Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Why do Buddhists, mostly converted, insist that people shouldn't eat meat when the Buddha himself indulged in mea? I say mostly converted since I have yet to go to a Buddhist country where the everyone wasn't eating meat and fish.
'In Buddhism, the views on vegetarianism vary from school to school. According to Theravada, the Buddha allowed his monks to eat pork, chicken and beef if the animal was not killed for the purpose of providing food for monks. Theravada also believes that the Buddha allowed the monks to choose a vegetarian diet, but only prohibited against eating human, elephant, horse, dog, snake, lion, tiger, leopard, bear, and hyena flesh. Buddha did not prohibit any kind of meat-eating for his lay followers. In Vajrayana, the act of eating meat is not always prohibited. The Mahayana schools generally recommend a vegetarian diet, for they believe that the Buddha insisted that his followers should not eat meat or fish.'
'There is a divergence of views within Buddhism as to whether vegetarianism is required, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a requirement. The first precept in Buddhism is usually translated as "I undertake the precept to refrain from taking life." Some Buddhists see this as implying that Buddhists should not eat meat, other Buddhists argue that this is not the case. Some Buddhists do strongly oppose meat-eating on the basis of scriptural injunctions against flesh-eating in Mahayana sutras.
On one occasion, according to the scriptures, a general sent a servant to purchase meat specifically to feed the Buddha. The Buddha declared that
... meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta, MN 55
In this particular sutta, Buddha instructs to a monk or nun to accept, without any discrimination, whatever food is offered in receiving alms offered with good will, including meat, whereas the Buddha declares the meat trade to be wrong livelihood in the Vanijja Sutta, AN 5:177'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_vegetarianism
If this is correct then essentially Buddha was suggesting that its okay to eat what essentially amounts to road kill or some animal that died of old age or disease (yuck!).
Nevertheless there is a contradiction in terms of belief and practice with some eating meat (like the Dalai Lama) and some abstaining from flesh and fish.
So why the schism? Where does dietary restrictions come into play in someone's spiritual quest?
'In Buddhism, the views on vegetarianism vary from school to school. According to Theravada, the Buddha allowed his monks to eat pork, chicken and beef if the animal was not killed for the purpose of providing food for monks. Theravada also believes that the Buddha allowed the monks to choose a vegetarian diet, but only prohibited against eating human, elephant, horse, dog, snake, lion, tiger, leopard, bear, and hyena flesh. Buddha did not prohibit any kind of meat-eating for his lay followers. In Vajrayana, the act of eating meat is not always prohibited. The Mahayana schools generally recommend a vegetarian diet, for they believe that the Buddha insisted that his followers should not eat meat or fish.'
'There is a divergence of views within Buddhism as to whether vegetarianism is required, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a requirement. The first precept in Buddhism is usually translated as "I undertake the precept to refrain from taking life." Some Buddhists see this as implying that Buddhists should not eat meat, other Buddhists argue that this is not the case. Some Buddhists do strongly oppose meat-eating on the basis of scriptural injunctions against flesh-eating in Mahayana sutras.
On one occasion, according to the scriptures, a general sent a servant to purchase meat specifically to feed the Buddha. The Buddha declared that
... meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta, MN 55
In this particular sutta, Buddha instructs to a monk or nun to accept, without any discrimination, whatever food is offered in receiving alms offered with good will, including meat, whereas the Buddha declares the meat trade to be wrong livelihood in the Vanijja Sutta, AN 5:177'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_vegetarianism
If this is correct then essentially Buddha was suggesting that its okay to eat what essentially amounts to road kill or some animal that died of old age or disease (yuck!).
Nevertheless there is a contradiction in terms of belief and practice with some eating meat (like the Dalai Lama) and some abstaining from flesh and fish.
So why the schism? Where does dietary restrictions come into play in someone's spiritual quest?
