All Buddhists should be vegetarians.Is it true?Because I read a prc buddhist forum and was angered about it.Amituofo.

oh oh  watch your anger...

For ur information, it is not true.

http://www.jenchen.org.sg/vol5no4a.htm

 

Volume 5 no 4
Feature
Five Clean Sources of Meat
Many people firmly recognise that the Buddha's teachings are full, subtle, comprehensive and profound. They recognise and revere the truth of the Buddha-dharma as soon as they encounter it. However, they face a common dilemma: they hesitate to take refuge in the Three Treasures because they do not wish to be vegetarians. For this reason, some ponder at the gate of Buddhism for a long time and are afraid to take that step forward. Others arrive at the crossroad of religion, some took the wrong turn and ended up with some cults or unorthodox ways. They do not realise that it is not easy to be born a human, and it is even harder to have the opportunity to encounter the Buddha-dharma. Having been born a human, it is indeed a waste of opportunity not to embrace Buddhism as it knocks at our door.
       

The Buddha-dharma is infinite and there are in reality more than 84,000 Dharma doors, or methods by which we can embark to learn and practise Buddhism. Vegetarianism is just one of the many methods. To refrain from killing is merely a means of assisting us to progress in our cultivation. As a medicine, meat is permitted in the Buddhist precepts if it is required to cure a particular sickness. Buddhism cherishes compassion. However, killing and causing harm to life have their retributions. The world has no peace as victims and villains engage in a vicious cycle of vengeance and revenge, culminating in calamities and disasters, and inflicting suffering and misery across the world.

Buddha understands the ignorance and habits of sentient beings that have accumulated from aeons of their many past lives. In order to provide sentient beings with an expedient means of embracing Buddhism, those who are not able to convert to a vegetarian diet on a long term basis are permitted to consume meat provided:

(1) That he did not slaughter the animal personally
(2) That he did not instruct others to slaughter
(3) That the slaughter was not committed for his sake
(4) That he did not witness the slaughter
(5) That he did not hear the cries associated with the slaughter

To refrain from killing is fundamental to Buddhism. Regardless of life forms, we must not kill, we must not instruct others to kill, and it must not be killed for our sake, for example, to celebrate our birthday or because we were coming to dinner. These are three sources of clean meat.

In Confucianism, benevolence also means to refrain from killing. It is said that heaven has the virtue of loving life. It cannot bear to witness the loss of life, let alone eat the flesh of those whose cries in death we have heard. Buddhism advocates compassion and loving-kindness to all sentient beings, regardless of their relation to you. It is only appropriate that we do not kill for our livelihood or for the purpose of celebrating occasions, such as births, birthdays, funerals or weddings. Meats are no different from the other foodstuffs purchased from the market if people do not witness the killing or hear the cries of the animal that is being slaughtered. If a differentiation between the two kinds of purchases and the taste of the meat do not exist in the mind, then the guilt is lighter. Together with the three mentioned earlier, these constitute the five sources of clean meat.

     

Meat eating however is a pre-condition to killing. If people refrain from eating meat, there will be no killing of animals for meat. Sadly, the human race has committed killings for aeons and is engaged in an endless cycle of vengeance and revenge over their past lives. For one who is slaughtered for meat in this life, it is probably because he had done the same to others in the past. The score is even, no more and no less.

People who eat meat from the five clean sources are advised to learn to chant the Buddha's name and the Buddhist mantras, so as to transfer the merits to those whose meat they are eating. They should also wish them an early rebirth in the human realm, to eliminate any thoughts of vengeance, to nurture their virtuous roots to benefit all sentient beings and together build a peaceful, caring and blissful pure land in this world. Only when this is promoted across the entire world, will we be able to eliminate hatred and vengeance, and enhance a mind of compassion and loving kindness. In this way we will be able to transform this Saha world into a pure land.

 

© Copyright 2002.Jen Chen Buddhism Centre
Designed by DCS Solutions Ltd

i cannot take it anyway.not ture for me

Buddhist should be vegetarian, but vegetarianism is not a must.

I agree with what Isis said "watch your anger", we should watch our anger, but it is not a must.

extracted

 

Vegetarian diet.

Some people misperceived that one who practices Buddhism must be a vegetarian. So people who cannot stop eating meat misunderstood that they are not ready to learn Buddhism. Please do not think that one must be a vegetarian in order to learn the Dharma. To practice Buddhism and be a vegetarian are two separate issues. To those compassionate Buddhists, vegetarian diet is just a way of manifesting one’s compassion to sentient beings only. And this issue shouldn’t deter others who are non-vegetarians from learning the Dharma. We can take meat if it falls under the 3 conditions as stated below:

 

1. if the animal is not especially killed for us
2. if we do not see the animals dying
3. if we do not hear the animals screaming

Theravada and tibetan buddhism they do take meat, Mahayana buddhism they do not take meat...It is not a must, but by being a vegetarian it is a shown of compassionate act.

i would like to clarify something

(4) That he did not witness the slaughter

lets say u go to the market, and u buy a chicken

then they ask u whether u wan to cut the chicken

if u say yes, then they cut it, is tis consider as witness the slaughter ?

 

According to Cause and Effect, even if you do not witness the slaughter, you are still indirectly responsible for the kill.

Because he want to eat, that's why the seller kill. Like that already invoked the above 2

(2) That he did not instruct others to slaughter
(3) That the slaughter was not committed for his sake

He has indirectly instructed the kill by potraying his intention to eat

and thus the slaughter was commited for his sake because he wants to buy and eat

Originally posted by gunner77:

i would like to clarify something

(4) That he did not witness the slaughter

lets say u go to the market, and u buy a chicken

then they ask u whether u wan to cut the chicken

if u say yes, then they cut it, is tis consider as witness the slaughter ?

 

No, the chicken is already dead.

Frozen meat is not against the 5 clean meat, but ordering seafood at restaurants is not really '5 clean meat' if you order the seafood because you know they'll slaughter for you.

Originally posted by eagle:

According to Cause and Effect, even if you do not witness the slaughter, you are still indirectly responsible for the kill.

Because he want to eat, that's why the seller kill. Like that already invoked the above 2

(2) That he did not instruct others to slaughter
(3) That the slaughter was not committed for his sake

He has indirectly instructed the kill by potraying his intention to eat

and thus the slaughter was commited for his sake because he wants to buy and eat

The karma of indirect killing is still less than the karma of direct killing or ordering to kill while the animal is still alive.

Nevertheless the most compassionate thing to do is to stop eating all meat. That is Bodhisattva practice.

Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

No, the chicken is already dead.

Frozen meat is not against the 5 clean meat, but ordering seafood at restaurants is not really '5 clean meat' if you order the seafood because you know they'll slaughter for you.

thanks !

today went to market then buy chicken saw they cut it

immediately tink of tis thread

at least now can eat at ease

Originally posted by eagle:

According to Cause and Effect, even if you do not witness the slaughter, you are still indirectly responsible for the kill.

Because he want to eat, that's why the seller kill. Like that already invoked the above 2

(2) That he did not instruct others to slaughter
(3) That the slaughter was not committed for his sake

He has indirectly instructed the kill by potraying his intention to eat

and thus the slaughter was commited for his sake because he wants to buy and eat

Wah Cause and Effect like that ah?

Then every moment while you're alive, the butcher will think that you want to eat the meat and still carry on killing for your sake!

You very sinful to be alived leh, every single moment you're involved with indirect killing!

no la... I replying to gunner77 mah... this part only

lets say u go to the market, and u buy a chicken

then they ask u whether u wan to cut the chicken

if u say yes, then they cut it

But even with eating chickens, you are causing demands, which is still karma (indirect killing), although this karma (as mentioned) is less than the karma of direct killing.

Actually, frozen meat doesnt 'invoke' (2) or (3). It only refers to personally having demaded the killing. Frozen meat is 'indirect' so the karma is generally lighter.

vesak day coming

19th may

Originally posted by eagle:

no la... I replying to gunner77 mah... this part only

But even with eating chickens, you are causing demands, which is still karma (indirect killing), although this karma (as mentioned) is less than the karma of direct killing.

The thing is, whether you demand or not, you're part of the demand. You think in the poultry industry, they will find out who likes to eat meat and who do not like to eat meat?

The society at large as a whole, in their point of view is the demand, and you're part of it, whether you demand or not.

That's why indirect killing in eating meat has a weak argument in the chain of kamma. However it is so prevalent nowadays.

Action and/or speech with intention create kamma. Basic stuff. Indirect kamma's idea is a developed much latter with the influence (which I suspect) of Jainism. That's why after exam going Jain Temple to see look.

Originally posted by yamizi:

The thing is, whether you demand or not, you're part of the demand. You think in the poultry industry, they will find out who likes to eat meat and who do not like to eat meat?

The society at large as a whole, in their point of view is the demand, and you're part of it, whether you demand or not.

That's why indirect killing in eating meat has a weak argument in the chain of kamma. However it is so prevalent nowadays.

Action and/or speech with intention create kamma. Basic stuff. Indirect kamma's idea is a developed much latter with the influence (which I suspect) of Jainism. That's why after exam going Jain Temple to see look.

In frozen meat, the karma of killing is not the same or direct as that of the one who is killing the animal himself because such a person is accumulating action karma of killing. Demanding the killing is also karma, like speech karma. That is why Buddha allowed meat on the 3 or 5 conditions in which you neither kill, demanded or witnessed the killing. The karma is generally lighter.

Of course by eating or buying meat there is also karma but the karma is not the same as personally killing or causing the suffering of the animal. By eating or buying meat you are creating the karma for allowing the industry to thrive. By killing, you are creating the karma of killing. Thats my understanding.

The Buddha also disencourage monks from eating ten kinds of meat: horse, elephant, dog, snake, tiger, leopard or is it panther or jaguar, bear, hyena, boar and oh yes human.

Eh how about turtle ?

From Master Chin Kung:

 

素食对于健康大有好处，特别是中年以后。中年以后不知道在饮食上摄生，对于你晚年身体健康会有很大影响。这是从饮食起居，我们一般讲‘卫生’。世间人都懂得讲求卫生，可是还有重要的，大家疏忽了，那是什么？卫性。‘性’是好的性情，它会影响生理。所以伊斯兰教（回教）他们的饮食有很多规矩，有很多东西他们都不吃的。我曾经研究他们的教义，为什么不吃？原来那些动物性情不好。凡是性情不好的动物、植物，他都不吃。为什么？怕影响自己的性情。他懂得卫性，保护一个好的情绪，我们今天讲‘情绪’，这就比一般人高明。以后，我读佛经，佛更高明，佛讲三条，除了讲求卫生、卫性，还讲求卫心，保护自己的慈悲心，保护自己善良的心。所以，不食一切众生肉，这个有道理在。

======

 

今天的肉食，你請我吃，我也不敢吃。為什麼？肉有毒不能吃。台灣同修告訴我，台灣養的豬，六個月就被殺了，而且天天打荷爾蒙，讓牠趕快長胖，非常不正常，所以豬吃的是有毒的東西，肉怎麼會沒有毒？雞就更不能吃了，因為牠六個星期就要被殺了，而且都是養在籠子裡面。我們想一想，如果一個人從出生就關到監牢獄，養胖了再來殺，他是什麼心情？有怨恨，怨恨就是毒。過去家畜都是養在外面，沒有殺牠的時候，自由自在，生活得很快樂。現在坐監牢，每天餵毒藥，那個肉能吃嗎？現在人吃肉食，得些奇奇怪怪的病，病從哪裡來的？「病從口入」。現在麻煩更大，連蔬菜都有農藥，但畢竟比肉食要好得多，肉食裡有細菌病毒，比素食高很多倍。所以，我們想一想，為了自己身體健康，還是要選擇素食。素食的人很健康，不比天天吃肉食、吃補品的差，甚至於比他們健康。要讓他們知道素食對於健康長壽有真正的利益，用此方式來勸導人素食，就對了。

 

===

凡是有生命的動物，被人抓到的時候，知道自己要被屠殺、要被食噉，
那種痛苦，我們從牠表情上能看到，垂頭喪氣，在裡面流眼淚，
那種可憐的狀況，與人有什麼兩樣？
而人們真正是有眼沒有見到，有耳沒有聽到，有心沒有感觸到，
任意的宰殺，滿足自己的食慾，結冤造業無過於此。

---------------------------

人慶長壽，殺害眾生來宴會；慶祝自己的長壽，叫人家短命，哪有這種道理？於情於理都違背了。
殺生造業來慶生，諸位想想看，這合不合情理？
本來自己壽命很長，因為年年用這種方式慶生，反而把自己的壽命減損了。
不但壽命減損，來生的苦報，跟這些眾生結的冤業，冤冤相報，沒完沒了。
明眼人看得清楚，慶生做壽斷斷不可以殺生。

---------------------------

喪事不能殺生，祭祀也不可殺生。
你每一年殺生祭祀你的祖先，祭祀你過世的家親眷屬，
亡人不但不能得福，反而加重罪業，增加他的苦報，
因為都是為他而殺的，這是我們在世的活人無知。
明瞭這些事理的真相，決定不忍心殺生祭祀。

---------------------------

拜佛許願更不可以殺生，
諸佛菩薩大慈大悲、救苦救難都來不及，怎麼可以殺害眾生去祭祀佛菩薩？

---------------------------

同理可知，結婚宴會也不可以殺生，否則只是徒添往後婚姻生活的種種障礙。

---------------------------

再說到營生，我們在社會必須要有正當的事業，
凡是殺害眾生的事業，
所得的利潤決不是因殺害眾生才得到這個利潤，你的財運是你前生修布施所得來的。
如果你在這一生，從事的是殺害眾生的事業，雖然你現前得富貴，生活過得很優裕，
可是你要知道，
你這個財運不是因殺生而得來的，是你前世所修積的，無論你從事哪一個行業都會發財。

殺害眾生生命的這種行業，把前世的福享盡了，惡報就現前。
我們很冷靜、很仔細的觀察，就知道這個現象，
所以我們營生的行業要謹慎選擇，決定不能幹殺害眾生這種行業。
這種行業對自己決定不利，往後的果報有得受了！

---------------------------

再講到我們日常生活當中，奉養父母也不可以殺生，素食的養分已經攝受不盡了，何必要殺害眾生？
如果你們以為素食沒有營養，仔細去看看出家人，可以增長你的信心，改變你的觀念。

---------------------------

養病也不可殺生，更應當愛護一切眾生的生命，我們自己才能得長壽，這是健康長壽之因。

---------------------------

道教做法會用三牲祭神。
我們替神明想想，「正直聰明謂之神」，神還貪圖你血腥的祭祀來保佑你嗎？
哪有這種道理！所以法會祭神不能殺生。

---------------------------

世俗過年，家家都殺生，家家都吃肉，尤其是殺生來祭祀祖先，實在講，也是加重祖先的罪業，
祖先不但不能夠得福，還因而遭難，這是我們錯誤觀念造成的。
所以我們每年遇到新年，要特別提倡素食，加倍的愛護眾生。

 

 

can eat.

 

:)

 

 

both can.

What do you mean by "both"?

Someone messaged me this titled 'vegetarian' which I supposed is intended by the sender to justify meat eating in a Buddhist context:

In which I replied:

You did not read his story. This Maha Siddha eats only the parts of fish which were discarded by the fisherman -- i.e. the organs and lower part of the fish which nobody eats. He purposely ONLY eats fish-gut because he want to get rid of his dualistic preconception of attachment to eating 'pure stuff' or his attachment to only eating things conceived by his judgmental mind as more desirable than the other -- so eating fish gut becomes his practice of getting rid of his discrimination and attachment. His ultimate aim through eating disgusting things is to realise the One Taste (luminous-emptiness) nature of all appearances, which he achieved later on.

But he is in this way not at all supporting the killing of fish, he only ate the unwanted discards left by the fishermen. On the other hand by eating and buying fish we are being the demand and indirect cause of the killing of the fish -- i.e. causing the industry to thrive.

http://www.keithdowman.net/books/mm.htm

 

For the rest of us, who are not even Maha Siddhas, the most appropriate thing is to become a wholehearted vegetarian and show compassion to all animals, and not think of excuses such as thinking one can dedicate merits or chant a mantra to elevate an animal's sufferings. That is only what Maha Siddhas can do, and even very enlightened people usually avoid doing that. We are not at that level to be able to deliver these sentient beings, so it is irresponsible for us to feed on a living being's body.

The most important thing all Mahayana and Vajrayana is Bodhicitta. Without Bodhicitta, one cannot even be a true Mahayana or Vajrayana practitioner. Developing compassion through avoiding meat is the first step. Lankavatara Sutra says that eating meat destroys the seed of compassion. If you are truly compassionate you will not be able to feed on an living being's body.

Contrary to the Maha Siddha's story you gave above, which is that he is trying to overcome his attachment to preconceived dualistic notions of purity and impurity, the reason why we eat meat is certainly NOT because we want to "overcome the judgment and discrimination of purity", but because we are completely attached to the taste of sentient being's body. There is totally no other reasons why most of us would want to eat meat, other than to satisfy short term desire for the taste of a sentient being's body, which is due to a complete lack of compassion. Vegetarian diets are suitable and even healthier for most people out there, most of us are certainly not even eating meat for 'medicinal purposes'. So it is completely wrong to use the Maha Siddha's story out of context.

I shall not say too much otherwise I will be hypocrite, because I am not full vegetarian yet. But I think being a vegetarian is certainly good to aspire for. I hope to become a vegetarian some day.

Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

Someone messaged me this titled 'vegetarian' which I supposed is intended by the sender to justify meat eating in a Buddhist context:

1 The Mahasiddha Luipa, The Fish-Gut Eater

 

A wild dog with honey rubbed on its nose
Madly devours whatever it sees;
Give the Lama's secret to a worldly fool
And his mind and the lineage burn out.
For a responsive man with knowledge of unborn reality
A mere glimpse of the Lama's vision of pure light-form,
Destroys mental fiction like an elephant berserk
Rampaging through hostile ranks with a sword lashed to its trunk.

 

 

...

In which I replied:

You did not read his story. This Maha Siddha eats only the parts of fish which were discarded by the fisherman -- i.e. the organs and lower part of the fish which nobody eats. He purposely ONLY eats fish-gut because he want to get rid of his dualistic preconception of attachment to eating 'pure stuff' or his attachment to only eating things conceived by his judgmental mind as more desirable than the other -- so eating fish gut becomes his practice of getting rid of his discrimination and attachment. His ultimate aim through eating disgusting things is to realise the One Taste (luminous-emptiness) nature of all appearances, which he achieved later on.

But he is in this way not at all supporting the killing of fish, he only ate the unwanted discards left by the fishermen. On the other hand by eating and buying fish we are being the demand and indirect cause of the killing of the fish -- i.e. causing the industry to thrive.

http://www.keithdowman.net/books/mm.htm

 

For the rest of us, who are not even Maha Siddhas, the most appropriate thing is to become a wholehearted vegetarian and show compassion to all animals, and not think of excuses such as thinking one can dedicate merits or chant a mantra to elevate an animal's sufferings. That is only what Maha Siddhas can do, and even very enlightened people usually avoid doing that. We are not at that level to be able to deliver these sentient beings, so it is irresponsible for us to feed on a living being's body.

The most important thing all Mahayana and Vajrayana is Bodhicitta. Without Bodhicitta, one cannot even be a true Mahayana or Vajrayana practitioner. Developing compassion through avoiding meat is the first step. Lankavatara Sutra says that eating meat destroys the seed of compassion. If you are truly compassionate you will not be able to feed on an living being's body.

Contrary to the Maha Siddha's story you gave above, which is that he is trying to overcome his attachment to preconceived dualistic notions of purity and impurity, the reason why we eat meat is certainly NOT because we want to "overcome the judgment and discrimination of purity", but because we are completely attached to the taste of sentient being's body. There is totally no other reasons why most of us would want to eat meat, other than to satisfy short term desire for the taste of a sentient being's body, which is due to a complete lack of compassion. Vegetarian diets are suitable and even healthier for most people out there, most of us are certainly not even eating meat for 'medicinal purposes'. So it is completely wrong to use the Maha Siddha's story out of context.

I shall not say too much otherwise I will be hypocrite, because I am not full vegetarian yet. But I think being a vegetarian is certainly good to aspire for. I hope to become a vegetarian some day.

So very well said.

As buddhists we should try to eat less meat, even if it is not easy to give up such attachment to taste. Go slowly at your own pace, eat one piece/slice/chunk/portion less from your normal intake.

And frankly speaking, it is actually not that difficult after a while. Anybody can do it.  I realise that after reducing meat consumption, our preference for taste changes; in which one may build a very natural instinct to avoid meat, as natural as one would avoid eating cow dung, or as in one would move away his hand when torched by a flame. This was my initial reaction towards meat, like a child who refuses to eat his greens, they just taste bad. And after some time of viualisation of where and how these meat of sentient beings became food on our dinning table, the feeling of compassion arises naturally. It is not easy to go back to consuming meat again.

 

I think there are many ppl out there who feel the same, or have similar reactions as mine. It's just that they are afriad to say it for fear of being labelled a hypocrite or religion fanatics. 

Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

In frozen meat, the karma of killing is not the same or direct as that of the one who is killing the animal himself because such a person is accumulating action karma of killing. Demanding the killing is also karma, like speech karma. That is why Buddha allowed meat on the 3 or 5 conditions in which you neither kill, demanded or witnessed the killing. The karma is generally lighter.

Of course by eating or buying meat there is also karma but the karma is not the same as personally killing or causing the suffering of the animal. By eating or buying meat you are creating the karma for allowing the industry to thrive. By killing, you are creating the karma of killing. Thats my understanding.

Obviously you don't get my point but it's okay.

May be a bit off-topic here but becoming a vegetarian may help the environment by lowering greenhouse gases emission:

http://www.healthythoughts.com/Eat%20Less%20Meat%20Cool%20the%20Planet.htm

Besides that, as mentioned by cycle, some may feel a bit uncomfortable eating meat after knowing about what the farm animals have to go through...

http://veg.ca/content/view/62/101/

 http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/animals.html

The articles may be a bit outdated, any updated info to share?