the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by lyndon taylor »

There are an extremely low number of documented places were the Buddha ate meat, he was for all intensive purposes a vegetarian most of the time it would seem. Theres something for you to sink your claws into..........
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

lyndon taylor wrote:There are an extremely low number of documented places were the Buddha ate meat, he was for all intensive purposes a vegetarian most of the time it would seem. Theres something for you to sink your claws into..........


But yet he ate meat and never enforced it...

Theres something for you to sink your claws into


Rarrr :twisted:
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

daverupa wrote::soap:

There may be bigger fish to fry: with roughly 70% of usable water locked up in agriculture, and human population growth being what it is, there are huge problems with food security on the horizon for all. There's only so much arable land, there's only so much water, and a world-spanning farm would be a biome holocaust of horrific consequence.

To extend a metaphor, I think this whole discussion is addressing very important trees, but there's a forest in danger. I want to take this opportunity to suggest that for anyone trying to eat food ethically, long-term food security issues deserve to be front and center whether or not animal protein is being consumed.

Consider the water. Consider what a world of just farmland looks like. Consider what nine billion people are going to eat in the year 2050. And so forth.

:focus:

The main problem there is human population, it's exploded in the last century or so
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by seeker242 »

clw_uk wrote:
lyndon taylor wrote:You haven't even tried, have you, its very easy to get all your nutrients from a vegetarian diet, vegan is a bit harder, its also very hard to get no negative effects on your health from eating lots of meat.

That's great if you can afford it, however some families can only afford meat to feed their children.

It really depends on where the family lives. People have done experiments where they can be fully vegan on nothing but food stamps. Something like $30 a week. Things like rice and beans are cheap! Food Stamp Recipients Can Eat Vegan For $33 a Week Of course that all depends on what kind of markets the people have access to.
Also does anyone know if it's healthy to take meat out of a growing child's diet?
It's healthy to not give a child meat just as long as you actually give them a balanced veg*an diet. According to The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association) the world's largest organization of food and nutrition professionals. "Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."

:namaste:
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by seeker242 »

daverupa wrote::soap:

There may be bigger fish to fry: with roughly 70% of usable water locked up in agriculture, and human population growth being what it is, there are huge problems with food security on the horizon for all. There's only so much arable land, there's only so much water, and a world-spanning farm would be a biome holocaust of horrific consequence.

To extend a metaphor, I think this whole discussion is addressing very important trees, but there's a forest in danger. I want to take this opportunity to suggest that for anyone trying to eat food ethically, long-term food security issues deserve to be front and center whether or not animal protein is being consumed.

Consider the water. Consider what a world of just farmland looks like. Consider what nine billion people are going to eat in the year 2050. And so forth.

:focus:
No need to go "back to topic"! This is right on topic! :smile: Water scarcity and agriculture is a big issue according to leading water scientists. They propose that water scarcity necessitates near vegetarian diet in the coming future.

By 2050 there will not be enough water in the world to continue the global trends of a Western-style, high animal protein diet. Rather, a primarily vegetarian diet is necessary to address growing water insecurity, according to a report released to coincide with the 2012 World Water Week in Stockholm from August 26-31.

In part of the report, Food Security: Overcoming Water Scarcity Realities, Malin Falkenmark, Senior Scientific Advisor to the Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI), writes that almost half the world population will be living in chronic water shortage, and that sustainable water consumption means eating a diet with no more than 5% of calories coming from animal protein: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/2 ... 36273.html
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ben »

Hi Craig,
clw_uk wrote:Also does anyone know if it's healthy to take meat out of a growing child's diet?
That all depends.
If the meat is the only form of protein in the child's diet and the meat is not replaced by a plant-based protein source - then no.
If the meat has been replaced with vegetable forms of protein - then the diet is going to be far healthier.

Its a mistake to believe that meat offers the best source of protein - it doesn't. As Aloka mentioned above - there have been long traditions of vegetarian and vegan cuisine throughout the world and those peoples were not deficient. There is also a lot of misinformation about the amount of protein we need. Most people in the West eat an over-abundance of protein and that includes vegans and (ovo-lacto) vegetarians.
In fact, putting a "growing" child on a wholefoods plant-based diet ensures the child has reduced risk of the vast majority of chronic illnesses and diseases including cardio-vascular disease, many forms of cancer, and others. See here, here and here.

I have been on a wholefoods plant-based (vegan) diet for around five weeks now and it has been one of the best things I have done. Ethically, it is consistent with Buddhist morality, it is environmentally more sustainable, but the kicker for me is that it is one of the best things I can do for my own mental and physical health. And the body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence that supports the healthful properties of a wholefoods plant-based diet is huge and extremely convincing.
kind regards,

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
BubbaBuddhist
Posts: 640
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:55 am
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by BubbaBuddhist »

Image

BB
Author of Redneck Buddhism: or Will You Reincarnate as Your Own Cousin?
Jhana4
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:20 pm
Location: U.S.A., Northeast

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Jhana4 »

clw_uk wrote:Also does anyone know if it's healthy to take meat out of a growing child's diet?
This book has two authors, both registered dieticians who regularly review research literature and who regularly post about what they read on their nutrition blogs. The book is written in plain English and covers nutrition concerns for all phases of life:

Image
In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

Ethically, it is consistent with Buddhist morality

I agree but so is eating meat :)
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Jhana4
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:20 pm
Location: U.S.A., Northeast

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Jhana4 »

clw_uk wrote:
Ethically, it is consistent with Buddhist morality

I agree but so is eating meat :)
From
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in."
Customers make a business possible.

Interesting that the Buddha classed meat production with such fine endeavors as arms dealing, the slave traide, the drug trade and making poison.
In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

Interesting that the Buddha classed meat production with such fine endeavors as arms dealing, the slave traide, the drug trade and making poison.

Yet he ate meat and didn't enforce a rule for vegetarianism. In fact the only time he is asked to do so, he refuses.


The demand for meat won't go away, and a lot of meat will end up in the bin, so there is no harm in buying it
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by lyndon taylor »

clw_uk wrote:
Ethically, it is consistent with Buddhist morality

I agree but so is eating meat :)
So now you're speaking for all Buddhists, and telling us what Buddhist morality is, AND it involves the killing of animals, you're just too much claw!!!
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Aloka »

lyndon taylor wrote: .... you're just too much claw!!!
Wut ?

:coffee:
Last edited by Aloka on Wed Sep 04, 2013 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

So now you're speaking for all Buddhists, and telling us what Buddhist morality is, AND it involves the killing of animals, you're just too much claw!!!

I didn't say I was speaking for all Buddhists. I didn't say that killing animals was consistent with Buddhist morality, but eating meat is. A very important distinction.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Jhana4
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:20 pm
Location: U.S.A., Northeast

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Jhana4 »

clw_uk wrote:
Interesting that the Buddha classed meat production with such fine endeavors as arms dealing, the slave traide, the drug trade and making poison.

Yet he ate meat and didn't enforce a rule for vegetarianism. In fact the only time he is asked to do so, he refuses.


The demand for meat won't go away, and a lot of meat will end up in the bin, so there is no harm in buying it
The Buddha allegedly ate meat. There are disputes whether or not MN 55 and a similar passage in the commentaries have been translated correctly.
In the two version of the suttas I have found the part where the Buddha states he will eat meat is in parenthesis. I need to research what the parenthesis mean and I am following up on the source of the claim of the translation error. According to the monk who told me this MN 55 should have been translated as "I will eat almsfood if I can't tell if there is meat in it".

As to your second point I think your reasoning is at fault. Current cultural culinary tastes are not laws of physics, they can change. The second part of your second point seems to be saying we have to keep eating meet because if large amounts of people stopped all at once some meat would be wasted by being thrown away ( probably can be used for fertilizer ). That would mean you would have to keep perpetuating an unethical act to keep the results of previous unethical acts from being wasteful.

As far as ethics go, forget about Buddhism and forget about the suffering to livestock animals, many of whom are as intelligent as dogs or young human children. Meat production contributes more to the greenhouse effect of global climate change than the transportation industry. Do you have kids? Do you want them, their friends or your grandchildren to live in the future resulting from global climate change?

If you are interested in the future you should read this essay by an environmental journalist who states flatly he could care less about vegetarianism, but he gave up meat because he is aware of how it is contributing to global climate change and he doesn't want that future for him or his children:

http://www.audubonmagazine.org/articles ... arbon-diet
In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
Post Reply