Why Buddha didnt go vegan ?

[Gwi]

"In any case, as a monk, it's risky to accept meat offered specially for monks, given that we might not know if the lay people actually gone to the market to purposely get the animals killed. How often is MN 55 cited in dhamma talks to prevent such practise? Given that meat cannot be eaten if suspected that it's killed for me, I wouldn't want to eat meat offered specially for monks."

Seems like semantics, as it's all killed for "someone" and killing is wrong.

Yes, broadly interpreted, it recommends veganism. Specifically interpreted, at least don't serve meat if you're going to dana to monks.

Nowadays, the standards seems to be that people can buy meat from supermarket, so the following from MN55, doesn't happen:

“Jīvaka, anyone who slaughters a living creature specially for the Realized One or the Realized One’s disciple makes much bad karma for five reasons.

When they say: ‘Go, fetch that living creature,’ this is the first reason.

When that living creature experiences pain and sadness as it’s led along by a collar, this is the second reason.

When they say: ‘Go, slaughter that living creature,’ this is the third reason.

When that living creature experiences pain and sadness as it’s being slaughtered, this is the fourth reason.

When they provide the Realized One or the Realized One’s disciple with unallowable food, this is the fifth reason.

Anyone who slaughters a living creature specially for the Realized One or the Realized One’s disciple makes much bad karma for five reasons.”

Yet, let's go back to the days of the Buddha, often there comes a meal invitation for the next day, and the donor invited 500 monks along with the Buddha. So to prepare such a large meal, they obviously didn't had supermarkets with ready made meat, if they have to put meat in the menu, it involves a lot of killing. Thus by logical analysis, it can be deduced that such invitations are vegan/vegetarian meals.

It's good to follow the spirit of it too nowadays, if lay people serve monks, since even if the process of killing is much more removed from the buyer, the killing still happens up the line to provide meat if such meal donation contains it. Strictly speaking, there's no issue if the meat is already dead from supermarket. However, it could be too that some families do have chickens in their home, and on hearing that the monks are coming to meal the next day, killed their chicken and serve it up. Monks who eat meat need to be on guard for those. It's easier to just go vegan.

Anyone remember commander sīhå?
He bought meat at the market.

Dunt advise bhikkhus to practice self-mortification.

Remember Sutta Nipātå 2.2

[DiamondNgXZ]

"In any case, as a monk, it's risky to accept meat offered specially for monks, given that we might not know if the lay people actually gone to the market to purposely get the animals killed. How often is MN 55 cited in dhamma talks to prevent such practise? Given that meat cannot be eaten if suspected that it's killed for me, I wouldn't want to eat meat offered specially for monks."

Seems like semantics, as it's all killed for "someone" and killing is wrong.

Yes, broadly interpreted, it recommends veganism. Specifically interpreted, at least don't serve meat if you're going to dana to monks.

Nowadays, the standards seems to be that people can buy meat from supermarket, so the following from MN55, doesn't happen:

“Jīvaka, anyone who slaughters a living creature specially for the Realized One or the Realized One’s disciple makes much bad karma for five reasons.

When they say: ‘Go, fetch that living creature,’ this is the first reason.

When that living creature experiences pain and sadness as it’s led along by a collar, this is the second reason.

When they say: ‘Go, slaughter that living creature,’ this is the third reason.

When that living creature experiences pain and sadness as it’s being slaughtered, this is the fourth reason.

When they provide the Realized One or the Realized One’s disciple with unallowable food, this is the fifth reason.

Anyone who slaughters a living creature specially for the Realized One or the Realized One’s disciple makes much bad karma for five reasons.”

Yet, let's go back to the days of the Buddha, often there comes a meal invitation for the next day, and the donor invited 500 monks along with the Buddha. So to prepare such a large meal, they obviously didn't had supermarkets with ready made meat, if they have to put meat in the menu, it involves a lot of killing. Thus by logical analysis, it can be deduced that such invitations are vegan/vegetarian meals.

It's good to follow the spirit of it too nowadays, if lay people serve monks, since even if the process of killing is much more removed from the buyer, the killing still happens up the line to provide meat if such meal donation contains it. Strictly speaking, there's no issue if the meat is already dead from supermarket. However, it could be too that some families do have chickens in their home, and on hearing that the monks are coming to meal the next day, killed their chicken and serve it up. Monks who eat meat need to be on guard for those. It's easier to just go vegan.

Anyone remember commander sīhå?
He bought meat at the market.

Dunt advise bhikkhus to practice self-mortification.

Remember Sutta Nipātå 2.2

Buddha didn't say cannot be a vegan monk. He didn't agree to have a vegan rule, but he didn't say monks must eat all that they receive in the bowl. A lot of meat are prohibited by monks, 10 kinds, and they are supposed to ask what kind of meat it is, cause eating it out of ignorance is no excuse.

Also, I dunno who commander siha is.

[Gwi]

Yes, broadly interpreted, it recommends veganism. Specifically interpreted, at least don't serve meat if you're going to dana to monks.

Nowadays, the standards seems to be that people can buy meat from supermarket, so the following from MN55, doesn't happen:



Yet, let's go back to the days of the Buddha, often there comes a meal invitation for the next day, and the donor invited 500 monks along with the Buddha. So to prepare such a large meal, they obviously didn't had supermarkets with ready made meat, if they have to put meat in the menu, it involves a lot of killing. Thus by logical analysis, it can be deduced that such invitations are vegan/vegetarian meals.

It's good to follow the spirit of it too nowadays, if lay people serve monks, since even if the process of killing is much more removed from the buyer, the killing still happens up the line to provide meat if such meal donation contains it. Strictly speaking, there's no issue if the meat is already dead from supermarket. However, it could be too that some families do have chickens in their home, and on hearing that the monks are coming to meal the next day, killed their chicken and serve it up. Monks who eat meat need to be on guard for those. It's easier to just go vegan.

Anyone remember commander sīhå?
He bought meat at the market.

Dunt advise bhikkhus to practice self-mortification.

Remember Sutta Nipātå 2.2

Buddha didn't say cannot be a vegan monk. He didn't agree to have a vegan rule, but he didn't say monks must eat all that they receive in the bowl. A lot of meat are prohibited by monks, 10 kinds, and they are supposed to ask what kind of meat it is, cause eating it out of ignorance is no excuse.

Also, I dunno who commander siha is.

The Buddhå didn't say cannot eat meat,
Why dunt u give meat to bhikkhus??


Dunt advise bhikkhus to practice self-mortification.

[DiamondNgXZ]

The Buddhå didn't say cannot eat meat,
Why dunt u give meat to bhikkhus??


Dunt advise bhikkhus to practice self-mortification.

This reply seems a bit lack of effort.

Anyway, I already highlighted the environmental reasons. Another thing is, since beggars can't be choosers is usually the common philosophy meat eating people advocate (which I don't), it's really up to the lay people to give what they want to the monks right? So it's definitely ok for lay people to give monks vegan food.

Anyway, say there's a vegan monk (like me), who got invited to a lay person's home for dana, there's only meat dishes, all of them mixed with eggs or minced meat. I can just take plain rice and be ok with it. That's my choice. There's no vinaya rule against it.

If you feel that it's torture, how about when you do loving kindness towards the animals caged up, due to be slaughtered? Who experiences more torture? The one abstaining from meat or the animals being killed for meat? When loving kindness meets suffering, it turns to compassion. Compassion is not just sit there and do nothing. There's something we can all do to reduce the suffering of such animals. Or reduce the no. of animals who needs to undergo such cruelty. Go vegan.

Also, there's a hypocritical situation arises, when right livelihood prohibits trading in meat, trading in living beings, then for Buddhists to eat meat, you're either depending on a Buddhist who's not practising to kill for you, or people of some other religion to do so. Those who have a choice of their diet are more responsible for where the money goes, those who are on alms have less choice, but still can exercise their choice like me to declare to be vegan. It's really up to the lay person if they wish to offer vegan food then.

[Coëmgenu]

Dunt advise bhikkhus to practice self-mortification.

Please stop accusing monks of encouraging self-mortification. It is only in your deficient mind that vegetarianism and veganism is a self-mortification. You have now several times told lies about Venerable Pannadipa and what they have advocated for in practicing veganism.

[Gwi]

The Buddhå didn't say cannot eat meat,
Why dunt u give meat to bhikkhus??


Dunt advise bhikkhus to practice self-mortification.

This reply seems a bit lack of effort.

Anyway, I already highlighted the environmental reasons. Another thing is, since beggars can't be choosers is usually the common philosophy meat eating people advocate (which I don't), it's really up to the lay people to give what they want to the monks right? So it's definitely ok for lay people to give monks vegan food.

Anyway, say there's a vegan monk (like me), who got invited to a lay person's home for dana, there's only meat dishes, all of them mixed with eggs or minced meat. I can just take plain rice and be ok with it. That's my choice. There's no vinaya rule against it.

If you feel that it's torture, how about when you do loving kindness towards the animals caged up, due to be slaughtered? Who experiences more torture? The one abstaining from meat or the animals being killed for meat? When loving kindness meets suffering, it turns to compassion. Compassion is not just sit there and do nothing. There's something we can all do to reduce the suffering of such animals. Or reduce the no. of animals who needs to undergo such cruelty. Go vegan.

Also, there's a hypocritical situation arises, when right livelihood prohibits trading in meat, trading in living beings, then for Buddhists to eat meat, you're either depending on a Buddhist who's not practising to kill for you, or people of some other religion to do so. Those who have a choice of their diet are more responsible for where the money goes, those who are on alms have less choice, but still can exercise their choice like me to declare to be vegan. It's really up to the lay person if they wish to offer vegan food then.

It's okay to give anything,
but don't force (only) vegetables.
The practice of self-abuse will do nothing,
especially closing the "third fetter",
i.e. being bound by a false oath
(lifelong vegetarian oath = fetter).

However, who want be a vegetarian,
I or anyone else can't forbid.

If my son became a vegetarian,
I (still single) would say:
"Self-torture yields nothing,
otherwise the shackles you cannot break".
To my child.

Who wanna be a vegetarian,
Not my problem. But, my son
Is my problem.

[Gwi]

Dunt advise bhikkhus to practice self-mortification.

Please stop accusing monks of encouraging self-mortification. It is only in your deficient mind that vegetarianism and veganism is a self-mortification. You have now several times told lies about Venerable Pannadipa and what they have advocated for in practicing veganism.

Torture yourself, not always because of torment.

MN 51

[Coëmgenu]

You should apologize to Ven Pannadipa instead of quoting facile quotes to me. That sutta does not support what you say, namely that vegetarianism and/or veganism is torture or torment.

[Gwi]

You should apologize to Ven Pannadipa instead of quoting facile quotes to me. That sutta does not support what you say, namely that vegetarianism and/or veganism is torture or torment.

I just quoting MN 51, i have no problem

[Coëmgenu]

You actually do. You are telling lies that vegans and/or vegetarians are....

“That’s so true, Pessa! That’s so true! For human beings are shady, while the animal is obvious. Pessa, these four people are found in the world. What four?

1. One person mortifies themselves, committed to the practice of mortifying themselves.
2. One person mortifies others, committed to the practice of mortifying others.
3. One person mortifies themselves and others, committed to the practice of mortifying themselves and others.
4. One person doesn’t mortify either themselves or others, committed to the practice of not mortifying themselves or others. They live without wishes in the present life, extinguished, cooled, experiencing bliss, having become holy in themselves.
Which one of these four people do you like the sound of?”

“Sir, I don’t like the sound of the first three people. I only like the sound of the last person, who doesn’t mortify either themselves or others.”

That's from your absurd quote that you feel applies to veganism/vegetarianism. You accused Ven Pannadipa of advocating like the first 3 persons in the sutta multiple times. That's your problem.

[Gwi]

You actually do. You are telling lies that vegans and/or vegetarians are....

“That’s so true, Pessa! That’s so true! For human beings are shady, while the animal is obvious. Pessa, these four people are found in the world. What four?

1. One person mortifies themselves, committed to the practice of mortifying themselves.
2. One person mortifies others, committed to the practice of mortifying others.
3. One person mortifies themselves and others, committed to the practice of mortifying themselves and others.
4. One person doesn’t mortify either themselves or others, committed to the practice of not mortifying themselves or others. They live without wishes in the present life, extinguished, cooled, experiencing bliss, having become holy in themselves.
Which one of these four people do you like the sound of?”

“Sir, I don’t like the sound of the first three people. I only like the sound of the last person, who doesn’t mortify either themselves or others.”

That's from your absurd quote that you feel applies to veganism/vegetarianism. You accused Ven Pannadipa of advocating like the first 3 persons in the sutta multiple times. That's your problem.

Have u read my (all) comments?

[Coëmgenu]

On this thread, yes. I am talking about these:

Torture yourself, not always because of torment.

MN 51

Dunt advise bhikkhus to practice self-mortification.

You re-posted this above insinuation twice. It is not good to insinuate that members of the samgha advise the practice of self-mortification, especially when it is a lie because they actually are merely advocating vegetarianism for themself.

Remember Sutta Nipātå 2.2

Another irrelevant quotation designed to make it appear like your stances can be found in the Pali suttas.

I following MN 51, i wont
Make a mat from a bed of thorns.
(The practice of self-torture)
I accept meal n fish.

Here you insinuate again that your interlocutors are advocating like the first 3 persons in MN 51. You really need to go to a teacher about this sutta because it is clearly confusing you deeply when you read it on your own.

Lie on a mat of thorns is not self-torture these days.
Maybe 20 or 30 years ago, but not now.

With condescending emoticon, that one was. Relating to how you need to get a real Dhamma education, this:

... They accept no fish or meat ...

... They eat herbs ...

You are critically misreading the sutta and cherry-picking it to suit your "meaty" agenda.

Did The Buddhå forbid this in the vinayå:
"making a mat of thorns their bed", etc.

Seeing a pattern here?

[Gwi]

On this thread, yes. I am talking about these:

Torture yourself, not always because of torment.

MN 51

Dunt advise bhikkhus to practice self-mortification.

You re-posted this above insinuation twice. It is not good to insinuate that members of the samgha advise the practice of self-mortification, especially when it is a lie because they actually are merely advocating vegetarianism for themself.

Remember Sutta Nipātå 2.2

Another irrelevant quotation designed to make it appear like your stances can be found in the Pali suttas.

I following MN 51, i wont
Make a mat from a bed of thorns.
(The practice of self-torture)
I accept meal n fish.

Here you insinuate again that your interlocutors are advocating like the first 3 persons in MN 51. You really need to go to a teacher about this sutta because it is clearly confusing you deeply when you read it on your own.

Lie on a mat of thorns is not self-torture these days.
Maybe 20 or 30 years ago, but not now.

With condescending emoticon, that one was. Relating to how you need to get a real Dhamma education, this:

... They accept no fish or meat ...

... They eat herbs ...

You are critically misreading the sutta and cherry-picking it to suit your "meaty" agenda.

Did The Buddhå forbid this in the vinayå:
"making a mat of thorns their bed", etc.

Seeing a pattern here?

I'm not being sarcastic,
I'm just saying the right thing.
Torturing yourself, does not mean going to hell!
However, no result is obtained = zero.
If you have precepts, there are results.


I can write it again if u want,
I just say the truth. Just go to
MN 51. We can read it.
Not my (personal) opinion, but
From Majjhima Nikāyå.

[Coëmgenu]

Vegetarianism is not torturing yourself. Are you going to apologize to Ven Pannadipa?

You are wrongly twisting MN 51, but there is no one to apologize for that to but Buddha.

[Gwi]

Vegetarianism is not torturing yourself. Are you going to apologize to Ven Pannadipa?

You are wrongly twisting MN 51, but there is no one to apologize for that to but Buddha.

I just answer this post.
I got 100 points, everybody
Get 100 points when we answer:

MN 51


What u think when someone say:
Our body have attā?

U will say no!
It is Wrong view.


They are fettered by self-view?
Will they go to hell? Or to the lower realms.

Answer: nooo.
If the morality is broken, maybe yes


Same thing with self torture case.
If the morality is broken, maybe yes.
Vegan or not.


If someone, ask me think post (question),
I will give a same answer (100% same).
Why? Thats the best answer.