the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Meat eating

Post by beeblebrox »

Cittasanto wrote: There is a connection on a Business plan level, i.e. the level in which we have no say or control.
Is this an appropriate view of kamma? For example, I think that in this world, everything is stacked even more heavily against a person to attain the complete cessation of greed, hatred and delusion, than to simply not to buy the meat, and to encourage others to do the same.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Post by Cittasanto »

Mr Man wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
BubbaBuddhist wrote:Of course there is a relationship between supply and demand. But the question is:What is this relationship, and is this an economic law or a moral law?

BB
no eal wrigling just plain and simple answer.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p216211" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
With respect, if you think that answer was plain and simple....
you had plenty of time to respond earlier if you wanted clarification.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Post by Cittasanto »

Hi Beeblebrox
Sorry for the delay
beeblebrox wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: There is a connection on a Business plan level, i.e. the level in which we have no say or control.
Is this an appropriate view of kamma? For example, I think that in this world, everything is stacked even more heavily against a person to attain the complete cessation of greed, hatred and delusion, than to simply not to buy the meat, and to encourage others to do the same.
how is accusing people of murder helpful to the ends thus described; or denying one animals life is just as important as another's (as has been done and boohooed by Tilt)? surely that is just causing hindrances for those who do not see anything wrong with sustaining their body.

Everyone needs to decide for themselves what is practicable for their circumstances. Buying some beef does not equate to slitting a cows throat oneself, particularly when the whole system operates on forecasting based (non-exclusively) on some aspects of what I mentioned. The continuation you omit from the quote shows several factors a slaughter house, supermarket... may use to predict demand and the amount of meat of the different animals they need to meet the specific forecasts, and in some cases there will be over or under ordering for various reasons. Someone may eat meat more or less based on the availability in the shops, but this isn't them demanding meat or killing, the intention is to feed themselves and their family.

Our primary reason to eat is to sustain this body, some may be addicted to the fat content... but some may also be addicted to the morals....
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Meat eating

Post by Mr Man »

Cittasanto wrote:
you had plenty of time to respond earlier if you wanted clarification.
I didn't want clarification. Thanks though.
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Meat eating

Post by Mr Man »

Cittasanto wrote: how is accusing people of murder helpful to the ends thus described
I just looked back over this thread and couldn't find what you are referring to. Where is the accusation of murder?

Cittasanto wrote:or denying one animals life is just as important as another's (as has been done and boohooed by Tilt)?
Do you see all animal life as equal?
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Indian Textbook Claims Meat Eaters...

Post by cooran »

He also ate the meat given.
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Meat eating

Post by beeblebrox »

Cittasanto wrote: how is accusing people of murder helpful
Which people do you think I'm accusing of killing? (Murder is usually reserved to the killing of an human being.) If you meant some of the people who work in a slaughterhouse... then you don't think it's helpful to point out these actions, along with seeing which conditions are supporting them?

I'd like to go back to what you said earlier on, but to look at from a bit different viewpoint:
Cittasanto wrote: There is a connection on a Business plan level, i.e. the level in which we have no say or control.
Why "Business" with a capital letter?

Do you see it as some sort of a self-sustaining entity, that exists apart from people? How is that different from the way the priests used "Brahma," as a way of telling their people that they don't have any say or control over what conditions they're born into? I think that is exactly the sort of view on Kamma that the Buddha refuted.
User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Indian Textbook Claims Meat Eaters...

Post by DAWN »

It's true :pig:
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
BubbaBuddhist
Posts: 640
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:55 am
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Contact:

Re: Indian Textbook Claims Meat Eaters...

Post by BubbaBuddhist »

Image
"I shoulda never left the shade of that banyan tree."


And....

Image
"Just leave me out of it."

BB
Author of Redneck Buddhism: or Will You Reincarnate as Your Own Cousin?
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Post by Cittasanto »

beeblebrox wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: how is accusing people of murder helpful
Which people do you think I'm accusing of killing? (Murder is usually reserved to the killing of an human being.) If you meant some of the people who work in a slaughterhouse... then you don't think it's helpful to point out these actions, along with seeing which conditions are supporting them?
I should of be more precise here sorry! I meant this is something which does happened if you look at this or the great rebirth thread. eating meat is so closely connected to the actual livelihood it is made tantamount to doing the killing oneself.
but to frame something as wrong livelihood is appropriate, when it is livelihood under discussion.
I'd like to go back to what you said earlier on, but to look at from a bit different viewpoint:
Cittasanto wrote: There is a connection on a Business plan level, i.e. the level in which we have no say or control.
Why "Business" with a capital letter?
no particular reason. I do sometimes capital letters without realising (particularly if I stop and start for some reason) and lower case them later when I see.
Do you see it as some sort of a self-sustaining entity, that exists apart from people? How is that different from the way the priests used "Brahma," as a way of telling their people that they don't have any say or control over what conditions they're born into? I think that is exactly the sort of view on Kamma that the Buddha refuted.
no, not self sustaining, however when I say "Everyone needs to decide for themselves what is practicable for their circumstances." I mean it, everyone has different requirement due to internal and external circumstances; having a particular diet maybe suitable for some yet for others it is not healthy (Take wheat, gluten, or coffee as an example, I can eat and drink pretty much as much as I like yet I know people who would be on the floor shaking and in pain.

but just to pull back what I initially said
But in my opinion section 13 does show we are not responsible for future actions, after the fact, for our intent to buy food. It is our intention that matters not another's possible actions.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
BubbaBuddhist
Posts: 640
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:55 am
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Contact:

Re: Indian Textbook Claims Meat Eaters...

Post by BubbaBuddhist »

LonesomeYogurt wrote:Reminds me of this gem I found a while ago on a Muslim site:

‎"The pig is the most shameless animal on the face of the earth. It is the only animal that invites its friends to have sex with its mate. It feels no jealousy. And among people who consume pork, the practice of wife swapping and other forms of promiscuous behavior is common."
Probably not a good time then to rave about my favorite Thanksgiving turkey presentation:

Image

BB
Author of Redneck Buddhism: or Will You Reincarnate as Your Own Cousin?
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Meat eating

Post by beeblebrox »

Cittasanto wrote: [ . . . ]
but just to pull back what I initially said
But in my opinion section 13 does show we are not responsible for future actions, after the fact, for our intent to buy food. It is our intention that matters not another's possible actions.
If you meant this:
13. At that time a great number of Niganthas (running) through Vesâlî, from road to road and from cross-way to cross-way, with outstretched arms, cried: 'To-day Sîha, the general, has killed a great ox and has made a meal for the Samana Gotama; the Samana Gotama knowingly eats this meat of an animal killed for this very purpose, and has thus become virtually the author of that deed (of killing the animal)!' [my note here - this is a false accusation]

Then a certain man went to the place where Sîha, the general, was. Having approached him he said to Sîha, the general, into his ear: 'Please, Lord, have you noticed that a great number of Niganthas (running) through Vesâlî, &c.?'

'Do not mind it, my good Sir. Long since those venerable brethren are trying to discredit the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Samgha; and those venerable brethren do not become tired of telling false, idle, vain lies of the Blessed One. Not for our life would we ever intentionally kill a living being.'
That is not the sort of inference that I would draw from it... he's just refuting the Niganthas' assertion that he killed an animal, and that the Buddha ate it while knowing it was killed for him. That's it.

Your assertion that we are not responsible for future actions, nor would have any part in another's actions, are not even shown within this selection... also, I don't see how drawing these kinds of inference could be useful for our practices.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Post by Cittasanto »

beeblebrox wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: [ . . . ]
but just to pull back what I initially said
But in my opinion section 13 does show we are not responsible for future actions, after the fact, for our intent to buy food. It is our intention that matters not another's possible actions.
If you meant this:
13. At that time a great number of Niganthas (running) through Vesâlî, from road to road and from cross-way to cross-way, with outstretched arms, cried: 'To-day Sîha, the general, has killed a great ox and has made a meal for the Samana Gotama; the Samana Gotama knowingly eats this meat of an animal killed for this very purpose, and has thus become virtually the author of that deed (of killing the animal)!' [my note here - this is a false accusation]

Then a certain man went to the place where Sîha, the general, was. Having approached him he said to Sîha, the general, into his ear: 'Please, Lord, have you noticed that a great number of Niganthas (running) through Vesâlî, &c.?'

'Do not mind it, my good Sir. Long since those venerable brethren are trying to discredit the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Samgha; and those venerable brethren do not become tired of telling false, idle, vain lies of the Blessed One. Not for our life would we ever intentionally kill a living being.'
That is not the sort of inference that I would draw from it... he's just refuting the Niganthas' assertion that he killed an animal, and that the Buddha ate it while knowing it was killed for him. That's it.

Your assertion that we are not responsible for future actions, nor would have any part in another's actions, are not even shown within this selection... also, I don't see how drawing these kinds of inference could be useful for our practices.
Reading section 12 - also quoted previously - shows it was bought for, not killed for the Buddha. if the animals had been killed specifically for the group General Siha would not of be able to say "Not for our life would we ever intentionally kill a living being". Considering within Buddhism ordering a beings death is the same as killing it by oneself as shown in several place, most obviously Parajika 3.

We can not control what others do with the information they have, I used to go to my local pub every day for lunch and ordered the same thing at the same time every day except thursdays and sundays. One day I had a late lunch and the land lady had still prepared my food and drink for me, I couldn't control her decision even though I had said that I would not always be there at the same time everyday a number of times. We have to know what we can and can not control otherwise we are running around trying to control things we have no control over, and not doing what needs to be done, which happens to be sorting ourselves out.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Indian Textbook Claims Meat Eaters...

Post by DAWN »

Oh my god !
I would like to be on this chick place :strawman:
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
SarathW
Posts: 21184
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Meat eating

Post by SarathW »

Hi all
I am moved by the compassion for animal in this forum. This is such a complex issue. I have some experience in marketing and consumer behaviour. The assumption made by most of us in this forum is that animals are killed mainly for meat consumption. This is not true. Take for example sheep. Due to surge in Ugg boots demand (new fashion), the value of sheep skins has gone up higher than the value of meat. Meat is only a by product. Consider the animal killed for sciencetific research. What about the killing of Silk worms. More animals are killed in the roads by motorist.
Buddha had set the highest standard that is not to kill. Once you kill, it is irrelevant what you will do with the carcass. You can bury it, eat it, cremate it or do whatever you want to do with it. However when it come to animal cruelty I do not hold the same view. Which is somewhat can be avoided. I still believe we should continue to educate people not to kill.
There are health benefits for not eating too much. I think we all should resolve to eat one main meal a day preferably avoiding the night meal (I can’t do this yet. But I am thinking about it)
My vote is for "Do not eat meat" ( I am still working towards it)
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Post Reply