the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
jason c
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:41 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by jason c »

hey, cittisanto,
the thoroughly annoyed bit was just me fishing for a response.
i understand what you are saying. i would appreciate a response to the topic at hand. re: last posting

respectfully,
jason
User avatar
hanzze_
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 4:30 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by hanzze_ »

Jason,

internet discussions are horrible, especially when you are not used to it. A pool of traps but that is also a great possibility to learn about peceptions and to look more on our own intentions. How ever, I guess I understand what you try to say. But that is one thing, that is not really important, neither for me, nor for you. Important is what we can gain for our self and that is all that has an positive impact on all others as well.

I had to think on two stories with are maybe useful as eating is all we usually do:
We Must Eat Time

What is life? Life is eating and drinking through all of our senses. And life is keeping from being eaten. What eats us? Time! What is time? Time is living in the past or living in the future, feeding on the emotions. Beings who can say that they have mentally healthy for even one minute are rare in the world. Most of us suffer from clinging to pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral feelings, and from hunger and thirst. Most living beings have to eat and drink every second through their eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin, and nerves. We eat twenty-four hours a day without stopping! We crave food for the body, food for feeling, food for volitional action, and food for rebirth. We are what we eat. We are the world, and we eat the world.
The Buddha cried when he saw this endless cycle of suffering: the fly eats the flower; the frog eats the fly; the snake eats the frog; the bird eats the snake; the tiger eats the bird; the hunter kills the tiger; the tiger‘s body become swollen; flies come and eat the tiger‘s corpse; the flies lay eggs in the corpse; the eggs become more flies; the flies eat the flowers; and the frogs eat the flies...
And so the Buddha said, „I teach only two things - suffering and the end of suffering.“ Suffering, eating, and feeling are exactly the same.
Feelings eats everything. Feeling has six mouths - the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind. The first mouth eats forms through the eye. The second mouth eats sound. The third mouth eats smells. The fourth mouth eats tastes. The fifth mouth eats physical contact. And the last mouth eats ideas. That is feeling.
Time is also an eater. In traditional Cambodian stories, there is often a giant with many mouths who eats everything. This giant is time. If you eat time, you gain nirvana. You can eat time by living in the moment. When you live just in this moment, time cannot eat you.
Everything is causational. There is no you, only causes and conditions. Therfore, you cannot hear or see. When sound and ear comes together, there is hearing. When form and eye meet, there is seeing.
When eye, form and consciousness meet, there is eye contact. Eye contact conditions feeling. Feeling conditions perception. Perceptions thinking, and thinking is I, my, me - the painful misconception that I see, hear, smell, taste, touch, and think.
Feeling uses the eye to eat shapes. If a shape is beautiful, a pleasant feeling enters the eye. If a shape is not beautiful, it brings a unpleasant feeling. If we are not attentive to a shape, a neutral feeling comes. The ear is the same: sweet sounds bring pleasant feelings, harsh sounds bring unpleasant feelings, and inattantion brings neutral feelings.
Again, you may think, “I am seeing, I am hearing, I am feeling.” But it is not you, it is only contact, the meeting of the eye, form, and eye-consciousness. It is only the Dharma.
A man once asked the Buddha, “Who feels?” The Buddha answered, “This is not a real question.” No one feels. Feeling feels. There is no I, my, or me. There is only the Dharma.
All kinds of feelings are suffering, filled with vanity, filled with “I am.” If we can penetrate the nature of sensations, we can realize the pure happiness of nirvana.
Feelings and sensations causes us to suffer, because we fail to realize that they are impermanent. The Buddha asked, “How can feeling be permanent if it depends upon the body, which is impermanent?” When we do not control our feelings, we are controlled by them. If we live in the moment, we can see things just as they are. Doing so, we can put an end to all desire, break out bondage, and realize peace.
To understand pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral feelings, we have to put the four foundations of mindfulness into practice. Mindfulness can transform pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral feelings into wisdom.
The world is created by the mind. If we can control feelings, then we can control the mind. If we can control the mind, then we can rule the world.
In meditation, we relax our body, but we sit up straight, and by following our breathing of another object of concentration, we stop most of our thinking. Therefore, we stop being pushed around by our feelings. Thinking greats feeling, and feeling creates thinking. To be free from clinging to thinking and feeling is nirvana - the highest, supreme happiness.
To live without suffering means to live always in the present. The highest happiness is here and now. There is no time at all unless we cling to it. Brothers and Sisters, please eat time!

from Maha Ghosanada "Step by Step"
And even we might know the way it could be that we are strongly caught by or past deeds, therefore it good to remember
Munika the pig

Once on a time when Brahmadatta was reigning in Benares, the Bodhisatta came to life as an ox, named Big Red, on the squire’s estate in a certain hamlet. And he had a younger brother who was known as Little Red. There were only these two brothers to do all the draught work of the family. Also, the squire had an only daughter, whose hand was asked I marriage for his son by a gentleman of the town. And the parents of the girl, with a view to furnishing dainty fare [197] for the wedding guests, began to fatten up a pig named Munika.

Observing this, Little Red said to his brother, “All the loads that have to be drawn for this household are drawn by you and me, my brother; but all they give us for our pains is sorry grass and straw to eat. Yet here is the pig being victualled on rice! What can be the reason why he should be treated to such fare?”

Said his brother, “My dear Little Red, envy him not; for the pig eats the food of death. It is but to furnish a relish for the guests at their daughter’s wedding, that the family are feeding up the pig. Wait but a little time and the guests will be legs, killed, and in process of conversion into curry.” And so saying, he repeated this stanza:-

Then envy not poor Munika; ’tis death

He eats. Contented munch your frugal chaff,

The pledge and guarantee of length of days.

Not long afterwards the guests did arrive; and Munika was killed and cooked into all manner of dishes. Said the Bodhisatta to Little Red, “Did you see Munika, dear brother?” “ I have indeed seen, brother, the outcome of Munika’s feasting. Better a hundred, nay a thousand, times than such food is ours, though it be but grass, straw, and chaff; for our fare harms us not, and is a pledge that our lives will not be cut short.”
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by mikenz66 »

Dear Members,

Meta-discussion removed. Please return to the topic. Thank you.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by cooran »

A new study:

Study busts meat-eating myths
Updated June 04, 2012 14:22:32

A new Australian study has busted some commonly held beliefs about the importance of meat, particularly for pregnant women and children.

The findings, published today in the Medical Journal of Australia Open, show a well-planned, plant-based diet can meet the nutritional needs of all adults and children, whatever their age.

Traditional thinking has long supported the idea growing bodies need nutrients, such as protein and iron, that have usually been associated with eating meat.

The research was prepared by a team of three Australian dieticians from Sanitarium, a private Sydney practice and the University of Newcastle, who worked with local and international academics.

Nutritionist Dr Rosemary Stanton supports the findings, saying it is a break from traditional thinking.

"I've been aware that you can have an adequate vegetarian diet for many years, but I think this new research really puts everything together so that people can understand why," she told ABC's Radio National.

"As long as you've had a variety of plant-based foods over the course of a day or so, your body will take the amino acids as it needs them. And so we don't need to fuss about having seeds and nuts together, or particular foods together, the way we used to."

Dr Stanton says there has always been a push to track iron intake and concern of iron deficiency in those who do not eat meat, but advice has been confused.

"I think we've mixed up the people who are vegetarian because they can't afford meat, or can't afford enough food to eat, with those who can eat a variety of plant-based foods," she said.

"If you take meat off the plate, you need to put something else there, in the way of some legumes or grains or seeds or nuts."

During pregnancy, she says, the iron in plant-based foods is more easily absorbed simply because the body needs more of it.

Dr Stanton also says grains contain twice as much protein as the typical meat serving does.

As a nutritionist, she recommends moving towards a plant-based diet, although not necessarily removing all meat products.

"You always need a variety. Variety is important," she said.

"People always say to me, 'what's the most nutritious vegetable?' Well it's a variety of vegetables - no one food has it all."

Dr Stanton says in order to get vitamin B12, which is found only in animal products, dairy and eggs will fill that need.

But she says vegans - who eat no animal products whatsoever - will need a supplement of B12, which is particularly important during pregnancy and for small children.

First posted June 04, 2012 13:10:11

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-04/s ... hs/4050144" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

with metta
Chris
---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 ---
User avatar
hanzze_
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 4:30 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by hanzze_ »

It seems to be a very self-orientated study. But such studies need to be sold, so they would not find costumers if they are not self-orientated. That is why Dhamma is for free but we still trust in what we buy.
User avatar
Eccedustin
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:56 pm
Location: Tallahassee, Fl

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Eccedustin »

I am a vegetarian. Accepting meat, if offered, may or may not directly or indirectly cause suffering and death but it is hard to know. If a friend gives you beef, if this causing death of the animal? What if the friend says "Here, eat this meat I cooked." is this wrong? Yes. Even though you didn't kill the animal, the animal was killed to make meat for you. What if the friend says "I'm going to throw it out anyway!" is it then ok? Maybe, Maybe not. Maybe he will just decide to eat it and then if he does then he will refrain from buying more meat to eat. Maybe this meat will be thrown out and, in that case, it may feed some other animal that will refrain from killing another animal since he ate the meat.
The universe is awake, conscious and aware of itself! The universe is awake, conscious and aware of itself because we are awake, conscious and aware of ourselves. We are the not just in the universe, we are the universe.
User avatar
yawares
Posts: 1531
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: Which diet are you?

Post by yawares »

[quote="David N. Snyder"]At the suggestion of cooran, here is a poll on which specific diet you mostly follow. Here are some definitions:
2. Omnivore - (almost) anything goes, red meat, poultry, fish, veggies, etc.

Dear David,

My family is omnivore, but I and Tep only eat breakfast/lunch as habit for a long time. Whenever we uphold 8 precepts, we love the feeling of freedom from foods/desserts after lunch...and mostly we enjoy not to be fat or gaining weight...so we stop eating after lunch everyday..Uposatha Day or not.

Dear members, if you don't want to gain weight...please stop eating after lunch and you'll enjoy being slim/slender for life.

Love to be slim,
yawares
corrine
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:33 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by corrine »

I am always surprised when I see a raised level of anger in a Buddhist forum and I seem to see the most agitation when the discussion is to eat or not to eat meat.

For me the answer is simple. I believe that killing is against Buddhist principles. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is what I think. In order for me to eat meat I must either kill something or allow someone else to do so for me. Therefor I do not eat meat. This seems simple and yet, at the same time, very, very complicated.

I have become more and more confused about the debates on matters of Buddhist belief and what they 'really' mean. Is not the prohibition on killing, simple? Or the prohibition on causing suffering to other living things? I can guarantee that animals suffer horribly when slaughtered for their meat. I have seen it.

And why would not any Buddhist wish to leave as small a carbon foot print upon the earth as possible when it is clear that the production of animals for meat is an environmental disaster? The use of feed and water to produce the meat would produce so much more food for so many more people.

The health thing is just plain bogus. As an old woman who has been a vegetarian for decades I can say for sure that it has had no deleterious effects on my health. I am, in fact, much healthier than most of my meat eating friends. Coincidence. Perhaps. But I am extremely healthy. In my old age I am working full time as a volunteer and often put in ten hour days with no problem. So no bad effects for me.

More importantly, why do so many people become so emotionally upset about vegetarianism. I was discussing this issue with a psychologist friend of mine and she said 'guilt'. Is that perhaps a possibility? Because back in the dark ages when I was a smoker (I quit forty years ago) I used to get very upset when people would lecture me about the evils of smoking. So maybe that is a component of the anger about this issue, if we are brutally honest with ourselves.

Whatever. It seems to me that each of us has to make our own choices about what rules we want to follow and then do so and stop rationalizing the breaking of others. If killing is wrong, and I think everyone would agree that Buddhists are not supposed to kill, especially not on purpose, then eating something that has to be killed in order for us to eat it, is inherently wrong. Isn't it?

corrine
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Corrine,
corrine wrote:If killing is wrong, and I think everyone would agree that Buddhists are not supposed to kill, especially not on purpose, then eating something that has to be killed in order for us to eat it, is inherently wrong. Isn't it?
The Buddha didn't seem to think so, and wasn't prepared to introduce mandatory vegetarianism into the Sangha at Devadatta's request.

I could go into more detail but am hesitant to since, as you rightly discern, there is often "agitation when the discussion is to eat or not to eat meat" and I have little desire to contribute to the agitation. (Plus there's an element of 'been there, done that", as evident from the length of this topic)

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4646
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

81 pages! This topic has been boiled, stewed, and fried to death. Perhaps all new contributors should be forced to read it all before adding another post. :stirthepot:
corrine wrote:More importantly, why do so many people become so emotionally upset about vegetarianism.
Why do vegetarians become so emotionally upset about meat-eating? In both cases, it is attachment to views that lies at the root of the problem. Just check your intention, which is what the Buddha called kamma. One makes the unwholesome kamma of killing living beings in four ways:
  1. By killing with one's own hand
  2. By urging others to kill
  3. By condoning killing i.e. allowing others to kill when one has the power to prevent it. For example, if there is a fish pond on your property, if you allow fishermen to use the pond you are involved in the killing. If poachers kill the fish without your permission you have no involvement. Even if you know, and do nothing to stop them (whether fearful of your own safety, or just too busy, or too tired)
  4. By delighting in killing, e.g. being pleased when a murderer is executed, of if an enemy meets with a fatal accident
When fruit and vegetables are grown, they are almost always sprayed with insecticides, and vermin such as rabbits are poisoned or trapped. If a farmer sells both rabbit meat and cabbages, what's the difference between buying and eating the rabbit meat and the cabbages? Is anyone blameworthy for eating fruit or vegetables that involve the intentional killing of insects in their production?
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Cittasanto »

Hi Bhante,
seams to also be a self defense (on the meat eaters side) due to the perceived moralistic finger pointing also often seen with the vegetarian argument.

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:81 pages! This topic has been boiled, stewed, and fried to death. Perhaps all new contributors should be forced to read it all before adding another post. :stirthepot:
corrine wrote:More importantly, why do so many people become so emotionally upset about vegetarianism.
Why do vegetarians become so emotionally upset about meat-eating? In both cases, it is attachment to views that lies at the root of the problem. Just check your intention, which is what the Buddha called kamma. One makes the unwholesome kamma of killing living beings in four ways:
  1. By killing with one's own hand
  2. By urging others to kill
  3. By condoning killing i.e. allowing others to kill when one has the power to prevent it. For example, if there is a fish pond on your property, if you allow fishermen to use the pond you are involved in the killing. If poachers kill the fish without your permission you have no involvement. Even if you know, and do nothing to stop them (whether fearful of your own safety, or just too busy, or too tired)
  4. By delighting in killing, e.g. being pleased when a murderer is executed, of if an enemy meets with a fatal accident
When fruit and vegetables are grown, they are almost always sprayed with insecticides, and vermin such as rabbits are poisoned or trapped. If a farmer sells both rabbit meat and cabbages, what's the difference between buying and eating the rabbit meat and the cabbages? Is anyone blameworthy for eating fruit or vegetables that involve the intentional killing of insects in their production?
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
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4646
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

The point I always try to make is that it is the attachment to views that is the greatest problem, and that is where passions are aroused on both sides .The issue become contentious because people don't know the Dhamma well enough.

Mahāviyūha Sutta — Major Causes of Contention

This is also the teaching in the Āmaganda Sutta.

The Venerable Ledi Sayādaw was a strong advocate of vegetarianism, as his discourse on Cow Dhamma (Gonasurā Dīpanī)
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote: If a farmer sells both rabbit meat and cabbages, what's the difference between buying and eating the rabbit meat and the cabbages?
The rabbits have been killed? ;)
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ben »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:81 pages! This topic has been boiled, stewed, and fried to death. Perhaps all new contributors should be forced to read it all before adding another post. :stirthepot:
And practice the repulsiveness of nutriment.
“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]..
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

Ben wrote:
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:81 pages! This topic has been boiled, stewed, and fried to death. Perhaps all new contributors should be forced to read it all before adding another post. :stirthepot:
And practice the repulsiveness of nutriment.
Please don't kill bunnies though! :jumping:
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Post Reply