Hunting/Fishing and Buddhist believes?

Thanks, the joy of communication remains steadfast under your tutelage

 

Trophy anything..... is not cool,... trophy cars, trophy wives, trophy houses.

feeding the ego with conspicuous consumption............not cool.

 

Meagain has, by far, the best answer.

Hunting and fishing go against what the Buddha taught. Refrain from killing. I think it's only acceptable if you're an Inuit or something and really need to hunt to survive.

 

Balance, in all things, is peace.

It is important to always strive to see the big picture.

Where does one fit amidst the chaos of this world?

 

But if you are eating meat anyways, it would be hypocritical to not fish or hunt just because of the ''killing for sport'' part. Think of the slaughterhouses and everything the meat we buy at the grocery store goes through.

Personally, I think it is preferable to kill an animal in the wild, because that animal has had a life of running in the forest/swimming in the water as they please, instead of being brought up in cages/crowded pends and then brought to the slaughterhouse.

 

I think Buddha ate meat. He also told his followers to not turn down anything. However, he did not allow a follower to kill an animal, or eat an animal whose face he had known. Also, you could not pick and choose your animal for dinner. It's a fine line, but if you have the sense that you like to kill for sport you cannot concurrently have the sense that you are a Buddhist. They are mutually exclusive sentiments. To be Buddhist and kill for sport is hypocracy, not being Buddhist and eating meat. It's really pretty clear.

 

But one can justify how own actions however they may want because it's all a matter of perception in the end. What if I fish and justify it by saying that the reason I fish is because I disagree with the practice of how grocery store fish are raised? What if this is how I justify it like that AND I enjoy fishing?

We shouldn't forget that the middle path means something different for everyone, no?

 

We are all predators, whether we prey on animals, fruit or vegetables. To sustain our own lives, we must end others.

It is a fact of life.

I have caught many, many thousands of fish in my life. I have kept perhaps 5% for food. By far the majority are released unharmed. (I know this to be true because I've caught the same fish, multiple times.)

The fish I decide to keep are killed and put on ice within seconds of being unhooked

Some very few, usually small, immature fish, are mortally wounded by the hook and will die upon release. They are not useful as human food. I dispatch them, as I would those I am keeping for the table - but instead of putting it on ice, I offer it back to the lake/river/stream. Turtles, gulls, crayfish and many other creatures will make good use of it.

Wasteful killing, not killing, is an affront to Nature.

 

I try to make a point of avoiding shrimp. In many places where they are caught in the wild, heavy trawl nets are used--these trawlers are extremely destructive to the ocean floor.

How would something like this factor into the original question that was raised?

 

A Taoist friend once told me there is a sect that believes Buddha declared the oyster to be a vegetable............

 

Well, that's interesting, but it has nothing to do with Buddhist thought. The Buddha said "refrain from killing". If that isn't clear, here's how Thich Nhat Hanh, one of the enlightened beings walking the earth, said it

 

Middle Path is Daoism not Buddhism.

Spending ones life trying to be Buddhist and not living as a Buddhist is stupid. Just like trying to explain why blue can be red from a different perspective, or why living life in a state of perpetual fucked up drug induced bewilderment is really mindfullness.

What I don't get is why latch onto Buddhism at all?

Labels aren't important when it comes to religion, because religion isn't a thing which can be grasped. What is important is the sentiment.

 

This thread sounds more and more a thread about Jainism than Buddhism.

 

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who thought that. =)

*readies a brush in preparation for walking through some tall grass*

 

I myself don't claim to be a Buddhist. When people ask, I explain that my philosophies line up with the eastern ones. However, one could argue that I am as much of a Buddhist as most people who call themselves Christians actually are Christians as the Bible describes it.

I can practice meditation, I can learn about Buddhism, I can try to recognize my Buddha, nature. If, however, you are saying that one isn't Buddhist until they are ''perfect'' according to Buddhist law, then I don't know who is....

 

If you meet the Buddha, kill him.

 

You're Buddhist when you take refuge in Buddha. Which is like being married. Without cheating. Until then you're just studying Buddhism and trying to practice it some.

Of course once you take refuge you can not practice and then be a shitty Buddhist, like me.

 

Oh, that Middle Way!
I thought he said, "Milky Way."