Eating meat & Buddhism

[Tonstad39]

The five precepts of buddhism go as follows

1. I undertake the precept to avoid taking the lives of living beings
2. I undertake the precept to avoid taking with witch has not been given
3. I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct
4. I undertake the precept to refrain from false speech
5. I undertake the precepts to avoid using intoxicants that lead to carelessness

Buddhism focuses mostly on practicing the way of the dharma. Beit by way of meditation or by way of kindness toward others. Such wholehearted practice leads us toward living the enlightened way.

With this in mind: Is eating meat antithetical to living a good life in the middle realm?

 

[BSM1]

Why would it?

 

[Revoltingest]

Eating meat is fine....except for veal & foie gras.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Eating meat is fine....except for veal & foie gras.

Veal is not always immoral. Traditionally veal came from calves of milk cows. There is no Mr. and Mrs. Cow on dairy farms. But since foie gras has always come from force fed ducks or geese it has always been immoral.

 

[socharlie]

The five precepts of buddhism go as follows

1. I undertake the precept to avoid taking the lives of living beings
2. I undertake the precept to avoid taking with witch has not been given
3. I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct
4. I undertake the precept to refrain from false speech
5. I undertake the precepts to avoid using intoxicants that lead to carelessness

Buddhism focuses mostly on practicing the way of the dharma. Beit by way of meditation or by way of kindness toward others. Such wholehearted practice leads us toward living the enlightened way.

With this in mind: Is eating meat antithetical to living a good life in the middle realm?

Biomagnification - Wikipedia related

 

[Nous]

The five precepts of buddhism go as follows

1. I undertake the precept to avoid taking the lives of living beings

[. . .]

With this in mind: Is eating meat antithetical to living a good life in the middle realm?

How do you propose eating an animal without taking the life of the animal?

After all, it isn't as though most people don't have enough to eat without causing another intelligent, loving creature of unnecessarily suffer.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The five precepts of buddhism go as follows

1. I undertake the precept to avoid taking the lives of living beings
2. I undertake the precept to avoid taking with witch has not been given
3. I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct
4. I undertake the precept to refrain from false speech
5. I undertake the precepts to avoid using intoxicants that lead to carelessness

Buddhism focuses mostly on practicing the way of the dharma. Beit by way of meditation or by way of kindness toward others. Such wholehearted practice leads us toward living the enlightened way.

With this in mind: Is eating meat antithetical to living a good life in the middle realm?

Depends.

 

[Valjean]

Veal is not always immoral. Traditionally veal came from calves of milk cows. There is no Mr. and Mrs. Cow on dairy farms. But since foie gras has always come from force fed ducks or geese it has always been immoral.

I see it as the other way around. The calves are more mistreated than the geese.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see it as the other way around. The calves are more mistreated than the geese.

Many are today. But the meat arose because there is no point in raising male calves at a dairy. It use to be a quick end for them, not so today. They try to preserve the taste of a new calf artificially. If one goes by the old usage it is no more cruel than any other meat source.

 

[Valjean]

Many are today. But the meat arose because there is no point in raising male calves at a dairy. It use to be a quick end for them, not so today. They try to preserve the taste of a new calf artificially. If one goes by the old usage it is no more cruel than any other meat source.

The calves are taken from their mothers and confined in veal crates for ~6 weeks, so they can get no exercise to toughen their muscles. They're fed an iron poor diet to keep them anaemic, so the meat will be properly pale.

The geese are just force fed for ten seconds and then walk off into the barnyard.

 

[Srivijaya]

Mistreatment v ethical treatment, factory v organic etc. Important issues but missing the point..

One question only. Did that animal willingly die?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

How do you propose eating an animal without taking the life of the animal?

After all, it isn't as though most people don't have enough to eat without causing another intelligent, loving creature of unnecessarily suffer.

Might not be a useful distinction to many, but all the same many Buddhists won't turn down meat that has already been prepared and offered to them. But they wouldn't buy meat or participte directly in dispatch.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The calves are taken from their mothers and confined in veal crates for ~6 weeks, so they can get no exercise to toughen their muscles. They're fed an iron poor diet to keep them anaemic, so the meat will be properly pale.

The geese are just force fed for ten seconds and then walk off into the barnyard.

Did you not notice that I had a qualifier in my original post? You are referring to modern techniques for preserving the youthful taste of veal. It was not always that way. I explained further in my second post and you made the same error. Male milk cow calves used to be slaughtered much sooner. When a demand was found for the meat they figured out how to keep the look and flavor and increase the amount. That was when veal became immoral.

 

[ajay0]

Eating meat means the slaughter of animals or birds. In times of famine where vegetarian food is unavailable, one can eat the flesh of other living beings to perpetuate oneself, and there is no sin in this.

However, in times as such, when there is an abundance of vegetarian food, going for non-vegetarian food for the sake of satisfaction of taste-buds is obviously immoral and unethical. It means that one is seeking to enjoy the pleasures of the tongue at the cost of pain and death to the animal. This is but rape of a sentient being for one's own selfish pleasure.

Fostering a culture of vegetarianism is equivalent to fostering a culture of non-violence and sensitivity, respect for all sentient life , and growing up in such a culture, a child is less inclined to violent tendencies or end up as a murderer, rapist, serial killer and so on.

Also it has been noted that the meat industry contributes over a third of greenhouse gases and global warming. Hence it makes better sense from the standpoint of environment as well to abstain from non-vegetarian food, at least for a while till the global warming issue is resolved or mitigated at least. Anyone who abstains from nonvegetarian food in this regard would be making a great contribution to the cause of the warming planet and environment.

Eat less meat to avoid dangerous global warming, scientists say

How Meat Contributes to Global Warming

From a health point of view too , vegetarian food makes sense in that vegetarians are associated with lower incidences of cancer, heart diseases and longevity as per research studies conducted. Cancer and heart diseases are usually the biggest health issues in the west with a lot of money lost in terms of healthcare and treatment, draining national prosperity and wealth.

Vegetarians less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters, says study

 

[Nous]

Might not be a useful distinction to many, but all the same many Buddhists won't turn down meat that has already been prepared and offered to them. But they wouldn't buy meat or participte directly in dispatch.

I've had long and sometimes heated discussions with vegans on just that issue. It doesn't make sense to me to refuse to eat something already prepared and presented, when one knows that refusing to eat it just means it will be thrown away. One can at least wrap the piece of chicken in a napkin, take it and feed it to a hungry dog somewhere.

 

[sealchan]

The five precepts of buddhism go as follows

1. I undertake the precept to avoid taking the lives of living beings
2. I undertake the precept to avoid taking with witch has not been given
3. I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct
4. I undertake the precept to refrain from false speech
5. I undertake the precepts to avoid using intoxicants that lead to carelessness

Buddhism focuses mostly on practicing the way of the dharma. Beit by way of meditation or by way of kindness toward others. Such wholehearted practice leads us toward living the enlightened way.

With this in mind: Is eating meat antithetical to living a good life in the middle realm?

Apparently this was an issue in China as the various schools of the martial arts formed around the Chan Buddhist temples. Meat seemed to be a common sin pursued, I suppose, because it helped to build muscle for those warrior monks.

Warrior monks!?! Even more strange that Buddhist (and also Taoist) teachings would be referenced as these schools of combat were being developed. Precedents in Buddhist/Hindu mythology were sought to cover for the incongruity of Buddhists training for war.

I've been examining some of Jesus' teachings and understanding that nothing is understood well without context. Perhaps a diet of meat that requires the killing of (more) aware beings is to be avoided but if war comes to you and you need to defend yourself or be able to build an advantage of muscle and strength for such a day, then is meat/killing living beings justified?

 

[Jainarayan]

How do you propose eating an animal without taking the life of the animal?

Someone else does it, but it's not specifically for you.

 

[Nous]

Someone else does it, but it's not specifically for you.

If you pay the "someone else" who actually takes the animal's life, or pay those who pay those who pay those who actually take the animal's life, are you not participating in taking the animal's life?

 

[Jainarayan]

are you not participating in taking the animal's life?

Not directly, according to Buddhist thought.

 

[Tonstad39]

Why would it?

There are various translations of the first precept abput killing, Does that same rule apply to Animals?

I’m going to be honest here: I went to the grocery store and bougtht nothing, but vegitarian foods because I saw a youtuber’s response to a vegan video:

Upon seeing this, the topic of eating meat plaiged my mind, especially when I live with two vegan housemates who are there at different times of the week and who don’t give a **** about me eating meat. I told one of my housemates (Who is Atheist) that I was interrested in persuing a vegitarian diet and he told me that in order to be a true Buddhist, I have to give up meat.

I have felt some degree of guilt about it (I only lasted a day on the vegitarian diet). This lead me to interperate the first precept to mean “Don’t kill any living beings.” I myself am against the practice of factory farming, but my pockets don’t go deep enough to afford the humane options. I’m habitually used to eating fast food out (When you’re used to having college schedule and never bothing to pack lunches you do that).

On one hand, animals are living creatures and the first precept is so vague that Sidgutama buddha could’ve easily meant it, i mean killing of any kind can lead to violating the other precepts. But on the other, countries and cultures (Thai, Korean, Vietnamese, etc.) that are majority buddhist still utilize meat as part of many of their dishes under the interperation that the first precept really means means “Don’t kill senselessly” thus creating an exeption for killing animals for nourishment. As I have stayed away from the diet (and talking to my mother about t over lunch) I have more leaned towards the latter rather than the former.