Talk:Vegetarianism in Buddhism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Vegetarianism in Buddhism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
|
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. | |
I removed this
According to a blog post at SuperVegan.com - http://supervegan.com/blog/entry.php?id=186 , Buddhist scriptures contain the following statements relating to vegetarianism:
from The Dedication of Merit—8th century
- Let the animals be free from the fear of being devoured…
- Let the bodhisattvas' wishes for the well-being of the world become reality. May everything that these protectors intend be realized for all sentient beings…
- Let all the sufferings of the world come to an end in me…
from Against Animal Sacrifice—Dated Between Year 964 to 1032
- What need to destroy so many lives in quest of rich and exotic flavors? People gorge themselves from cup and tray to the music of reed pipe and song, as butchered animals scream on the chopping block. Alas! Could anyone with a human heart be so insensitive as this? That the whole world engages in this without realizing its error, surely this is [an] example of something so painful that one weeps endlessly with grief?
- When you know that the creatures on your tray come, struggling and squealing, from the chopping block, then you are making their extreme anguish your greatest delight. You would never be able to get them down, even if you tried to eat them. Is it not the height of insensitivity?
- It is not appropriate to take life in order to make one's living. In the quest for food and clothing, some people may take up hunting, others fishing, others the slaughtering of oxen, sheep, pigs, dogs in order to make food and clothing, all with the thought of obtaining a regular livelihood. And yet, I find that persons who do not engage in such professions still have clothing and still have food to eat. By no means are they fated to die of exposure or starvation. To make one's living by taking life is something that in principle is condemned by the gods...There is no more certain means than this when it comes to planting the seeds for rebirth in the hells and evil retribution in lives to come. How could you face such pain and not seek a different livelihood?
- I tell you people that, if you have no other means to make a living, it is far better to beg for your meals. To live by killing is no match for bearing your hunger and dying of starvation. How could you not restrain yourself?
- I pray that all will refrain from taking life, and that household after household will observe vegetarian fasts. The buddhas will be filled with joy, and the myriad gods and spirits will extend their protection to you. Armed conflict will for ever cease; punishments may never need be applied; the hells will be emptied; and people will for ever depart from the causes that produce the ocean of miseries.
It could be integrated in the article, but this was not the proper way to do it. --67.68.29.55 17:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "The Mahayana Buddha"?
I hate to just remove this, because I'm sure the author must have meant something, but "the Mahayana buddha" doesn't make any sense. I'd love to know what they meant originally. --- Charlie (Colorado) 03:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, in point of fact, I believe that phrasing originates with Tony Page who is a published author on this subject. So, I wouldn't agree that it doesn't make any sense. I don't have any strong opinion on whether this is the best wording we can come up with.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hallo Charlie and Nat (thanks, Nat, for the support!). Well, I know what you mean, in a way, about the phrase "the Mahayana Buddha" - it is not very elegant; it is a bit clumsy. The problem is that there are people on Wikipedia who object if one simply says "the Buddha" when speaking of the Buddha in the Mahayana sutras, because they think that only the Buddha as presented in the Pali scriptures is the "real" Buddha - and that the Buddha found in the Mahayana sutras is bogus. So I coined the phrase, "the Mahayana Buddha", to try to satisfy this segment of Wiki editors. But of course the fact is that nobody knows for sure what the Buddha taught in detail - this ultimately rests on faith and one's own convictions - so I would prefer simply to say in all cases, "the Buddha". "The Mahayana Buddha" certainly has a meaning - which could also be expressed as "the Buddha in the Mahayana sutras" - but I can understand some people's not finding it very pleasing to the ear! I'll perhaps change it to "the Buddha in the Mahayana sutras" or something similar. All the best to you both. From Tony. TonyMPNS 19:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
