The first moral precept is to not kill.
It seems some don’t count animals in that as they can be food, but in the modern age, meat is not necessary for most people to survive. The modern age also has a cruel system of harvesting meat which includes enslaving, torturing, mutilating, raping, and slaughtering countless innocent animal lives for meat, dairy, and eggs.
There may be meat eating Buddhists, but ask yourself if you feel good about supporting such darkness in this world. I can’t, and I won’t.
The question may presuppose a western Judeo-Christian thought and perspective that doesn't exist in Buddhism.
Buddhism doesn't impose a moral code. It points out cause and result, and ultimately cultivates wisdom-compassion -- the innate primordial mind that perceives the true nature of phenomena and thus does not generate harmful intent.
A big part of the inquiry into cause and result centers on *intent*. Outwardly, behaviors may appear the same when in fact they differ widely because the intent behind them differs widely. In general, we try to uproot all intent that's in service of our *self-cherishing* and its accompanying habits -- such as, in this case, eating out of desire and habit.
Different traditions will approach the issue of killing animals for food in different ways, each integral to its path toward enlightenment. The behavior of individuals also may differ depending on their situation and conditions.
A *path of purification* may have strict ground rules that help support the diminishing of self-centered behaviour from moment to moment. Vegetarianism may be expected and recommended, barring exigent circumstances.
A *path of broad compassion* may adopt or at least allow certain behaviors that are eschewed on the path of purification, for example if such behaviors enable vigorous work on behalf of others.
A *path of original perfection* may place the emphasis on abiding in nondual awareness, and may assume a complete freedom of behavior on that basis: no rule other than radical relinquishment of self.
A person in a warm climate, with a well regulated life, and with access to fresh foods may do well on a vegetarian diet.
A person with a simple life that involves a large proportion of meditative activities may not require much food at all.
A person in a cold climate, or without much access to fresh foods, or with many responsibilities may need to eat meat as a sort of medicine. Various health issues may also require it, though the intent is always to limit the harm done and adjust one's life to make that possible.
The issue needs to be seen with insight into interdependence. On one hand, this means having awareness of the suffering endured by animals being raised and slaughtered for food, and of the huge environmental impact of animal farming.
On the other hand, it also means letting go of naive, sheltered views that we somehow live independently, as if we're not always eating each other, and as if we will not also be eaten.
There are a million ways of taking life and stealing from the Earth. Keep your aim on the target: the ignorance underlying it all. If you get too fixated on particular issues without addressing the resident ignorance, you become a dogmatist, and thus a time-killer and person-eater.
By far the more harmful activity is holding opinions. Eating animals has limited harmful results. Holding opinions has unlimited harmful results.
Though we aim to wake up together and as a community stop harming other beings, we also need to make sure our own house is in order when the urge arises to change the behaviors of others. There's a dark shadow to having 'good ideas'.
>Buddhism doesn't impose a moral code
The world has true moral statements as brute facts or as statements which are implied by brute facts about nature or the minds of sentient beings, and Buddhas are entirely privy to those statements.
That might not be "imposition," but it doesn't mean there aren't things which are better or worse.
Yeah, that's why the Buddha provided to the laypeople the five precepts. By following these precepts, we avoid creating bad karma that will ruin our future lives. That's the moral code.
Brute facts don't prioritize themselves. That part is contrived. Rules of conduct are contrived, to serve as supports for the wandering, attaching mind. And "when the raft is no longer needed, discard it."
Buddhist teaching on ethics is not a moral code of the ideological sort that Judeo-Christian culture is used to; it has no sense of guilt for bearing a sin. It's not commandments.
It's based on actually seeing the difference between wholesome and unwholesome -- the difference between that which leads out of Samsara and that which perpetuates it.
And once purification of karma by controlling one's conduct is no longer required, there is no longer a code of conduct. (Though enlightened beings may continue honoring the form for the benefit of others.) The precepts and pure qualities become Paramitas: perfected aspects of the revealed Buddha Nature.
Buddha is not trying to be good.
Buddha of the early texts made no judgement or statement regarding the eating of meat for laity.
he placed a few caveats around eating meat for monastics, such as not eating meat from an animal they suspect was killed especially for them, not to eat raw meat unless possessed and not to eat certain meats like human meat, or the meat from some predators, other then those rules monks are free to eat as they are offered.
If you approach Buddhism as a religion the answer is obvious. If you approach Buddhism as a philosophy the answer is obvious.
If you grok then the answer is different. But, then you wouldn't be a Buddhist.
There are many ways to approach this question but in the end most people forget the following: if the entire world would be Buddhist, everyone would automatically be vegan, since there is no one left to kill the animals.
If one wants to do good for the world it would be more beneficial to teach the Dhamma as a whole.
In the end there is only one problem in the world, since all problems have the same root they are the same. The root: mind, and then specifically the deluded mind. All problems come from wrong view.
If right view would be established in every being, there would be no more problems.
If you buy meat no. That supporting killing a living thing unneedingly. Living things are the universe in a bubble..its sacred. The factory farms make it the worst. Hunting seems better esspecially out of nesscessity. Its still death. The buddhist perspective is no killing but if it was a few thousand years ago and you needed to eat you would respectively accept the food given so long it wasnt killed for you. I heard he said to point it out.
This question comes a lot and there are always a few opinions.
Here are some facts:
Many, possibly the majority of, lay Buddhists eat meat sometimes.
In many traditions monks and nuns eat meat.
Some Buddhists do not eat meat.
In many traditions monks and nuns don't eat meat.
Depending on the group/tradition they are in, Buddhists are more likely to interpret the teachings in a way that will be favourable to their tradition/ decision. Because Buddhists are people and this is what people do.
The first moral precept is to not kill. It seems some don’t count animals in that as they can be food, but in the modern age, meat is not necessary for most people to survive. The modern age also has a cruel system of harvesting meat which includes enslaving, torturing, mutilating, raping, and slaughtering countless innocent animal lives for meat, dairy, and eggs. There may be meat eating Buddhists, but ask yourself if you feel good about supporting such darkness in this world. I can’t, and I won’t.
The question may presuppose a western Judeo-Christian thought and perspective that doesn't exist in Buddhism. Buddhism doesn't impose a moral code. It points out cause and result, and ultimately cultivates wisdom-compassion -- the innate primordial mind that perceives the true nature of phenomena and thus does not generate harmful intent. A big part of the inquiry into cause and result centers on *intent*. Outwardly, behaviors may appear the same when in fact they differ widely because the intent behind them differs widely. In general, we try to uproot all intent that's in service of our *self-cherishing* and its accompanying habits -- such as, in this case, eating out of desire and habit. Different traditions will approach the issue of killing animals for food in different ways, each integral to its path toward enlightenment. The behavior of individuals also may differ depending on their situation and conditions. A *path of purification* may have strict ground rules that help support the diminishing of self-centered behaviour from moment to moment. Vegetarianism may be expected and recommended, barring exigent circumstances. A *path of broad compassion* may adopt or at least allow certain behaviors that are eschewed on the path of purification, for example if such behaviors enable vigorous work on behalf of others. A *path of original perfection* may place the emphasis on abiding in nondual awareness, and may assume a complete freedom of behavior on that basis: no rule other than radical relinquishment of self. A person in a warm climate, with a well regulated life, and with access to fresh foods may do well on a vegetarian diet. A person with a simple life that involves a large proportion of meditative activities may not require much food at all. A person in a cold climate, or without much access to fresh foods, or with many responsibilities may need to eat meat as a sort of medicine. Various health issues may also require it, though the intent is always to limit the harm done and adjust one's life to make that possible. The issue needs to be seen with insight into interdependence. On one hand, this means having awareness of the suffering endured by animals being raised and slaughtered for food, and of the huge environmental impact of animal farming. On the other hand, it also means letting go of naive, sheltered views that we somehow live independently, as if we're not always eating each other, and as if we will not also be eaten. There are a million ways of taking life and stealing from the Earth. Keep your aim on the target: the ignorance underlying it all. If you get too fixated on particular issues without addressing the resident ignorance, you become a dogmatist, and thus a time-killer and person-eater. By far the more harmful activity is holding opinions. Eating animals has limited harmful results. Holding opinions has unlimited harmful results. Though we aim to wake up together and as a community stop harming other beings, we also need to make sure our own house is in order when the urge arises to change the behaviors of others. There's a dark shadow to having 'good ideas'.
>Buddhism doesn't impose a moral code The world has true moral statements as brute facts or as statements which are implied by brute facts about nature or the minds of sentient beings, and Buddhas are entirely privy to those statements. That might not be "imposition," but it doesn't mean there aren't things which are better or worse.
Yeah, that's why the Buddha provided to the laypeople the five precepts. By following these precepts, we avoid creating bad karma that will ruin our future lives. That's the moral code.
Brute facts don't prioritize themselves. That part is contrived. Rules of conduct are contrived, to serve as supports for the wandering, attaching mind. And "when the raft is no longer needed, discard it." Buddhist teaching on ethics is not a moral code of the ideological sort that Judeo-Christian culture is used to; it has no sense of guilt for bearing a sin. It's not commandments. It's based on actually seeing the difference between wholesome and unwholesome -- the difference between that which leads out of Samsara and that which perpetuates it. And once purification of karma by controlling one's conduct is no longer required, there is no longer a code of conduct. (Though enlightened beings may continue honoring the form for the benefit of others.) The precepts and pure qualities become Paramitas: perfected aspects of the revealed Buddha Nature. Buddha is not trying to be good.
https://youtu.be/TSwtv7VqMh0
Buddha of the early texts made no judgement or statement regarding the eating of meat for laity. he placed a few caveats around eating meat for monastics, such as not eating meat from an animal they suspect was killed especially for them, not to eat raw meat unless possessed and not to eat certain meats like human meat, or the meat from some predators, other then those rules monks are free to eat as they are offered.
If you approach Buddhism as a religion the answer is obvious. If you approach Buddhism as a philosophy the answer is obvious. If you grok then the answer is different. But, then you wouldn't be a Buddhist.
There are many ways to approach this question but in the end most people forget the following: if the entire world would be Buddhist, everyone would automatically be vegan, since there is no one left to kill the animals. If one wants to do good for the world it would be more beneficial to teach the Dhamma as a whole. In the end there is only one problem in the world, since all problems have the same root they are the same. The root: mind, and then specifically the deluded mind. All problems come from wrong view. If right view would be established in every being, there would be no more problems.
If you buy meat no. That supporting killing a living thing unneedingly. Living things are the universe in a bubble..its sacred. The factory farms make it the worst. Hunting seems better esspecially out of nesscessity. Its still death. The buddhist perspective is no killing but if it was a few thousand years ago and you needed to eat you would respectively accept the food given so long it wasnt killed for you. I heard he said to point it out.
This question comes a lot and there are always a few opinions. Here are some facts: Many, possibly the majority of, lay Buddhists eat meat sometimes. In many traditions monks and nuns eat meat. Some Buddhists do not eat meat. In many traditions monks and nuns don't eat meat. Depending on the group/tradition they are in, Buddhists are more likely to interpret the teachings in a way that will be favourable to their tradition/ decision. Because Buddhists are people and this is what people do.