferring by using the word "forbid". The five precepts are not prohibitions. The five precepts are training rules to be used with reasoned reflection and, for those intent on higher training, for a spiritual (rather than legal or religious) purpose

In short, your speculations about the Buddha being a "hypocrite" and about "prohibitions" are non-sequitur

The Buddha taught: "Develop the meditation of compassion. For when you are developing the meditation of compassion, cruelty will be abandoned"

Thus the empathy many modern Buddhists have with vegetarianism abides in developing compassion & the precepts

Regards

[prmnwoks]

You seem to be misrepresenting the Buddha here, on two accounts

Not at all.

The Buddha and his monks were mendicants. They were required to accept what they were given. The Buddha made an explicit rule that if it was known or suspected an animal was killed specifically to feed to monks, that food was to be declined When he just as well could have forbidden his monks from eating meat outright, like other mendicants did in his time.

In regards to the five precepts, they are training rules. The Buddha was not in the business of making prohibitions for laypeople, as you seem to be inferring by using the word "forbid". The five precepts are not prohibitions. The five precepts are training rules to be used with reasoned reflection and, for those intent on higher training, for a spiritual (rather than legal or religious) purpose I am aware of this, and I have previously said here that the Buddha did not recommend that his monks or lay followers refrain from eating meat at all.

In short, your speculations about the Buddha being a "hypocrite" and about "prohibitions" are non-sequitur You misrepresent what I am saying.

The Buddha taught: "Develop the meditation of compassion. For when you are developing the meditation of compassion, cruelty will be abandoned"

Thus the empathy many modern Buddhists have with vegetarianism abides in developing compassion What is at issue is not "empathy with vegetarianism". What is at issue is the claim that non-vegetarianism is "against Buddhist precepts", a claim which paints the Buddha himself, who was a non-vegetarian, as being at odds with his own most fundamental precepts.

[JRixlcvF]

When he just as well could have forbidden his monks from eating meat outright, like other mendicants did in his time.

again

they were medicants. they silently accepted what was given to them from the ordinary consumption of the common peoples

the monks spent much of their time wandering around India, including to places where Buddhism had not previously entered

they silently (and gratefully) accepted what was given to them from the ordinary consumption of the common peoples

I am aware of this and I have previously said here that the Buddha did not recommend that his monks or lay followers refrain from eating meat at all.

how a layfollower chose to act in relation to acquiring food, during the Buddha's time, is implicit in the 1st precept. if the layfollower chose to not kill animals then this was according to the 1st precept. it was not required of the Buddha to make an additional precept. according to the interpretation and circumstances of individals, the guidance in the 1st precept is self-explanatory

for example, King Ashoka created wildlife reserves and place prohibitions on hunting animals inspired by the 1st precept

or many Buddhists train themselves to not kill insects inspired by the 1st precept

it was not required of the Buddha to make numerous 'sub-precepts' regard what could and could not be killed

regards

[Snocioncilm]

again

they were medicants. they silently accepted what was given to them from the ordinary consumption of the common peoples

the monks spent much of their time wandering around India, including to places where Buddhism had not previously entered

they silently (and gratefully) accepted what was given to them from the ordinary consumption of the common peoples

And they could just as well have silently accepted the food given to them and silently set aside any meat and not eaten it. Silently buried it next to a tree to fertilize it or silently fed it to a hungry snake or scorpion or rat or tiger.

how a layfollower chose to act in relation to acquiring food, during the Buddha's time, is implicit in the 1st precept. if the layfollower chose to not kill animals then this was according to the 1st precept. it was not required of the Buddha to make an additional precept. according to the interpretation and circumstances of individals, the guidance in the 1st precept is self-explanatory

for example, King Ashoka created wildlife reserves and place prohibitions on hunting animals inspired by the 1st precept This was nonetheless not at the direction of the Buddha.

or many Buddhists train themselves to not kill insects inspired by the 1st precept

it was not required of the Buddha to make numerous 'sub-precepts' regard what could and could not be killed And in at least one instance he took criticism for not doing so, for not outright forbidding the consumption of meat. And, standing up against that criticism, he refused to do so.

[abubycera]

stuks re msg 52.

There is a difference in eating meat where one has killed the animal and eating meat where someone else has killed the animal.

Peace

Gerry

[Rtebydou]

stuks re msg 52.

There is a difference in eating meat where one has killed the animal and eating meat where someone else has killed the animal.

Peace

Gerry

There would appear to be many, from different perspectives. Which are you raising?

[wentscat]

And in at least one instance he took criticism for not doing so, for not outright forbidding the consumption of meat. And, standing up against that criticism, he refused to do so.

no need to argue round in circles, Stuka, as it seems you are not prepared acknowledge that monks are only allowed to share of food that is prepared for the consumption by the common peoples

Ajahn Brahm has explained the matter well, here

And Ajahn Brahm concluded the matter, within the spirit of the teachings, as posted below:

[Ajahn Brahm said:]

Monks may not exercise choice when it comes to food and that is much harder than being a vegetarian. Nonetheless, we may encourage vegetarianism and if our lay supporters brought only vegetarian food and no meat, well... monks may not complain either!

May you take the hint and be kind to animals.

[zoppiklonikaa]

also:

a claim which paints the Buddha himself, who was a non-vegetarian, as being at odds with his own most fundamental precepts.

i have given my opinion, namely, your view above is non-sequitur. the Buddha's eating habits were beyond categorisation because the Buddha did not choose what to eat

when wanderers such as Vacchagotta attempted to categorise the Buddha, the Buddha discouraged such categorisation

What is at issue is not "empathy with vegetarianism". What is at issue is the claim that non-vegetarianism is "against Buddhist precepts",.

again, in my opinion, your view above is non-sequitur

as i have said, the precepts are not rigid rules or commandments laid down by the Buddha

they are training rules which an individual interprets and applies according to their circumstances & spiritual disposition

in the Dhammapada, it is said:

129. All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

130. All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill. thus, for a certain individual practitioner, non-vegetarianism is against Buddhist precepts because they have the motivation to not kill or cause another to kill

for a different individual practitioner, non-vegetarianism is not against Buddhist precepts because they chose to differentiate between the killer and the eater

neither is right. neither is wrong. each is a valid interpretation according to individual dispositions

thus, again, your appeal to some kind of legalistic rigidity similar to the Ten Commandments, Koran, etc, is non-sequitur

regards

[aAaBecker]

Then, I imagine, and now, Buddhist laypeople can come into possession of meat without killing it themselves, and then donate it to monks. They need not break the first precept in the process. The general idea in Thailand, in my experience, is that the better quality food you donate, the more merit you acquire. Thus, when I would go on pindabat in Thailand, the laypeople who could afford to do so would donate not just ordinary fare, but delicacies, which often included meat. The very poor would also donate when and what they could, and it was often nothing more than a few plastic bags of water. Clean, drinkable water is a valuable commodity there, also. I never heard anyone speak ill of getting either meat or water. We just ate and got on with our day.

As for laypeople, there is no expulsion from Buddhism for violating the first precept. The impression I got was that laypeople are free to follow the precepts to the best of their ability within the real-life limitations of their station in life. Economic and physical survival take priority over the precepts, I think. Vegetarianism is a luxury for many people in the world, I think.

[eCw56dzY]

And in at least one instance he took criticism for not doing so, for not outright forbidding the consumption of meat. And, standing up against that criticism, he refused to do so.

hi Stuka

as i previously mentioned, the issue of eating meat by monks came down to the fact that they were not engaged in making a choice

this, it seems, was also the Buddha's reasoning affirming why a monk eating allowable meat was blameless

MN 55 reports:

however, obviously, it seems, the Buddha did not regard killing animals for food to be meritorious kamma

MN 55 continues:

therefore, in summary, it seems allowable meat is not forbidden for monks and nuns because they are not engaged in decision making in respect to the food they eat

where as the layperson is engaged in decision making in respect to the food they purchase and eat

regards

element

[niemamczasu]

The impression I got was that laypeople are free to follow the precepts to the best of their ability within the real-life limitations of their station in life. Economic and physical survival take priority over the precepts, I think.

That is also my experience in Thailand. The monks (in general) will not say fishermen, for example, are breaking the 1st precept

The monks will say the fishermen are engaged in livelihood for their families

[PymnImmen]

I've heard, but don't know first-hand, that Thai Buddhist fishermen will leave the fish on dry ground until it dies of natural causes in order to leave themselves some wiggle-room for the first precept. I doubt that story is brimming with truth, though. And for a country that's overwhelmingly Buddhist in name and tradition, there's no lack of beef or pork in the restaurants. Supply-and-demand.

[dushappeaps]

I've heard, but don't know first-hand, that Thai Buddhist fishermen will leave the fish on dry ground until it dies of natural causes in order to leave themselves some wiggle-room for the first precept. I doubt that story is brimming with truth, though.

If its true it doesn't make any sense, because the direct intention is for the fish to die - and taking them out of water and putting them on dry ground is the direct cause of their deaths which are hardly from 'natural' causes.

[ronaldasten]

Just Sharing . All human including Mr Siddharta or Mr Dalai Lama , same as me kills trillions of livings each second of our lifes . The bacteria / viruses that enter our body will be killed by our body immune systems or even to drink a cup of water ...trillions of livings will be dead .

In Buddhism that I currently understand but still not fully ready to accept , dead is not the end as birth is not the start . Each living or even non-living are in their own purification process to free themselves from its awareness or nature , to be pure again , to be empty , to be Buddha ...the pure energy of emptiness .

So in my own purification process , I must birth as I must survive as I must die as all these is part of my own learning process to understand my pollutants in my own purification process . As I die regardness what the factor whether being killed , by desease , by aging or by accident is never the cause of my death but simply the factor of my death ...I die because death is part of my own purification process and there are no causes of my death ........just the factor never the cause .

So if I was murdered by gun shot , the killer or the bullet is never the cause of my death but simply the factor of my death .......as death is ALWAYS part of my own purification process ....THERE ARE NO CAUSE OF ANY DEATH .

In Buddhism that I currently understand , I must totally " awake" in all my action or intention so if I kill any living without any reason that could satisfy all my awareness or just solely due to my anger or emotions I will regret such action AFTER I move to a greater awareness .....so my action in this manner will cause suffering to me due to my own regret and this will be a suffering path in my learning process to free myself ...

So in Buddhism that I currently understand , I am totally free to act as I will always " clean my own rubbish" on my own will in my own way . So if I am "bad" , I will regret and suffering in my learning process , if I am "good" , I will move on to learn greater awareness with less suffering . But in Buddhism , THERE ARE NO GOOD or BAD , no true or false and NO right or wrong.

Thks
CSEe