Talk:Buddhism/Vegetarianism

message: * I think that today's massive changes to the section on vegetarianism are too polemical and should be reversed: this is not the place to start arguing about whether Mahayana sutras are "genuine" or not, or which ones are and which ones may not be. That is not the purpose of such a section in such an article on Buddhism. What existed before in this article was satisfactory, it seems to me: a clear distinction (which is there, whether one likes it or not, between the Buddha's Mahayana teachings and the Buddha's doctrines in the Pali suttas / agamas). I think that as editors of Wikipedia's information on Buddhism, we should simply report the facts about such matters, registering the distinction between what the agama/Pali-sutta Buddha says and what the Mahayana Buddha says on various topics. The rather sweeping changes to the article clearly seem to be attempting some kind of justification of meat-eating from an early-Buddhist perspective or to vindicate early Buddhism as a whole (not the task of such a topic as this), whereas what the previous form of the article expressed was that there is a division of stance on this matter. One should, in my view, simply report these two differing positions as they are represented in the suttas/sutras/vinaya and not indulge in "special pleading" for one side or the other (in the section on vegetarianism as a whole). So: I think this huge alteration to what was already a pretty balanced presentation of the issue really does need to be reversed. If there is not strong opposition from several editors in the next couple of days to a reversion to the earlier (more fair and balanced, in my opinion) statements on the question of vegetarianism in early and Mahayana Buddhism - I propose to revert the "vegetariansim" section to what it was until 6 December 2005. Best wishes to everyone. From Tony.  TonyMPNS 17:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with Tony on this issue.  It seems the intent of the revisions was to explain why, from a stand point of the sutras themselves, there is a difference of opinion, but the changes to the article seem to muddle this issue rather than clarify. The changes also seem to go out-of-scope. Csbodine 18:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Hrm.... I thought Spasemunki had some excellent edits and additions.  Someone should probably sit down with all of the different versions proposed and try to craft something that is NPOV, balanced between all traditions, and stays focused.  Someone should also verify sources with so many differing points of view.  Something that seems to be important (and missing) is a recognition that there need not be an agreement on the appropriateness of vegetarianism, just as there are different Yanas that have vastly different approaches to the same goal. Csbodine 18:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hallo All????????? Buddhism DOES promote vegetarianism and it is on the account of Buddhism that this concept was introduced to hinduism. You people are inventing your own logical conclusions about this matter....Early Buddhism enjoined upon its followers on vegetarianism. Later tantra and mantra and santra might have sprung up, but the truth is that its because Buddhism had gone to such countries where vegetarianism would be difficult—so the people modified the theory. And there is absoluteley no need to write a Mahabharata on "buddhism and vegetarianism" here. Yes, vegetarianism is not regarded as a "merit" or divine injunction, but rather a good way of life. Please remove all your original researches and write objectively.203.197.74.148 19:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The bottom line of all all of this discussion is that different Yanas and different schools have differing opinions.  It is a diservice to readers and practioners not to acknoweldge these differences. Csbodine 20:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Magicalsaumy.  I can see that you belong to a buddhist school which practice vegetarianism and I'm not asking you to stop being vegetarian. You say "Buddhism DOES promote vegetarianism"  Then what about entire theravada buddhism, Japanese PureLand, Zen and Nichiren, Tantric Buddhism (Tibet and Shingon) which does not. Are they not buddhist? Are they all going to hell?  This site is not a place to propagate one's version of buddhism as the only buddhism. I did not invent differnt opinion and practice regarding vegetarianism.  I merely attributed them to different schools and/or sutras.    Yoji Hajime
* I concur with Csbodine. This is a fascinating topic which could we do with it's own article "Vegetarianism in Buddhism" or something like that. There's all sorts of fascninating sub-sections throughout buddhist history on this issue and some stories are already emerging in this chat. The main article could be trimmed down to something akin to the size it was on December 6 (or smaller). Peace. Metta Bubble 22:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegetarianism