Some Buddhist's believe that they can eat meat, as long as they didn't kill it. Isn't that hypocritical?

Answer 1

Meat eating was not prohibited in the early days of Buddhism. Even today meat eating is not prohibited by many schools of Buddhism. The early Buddhists accepted meat as they moved from place to place begging for food. Over a period of time detailed rules and regulations have been created to regulated the types of food a Buddhist monk can partake as food.

The early Buddhists believed that as long as the animal was not killed by oneself, or by ones orders or when it was not done for the purpose of pure pleasure, eating certain types of animal meat was not in contradiction with the principle of compassion for all living beings. However certain types of meat was not allowed even when these conditions were satisfied.

Right intention is one of the eight factors of the eightfold path. Right intention involves the practice of right intention consisting of "the intention of renunciation, the intention of good will, and the intention of harmlessness" and on the negative side the avoidance of wrong intention consisting of " intention governed by desire, intention governed by ill will, and intention governed by harmfulness." If intention is right, the action will be right. So in matters concerning food, the same principles apply. There should be right intention when one is accepting food.

***Vinaya Pitika specifies what types of meat are allowed or not allowed.

"The flesh of any biped or quadruped, except for that which is unallowable. The following types of meat are un-allowable: the flesh of human beings, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, and hyenas (panthers). Human beings, horses, and elephants were regarded as too noble to be used as food. The other types of meat were forbidden either on grounds that they were repulsive ("People were offended and annoyed and spread it about, 'How can these Sakyan contemplatives eat dog meat? Dogs are loathsome, disgusting'") or dangerous (bhikkhus, smelling of lion's flesh, went into the jungle; the lions there were offended and annoyed and attacked them).

To eat human flesh entails a thullaccaya; to eat any of the other unallowable types, a dukkata (Mv.VI.23.9-15). If a bhikkhu is uncertain as to the identity of any meat presented to him, he incurs a dukkata if he doesn't ask the donor what it is (Mv.VI.23.9).

Fish or meat, even if of an allowable kind, is unallowable if raw. Thus bhikkhus may not eat steak tartare, sashimi, oysters on the half-shell, etc. (Raw flesh and blood are allowed at Mv.VI.10.2 only when one is possessed by non-human beings (!)) Furthermore, even cooked fish or meat of an allowable kind is unallowable if the bhikkhu sees, hears, or suspects that the animal was killed specifically for the purpose of feeding bhikkhus (Mv.VI.31.14).

There is historical evidence to suggest that meat eating was not shunned by the Buddha himself and if certain interpretations are to be believe, his parinirvana was preceded by his act of accepting a meal of improperly cooked pork by one of his lay followers.

The Mahayana Buddhist challenged the traditional Buddhist attitude towards meat eating and believed that it conflicted with the principles of compassion, harmlessness and non injury to living creatures. They questioned how a bodhisattva, who wished to treat all living beings as though they were himself, would accept eating the flesh of any living being. They declared that men should feel affinity with all living beings, as if they were their own kin and refrain from eating meat. The Lankavatara Sutra openly criticized the meat eating habits of the Theravada School and concluded thus, "All meat eating in any form or manner and in any circumstances is prohibited unconditionally and once and for all."

Answer 2

i'm stunned how little understanding some human beings quite have about Buddhism. a million) Buddha in no way condemned eating meat 2) Buddha himself ate meat 3) Buddha's cousin left Buddhism because it wasn't ascetic adequate, one reason being Buddha allowed meat to be eaten So the position does the concept that Buddhists do not devour meat come from? maximum anybody is used to chinese Buddhism. chinese Buddhists got here up with the idea of organic vegatrianism, and the lands China inspired took this view. besides the undeniable fact that it truly is no longer unique Buddhism. it truly is an innovation, made with fantastic intentions because the availability-call for component shows in case you end call for then suppl will provide up. So what did Buddha educate? a million) devour what's obtainable to you. 2) yet do no longer devour meat presented that the animal is being killed on your sake on your honour. So presented that the animal became killed for the sake of the Dalai Lama might want to or not it truly is hypocritical. Tibetan Buddhists all can devour meat. have you ever considered what the panorama it like in Tibet and Mongolia? it truly is totally unfavourable and no vegetables advance there, so that they ought to stay to inform the tale meat and dairy products.

Answer 3

I'm a Buddhist, though I'll admit that I'm not a very strict follower of all the laws. Eating meat is just something that came from being raised in a Catholic, white family.

Answer 4

I think to answer this question, you have to ask if a Buddhist was killed and eaten by a animal would the Buddhist resent the animal and therefore would the animal accumulate bad karma.

Answer 5

Not really. Why let the meat go to waste? That meat then brings life to them rather than just rotting and wasting away.

Answer 6

Yes. That's passing the buck.

Answer 7

hyp·o·crite /ˈhɪpəkrɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hip-uh-krit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.


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

[Origin: 1175–1225; ME ipocrite < OF < LL hypocrita < Gk hypokrits a stage actor, hence one who pretends to be what he is not, equiv. to hypokr(nesthai) (see hypocrisy) + -tés agent suffix]

Answer 8

They think forgiveness is pretty strange. There is only balance.

Answer 9

I have no idea whether that is true or not, but hypocrisy in religion, surely you jest?

Answer 10

That's up to them and what kind of karma they want to cultivate.

_()_