Buddha Was a Vegetarian . . . Yes he was!!

[Bumpity]

So, why can't I find a vegtarian girlfriend in Thailand??

Why is it so difficult to find a vegetarian meal in Thailand???

I drink, love sex, dance . . . I just don't like killing.

Remember what you were taught at the Temple??? Buddha said: "Number One precept -- NO KILLING!."

[Princess]

And plants don't have life? What about the micro organisms you kill by breathing? Or the insects you unwittingly step on when you walk?

It's the circle of life - predator and prey. Nothing wrong with being a vegetarian - I just don't like people who accuse meat eaters of 'killing' and 'murder' etc etc.

Btw...good luck with your search. I'm sure there's at least one lovely vegetarian lady out there.

[Princess]

Vegetarianism was not a part of the early Buddhist tradition and the Buddha himself was not a vegetarian. The Buddha got his food either by going on alms rounds or by being invited to the houses of his supporters and in both cases he ate what he was given. Before his enlightenment he had experimented with various diets including a meatless diet, but he eventually abandoned them believing that they did not contribute to spiritual development.

quote from http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd21.htm

and i dont think its hard to find meatless food in Thailand, probably you cant find it cause its all presented in Thai, when i feel like to, i have it easily in tesco food centre or the mall...

[Loburt]

Santa Claus was a communist. He wore a red suit.

Please don't kill. Go to Paragon instead.

[eagle]

I recently took a couple of american buffalo steaks to share with a friend who runs a local coffee house. I waited till the environmental talking group left or was almost gone till I brought out the meat which we had with a salad.

My friend was speaking to an elder enlightened lookin gentleman and excitedly told him I had brought her a steak and he gasped and said oooh meat :roll:

Feeling superior about yourself because you don't eat meat is so shallow and when I see meat is murder signs I see dum ass was here :roll:

[Loburt]

Buddha also said no intoxicants.

Yet you drink.

Buddha was celibate.

Yet you love sex.

The precepts aren't a menu you can pick and chose from and then criticize others because they ordered a different meal than you.

[Bumpity]

Buddha came from North India. His culture was DISTINCTLY and TOTALLY Hindu and vegetarian. He wandered as all Hindu vaisnayas do . . . taking alms. Of course. But the food he was offered and ate was vegetarian. Virtuallly no one ate meat in the culture in which he was raised and taught. That's just a fact.

Buddha taught "no killing," as did his culture. He was no different than the culture he came from, which also believed that killing was inapproprate behavior for humans.

What "Buddhism" has done with the teachings of Buddha is similar to what Chistians have done with the teachings of Christ. Take what they want and add their own spin to suit their own needs and desires. Buddhism today has very little to do with what Buddha taught. Read Buddha rather than listen to what Buddhist monks teach.

I am NOT a Buddhist and don't frankly care what Buddha said or didn't say. But in a society that is 95 per cent "Buddhist," you would figure that there would be at least some who listened to Buddha rather that the whoreish Buddhist temple.

[Bumpity]

What you have been taught and what you are reading are called, in academics: "second-hand sources." Real truth comes from reading and understanding "primary sources." In the case of Buddha, that would be Buddha himself and reading what he wrote in the context of his own life and culture. As I wrote in my previous post, Buddha was a product of Hindu culture. Buddha himself taught that the number one precept is: "no killing." He didn't say "no killing but . . . "

I went to the link you put on your post and it is full of inaccuracies.

Read this: "

Unless one actually kills an animal oneself (which seldom happens today) by eating meat one is not directly responsible for the animal's death."

If that is what Buddha taught, that would be highly hypocritical, wouldn't it? Arent we responsible for the suffering we create? If we pay someone else to do the killing, then it's OK? Is that what Buddha taught? :-) I don't think so. That would make him a pure hypocrite.

I assume, Princess, that you have interest in all of this or you wouldn't be the moderator. I encourage you to THINK FOR YOURSELF and let go of all you have been taught and all you read.

If you believe in reincarnation (which I don't), then you understand that you are responsible for the suffering you create in this life. If you eat animals, you cause suffering. If people stopped eating animals, then they wouldn't be killed for food. It's all demnd first, then supply. The animals suffer and are killed because you ask for them to suffer and be killed. If you stop eating animals, you stop creating suffering. Directly.

Regarding your comments about us being "predators," well, think . . . are you a "predator?" You are not. Do you capture, kill, and eat RAW the animals you eat? I don't think so. No human does. If they kill, they use weapons. Nature has not equipped humans to be predators. We must use technology to kill, because it's not nature to our species. And what species must cook its food before eating?? Perhaps your should eat your chicken and its intestines and face and bowels RAW the next time you want to eat a chicken or a cow or a pig.

If you THINK on these things, and abandon all you have been taught, you will stop defending your present behavior. There is no logic at all to the human consumption of animal flesh.

Thanks for reading.

By the way, I have found many Thai vegetarian restaurants in Chaing Mai, a few in Phuket, and a few in Bangkok. Most are run by Asoke Buddhists, who do follow Buddha's teachings more directly. Bangkok's former Mayor, Chamlong SriMaung (wrong spelling) is one of these Asoke Buddhists.

The problem is, when I go into a regular restaurant, they use meat to prepare almost everything and don't know how to prepare food without it, which is sad.

Regarding finding a vegetarian Thai girl, I have found afew here and there. But I'm really not interested in a highly religious girl. In Thailand, being a vegetarian generally also means no sex (except for the purposes of having a child), no alcohol, no dancing, and generally no fun.

OK> thanks again for reading

[Loburt]

Well, Bumpity, having read the webpage Dr. Candy referred us all to, obviously there is disagreement among Buddhist historians and theologians about whether or not Buddha was a vegetarian.

So, you can say it's a fact, but other equally intelligent people who are scholars in the matter, say it's NOT a fact.

With your other comments you're only digging a deeper hole for yourself.

You're looking for a girlfriend in a country that is 95% Buddhist, but talk about the "whorish" Buddhist temple. Then you go on to say that you're not Buddhist and don't care what Buddha said or didn't say. Well, who raised the name of the Buddha in the first place?

If you're looking for a vegetarian girlfriend, you would probably do better in New York, Los Angeles or some other major city in a more developed country.

Or you would do better signing up at:

www.veggiedate.org

www.veggieromance.com

www.veggiematchmakers.com

www.happycow.net

www.veggiefishing.com

www.vegweb.com

or any of the other vegetarian dating websites out there. yes, those websites are real.

Happy hunting!

Ooops. Sorry. Don't kill. Shop at Paragon instead.

[Bumpity]

You're right about the last point . . . finding a veggie gal in Thailand?? . . . it's easier in Russia!! :-)

The "disagreement among Buddhist "historians?" . . . . well, I am a historian by profession, though I would call myself a "Buddhist historian." But professionally, I know that "Primary Sources" are the ONLY sources.

Reading and analyzing what historians write is called "historiography." It's a useless activity that most academic historians continuously engage in. The fact is, there is disaggreement about virtually every aspect of history. That's why I advise to FORGET EVERYTHING YOU HAVE LEARNED AND THINK YOU KNOW AAND THEN GO TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE AND CONTEXT.

Anyone in Buddha's culture would have been cast out of the society if they killed animals, especially cows, for "food." Anyone. So, yes, Buddha accepted what he was offered, but he would not have been offered meat. SO< IT WASN"T AN ISSUE.

It becomes an issue when so-called "Buddhist" monks are offered animal flesh in a meat eating society. They feel they must accept it because Buddha said to accept whatever is offered. Buddha never envisioned being offered meat. That would not have occured in the society in which he lived.

Buddhist monks have the choice of:

1. "No Killing," as Buddha taught, or . . .

2. Never refusing what is offered, as Buddhas also taught.

If you want meat, you choose number two. If you understand Buddha and the contextual situation of his teachings, then you choose number one.

I think that really covers it. Any person who claims a genuine attachment to the teachings of Buddha can only conclude that Buddha taught living without creating suffering -- that's the premise of virtually everything he taught.

That's why I call Buddist monks and the temple whores. They are selling out Buddha and all he taught and stood for, i.e., compassionate living, for a piece of meat.

[Bumpity]

Thanks for the veggie websites. I know about them.There are tens of thousands of vegetarians on those sites. Try to find a Thai Buddhist. I think there might be two. There are atheists, Christians, whatever, but very few Buddhists and virtually no one from Thailand

[zeusbheld]

as a non-vegetarian, non-buddhist and someone who kills for fun (termites and humans only) i'm not doing to jump into this did-he-or-didnt-he question, but...

The "disagreement among Buddhist "historians?" . . . . well, I am a historian by profession, though I would call myself a "Buddhist historian." But professionally, I know that "Primary Sources" are the ONLY sources.

true.

however, much of the historical record is based in texts, and texts are rarely unequivocal no matter how hard they try. and primary sources often contradict each other. history

Reading and analyzing what historians write is called "historiography." It's a useless activity that most academic historians continuously engage in. The fact is, there is disaggreement about virtually every aspect of history. That's why I advise to FORGET EVERYTHING YOU HAVE LEARNED AND THINK YOU KNOW AAND THEN GO TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE AND CONTEXT.

which is great advice, but... see #1 above. then you're only adding your voice to thei din. for most questions of history there ARE no definitive answers.

[Loburt]

Any person who claims a genuine attachment to the teachings of Buddha can only conclude that Buddha taught living without creating suffering -- that's the premise of virtually everything he taught.

That's why I call Buddist monks and the temple whores. They are selling out Buddha and all he taught and stood for, i.e., compassionate living, for a piece of meat.

I think that's an overly harsh assessment of Buddhism and monks here in Thailand.

Undeniably, there are lots of problems with organized Buddhism in this country (and in most countries).

But there are also many admirable monks who are doing all they can to spread the message of compassion, and other important teachings.

What troubles me, actually, about some of your statements is their absoluteness. I can't speak with authority about the India-Nepal region of 5th century BC, but in my limited understanding of it there were many religions, sects and cults and I would doubt the region was completely devoid of meat eaters.

Just an opinion.

[Loburt]

Real truth comes from reading and understanding "primary sources." In the case of Buddha, that would be Buddha himself and reading what he wrote in the context of his own life and culture.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that Buddha, like Jesus, never actually wrote his teachings down. It was his followers that did that sometime after his death.

[Bumpity]

"*****" is a very inappropraite word. Monks only "know" what they are taught to "know" Nevertheless, it is THEY who "absolutist." They hold an entire society in their grips ("they" meaning the Temple).

Give to the Temple so Buddha will give you prosperity???? Buddha gives prosperity? Buddha wrote that no man should make a statue of him. Buddha suggested that people forsake prosperity for other values. But . . . the Temple needs money now, doesn't it . . . so give to Buddha (i.e., the Temple) and Buddha will make your economic situation better. What a shell game, capitalizing on the ignorance of the poor.

Sure, there are some decent monks and Christian priests, etc. . . . but what do they teach? FEAR, DEPENDENCE, HELPLESSNESSNESS, and SIN. The price for sin is giving money to the Temple or Church.

Let's not take the beauty of the treachings of apparantly enlightened people like Buddha or Jesus and use them for capital gains, which is just what the churches and Temples are doing. It's the same with Hindus.

Regarding the 5th century BC, yes there were cults and sects, but Buddhas family was mainstream Hindu, as was his prevailing culture. There were no Buddhists in North India to corrupt ancient Hindu culture until AFTER Buddha.

My apologies to brainwashed Buddhists, Christian, and Hindu priests once again. But if you're gonna talk, then you gotta walk the talk. If you talk "compassion," then LIVE COMPASSION>

THAT is what what Buddha taught, or so I believe.

[CiaranM]

Real truth comes from reading and understanding "primary sources." In the case of Buddha, that would be Buddha himself and reading what he wrote in the context of his own life and culture.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that Buddha, like Jesus, never actually wrote his teachings down. It was his followers that did that sometime after his death.

this guy sounds like the scutfargus of buddhism .... he knows everything and he's always f**king right !!

the primary source is Buddha and i don't see him veifying any of what Bumpity is spewing out any time soon !!

[Princess]

I assume, Princess, that you have interest in all of this or you wouldn't be the moderator. I encourage you to THINK FOR YOURSELF and let go of all you have been taught and all you read.

I AM thinking for myself as opposed to believing new age hokey-pokey that its murder to kill animals but ok to kill plants.

If you believe in reincarnation (which I don't), then you understand that you are responsible for the suffering you create in this life. If you eat animals, you cause suffering. If people stopped eating animals, then they wouldn't be killed for food. It's all demnd first, then supply. The animals suffer and are killed because you ask for them to suffer and be killed. If you stop eating animals, you stop creating suffering. Directly.

Regarding your comments about us being "predators," well, think . . . are you a "predator?" You are not. Do you capture, kill, and eat RAW the animals you eat? I don't think so. No human does. If they kill, they use weapons. Nature has not equipped humans to be predators. We must use technology to kill, because it's not nature to our species. And what species must cook its food before eating?? Perhaps your should eat your chicken and its intestines and face and bowels RAW the next time you want to eat a chicken or a cow or a pig.

You still haven't addressed my point about plants. How do you know a tomato doesn't scream when you peel it? Or that plants don't wail in agony when you so obnoxiously pluck things from their slender branches. Or is it that plants don't have life because they don't have a central nervous system and do not make sounds? Btw, I'm sure I don't need to repeat the theory of evolution and tell you where civilisation fits in for you to understand that early men did indeed eat raw meat. Why don't we do it anymore? Same reason we don't run around buck naked or take a dump in our neighbour's living room.

If you THINK on these things, and abandon all you have been taught, you will stop defending your present behavior. There is no logic at all to the human consumption of animal flesh.

There is no logic to what you say. If your argument is 'being a vegetarian is healthier than being a meat eater', I will agree with that to a point. But to conveniently decide for yourself whose pain is more plants or animals and then judge people based on their lifestyle choices while passing it off as 'religious' is just plain silly. Please preach when you have a leg to stand on.

Regarding finding a vegetarian Thai girl, I have found afew here and there. But I'm really not interested in a highly religious girl. In Thailand, being a vegetarian generally also means no sex (except for the purposes of having a child), no alcohol, no dancing, and generally no fun.

So you want this girl not to sin by eating meat but it's ok if she sins by having premarital sex - uh...news flash - when you follow/use a religion as an excuse for something you have to follow ALL of it - not just the juicy bits that *you* like.

The day that you come to me and say "I can live without killing and thereby causing suffering to even the smallest of God's creatures directly or indirectly even if it concerns the issue of survival" - I will concede that you are right, I am wrong and we are all damned for eating meat.

P.S- Once more - plants *do* have life murderer!

[Bumpity]

Zuesbeld . . . you're head is screwed on pretty straight. Thanks for your thoughtful replies.

We assume Buddha did travel . . . or at least his disciples did. Asia is a mighty big place to travel on foot, especially to the forbidding climates where they say "Buddha was here." :-) Considering the number of Buddha teeths that have been found, the guy must have had a hellofa grin. My guess is that Buddha didn't travel to China or Tibet or even Thailand, but like Jesus, his disciples carried his message. No way to know.

I try to use logic, Zuesbeld, and throw out knowledge. Context added to all he taught tell me the guy was a complete pacifist. My guess is that Jesus was as well, but look at all that is done in his name.

My intent here was to provoke thought . . . but likely, I won't get much besides a few people. Mostly, I'll get repetition of secondary sources (which makes them third hand or greater) or stupid comments meant to be funny.

The SERIOUS question is Where is there a hot veggie girl in Thailand. Had one once, but she was short beyond belief and it felt like she was a ten year old girl :?

Yea, the are almost all cannibals. Nothing more I desire than to kiss a girl that's been chewing on bugs or whose body is a graveyard for animal corpses.

NGO's is a good thought. I know the head of the Greenpeace office in BKK, but she looks about like you would expect the head of the Greenpeace office to look.

[Bumpity]

Why do you presume to know me or my eating habits?

[Princess]

Why do you presume to know me or my eating habits?

Beeecos you published them on the internet?

[Bumpity]

First, for ClaranM . . . my understanding is that Buddha did write, since there are artifacts that claim to be his origial teachings, but I don't "know." By "primary source," I mean the orginal or closest to original play by play, and if there aint a play by play, then CONTEXT plus LOGIC. Those two words dispell a lot of garbage.

for Princess . . .

I didn't mean at all to question your thoughtfulness or intelligence.

Killing is killing, regardless of the form. Plants count!! I agree. For me, I try to walk as gently as I possibly can on this Earth and I try not to leave footprints.Nevertheless, nature have given us something WONDERFUL to sustain us. It';s called FRUIT. No killing necessary. The tree simply drops its fruit for us to eat. How wonderful. A way to live healthy and live gently!! Tomatoes are fruits. They are not an organism. No fruits are unitary organisms. Fruits are alive onbly inb the sense that they contain cells which are alive. Do cells feel pain? Perhaps. Millions of my bodies cells die every day, but I don't sense there is pain. I must draw the line at survival. Meat is not necessary to survival. Animals have central nervous systems, JUST AS WE DO. We know what pain is. SO DO THEY. They know pain and fear and anguish. Plants to not have central nervous systems. They may feel something called "pain," but it of a different nature than fish and birds and mammals feel.

I hope I've addressed what you've written.

Regarding premarital sex, I don't recognize marriage as a natural institution (it's a man made one), as is the concept of "pre-marital sex." I believe in fidelity, and I am monogamous. Loyalty and love equal marriage to me.

You wrote: "The day that you come to me and say "I can live without killing and thereby causing suffering to even the smallest of God's creatures directly or indirectly even if it concerns the issue of survival" - I will concede that you are right, I am wrong and we are all damned for eating meat. "

I can honestly answer, that I am doing the vesry best that I can.

Can you say the same?

Stan

[Loburt]

"*****" is a very inappropraite word. Monks only "know" what they are taught to "know"

Sure, there are some decent monks and Christian priests, etc. . . . but what do they teach? FEAR, DEPENDENCE, HELPLESSNESSNESS, and SIN. The price for sin is giving money to the Temple or Church.

If you talk "compassion," then LIVE COMPASSION>

Well, Bumpity, I think you are sadly mistaken.

First, you contend that no monk thinks for himself, when in fact there are many monks who have spoken out on various issues and challenged the Sangha and orthodox views. That's a fact.

And I've seen and spoken to several monks here in Thailand who do not teach the things you claim (fear, dependecy, etc) and who every day are performing great acts of compassion. That's a fact.

As the Buddha certainly demonstrated the ability to think for himself, the possiblity exists that he may have thought differently than his family, friends and culture and eaten meat. I'm not saying he did. Just that the possiblity exists.

You refuse to recognize things that do exist right here, right now (Thai monks who think for themselves and lead compassionate lives), and so I can't say that I trust your qualifications to pronounce anything about the Buddha, who lived 2,500 years ago.

Even if you are a historian.

[Bumpity]

Here is what Buddha's earliest disciples have to say about eating meat. These were the FIRST MONKS:

For the sake of love of purity, the Bodhisattva should refrain from eating flesh, which is born of semen, blood, etc. For fear of causing terror to living beings let the Bodhisattva, who is disciplining himself to attain compassion, refrain from eating flesh...

It is not true that meat is proper food and permissible when the animal was not killed by himself, when he did not order others to kill it, when it was not specially meant for him Again, there may be some people in the future who .. . being under the influence of the taste for meat will string together in various ways sophistic arguments to defend meat eating .

But... meat eating in any form, in any manncr, and in any place is unconditionally and once for all prohibited... Meat eating I have not permitted to anyone, I do not permit, I will not permit . - Lankavatara

The reason for practising dhyana [concentration of mind and seeking to attain Samadhi [equilibrium; tranquility; heightened and expanded awareness] is to escape from the suffering of life, but in seeking to escape from suffering ourselves why should we inflict it upon others? Unless you can so control your minds that even the thought of brutal unkindness and killing is abhorrent, you will never be able to escape from the bondage of the world's life. . . After my Parinirvana [complete extinction] in the last kalpa [the time between the start of a world cycle and its extinction] different kinds of ghosts will be encountered everywhere deceiving people and teaching them that they can eat meat and still attain enlightenment . . . How can a bhikshu, who hopes to become a deliverer of others, himself he living on the flesh of other sentient beings? - Surangama

The eating of rneat extinguishes the seed of great compassion. - Mahaparinirvana

I have enforced the law against killing certain animals and many others, but the greatest progress of righteousness among men comes from the exhortation in favour of non-injury to life and abstention from killing living beings. - Asoka's Edicts

Hurt not others with that which pains yourself. - Udanavarga

To serve the creatures is to serve the Buddha. - Indian Proverb

All beings seek for happiness; so let your compassion extend itself to all. - Mahavamsa

The sacred eightfold path or middle way - right views, right resolve, right speech, right action, right living, right effort, right attention, right meditation . . which lead to the extinction of suffering and Nirvana. - Buddha's first sermon 4th truth. Vinaya, Mahavagga

He who, seeking his own happiness, punishes or kills beings who also long for happiness, will not find happiness after death. - Dhammapada

Let him not destroy, or cause to be destroyed, any life at all, nor sanction the acts of those who do so. Let him refrain from even hurting any creature, both those that are strong and those that tremble in the world. - Sutta-Nipata

Because he has pity on every living creature, therefore is a man called 'holy'. - Dhammapada

Full of love for all things in the world, practising virtue, in order to benefit others, this man alone is happy. - Dhammapada

One act of pure love in saving life is greater than spending the whole of one's time in religious offerings to the gods - Dhammapada

WHY DO YOU DEFEND SUCH A HORRIBLE PRACTICE AS KILLING ANIMALS FOR THEIR FLESH. IT IS CRUEL. WHY DO YOU DEFEND THE USE OF YOUR BODIES AS GRAVEYARDS FOR THE CORPSES OF ANIMALS, WHOM YOU CAUSED DIRECTLY, BY YOUR ACTIONS, TO SUFFER??

YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT.

[Loburt]

Well that's the evidence you choose to present. Obviously, others have different views and cite different passages and disciples.

As noted, seeing as you can't acknowledge things that actually exist today, I, for one, can't trust anything you cite relating to sources 2,500 years ago.

I don't have an opinion on the matter of whether or not Buddha was a vegetarian, and it's not important to me.

But from other statements you've made, I no longer find you credible.

It's also strange that you're citing Buddha and/or his disciples when you previously stated you don't give a damn what Buddha said.

[Loburt]

No way in hell that Buddha would have accepted and eaten meat in a Hindu society . . . while he taught COMPASSION and that "all life is suffering."

If all life is suffering, then the compassionate thing is to kill the animal and end its suffering.

Then you can eat its meat with a clear conscience.

Yum!