VEGETARIANISM in RELIGIONS

[suchandra]

Finally the Buddhists are understanding their responsibility to introduce vegetarianism at

 

SUPREME MASTER TELEVISION

http://suprememastertv.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=scrolls&wr_id=21

 

VEGETARIANISM in RELIGIONS

 

THE BHIKSU SANGHA BUDDHIST ASSOCIATION

 

“If we, humankind, have wisdom and can discriminate between the good and bad,we should consider:to be human means to kill not and to NOT HAVE THE HEART TO EAT THE MEAT, BONE,AND THE BLOOD OF SENTIENT BEINGS.”

~ The Book of Truth

 

“We should learn to EAT VEGETABLES AND FRUITS and let our mind free, so we may become God, Buddha.”

~ The Book of Truth

 

“If you know the animals were killed for meat, but we still eat, we’re already committing the sin of killing.

If because of us, the animals are killed, then the sin belongs to us and the soul of the dead will resent us, not the killer.

 

If we are willing to eat that meat, that shows that we are cruel and ruthless! Therefore, only a ruthless heart can eat meat or that meat eaters have a ruthless heart.”

~ The Book of Truth

 

BUDDHISM

“EATING MEAT DESTROYS THE SEED OF COMPASSION and a meat eater’s every action will terrify all beings due to their bodily scent of meat.”

~ Mahaparinirvana Sutra

I stipulate that you SHOULD NOT EVEN EAT MEAT blameless in the three respects.

Even those meats other than the ten [previously forbidden] kinds should be abandoned.

The meat of corpses should also be abandoned….

 

All creatures can recognize a person who eats meat and, when they catch the odor,they are frightened by the terror of death.

 

Wherever that person roams, the beings in the waters, on dry land or in the sky are frightened.

Thinking that they will be killed by that person,they even swoon or die.

 

For these reasons, BODHISATTVA-MAHASATTVAS (GREAT SAINTS)DO NOT EAT MEAT.

Even though they may appear to eat meat on account of those to be converted, since they do not actually eat ordinary food then how much less so meat!

~ Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Monks, a householder follower should not engage in five types of business.

Which five?

Business in weapons,

business in human beings,

BUSINESS IN MEAT,

business in intoxicants,

and business in poison.

~ Vanijja Sutta

 

Ananda, if living beings in the six worlds of existence cease to kill they will not be subject to the continual round of births and deaths….

How then can those who practice great compassion feed on the flesh and blood of living beings?

~ Surangama Sutra

If a man can (control) his body and mind and thereby REFRAINS FROM EATING ANIMAL FLESH and wearing animal products,

I say he will really be liberated This teaching of mine is that of the Buddha whereas any other is that of evil demons.

~ Surangama Sutra

Ananda, those practicers who wish to enter the state of Samadhi (Holy Communion) should first observe strictly the rules of pure living to cut lust from the mind BY ABSTAINING FROM MEAT AND WINE…

Ananda, if they do not abstain from carnality and killing, they will never escape from the three worlds of existence.

~ Surangama Sutra

At that time, Arya (sage) Mahamati Bodhisattva-Mahasattva said to the Buddha:

"Bhagavan (World Honored One), I see that in all worlds, the wandering in births and deaths, the enlaced animosities,and the falling into evil paths, are all caused by meat eating and cyclical killing.

Those behaviors increase greed and anger,and make living beings unable to escape from suffering.

That is truly very painful."

~ Lankavatara Sutra

"Bhagavan, PEOPLE WHO EAT MEAT ARE DESTROYING THE GREAT MERCIFUL SEED of their own, thus the PEOPLE WHO PRACTICE THE HOLY WAY SHOULD NOT EAT MEAT. "

~ Lankavatara Sutra

The Buddha told Mahamati: "MEAT EATING HAS COUNTLESS OFFENCES.

All Bodhisattvas (spiritual practitioners) should cultivate their great mercy and compassion so that they should not eat meat.

~ Lankavatara Sutra

"Those who renounce the flavor of meat can taste the flavors of the true Dharmas(the true teachings), truthfully practice the Bhumi (stage)s of Bodhisattva (spiritual practitioner), and

attain Anuttara-Samyak-Sambodhi (Supreme perfect enlightenment) quickly.

~ Lankavatara Sutra

"Mahamati, I see that living beings are in the transmigration of the six paths, being together in births and deaths, they give birth to and foster each others, and cyclically become fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters of each others….

 

They may also be born in other paths (of animal, ghost, god, and so on.), whether virtuous or evil, they frequently become the relatives of each others. Because of these relationships, I see that ALL MEATS EATEN BY LIVING BEINGS ARE OF THEIR OWN RELATIVES.

(* The six paths: god, human, Asura, animal, hungry ghost, hell-being)

~ Lankavatara Sutra

"If any of my disciples does not honestly consider that and still eats meat, we should know that he is of the candela (killer) 's lineage.

He is not my disciple and I am not his teacher.

Therefore, Mahamati, if anyone wish to be my relative, he should not eat any meat."

~ Lankavatara Sutra

"Bodhisattvas (spiritual practitioners) should discern that ALL MEATS ARE FROM THE FILTHY BODIES, which are combined by pus, blood, dirtiness,red-bindu (Bright Drop)s, white-bindus of the parents.

Thus, discerning the DIRTINESS OF MEAT, BODHISATTVAS SHOULD NOT EAT MEAT."

~ Lankavatara Sutra

 

Full article:http://suprememastertv.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=scrolls&wr_id=21

[theist]

 

“EATING MEAT DESTROYS THE SEED OF COMPASSION and a meat eater’s every action will terrify all beings due to their bodily scent of meat.”

~ Mahaparinirvana Sutra

 

This says it all to me. I am not concerned with what someone eats just the suffering caused to others in the procurment of the meat.

 

What real religion is there is compassion is not taught and being developed in the practioner?

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

Finally the Buddhists are understanding their responsibility to introduce vegetarianism

There have been many Buddhist vegetarians over the years. I don't see how this is new.

[Kingdecember]

 

Finally the Buddhists are understanding their responsibility to introduce vegetarianism

 

Vegetarianism is not a prerequisite for a buddhist.

 

a Buddhist Monk named Ajahn Jagaro on Buddhism & Vegetarianism :

It is not my intention to sit here and tell you what the final word on Buddhism and vegetarianism is. That is neither my intention nor the Buddhist way. My understanding comes from my experience, from my perspective, from my contemplation. You may agree or you may not; it doesn't matter as long as you reflect clearly on the matter and come to your own conclusions. I take a neutral position because I do not feel that this particular topic can be seen simply in terms of black and white. I take the Buddhist position as I understand it.

Let's begin with a fundamental question: Is it a prerequisite for a Buddhist to be a vegetarian according to the teachings of the Buddha, as far as we can assess? I would have to say, No, according to the Buddhist scriptures it is not a prerequisite for a person to be a vegetarian in order to be a Buddhist.

People say, "Well how do you know what the Buddha taught, anyway?" It's true. I don't know from personal experience; if I was there, I don't remember it. So what do we have to rely on? We have to rely on these scriptures that have been handed down through the centuries. As to whether we can trust these scriptures depends on whether we accept them as accurate recordings of the Buddha's teaching or not. In the Theravada tradition we have what we call the Pali Canon, the Buddhist scriptures. There are many volumes, the Vinaya Pitaka, the discipline for monks and nuns, the Suttanta Pitaka, which contains the discourses or teachings given by the Buddha, and finally the Abhidhamma Pitaka, which is the system of philosophy and psychology developed from the basic texts. Most scholars agree that the Abhidhamma Pitaka, the 'higher teaching', was developed by teachers of later periods from the basic texts of the Suttas as a system of analysis for easier explanation and for use in debate.

So there are three collections of scriptures. My research is limited to the Vinaya and the Suttas, the books of discipline and the books of discourses. From my studies I have great confidence that what is presented in these scriptures accurately represents what the Buddha taught. However, I do not claim that every word in these scriptures is exactly the word of the Buddha. There have been some changes, some additions and some alterations through the ages, but the essence is there. In essence the texts are a very true and accurate record of what the Buddha taught.

My basis for this reasoning is simply the fact that the people who passed on these teachings and checked them were disciples, monks and nuns who had tremendous respect for the Buddha, just as monks today have, and I don't think that many monks would dare to intentionally change the teachings of the Buddha. Very few monks would be prepared to do that. Any alterations that have taken place were simply an expedient means for making recitation more convenient. There may have been accidental alterations, but I do not think that the texts were corrupted intentionally, certainly not in any serious or major way.

This is verified in particular with regard to the Books of Discipline, which deal with the monastic discipline. Through the ages Buddhism slowly spread from the ffice:smarttags" /><ST1:PlaceName w:st="on">Ganges</ST1:PlaceName> <ST1:PlaceType w:st="on">Valley</ST1:PlaceType> throughout Sri Lanka, across to <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comIndia</st1:country-region>, moving south to <st1:country-region w:st=" /><st1:country-region w:st="on">Burma</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st="on">Thailand</st1:country-region>, then north towards <st1:country-region w:st="on">Tibet</st1:country-region> and eventually <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region>. Over the centuries it began to fragment into various schools. Some of these schools flourished in different parts of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">India</st1:place></st1:country-region> and more distant locations, and so had very little or no contact with each other. When we compare the Books of Discipline, however, there's remarkable similarity between these different schools. They are so similar that they must have originally come from the same source.

So there is good reason for confidence in what we call the Pali Canon and to accept that it does represent the teachings of the Buddha. In any case, this is the evidence we have to deal with, because there is no one here who can say, "I heard the Buddha say differently." These scriptures are the most authoritative or the most definitive representation of the Buddha's teachings.

If we study these scriptures very carefully we will find that nowhere is there any injunction to either lay people or to monks with regard to vegetarianism. There is not a single mention of it as a Buddhist injunction on either the monks and nuns or lay people. If the Buddha had made vegetarianism a prerequisite it would have to be somewhere in the scriptures. Quite to the contrary, one does find a number of instances where the Buddha speaks about food, especially on the rules pertaining to the monks, indicating that, during the time of the Buddha, the monks did sometimes eat meat.

If you'll bear with me I would first like to present to you some of this historical evidence. In these scriptures, particularly in the Books of Discipline, there are many references to what monks are and are not allowed to do. A lot of these rules have to do with food; there are rules about all sorts of things pertaining to food, some of them very unusual. If the monks had to be vegetarian then these rules would seem to be completely useless or irrelevant.

For instance there is one rule which forbids monks from eating the meat of certain types of animals, such as horse, elephant, dog, snake, tiger, leopard and bear. There are about a dozen different types of meat specified by the Buddha which are not allowed for monks. That he made a rule that certain types of meat were not to be eaten by monks would indicate that other types of meat were allowable.

There is another rule: a monk was ill, and as he was quite sick a devout female disciple asked him if he had ever had this illness before and what did he take to cure it? It was some sort of stomach problem, and he said that he'd had it before and last time he had some meat broth which helped to relieve the symptoms. So this woman went off looking for meat to prepare a meat broth for the sick monk. However it was an uposatha (observance) day, so there was no meat available anywhere. It was a tradition in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">India</st1:place></st1:country-region> not to slaughter animals on such days. Out of great devotion this lady decided that the monk could not be left to suffer, so she cut a piece of her own flesh and made a meat broth. She took it to the monk, offered it to him, and apparently he drank it and recovered. When the Buddha heard about this, he made a rule that monks are not allowed to eat human flesh. Thank goodness for that!

So here is another strange rule that would be completely pointless if there had been a stipulation that the monks never eat meat. There are many similar instances both in the Rules of Discipline and in the Discourses. When the Buddha heard a charge that Buddhist monks caused the killing of animals by eating meat, he stated that this was not so. He then declared three conditions under which monks were not to eat meat: if they have seen, heard or they suspect that the animal was killed specifically to feed them, then the monks should refuse to accept that food. At other times, when the monks go on almsround, they are supposed to look into their bowls and accept whatever is given with gratitude, without showing pleasure or displeasure. However, if a monk knows, has heard or suspects that the animal has been killed specifically to feed the monks, he should refuse to receive it.

There are many more examples than I have given here, scattered throughout the scriptures, indicating that it was not a requirement that either the monks or the lay people be vegetarian.

Furthermore, we can see that throughout the history of Buddhism there has not been one Buddhist country were vegetarianism was the common practice of the Buddhist people. This would indicate that it hasn't been the practice right from the very beginning. Although some Mahayana monks, in particular the Chinese, Vietnamese and some of the Japanese, are vegetarian, the majority of lay people are not. Historically, right up to the present day, Buddhist people in general haven't been strictly vegetarian. This would seem to support the conclusion drawn from an examination of the scriptures, that it has never been a prerequisite for people who want to be Buddhists to be vegetarian.

Of course it can be argued, and it often is argued, by vegetarian monks in particular, but also by lay people, that the scriptures were altered. They argue that the Buddha did teach vegetarianism, but those monks who wanted to eat meat went and changed every reference to it in all the texts. They didn't have a computer to just punch in 'reference to meat' and get a whole list. The scriptures were initially handed down by word of mouth and many monks were involved. No one had it on a disk so that it could be changed in half an hour. It would have been very difficult to change as there are many references to it throughout the scriptures. You could change it in one place but then it would be inconsistent with other references. It is highly unlikely that the monks could have achieved consistency in changing so many references throughout the scriptures, so I think the claim of corruption of the scriptures by meat-loving monks is a bit far-fetched. I think the scriptures are accurate. I think that the Buddha did not make it a prerequisite for people, nor do I think that it was laid down as a rule of training for monks.

 

 

[suchandra]

 

There have been many Buddhist vegetarians over the years. I don't see how this is new.

 

Appology, sorry, you're so right. May be this post should be deleted. There're lots of my posts deleted, so I have no problem if this one is also deleted.

Again, great appology for posting this.