Posted by Taboo on April 2, 2010
The post-millennium behavior of ‘Sinhalese Buddhists’ is not guided
by rationale. Buddhism has nothing against war, they said once, if
directed to safeguard Sinhalese and Buddhist interests. Then fighting
became an act of merit, as if Jihad – the holy war – was declared by
Ayatollah Khomeini. Buddhist monks shredded their robes to take AK-47s
and earn more respect. More recently we were reminded that dancing in
front of Buddha statues is a disgrace. That should be stopped at any
cost, even that means stoning. Line between Buddhism and the Taliban
version of Islam appears to be fading.
Another brand new trend is the new found love for meat among
Buddhists. A new school seems to see nothing wrong in Buddhists eating
meat (=any animal flesh including fish). An article by Dr. Vilegoda Ariyadeva thero,
a former University of Ruhuna academic is a giant step toward
guilt-free ‘Buddhism- friendly’ meat eating. Dr. Ariyadeva thero claims
meat eating is customary in Theravada Buddhist societies in Sri Lanka,
Thailand, Burma, Laos and Cambodia. Only Hindu societies are
predominantly vegetarian. According to him, Theravada Buddhists only
purchase meat for their consumption but never kill. This may not
necessarily be true, a large section of fishing community in Sri Lanka
is Buddhists, but Dr. Ariyadeva thero’s new found theory still provides
an excellent excuse for meat-loving Buddhists. Eat anything you wish
while staying holier than thy neighbor. What a simple plan!
The following is an attempt to explore this complex question. I have
my own views but will offer an opportunity for devout Buddhists to
defend themselves and convince me meat eating is right. I am glad if Dr.
Ariyadeva thero or other meat-promoters join the debate.
Why do we eat meat?
Homo sapiens, unlike other primate members of his order is clearly
omnivorous. While gorillas, chimpanzees and baboons take most of their
food from the tropical canopy, humans eat a considerable amount of meat –
even though it is not a biological necessity. Desmond Morris’
explanation is based on the theory of evolution. It has to do with the
behavioral lag between the social evolution and the biological one.
Ultra modern we may be, but biologically, the age of hunting is still
not over. We are still driven by the instincts of our hunting
forefathers and gathering foremothers. Eating and craving for meat is
thus, no more unnatural than playing football, the modern equivalent of
collective hunting.
Do we have to eat meat?
Yes and No. Yes, because certain amino acids do not come from a pure
vegetarian diet. No, because we can still survive and function without
meat. The amount of meat we need in our daily diet is minimal. In Hindu
societies pure vegetarianism is common but no serious health issues are
observed.
Do all Buddhists eat meat?
No. Few Buddhist avoid meat as a principle. Mahayana Buddhists do not
encourage meat consumption as that can be of a Bodhisatta – a seeker of
Buddhahood. Still only a section of Mahayana Buddhists are pure
veggies.
Did Gautama Buddha eat meat?
Yes. On multiple occasions. One well known instance is his last meal.
‘Sukara maddava’ as its name suggests is a delicacy made of pork.
(There is a debate whether this was poisoned to kill Buddha but let us
not get into that.) Similarly there is enough evidence that his
disciples, including Arhats, ate meat.
Did Gautama expect his disciples to be pure veggies?
No. Not even when a group of monks led by Devadatta requested for a
prohibition. His response was explicit and unambiguous. Killing animals
for consumption is wrong. But eating meat per se is not prohibited for
his disciples under certain conditions. ‘Thrice cleaned’ meat
(thrikotika paarishudhdha maansha) is accepted. This is like making
Halal food. A meat is ‘thrice cleaned’ if a monk has not (a) seen, (b)
heard or (c) do not suspect the animal specially killed for his
consumption. This applies only for monks.
Why, Gautama, who preached ‘ahimsa’ did not prohibit meat eating?
We can only guess. Perhaps he did not want to be seen an extremist.
Ahimsa (non violence and the respect for all living beings) is
underlined in Hinduism and Jainism to the extreme that it becomes
impractical. Having rejected Hinduism for its inflexibility, Gautama may
have wanted to take a more moderate approach. Meat eating could have
been prominent in ancient India to the extent that pure vegetarianism
was simply not possible. (Please note in pre-green revolution India food
shortages and famines were the norm.) It may also be possible that he
was not worried about the food and ate what was offered.
Has Gautama encouraged meat eating?
No. Never. On the contrary, he declared meat as one commodity a
Buddhist observing Samma Ajiva (the right livelihood) should avoid
selling, the others being weapons, human beings (slaves), alcohol and
poison. It is strange why only a part of the transaction (selling) is
defined wrong without any reference to purchasing. Perhaps it was too
obvious to be emphasized.
Did Gautama lay any rules for the laity?
No. So we can assume the same set of rules is valid for laity too.
Is there any difference between monks and the laity in this?
Yes. Monks presumably do not purchase their food. They neither
request. It is offered to them unasked. So they do not have a choice.
Laity, on the contrary, makes conscious decisions to purchase meat. So
while monks do not increase the meat supply by choice, the laity does.
All producers, including those of meat, try to bridge a gap in consumer
demand. So if meat is purchased it cannot be ‘thrice cleaned’ for the
consumer. If offered it is a different case.
Is it wrong for Buddhists to eat meat?
Yes and No. Yes, if they purchase as that is equivalent to promote
killing. In fact, part of the price of meat is for killing. No, if meat
is offered.
Where does science stand on this?
Science does not provide a strong basis either for pure vegetarianism
or excessive meat consumption. Perhaps the latter is worse, as it can
relate to health issues. Moderate meat consumption is healthier and does
not upset the balance in nature. It could be what nature expects us to
do.
This entry was posted on April 2, 2010 at 6:22 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
Tagged: Ahimsa, AK-47, Akon, amino acids, ancient India, Ayatollah Khomeini, baboons, Biology, Bodhisatta, Buddha statue, Buddhism, Buddhism- friendly meat eating, Buddhist interests, Buddhist monks, Buddhists, Burma, Cambodia, chimpanzees, Desmond Morris, Devadatta, Dr. Vilegoda Ariyadeva, evolution, Gautama Buddha, gorillas, Halal, Hindu society, Hinduism, Hindus, Holy war, Homo sapiens, human, Islam, Jainism, Jihad, laity, Laos, LTTE, Maharaja, Mahayana Buddhism, MBC, Meat, Meat eating, Monks, MTV, pork, primate, Religion, Samma Ajiva, Science, Sinhalese Buddhists, Sinhalese interests, Sri Lanka, Sukara maddava, Taliban, Thailand, Theravada Buddhism, thrikotika paarishudhdha maansha, tropical canopy, University of Ruhuna, Vegetarian diet, Vegetarianism, Vegetarians, war. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Be the first to like this post. 68 Responses to “Do good Buddhists eat more meat? | ගෙරි මස් කන්නා යහපත් සිංහල බෞද්ධයාද?”
-
April 2, 2010 at 6:35 pm
කට්ටිය ඇවිත් නාගත්තම, හත් පොලේ ගාගත්තම මම ආපහු එන්නම් බලන්න.
-
April 2, 2010 at 10:42 pm
I like the sense that you’re trying to present in your post. I think
eating or not eating meat should depend upon the person. I am a
vegetarian. I try to remain pure as possible; however there are
repercussions in becoming a vegetarian. I became a vegetarian because I
just don’t like meat, eggs etc.
Wasn’t it samma kammantha the righteous livelihood where Buddha preached the livelihoods not to be adhered?
-
 Sam said
April 3, 2010 at 3:52 am
This topic has been done to death so many times in newspapers,
magazines and on blogs. It’s like flogging the dead horse over and over
again 
There are people who both justify eating meat and those who think it
is abbhorent… and lots of people in the middle. The best reading on the
issue I have come across is the following (hope I can publish the whole
article here):
—–
Are Buddhists vegetarian?
Some are, some aren’t. From the Theravada perspective, the choice of
whether or not to eat meat is purely a matter of personal preference.
Many Buddhists (and, of course, non-Buddhists) do eventually lose their
appetite for meat out of compassion for the welfare of other living
creatures. But vegetarianism is not required in order to follow the
Buddha’s path.
Although the first of the five precepts, the basic code of ethical
conduct for all practicing Buddhists, calls upon followers to refrain
from intentional acts of killing, it does not address the consumption of
flesh from animals that are already dead. Theravada monks, however, are
clearly forbidden to eat meat from a few specific kinds of animals, but
for reasons not directly related to the ethics of killing.[1]
Monks are free to pursue vegetarianism by leaving uneaten any meat
that may have been placed in the alms bowl, but because they depend on
the open-handed generosity of lay supporters[2] (who may or may not
themselves be vegetarian) it is considered unseemly for them to make
special food requests. In those parts of the world (including wide areas
of south Asia) where vegetarianism is uncommon and many dishes are
prepared in a meat or fish broth, vegetarian monks would soon face a
simple choice: eat meat or starve.[3]
Taking part in killing for food is definitely incompatible with the
first precept, and should be avoided. This includes hunting, fishing,
trapping, butchering, steaming live clams, eating live raw oysters, etc.
And what about asking someone else to catch and kill the animal for
me? On this point the teachings are also unambiguous: we should never
intentionally ask someone to kill on our behalf. We should not, for
example, order a fresh steamed lobster from the restaurant menu. The
Dhammapada expresses this sentiment succinctly:
All
tremble at the rod,
all
hold their life dear.
Drawing the parallel to
yourself,
neither kill nor get others to kill.
— Dhp 130
And what about purchasing meat of an animal that someone else killed?
Is this consistent with the Buddhist principles of compassion and
non-harming, a cornerstone of right resolve? This is where things get
tricky, and where the suttas offer only spotty guidance. In the Buddha’s
definition of right livelihood for a lay person, one of the five
prohibited occupations is “business in meat” [AN 5.177]. Although he
does not explicitly state whether this prohibition also extends to us,
the butcher’s clients and customers, it does place us uncomfortably
close to a field of unskillful action.
To summarize what the suttas tell us: it appears that one may, with a
clear conscience, receive, cook, and eat meat that either was freely
offered by someone else, or that came from an animal who died of natural
causes. But as to purchasing meat, I am just not sure. There are no
clear-cut answers here.
We are all guilty of complicity, in one way or another and to varying
degrees, in the harming and death of other creatures. Whether we are
carnivore, vegan, or something in between, no matter how carefully we
choose our food, somewhere back along the long chain of food production
and preparation, killing took place. No matter how carefully we trod,
with every step countless insects, mites, and other creatures
inadvertently perish under our feet. This is just the nature of our
world. It is only when we escape altogether from the round of birth and
death, when we enter into the final liberation of nibbana — the
Deathless — can we wash our hearts clean, once and for all, of killing
and death. To steer us towards that lofty goal, the Buddha gave us very
realistic advice: he didn’t ask us to become vegetarian; he asked us to
observe the precepts. For many of us, this is challenge enough. This is
where we begin.
Notes
1. Theravada monks are forbidden to eat raw meat or fish, as well as
the flesh of humans, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers,
leopards, bears, hyenas, and panthers. See the description of “staple
foods” in chapter 8 of The Buddhist Monastic Code. A monk who eats any
of those kinds of meat commits an offense that he must confess to his
fellow monks.
2. See “The Economy of Gifts” by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
3. Monastics within some schools of Mahayana Buddhism do practice
vegetarianism. See Buddhist Religions: A Historical Introduction (fifth
edition) by R.H. Robinson, W.L. Johnson, & Thanissaro Bhikkhu
(Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 2005), p. 213.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bullitt/bfaq.html#veggie
-
April 3, 2010 at 4:06 am
I think you have given the best answers I have ever seen for this complex question!
-
April 3, 2010 at 5:05 am
Interesting view. By the way, Chimps and Baboons are known to eat
meat. Jane Goodall’s studies in the 60s very clearly indicated that
chimpanzees hunt and eat meat. Baboons also eat bush-babies, reptiles
and other small creatures.
With regard to the current state of Buddhism in Sri Lanka, it is
quite clear that it has very little to do with The Four Noble Truths
and/or The Eightfold Path and it looks like the ‘religion’ has replaced
the ‘philosophy’ and all the posturing by those in charge (and most of
their followers) is nothing but a bunch of ‘you know what’!
-
 Shelan said
April 3, 2010 at 7:41 am
Great post .!!!!.
In the clarification “Did Gautama Buddha eat meat?” , i would like to
correct mentioning “Sukara Maddawa” is meat.It is not actually meat but
it is a kind of meal prepared using the mushrooms near
pig-stays.(Actually this is misinterpreted in many occasions).
-
 No Frames said
April 3, 2010 at 9:30 am
පුරස්නෙ වෙන්නේ ප්රාණඝාතයක් වෙන්න ඕන කරුණු ගැන බලන කොට.
1. පණ ඇති සතෙක් වීම
2. පණ ඇති බව දැන ගැනීම
3. පණ නැසිය යුතු බව සිතිම
4. පණ නැසීමට ක්රමයක් යෙදීම
5. එම ක්රමයෙන් මරණය සිදු වීම
මෙන්න මේ කරුණු පහ සම්පූර්ණ වෙනවද නැද්ද කියන එකෙන් බුද්ධාගමට අනුව පවක් වෙනවද කියල බලන්න පුලුවන්.
මස්
මිලදී ගන්න කොට පණ ඇති සතෙක් බව දැන ගන්නවාද? සතාට පණ තිබූ බව පැහැදිලියි.
නමුත් කුමන සතා දැයි මෙහිදී දන්නේ නෑ. මේ කරුණ ගැන නොපැහැදිලිතාවයක්
තියෙනවා
පණ නැසිය යුතු බව මස්
මිළදී ගන්නා විට සිතනවාද? මේක තමා චේතනාව. මට හිතෙන්නේ චේතනාවක් නෑ කියල.
නමුත් මිලදී ගැනීම මැරීමට අනුබලයක් බව පැහැදිලියි. චේතනාව = අනුබල දීම කියන
එක එහෙමද නැද්ද කියලා වාද කිරීම කට්ටියට බාරයි
මිළදී ගැනීම පණ නැසීමට ක්රමයක්ද යන්න පැහැදිලි නෑ. එයත් සාකච්ඡා කළ යුතුයි. මොකක් හෝ එම ක්රමයෙන් පණ නැසීම සිදු වන බව පැහැදිලියි.
ලොකුම ප්රශ්නය තියෙන්නේ චේතනාව ගැන. චේතනාව නැත්නම් පවක් නෑ. චේතනාව තියේ නම් මැරුවේ නැතත් පණ නැසීමක් නොවූවත් පවක් සිද්ද වෙනවා.
බලම කට්ටියගෙ ප්රතිචාර!
-
සුපුන් පෙරේරා said
April 4, 2010 at 5:01 pm
ප්රාණඝාතය ගැන සුළු නිවෑරදි කිරීමක්: ප්රාණඝාත අකුසලය සම්පූර්ණ වීමට අවශ්ය නිර්ණායක මෙසේ විය යුතුයි
1. සත්ත්වයෙක් වීම
2. සත්ත්වයෙක් බව මා විසින් දෑන ගෑනීම්
3. පණ නැසීමේ චේතනාව
4. පණ නැසීම සඳහා යම් කටයුත්තක් කිරීම (උදා උගුලක් ඇටවීම)
5. එම කටයුතු වල ප්රථිපලයක් ලෙස සත්ත්වයා මරණයට පත් වීම
අපි හිතමු මස් කඩේට ගිහින් කුකුල් මස් කිලෝ එකක් ගන්නවා කියලා
1. කුකුලා කියන්නෙ සත්ත්වයෙක් නෙ ඉතින්
2. අපි දන්නවා මේ ඉන්නෙ කුකුලෙක් කියලා! (කුකුලා අඳුරන්නෙ නැතුව මස් ඉල්ලන්න බැහැනෙ)
3. මම දකින්නෙ දුර්වල චේතනාවක් විතරයි මෙතන තියෙන්නෙ… ප්රබල චේතනාව
තියෙන්න කුකුලගෙ බෙල්ල කපන එකාට නෙ. ඒ මනුස්සයා ඒ වැඩේ කරන්නෙ කඩේ මුදලාලි
සල්ලි ගෙවන නිසා. ඒ සල්ලි ගෙවන්නෙ අපි! එතකොට අපිත් අනියමින් ඒ චේතනාවට
හවුල්!! (ඒ කියන්නෙ අපි මුදලාලිට සල්ලි දීලා කියනවා ඔය වැඩේ ඔහොමම කරගෙන
යන්න කියලා. අපි සල්ලි දෙන්නෙ නැත්තං මුදලාලි බංකොලොත්නෙ)
4. අපි මිලදී ගන්න කුකුල් මස්
කිලෝ එකේ මිලෙන් යම් කොටසක්, කුකුලා මරණ එකාට පඩි ගෙවන්න යනවා. ඒ කියන්නෙ
අපිත් කුකුලගෙ මලගම වෙනුවෙන් යම් කටයුත්තක් කරනවා (ටිකක් දුරට හිතලා
බැලුවොත්, මස් කඩේ බෝඩ් එක ඇඳපු එකත් වැඩේට හවුල්!!)
5. අන්තිමට කුකුලට අනිවාර්යයෙන්ම ටිකට් එක ඇදෙනවනෙ… ඉතින් පස් වෙනි නිර්ණායකයත් සැපිරෙනවා
මට හිතෙන දේ තමයි, මස් කෑවොත්, පවක් සිද්ධ වෙනවා. හැබැයි, ඉතා ප්රබල එකක් නෙවෙයි. වැඩිපුරම පව් සිද්ධ වෙන්නෙ ප්රාණඝාතය කරන එකාටම තමයි.
තවත් මතක් වෙච්ච දෙයක්… අපි කැලෑ පාරක වාහනයක් එලවාගෙන යනකොට හදිසියේම
මුවෙක් පාරට පනිනවා. අපි කොච්චර බේරන්න උත්සාහ ගත්තත් මුවා හැප්පෙනවා.
දැන් මුවා මැරිලා! අපට කරන්න පුලුවන් දේවල් දෙකක් තියෙනවා
1. මුවා පාරෙන් පැත්තකට කරලා අපේ ගමන යනවා
2. මුවාගෙ මස් ටික අරන් යනවා
මටනම් හිතෙන්නෙ, ඒ මස කෑවට පව් නැහැ කියලා. මොකද අපට මුවාව මරණ චේතනාවක් තිබ්බෙ නැති නිසා.
පොඩ්ඩක් හිතමු.
සුපුන්
-
April 3, 2010 at 10:14 am
The late PM Sir John Kotalawala says in his autobiography, An Asian
Prime Minister’s Story, that when he was the UK, he was asked by an
Englishman why he ate meat if he were a Buddhist. Sir John’s erudite
answer to this query was that he was not only a Buddhist, but also a
good Buddhist and therefore he eats what is offered to him by his hosts
For a pragmatist Buddhist, this may be a good answer.
-
 Beetle said
April 3, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Taboo has nicely covered almost every aspect of this everlasting argument… Just wanted to add my thoughts as well…
I believe most of us are in the same page that there is no much
debate on Lord Buddha eating meat or Monks eating meat… Situation gets
tricky only when someone purchases meat… cos it’s a simple logic that
purchasing meat indirectly encourages killing… If you are not too narrow
minded you have to accept that fact…
It’s so nice that if we can conclude it with this statement…
Unfortunately as soon as we conclude it that way it leads to a very
complex situation where in that case purchasing any kind of food would
be encouraging killing… cos no matter veg or non-veg there has been lot
of killing of innocent lives involved when producing any kind of food…
It may be small creatures like warms or pests but they too must be
loving their lives than anything else…
So if we think that way We may not be able to purchase any food, get
treatments to intestinal worms ect… Buddhism will become impractical…
But Load Buddha will not teach impractical things… so then there must
be a second statement which will be followed with the statement
“purchasing meat indirectly encourages killing”… What exactly it is…?
-
April 3, 2010 at 3:56 pm
the statement you looking for is “චේතනාහං භික්කවේ කම්මං වදාමි. චේත ඉත්වා කම්මං කරෝති. කායේන, වාචාය, මනසා.”
“චේතනාව කර්මය ලෙස වදාරමි. සිතින් සිතා කර්ම කරයි.කයෙන් වචනයෙන් මනසින්”
මගේ අභිධර්මය ගැන තියෙන මතකය අනුව කාමාවචර සිත් විශ්ලේශන කරලවත් මස් මිලදී ගැනීමෙදි ඇතිවෙන අකුසල හිත කෙලින්ම හොයාගන්න බෑ. හරීම පටලිලි සහගත ප්රශ්නයක්.
-
Beetle said
April 4, 2010 at 2:17 pm
@තරිඳු
“චේතනාව කර්මය ලෙස වදාරමි. සිතින් සිතා කර්ම කරයි.කයෙන් වචනයෙන් මනසින්”
This is exactly what i use to reduce the pang of guilt in my
conscience whenever i go to KFC for some non-avoidable reason… But
still…
-
 saho said
April 3, 2010 at 1:58 pm
මා එක් තැනක දුටු අයුරින් නම් සූකර මද්දව යනු හතු විශේෂයකි (උරැ හතු). ලංකාවේ හා ඉන්දියාවේ මේවා අදද දක්නට ඇත.
කෙසේ වුවද බුදු හිමියන් මස් අනුභවය නොකරන ලෙසද කොතනකවත් කියා නොමැත.
වරක් දෙව්දත් සහ තවත් භික්ෂු පිරිසක් එක්ව ඉදිරිපත් කල කැරලිකාරි දසසිල්
වලද මාංශ අනුභවය භික්ෂූන්ට අකැප කරන ලෙස බුදුන් ගෙන් ඉල්ලා සිටියහ. නමුත්
එය බුදුන් ප්රතික්ෂේප කළ බව සදහන්ය. මාංශ අනුභවය සම්බන්ධව බුදුන් මධ්යස්ථ
පිළීවෙතක් අනුමගමනය කළ බව පෙනේ.
-
April 3, 2010 at 11:21 pm
මං නං කියන්නෙ මේක දිහා වෙනස් විදිහකින් බලන්න කියලා.
බුද්ධාගම බිහි වුනු ඉන්දියාව ගහ කොල හොඳට හැදෙන සශ්රීක රටක් – මස්
කෑවෙ නැහැ කියලා මිනිස්සු මැරුනෙ නැහැ. නමුත් ක්රිස්තියානි ආගමත්,
ඉස්ලාම් ආගමත් බිහිවුනු, පැතිරුණු ප්රදේශ දිහා බලනකොට, ඒ මිනිස්සුන්ට මස්
නොකා ජීවත් වෙන්න හැකියාවක් තිබුනෙ නැහැ. කාන්තාරෙ අහිකුන්ඨකයො වගේ
ජීවත්වෙනකොට, අලයක් කොලයක් කන්න නැති වෙනකොට, තමං ඇතිකරන සතෙක් මරාගන්නවා
ඇරෙන්න වෙන විකල්පයක් තිබුනෙ නැහැ.
ආගම් වල පදනමට මේ වගේ දේවල් එහෙමත් ගොඩක් බලපෑවා කියලා තමයි මං නං කියන්නෙ.
-
සුපුන් පෙරේරා said
April 4, 2010 at 5:06 pm
මටත් හිතෙන්නෙ මේ නිසා තමයි වෙන්න ඇත්තෙ, බුදුන් වහන්සේ මස් කෑම ප්රතික්ෂේප නොකලෙ.
මොකද කාන්තාරෙ එහෙමත් නැත්තම් අධික ශීතලේ ජීවත් වෙන මිනිස්සුන්ට වෙන
කරන්නෙ දෙයක් නැහැනෙ. එතනදි චේතනාව වෙන්නෙ තමන්ගෙ බඩහින්න නිවාගැනීම. ඒත්
පවක් නම් සිද්ධ වෙයි.
සුපුන්
-
 polo said
April 4, 2010 at 7:32 am
refrain from intentional acts of killing ??
Even plants have life…Even plants can feel pain…
Certain people adopt pure vegetarianism as a dietary law because they
are totally against the killing of living creatures. If a person can
survive without killing any living creature, entire universe will adopt
such a way of life. In the past people thought plants were lifeless.
Today it is a universal fact that even plants have life. Thus their
logic of not killing living creatures is not fulfilled even by being a
pure vegetarian.
Today science tells us that even plants can feel pain. But the cry of
the plant cannot be heard by the human being. This is due to the
inability of the human ear to hear sounds that are not in the audible
range i.e. 20 Hertz to 20,000 Hertz. Latest researches show that the
plants can even feel happy and sad. It can also cry.
It does not mind if some people are pure vegetarians. However they
should not condemn non-vegetarians as ruthless. In fact if all Sri
Lankans become non-vegetarians then the present non-vegetarians would be
losers since the prices of meat would rise
-
 Ajay said
April 4, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Just interested… would you be able to explain to me how an organism
can feel pain if it doesn’t have a nervous system? How can an organism
emit sound if it doesn’t have any sound-producing device like vocal
cords?
-
Supun Perera said
April 4, 2010 at 5:40 pm
As far as I know, plants do not have Vignaana (perception, wisdom –
pls correct if I have used wrong translation here). Because of that,
plants are not classified as “Saththwa” in Buddhism.
It is true that plants react to nature (eg growing towards the Sun,
responding to human voice etc). But then again, even a rock would do so
(ie getting hot and cracking under heavy Sun and rain)
However, the fact that plants react to inputs should not be equated
to having life. Plants “crying” is a reaction but not necessarily a
show of emotion. For instance, boiling water can be viewed as “water
writhing in pain” but we know that it is only the water’s reaction to
intense heat and that water can not feel any pain!
Another example: take a kids’ software program in which a smiling
face appears when the child presses the correct button. Is the computer
really “happy” that the child gave the correct answer? The Software
does not “know” the meaning of the button but only reacts by showing the
smiling face based on certain rules.
It may be due to the fact that plants have certain life-like features
(organic formation, growing, life-cycles, dying etc), we believe plants
are alive!
Basically, plants have no emotions. Only natural reactions to
inputs. The scientists who have conducted research may have *perceived*
these reactions as a show of emotions simply because the scientists
have emotions! For instance, if we see someone in tears, our immediate
perception would be sadness. (but in reality, that person may have been
peeling an onion!)
I don’t mean to be rude towards the good scientists who have been
toiling away at these researches. All I am doing is to share my views
on this.
With Metta
Supun
-
 Lassanagama said
April 5, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Lord Buddha said if you did not kill , you can eat. and also you did not want it to be killed for you too.
-
 bassa said
April 6, 2010 at 4:10 am
පනුවන්, ගුල්ලන් නැති හාල් එලවළු මිලදී ගැන්නා පාරිභෝගිකයන් නිසා,
එවැනි සතුන් මරා වඳ කිරීමට ගොවියෝත්, මුදලාලිලාත් පෙලෙඹෙති. වෙලඳ පොලේ ඇති
සියලම එලවළු, ගුල්ලන් පනුවන් මර්දනය කර නිපදවා ඇති බව පාරිභෝගිකයෝ දනිති.
තව තවත් ඒවාම මිලදී ගැනීමෙන්, එම ප්රාන ඝාත අකුසලයට ඔවුනුත් හවුල් වේ.
රාත්තල් සීයක දඩ මස් වලට එක ජීවිතයක් නැති වේ. හාල්, එලවලු රාත්තල් සීයක් සඳහා ජීවිත දාහක් හමාරක් වඳ කෙරේ.
ප්රොටීන් වල පමණක් නොව, කාබෝහඩ්රේට් වලද පව් තැවරී ඇත.
ඕවා සල්ලි දීල ගන්න අය අපායෙන් මෙහා නවතින්නෙ නැහැ.
-
bassa said
April 6, 2010 at 6:28 am
All producers, including those of meat, try to bridge a gap in consumer demand.
The clergy accepts the meat offered (derived from slaughtered
animals) by the laity and consequently it increases the consumer demand
and the amount of meat purchased by the laity. The producers slaughter
more & more animals to feed the clergy.
The fact the laity pays money for the meat and the clergy does not
pay money for the meat they consume makes no difference to the resulting
consumer demand and consequently to the increased slaughtering.
If the clergy takes a conscious decision to accept and consume meat
from slaughtered animals knowing that additional animals are and will be
slaghtered to produce the meat for clergy, then the clergy is
increasing the meat supply by choice.
-
 Taboo said
April 6, 2010 at 11:02 am
@bassa,
Agreed.
- Taboo
-
bassa said
April 6, 2010 at 11:52 am
Proposition: “Buying meat for consumption is wrong according to Buddhism because it promotes killing animals.”
The implications of this proposition, as shown before, follow that;
(i) buying vegetables also promotes killing, therefore, it is also wrong,
and,
(ii) voluntary consumption of meat (derived from slaughtered animals)
by the clergy also promotes killing animals, therefore, it is wrong.
Both of these implications are contradictions according to Buddhism.
Consumption of Three-fold Pure (“Thrikotika Paarishudhdha”) meat by
the clergy, if the meat is derived from slaughtered animals, promotes
killing of animals. The laity, knowing that the clergy accepts meat,
buys additional meat for the clergy, which creates additional demand
which is met by additional slaughtering of animals by the meat
producers.
It follows that if the original proposition is true, consumption of
Three-fold Pure (“Thrikotika Paarishudhdha”) meat is also wrong, which
is a contradiction according to Buddhism.
Therefore, the original proposition is disproven by reductio ad absurdum.
-
Taboo said
April 6, 2010 at 3:19 pm
@Bassa,
The other possibility is ‘thrice cleared meat’ is only a theoritical possibility.
- Taboo
-
bassa said
April 6, 2010 at 5:51 pm
There was a case study about one General (retired) Seeha who
purchased slaughtered meat from a market and offered an alms giving to
Buddha and fellow bhikkus. The fact that Buddha and fellow Bhikkus
accepted this meal and went on to justify it by “Three-fold Pure”
guideline tells us that it was not merely a theoritical possibility.
Besides, if it were only a theoritical possibility and there were no
practical way for Buddhists to eat meat derived from slaughtered animals
without amassing “Akusala Karma”, or eating slaughtered meat is
unacceptable, then Buddha would have told it so in explicit terms
instead of muddling the situation with “Three-fold Pure meat”.
-
Taboo said
April 7, 2010 at 2:26 am
@Bassa,
No. Still it can be a theoretical possibility.
/Besides, if it were only a theoretical possibility and there were no
practical way for Buddhists to eat meat derived from slaughtered
animals without amassing “Akusala Karma”. /
I agree.
- Taboo
-
bassa said
April 7, 2010 at 3:06 am
Buddha’s priority was to explain the “truth in its true form” (“ඇත්ත
ඇති සැටියෙන් පහදා දීම”) and “සත්වයින් සසර් දුකින් මුදවා ගැනීම.”
If “Three-fold Pure meat” was only a theorical possiblity with no
practical use for Buddhists, Buddha would have told it in no uncertain
terms rather than muddling the situation with “Three-fold Pure meat”
concept.
Besides, Buddha gave a practical example for the “Three-fold Pure
meat” referring to the slaughtred meat based food offered by Gen.
(retired) Seeha, therefore, it cannot be a mere theoritical possibility.
-
Taboo said
April 7, 2010 at 3:44 am
@Basaa,
You repeat the same stupid argument like a broken gramophone.
It can be a theoretical possibility of no practical use.
- Taboo
-
bassa said
April 7, 2010 at 5:41 am
As I have repeated like a broken gramophone, it cannot be a mere
theoritical possibility because Gen (retired) Seeha’s alms giving had
“Three fold pure meat”, as Buddha himself said so, which was a “practical situation” of Three Fold pure meat.
Moreover, if consumption of meat derived from slaughtered animals is
wrong or result in akusala karma which prolongs Samsaric Cycle hence
prolongs suffering of beings, Buddha, being the person who wanted to
shortern all beings’ Samsaric Cycle and suffering, would have disclosed
that explicitly, rather than confusing people by introducing a “no
practical use, theory-only Three fold pure meat concept” thereby
prolonging their Samsaric Cycle and suffering.
-
bassa said
April 7, 2010 at 6:07 am
Buddha would have been the last person to introduce “a theoritical possibility with no practically useful” concepts.
Such things are “දෙලොවටම වැඩ නැති, හිස් වචන”, which Buddha discouraged against.
Buddha once explained that his knowledge was immense, but he
disclosed only what led to shorten the Samsaric Cycle and end sufferings
of beings. It is a contradiction if the same Buddha introduced a
“theoritical possibility with no practical use”, which is either
useless or has opposing effects to end Samsaric Cyle and suffering.
-
bassa said
April 7, 2010 at 7:43 am
3rd attempt to post. Previous two attempts appeared to have been unsuccessful.
Taboo, If they were not censored, can you check please?
——————-
Buddha would have been the last person to introduce “a theoritical possibility with no practically useful” concepts.
Such things are “දෙලොවටම වැඩ නැති, හිස් වචන”, which Buddha discouraged against.
Buddha once explained that his knowledge was immense, but he
disclosed only what led to shortening of the Samsaric Cycle and end
sufferings of beings. It is a contradiction if the same Buddha
introduced a “theoritical possibility with no practical use”, which is
either useless or has opposing effects to ending of Samsaric Cyle and
suffering.
-
 bassaa said
April 7, 2010 at 8:20 am
3rd attempt to post. Previous two attempts appeared to have been unsuccessful.
Taboo, If they were not censored, can you check please?
…
Buddha would have been the last person to introduce “a theoritical possibility with no practically useful” concepts.
Such things are “දෙලොවටම වැඩ නැති, හිස් වචන”, which Buddha discouraged against.
Buddha once explained that his knowledge was immense, but he
disclosed only what led to shortening of the Samsaric Cycle and end
sufferings of beings. It is a contradiction if the same Buddha
introduced a “theoritical possibility with no practical use”, which is
either useless or has opposing effects to ending of Samsaric Cyle and
suffering.
-
Taboo said
April 7, 2010 at 11:00 am
@Bassa,
Some of your comments were on spam as if Word Press itself judged their value.
Anyway, nothing new in any of this. You bring the same argument I have already responded.
The definitions of ‘thrice cleared meat’ is clear. According to that
definition it can be a theoretical possibility. That does not make the
definition wrong. If you think Gautama contradicts himself, it is him
(or in his absence a disciple) you should debate with. There is no point
asking me why Gautama was wrong. FYI there are few occasions Gautama
contradicts himself (or at least reported to) so this is not a surprise.
In such instances I go with first principles.
Repeating the same thing hundred times does not make it different.
- Taboo
-
bassa said
April 7, 2010 at 12:49 pm
@Taboo,
I at a loss to understand how you have responded to the points I raised.
You repeated many times that “Three Fold pure meat” is a “theoretical
possibility with no practical use”. I disproved this notion by showing
Gen (retired) Seeha’s meat based alms giving to Buddha, which Buddha
himself declared “Thrikotika Paarishudha”. Therefore, unlike what you
say, it is a concept with practical use that Buddha himself shown and
went on to preach many times (eg. To Jeewaka)
All I can see is you continue to ignore this and repeat that it is only a theoretical possibility!
Secondly, as I have pointed out, Buddha never indulged on
“theoretical possibilities that has no use” for ending the Samsaric
Cycle and sufferings of beings. Buddha actively discouraged against such
“දෙලොවටම වැඩ නැති හිස් වචන”.
Thirdly, you didn’t respond to “vegetable kills beings as well” argument.
So, I am at a loss when you say you have already answered!
-
bassa said
April 7, 2010 at 8:19 am
3rd attempt to post. Previous two attempts appeared to have been unsuccessful.
Taboo, If they were not censored, can you check please?
——————-
Buddha would have been the last person to introduce “a theoritical possibility with no practically useful” concepts.
Such things are “දෙලොවටම වැඩ නැති, හිස් වචන”, which Buddha discouraged against.
Buddha once explained that his knowledge was immense, but he
disclosed only what led to shortening of the Samsaric Cycle and end
sufferings of beings. It is a contradiction if the same Buddha
introduced a “theoritical possibility with no practical use”, which is
either useless or has opposing effects to ending of Samsaric Cyle and
suffering.
-
No Frames said
April 6, 2010 at 9:11 am
මේ ලිපියේ හෙඩිමට “සිංහල” කතාව එක වූයේ ඇයි? “සින්ඃඅල” බෞද්ධයා අමුතු බෞද්ධයෙක්ද? ” ගෙරි මස් කන්නා යහපත් බෞද්ධයාද?” කියල විතරක් තුබුණ නම් ඇති නේද?
සිංහල පදය මෙතනට ගෙනාවේ ටැබූ ගේ ලෝන්ග් ටර්ම් ගෝල් වලට උදවුවකටද?
-
Anonymous said
April 6, 2010 at 2:17 pm
In the first place why should we accept the interpretation on
suitability of meat eating given by Ven. Ariyadeva or anyone else for
that matter?
As humans each and every one of us has been blessed with an
analytical & inquistic mind facilitating the ability to reason,think
rationally and arrive at a logical answer individully.
What certainly defies me is how can we ever reconcile the following( first 3 with the 4th);
(1) The very first percept is “Panatipata…”; I will refrain from destroying life
(2) We say “Siyalu satvayo niduk vethva”; May all beings be happy
(3) Meat trading falls under prohibited trades
(4) Eating “Thrikoti parisuddha mansha” is allowed
In addition the reasoning that compelled Gautama to refrain from
prohibiting purchasing meat may have some thing to do with the people
whose sole livelihood was hunting.
Please note that they most probably were the most down trodden and at the lowest rungs of society at that time.
As such prohibiting meat will directly effect their life adversely which we can assume Gautama wanted to avoid.
-
bassa said
April 7, 2010 at 7:11 am
Buddha would have been the last person to introduce “a theoritical possibility with no practically useful” concepts.
Such things are “දෙලොවටම වැඩ නැති, හිස් වචන”, which Buddha discouraged against.
Buddha once explained that his knowledge was immense, but he
disclosed only what led to shortening of the Samsaric Cycle and end
sufferings of beings. It is a contradiction if the same Buddha
introduced a “theoritical possibility with no practical use”, which is
either useless or has opposing effects to ending of Samsaric Cyle and
suffering.
PS:
I posted this before, but it appears to have gone missing. Please remove if duplicated. Thanks.
-
April 9, 2010 at 7:36 am
if you analyze the Vinaya you will see many rules like this. what we
should remember is that vinaya is not there for nirwana. it is there
for the longer continuation of the sanga. many rules were imposed
because they were necessary for the acceptance of the society. as i say
again and again analyze before a conclusion. read the whole thing. try
to understand the back ground. analyze the changed done to the original
rule. you might see that many are “දෙලොවටම වැඩ නැති, හිස් වචන” but there
are there for a reason although might not be practical and applicable
for today’s society, which is why Buddha just before his death gave
permission to change minor rules if necessary.
-
 Asela Weerasinghe said
April 7, 2010 at 9:00 am
@ටැබූ,
මීට අදාලවම හරවත් සංවාදයක් රන්දිල් ගෙ බ්ලොග් අඩවියේත් මෑතකදී සිදු වුනා. එහි තිබෙන අදහසුත් වැදගත්. සබැඳුම පහත.
http://ranrandil.blogspot.com/2010/03/blog-post_30.html
-
 baassa said
April 7, 2010 at 9:12 pm
@Taboo,
1. I never said Buddha contradicted himself. Please do not misquote me.
I pointed out that if your argument were true, then it would
contradict Buddha because he did not indulge in such useless theories
as you claim. Thus, your explanation of “Three fold pure meat is only a
theoritical possibility” is not acceptable as this introduction
contraditcs established knowledge about Buddha.
2. You did not respond to “Vegetables kill beings as well” argument at all.
3. Repeating the same thing hundred times does not make it different. You
continue to repeat that “Three fold pure meat is only a theoritical
concept” when I already pointed out that there were practical situations
that Buddha himself gave examples, as in Gen (retired) Seeha’s case.
4. I am surprised that you decided to block my comments. How can it waste your time, when I make comments? If you think I merely repeate without answering questions, let the readers decide for themselves by publishing my comments.
This is my last response to your posts. If you are unwilling to
openly discuss and wanting to block comments that you have no answeres, I
am more than happy to stay out of your blog.
-
Taboo said
April 8, 2010 at 2:35 am
@Bassa,
This is my last response to you. I am sorry I do not have time to
waste educating you. If you cannot understand simple English it is your
problem not mine.
1. According to your ‘Seeha’ story Gautama contradicts his own
definition of ‘thrice cleared meat’. It is not a misquote. It is you who
brought that case study. In that contradiction I depend on the
definition, which is clear enough without any ambiguities. So there is
no point asking me why Gautama contradicts himself.
2. I agree producing vegetables too kill lives. However, I see the
issue from science and do not give same importance to all values. There
is a clear difference between killing an insect and killing a cow.
3. That is the contradiction dear. So either you forget the definition or the case.
4. I have given you enough opportunities to express your position.
If you still cannot make yourself clear, and repeat the same things
sorry, I have no more ears to you. Start your down blog.
I discuss matters with those who have open minds. There is hardly any use of discussing matters with closed minds. I avoid that.
- Taboo
-
bassaa said
April 8, 2010 at 3:58 am
@Taboo,
1. Buddha declared that Seeha’s meat beased food was “Three Fold
Pure” and according to Buddha’s interpretation and the established
Buddhist interpretation, there is no contradiction.
The contradiction ONLY occurs on your novel interpretation and that is why your interpretation has to be abandoned.
2. Buying of vegetables and meat involve indirect killings.
Therefore, it contradicts your argument that “only buying meat is
Akusala Karma”. If your theory is consistent, even buying vegetables
is wrong. Hence, to be consistent, you have to agree that both are wrong
or both are right.
Cows are different to insects, however, both have lives that farmers kill in order to produce food. What matters is the loss of lives.
3. The contradiction occurs only if your novel interpretation is
accepted and that is why it has to be ditched – it is not consistent
with the established Buddhism.
4. I have repeated no more than you. I only repeatedly raised the same point because up to now you did not answer them but repeated your theory.
I too discuss matters with those have open minds. That means, those
who are prepared to ditch their theories when shown that their theorie
are contradictory and inconsistent.
-
bassaa said
April 8, 2010 at 4:42 am
According to Buddhism, in order to be “Three fold pure meat”, the animal should not have been specifically slaghtered on behalf of a specific consumer.
Established Buddhism interprets “specifically slaughetered on behalf of
the a specific consumer” in such a way that meat already slaughtered
and prepared for sale in the market “have not been speficically
slaughetered for a specific buyer”, hence, they are “Three fold pure
meat”. This is consistent with Buddha’s word on Gen. (retired) Seeha’s
meat based alms giving and what Budhdha later told to Jeewaka in Jeewaka
Sutta.
You interpret “specifically slaughered” in a novel way and challenge th established Buddhism interpreation.
However, as I have shown, your novel interpretion is wrong/contradictory on two counts.
1. As I have shown, it is not consistent with established Buddhism and Buddha’s word (eg. Gen. (retired) Seeha’s alms giving)
2. Your interpreation is internally contradictory because you exonerate beings specifically killed to plant crops to produce vegetables specifically for the buyers who pay a price which includes a fee for killing pests.
-
 baassaa said
April 8, 2010 at 4:44 am
@Taboo,
1. Buddha declared that Seeha’s meat beased food was “Three Fold Pure” and according to Buddha’s interpretation and the
established Buddhist interpretation, there is no contradiction.
The contradiction ONLY occurs on your novel interpretation and that is why your interpretation has to be abandoned.
2. Buying of vegetables and meat involve indirect killings. Therefore, it contradicts your argument that “only buying meat is
Akusala Karma”. If your theory is consistent, even buying vegetables is wrong. Hence, to be consistent, you have to agree
that both are wrong or both are right.
Cows are different to insects, however, both have lives that farmers kill in order to produce food. What matters is the loss
of lives.
3. The contradiction occurs only if your novel interpretation is accepted and that is why it has to be ditched – it is not
consistent with the established Buddhism.
4. I have repeated no more than you. I only repeatedly raised the same point because up to now you did not answer them but
repeated your theory.
According to Buddhism, in order to be “Three fold pure meat”, the animal should not have been specifically slaghtered on
behalf of a specific consumer. Established Buddhism interprets “specifically slaughetered on behalf of the a specific
consumer” in such a way that meat already slaughtered and prepared for sale in the market “have not been speficically
slaughetered for a specific buyer”, hence, they are “Three fold pure meat”. This is consistent with Buddha’s word on Gen.
(retired) Seeha’s meat based alms giving and what Budhdha later told to Jeewaka in Jeewaka Sutta.
You interpret “specifically slaughered” in a novel way and challenge th established Buddhism interpreation.
However, as I have shown, your novel interpretion is wrong/contradictory on two counts.
1. As I have shown, it is not consistent with established Buddhism and Buddha’s word (eg. Gen. (retired) Seeha’s alms
giving)
2. Your interpreation is internally contradictory because you exonerate beings specifically killed to plant crops to
produce vegetables specifically for the buyers who pay a price which includes a fee for killing pests.
I too discuss matters with those have open minds. That means, those who are prepared to ditch their theories when shown that
their theorie are contradictory and inconsistent.
-
Taboo said
April 8, 2010 at 7:37 am
@Bassa,
I feel really sorry for your capacity to understand simple English.
1. You are wrong. Gautama obviously contradicts himself. If you don’t
see a contradiction you have not properly understood the definition of
‘thrice cleared meat’.
2. I already responded to this twice. See my above comments.
3. Already responded. What established Buddhists say does not matter.
4. True, if you repeat the questions I have to repeat the answers. If you want new answers, ask new questions, please, without repeating same stupid questions.
If you want me to accept your theory PROVE IT. Saying it is
established Buddhist belief or Gautama said is NO PROOF. Gautama is a
human being and like any human being he can be wrong.
Got it at least now?
- Taboo
-
baassaa said
April 8, 2010 at 8:48 am
@Taboo,
You said:
1. You are wrong. Gautama obviously contradicts himself. If you
don’t see a contradiction you have not properly understood the
definition of ‘thrice cleared meat’.
No, Buddha did not contradict himself. Only your ‘novel
interpretation’ sees it as a contradiction. I already showed it. Now, if
you don’t accuse me of repeating, I can repeat and say why.
1. The meat that is already slaughtered and prepared for sale are not killed for a specific consumer, hence is “Three fold pure meat”. You argue in your novel interpretation that “if
they purchase as that is equivalent to promote killing. In fact, part
of the price of meat is for killing. No, if meat is offered.”
I already showed the flaws & contradictions of this argument. It
does not matter whether a price is paid or not. Animals are slaughtered
for the consumption of those who eat slaughtered meat. So, if your
argument were correct, all slaughtered meat eaters would have been
responsible (regardless of whether they pay money or not), hence, they
are wrong and collect Akusala. Obviously, this is a contradiction to
Buddhism, because if this was the case, Buddha would simply said that
eating slaughetered meat promotes slaugtering, hence eating slaughered
meat was an Akusal. Buddha actively refused to do so. So, either Buddha
was wrong or your novel interpretation is wrong.
2. Buddha introduced the concept “Three fold pure meat” when doubts
were raised about the meat purchased by Gen (retired) Seeha, which
Buddha declared “Three fold pure meat”. So, either Buddha again got it wrong, or your novel interpretation is wrong.
3. Buying of vegetables and meat involve indirect killings.
Therefore, it contradicts your argument that “only buying meat is
Akusala Karma”. If your theory is consistent, even buying vegetables
is wrong. Hence, to be consistent, you have to agree that both are wrong
or both are right.
You did not have an answer for the argument above. You simply say
there are differences between cows and insects; of course they have
different numbers of legs; but that doesn’t make killing insects an
“Akusal Free” thing. No where Buddha said killing insects are free from
Akusal. On the contrary, Buddha said every being loves its life and
killing a being, however small, is an Akusal.
Your “novel interpretation” that implies “killing insects is free
from Akusal” is contradictory to the Buddhism (or Buddha got it wrong,
again!).
“If you want me to accept your theory PROVE IT.
This shows how shallow your knowledge about the religions. Nothing in
a religion is provable and your challenge to do so draws laugh. Then,
can you prove that eating meat is an Akusal??
A religion is an internally consistent set of axioms. All we can do
is to accept the axioms and inspect whether a new theory is consistent
and compatible with the already known axioms. If the new theory is not
consistent and not compatible, it cannot be incorporated into the
already consistent set of axioms ie the religion.
“Saying it is established Buddhist belief or Gautama said is NO
PROOF. Gautama is a human being and like any human being he can be
wrong.”
This is a futher example to the shallowness of your knowledge. Do you
accept Karma-Pala-Waadaya? There is no PROOF! No one can prove that. So,
why do you accept that without proof?
On the religions, all we have is the words of the founder. That is why they are religions and not sciences.
Buddhism is consistent in that buying meat prepared for sale is not an Akusal.
Your attempt was to prove that “According to Buddhism, buying & eating meat was Wrong and Akusal”. Buddhism is set of axioms that Buddha laid out. Your theory is internally contradictory
(that you had no answers about insects being killed for vegetables
farming other than saying insects are different to cows) and not
consistent with Buddhism, so your theory cannot be incorporated into
Buddhism. It is simple as that.
You can certainly alter Buddhism, by fixing where Buddha got it wrong
(according to you), but that is not Buddhism anymore. That can be
called Taboo-sm.
What Buddha taught is Buddhism. What Taboo alters is not Buddhism, but Taboo-sm.
So, what you should say is, “according Taboo-sm, buying and eating meat is Wrong and Akusal”
-
Taboo said
April 8, 2010 at 9:29 am
@Baassa,
The length of your comment shows only your confusion.
1. /So, either Buddha was wrong or your novel interpretation is
wrong./ You finally got it. Assuming the case is reported right, Gautama
was wrong.
2. Same answer to (1)
3. I never said only buying meat is ‘akusala karma’. To me ‘akusala
karma’ is an undefined term. No use of taking about vegetables because
there is no definition for ‘thrice cleared vegetables’. If I were to
assume anything called ‘thrice cleared vegetables’ any vegetable that needs insecticide fails the test.
/This is a futher example to the shallowness of your knowledge. Do
you accept Karma-Pala-Waadaya? There is no PROOF! No one can prove that.
So, why do you accept that without proof?/
BTW, who said you I accept this concept karma-pala-vadaya or whatever?
/Buddhism is consistent in that buying meat prepared for sale is not an Akusal./
Sadly No. You are wrong. It is not, as proven by you yourself.
(contradiction between the definition of ‘thrice cleared meat’ and the
story of Seeha senapathi)
I do NOT modify Buddhism. I only go by first principles of Buddhism rather than on examples.
There is nothing called Taboo-ism. I believe in science. See the
answer to the last question in my post to understand the position of
science in this. (which is different from that of Buddhists)
I still say consuming meat in a way that increases the meat supply by choice
is not acceptable for Buddhists. In generalized (but not strictly true)
language it is wrong for Buddhists to eat meat of any animal
slaughtered for meat according to Gautama’s own definition of ‘thrice cleared meat’.
You cannot prove it wrong, because it is right!
- Taboo
-
Taboo said
April 8, 2010 at 9:42 am
@Baassa,
The length of your comment shows only your confusion.
1. /So, either Buddha was wrong or your novel interpretation is
wrong./ You finally got it. Assuming the case is reported right, Gautama
was wrong.
2. Same answer to (1)
3. I never said only buying meat is ‘akusala karma’. To me ‘akusala
karma’ is an undefined term. No use of taking about vegetables because
there is no definition for ‘thrice cleared vegetables’. If I were to
assume anything called ‘thrice cleared vegetables’ any vegetable that
needs insecticide fails the test.
/This is a futher example to the shallowness of your knowledge. Do
you accept Karma-Pala-Waadaya? There is no PROOF! No one can prove that.
So, why do you accept that without proof?/
BTW, who said you I accept this concept karma-pala-vadaya or whatever?
/Buddhism is consistent in that buying meat prepared for sale is not an Akusal./
Sadly No. You are wrong. It is not, as proven by you yourself.
(contradiction between the definition of ‘thrice cleared meat’ and the
story of Seeha senapathi)
I do NOT modify Buddhism. I only go by first principles of Buddhism rather than on examples.
There is nothing called Taboo-ism. I believe in science. See the
answer to the last question in my post to understand the position of
science in this. (which is different from that of Buddhists)
I still say consuming meat in a way that increases the meat supply by choice
is not acceptable for Buddhists. In simplified and generalized (but not
strictly true) language it is wrong for Buddhists to eat meat of any
animal slaughtered for meat according to Gautama’s own definition of ‘thrice cleared meat’. It is not me who says so, it is gautama himself who says so.
You cannot prove it wrong, because it is right!
- Taboo
-
baassaa said
April 8, 2010 at 10:23 am
@Taboo,
” No use of taking about vegetables because there is no definition
for ‘thrice cleared vegetables’. If I were to assume anything called
‘thrice cleared vegetables’ any vegetable that needs insecticide fails
the test.”
Your introduced a new theory that “buying meat promotes killing”
hence it is wrong and Akusala Karma. On the same token, buying
vegetables also promotes killing of insects, hence it has to be wrong
and Akusala Karma too. That is simple as that.
According to the Buddha’s word, meat that is for already on sale
is not specifically prepared for a specific buyer, hence those meat is
“Three fold pure”.
The meat that Gen (retired) Seeha purchased *did not* come from an animal *specifically slaughtered* for Gen (retired) Seeha, hence, according to the definition of “Three fold pure meat” that Buddha laid out, **that meat is Three Fold pure.** That is the clear case proof. This proof is further supported by Buddha’s case study on Gen (retired) Seeha’s alms giving.
Now, you don’t accept this explanation and introduce an overriding
theory that “since buying meat promotes killing, it is Akusal and
Wrong”. However, you cannot accept its implication “Buying vegetables
also promotes killing of insects, hence it has to be AKusal or Wrong”.
Therefore, your theory is internally contradictory. It is nothing worse
than saying “Killing a cow is Akusal, but killing an insect is not
because Taboo says so”.
“You finally got it. Assuming the case is reported right, Gautama was wrong.”
If you say Budhdha got it wrong and you fix it, what you propose is not Buddhism. Buddhism is what Budhdha taught, not what Taboo changes saying Buddha got it wrong.
According to Buddhism that Budhdha taught, buying and eating meat is not an Akusal.
When you introduce a new interpretation and change axioms set by
Buddha, saying Budhdha got it wrong, the resulting religion is not
Buddhism. It is your own variation – Taboo-ism.
According to Taboo-ism, eating meat may be an Akusal.
-
baassaa said
April 8, 2010 at 10:40 am
“I do NOT modify Buddhism. I only go by first principles of Buddhism rather than on examples.”
Don’t lie. You used your own additional theory. See below.
Is it wrong for Buddhists to eat meat?
Yes, if they purchase as that is equivalent to promote killing.
This are not first principles, this is your addition. Budhdha never
said this. Taboo introduced the above “promoting killing is wrong”
theory.
If Buddha intended to say what you say, Budhdha would have easily
said that eating any slaughtered meat is Akusal as it promotes killing.
Budhdha did not do so, and that is why what you introduce is not
Buddhism, but Taboo-ism.
Contrary to what you say, Buddha added a restrictive qualification that unless “the animal was specifically killed for the specific consumer“, the meat is “Three fold pure”. That is the first principle.
Meat already on sale is not killed for a specific consumer as laid out
in the first principles, therefore, such meat is “Three fold pure”.
You cannot prove it wrong, because it is right!
-
baassaa said
April 8, 2010 at 10:57 am
@Taboo,
You said:
“2. I agree producing vegetables too kill lives. However, I see the
issue from science and do not give same importance to all values. There
is a clear difference between killing an insect and killing a cow. ”
“I believe in science. See the answer to the last question in my post to understand the position of science in this. (which is different from that of Buddhists)”
Exactly, this is what I say. What you say is not Buddhism.
You cannot say “According to Buddhism, buying meat is wrong and
Akusal”, because you theories are based on science and scientific point
of view, which is different to Buddhism.
This is same as a Christian saying “killing a cow is not Akusal
in Buddhism because Bible doesn’t say so! – I believe in Christianity”.
-
baassaa said
April 8, 2010 at 1:43 pm
සතුන් මරා වෙලඳපොලේ විකිණීමට ඇති මාංස, සීහ සේනාපති මිලදී ගෙන බුදු රජාණන් වහන්සේ සහ සංඟයාට දානය පිළිගැන්වීය.
මේ මාංස පිළිබඳ නිගන්ටයන් එල්ල කළ චෝදනව නිසා, බුදු රජාණන් වහන්සේ තිකෝටික පාරිශුද්ධ මාංස පැහැදිළි කළ සේක.
මහණෙනි, ** තමන් උදෙසා මරණ ලදැයි ** නොදක්නා ලද, නොඇසුනා ලද, සැක නොකරන ලද මාංස අනුභයව අනුමත කරමි.
The slaughtered meat sold at the market was not from animals killed specifically for Gen. (retired) Seeha,
which Buddha declared “Three fold pure meat”. There is no ambiguity, no
contradiction. plain and simple. Consistent with the rest of the
Buddhism. (Seeha had no චේතනාව of killing the particular animal he got
meat from — the animal was already killed.)
On the contrary, Taboo introduces a new theory that “meat
consumption indirectly increases the meat supply which promotes killing,
so it must be wrong according to Buddhism”. Buddha never said
anything about “indirectly promoting killing is Akusal or Wrong”. That
is what Taboo introduced. If Buddha had thought in the same way as Taboo
claims, Buddha would have simply said that accepting/consuming meat
derived from slaughtered animals promotes killing, hence, an Akusal. Buddha did not take such a simplistic view, as Taboo does.
This Taboo’s new hypothesis, obviously, is internally inconsistent
(ie. Taboo only cares for the cows, not for the insects) and
incompatible with Buddhism. By his new theory, Taboo argues that Buddha was wrong
in declaring Seeha’s alms giving was “Three fold pure” because
according to Taboo, it promotes killings. However, Budhdha did not worry
about such promotions of killings — that is not Buddhism, that is
Taboo-ism.
Then again, by his new theory, Taboo says that Buddha’s “Three Fold Pure meat concept” is a theoritical concept with no practical use. Obviously, Buddha never indulged on such “දෙලොවටම වැඩ නැති හිස් වචන”. “This, also, is a contradiction of Buddha’s part”, says Taboo.
Taboo’s new hypothesis is not compatible with Buddhism that Buddha taught. In order to justify Taboo’s hypothesis, Taboo has to claim Buddha was wrong and contradictory on many occasions.
So, what is happening is simple. Buddha, the enlightened one,
understood the “Karma Pala Waadhaya”. This is the mechanism that
determines what is Kusal and Akusal and associated results. Knowing
“Karma Pala Waadhaya”, Buddha did not bother about buying meat that
promotes killing.
Taboo, by his own admission, does not believe in Buddhist “Karma
Pala waadaya”, so his perception of “wrong” and “Akusal” are not what
Buddha perceived.
Therefore, according to the set of rules Taboo proposes, which has to
be called Taboo-ism, (which is different to the Buddhism that Buddha
taught based on Karma Pala Waadaya), buying meat could be wrong.
According to Buddha’s Buddhism, NO.
-
 basssa said
April 8, 2010 at 1:45 pm
සතුන් මරා වෙලඳපොලේ විකිණීමට ඇති මාංස, සීහ සේනාපති මිලදී ගෙන බුදු රජාණන් වහන්සේ සහ සංඟයාට දානය පිළිගැන්වීය.
මේ මාංස පිළිබඳ නිගන්ටයන් එල්ල කළ චෝදනව නිසා, බුදු රජාණන් වහන්සේ තිකෝටික පාරිශුද්ධ මාංස පැහැදිළි කළ සේක.
මහණෙනි, ** තමන් උදෙසා මරණ ලදැයි ** නොදක්නා ලද, නොඇසුනා ලද, සැක නොකරන ලද මාංස අනුභයව අනුමත කරමි.
The slaughtered meat sold at the market was not from animals killed specifically for Gen. (retired) Seeha,
which Buddha declared “Three fold pure meat”. There is no ambiguity, no
contradiction. plain and simple. Consistent with the rest of the
Buddhism. (Seeha had no චේතනාව of killing the particular animal he got
meat from — the animal was already killed.)
On the contrary, Taboo introduces a new theory that “meat
consumption indirectly increases the meat supply which promotes killing,
so it must be wrong according to Buddhism”. Buddha never said
anything about “indirectly promoting killing is Akusal or Wrong”. That
is what Taboo introduced. If Buddha had thought in the same way as Taboo
claims, Buddha would have simply said that accepting/consuming meat
derived from slaughtered animals promotes killing, hence, an Akusal. Buddha did not take such a simplistic view, as Taboo does.
This Taboo’s new hypothesis, obviously, is internally inconsistent
(ie. Taboo only cares for the cows, not for the insects) and
incompatible with Buddhism. By his new theory, Taboo argues that Buddha was wrong
in declaring Seeha’s alms giving was “Three fold pure” because
according to Taboo, it promotes killings. However, Budhdha did not worry
about such promotions of killings — that is not Buddhism, that is
Taboo-ism.
Then again, by his new theory, Taboo says that Buddha’s “Three Fold Pure meat concept” is a theoritical concept with no practical use. Obviously, Buddha never indulged on such “දෙලොවටම වැඩ නැති හිස් වචන”. “This, also, is a contradiction of Buddha’s part”, says Taboo.
Taboo’s new hypothesis is not compatible with Buddhism that Buddha taught. In order to justify Taboo’s hypothesis, Taboo has to claim Buddha was wrong and contradictory on many occasions.
So, what is happening is simple. Buddha, the enlightened one,
understood the “Karma Pala Waadhaya”. This is the mechanism that
determines what is Kusal and Akusal and associated results. Knowing
“Karma Pala Waadhaya”, Buddha did not bother about buying meat that
promotes killing.
Taboo, by his own admission, does not believe in Buddhist “Karma
Pala waadaya”, so his perception of “wrong” and “Akusal” are not what
Buddha perceived.
Therefore, according to the set of rules Taboo proposes, which has to
be called Taboo-ism, (which is different to the Buddhism that Buddha
taught based on Karma Pala Waadaya), buying meat could be wrong.
According to Buddha’s Buddhism, NO.
-
Taboo said
April 9, 2010 at 6:58 am
@Bassa,
I have responded to all your questions in detail and I have neither
time nor inclinations to repeat the same answers. The reason for your
confusion is your inability to understand the different between what
Gautama preached and what he did.
I still say consuming meat in a way that increases the meat supply
by choice is not acceptable for Buddhists. In simplified and
generalized (but not strictly true) language it is wrong for Buddhists
to eat meat of any animal slaughtered for meat according to Gautama’s
own definition of ‘thrice cleared meat’. It is not me who says so, it is
Gautama himself who says so.
You have made a total of 24 (twenty four) comments in this
thread and still failed to prove anything or at least to make your
point. I strongly advise you to stop this futile effort of verbal
barraging because it will confuse you more.
I only have sympathy for you.
- Taboo
-
baassaa said
April 9, 2010 at 7:33 am
@Taboo,
I think I have conclusively proved, especially from my last three
posts, that your confusion is caused by your novel interpretation (which
is internally inconsistent for lack of compassion for insects) of
“Three Fold Pure Meat” which is not consistent with Buddhism, Buddha’s
words and Buddha’s examples. Whether the enlightened Buddha was wrong
countless times or whether, simply, Taboo misinterpretted and confused
himself, is best left for the readers to judge.
Nevertheless, there needs to be a correction for your statement:
“consuming meat in a way that increases the meat supply by choice is not
acceptable for Buddhists”. The point is, this not what Buddha said.
This is a hypothesis you introduced, which holds no water in Buddhism.
As such, what you should correctly says is, “consuming meat in a way
that increases the meat supply by choice is not acceptable for
Taboo-ists”.
Thanks for the sympathies you have for me – the feeling is mutual. 
-
Taboo said
April 9, 2010 at 8:40 am
@Baassaa,
You have not only not proved anything but also admitted it you cannot by an earlier mails.
These are your own words:
Nothing in a religion is provable and your challenge to do so draws laugh. Then, can you prove that eating meat is an Akusal??
Do you accept Karma-Pala-Waadaya? There is no PROOF! No one can prove that. So, why do you accept that without proof?
I have given you more than 25 opportunities to prove yourself, and
you couldn’t. So this will be your last thread in this thread. This
madness should stop. Thanks for your interst in my blog.
- Taboo
-
April 21, 2010 at 1:53 pm
බුදුන් වහන්සේ “ගෞතම” කියලා හඳුන්වන තමුසෙට පුලුවන්ද මනුස්සයො මේ
බ්ලොග් එක හරහා හරවත් යමක් කියවන්නාට ලබාදෙන්න. “මෝඩ ටැබූ” තමුසෙ තියන
දෙයක් කාලා,තියන වැඩපලක් කරගෙන ඉන්නවා පන්ඩිතයා බව පෙන්නන්න හදන්නේ නැතුව.
-
October 26, 2010 at 8:41 am
first of all, Great Work Taboo + other open minded Commentors.
Lets be honest guys,
the people who are eating meat wont just eat what they are “offered”.
They will surely purchase meat & meat products. That is surely
promoting Meat sails and killing.
IF THERE IS NO DEMAND FOR MEAT, NO ONE WILL KILL TO PRODUCE MEAT.
Eating meat in moderation is not going to happen either. Its like raging in universities. It’s Binary. Either its on or NOT.
Since we have been eating meat for millions of years, its hard to
stop. Our minds have evolved. (well, true in most cases) But bodies have
not. But, dont try to rationalize eating flesh.
-
bassa said
April 7, 2010 at 9:11 pm
@Taboo,
1. I never said Buddha contradicted himself. Please do not misquote me.
I pointed out that if your argument were true, then it would
contradict Buddha because he did not indulge in such useless theories
as you claim. Thus, your explanation of “Three fold pure meat is only a
theoritical possibility” is not acceptable as this introduction
contraditcs established knowledge about Buddha.
2. You did not respond to “Vegetables kill beings as well” argument at all.
3. Repeating the same thing hundred times does not make it different. You
continue to repeat that “Three fold pure meat is only a theoritical
concept” when I already pointed out that there were practical situations
that Buddha himself gave examples, as in Gen (retired) Seeha’s case.
4. I am surprised that you decided to block my comments. How can it waste your time, when I make comments? If you think I merely repeate without answering questions, let the readers decide for themselves by publishing my comments.
This is my last response to your posts. If you are unwilling to
openly discuss and wanting to block comments that you have no answeres, I
am more than happy to stay out of your blog.
|
