Ervin wrote:Peace. I am guessing that plant base food doesn't feel pain when eaten.
Since your post deals primarily with the philosophical issues regarding veganism, I have moved it to this 'Great vegetarian debate' (great, as in large).
See the thousands of posts in this thread for some comments relating to your questions.
Ervin wrote:Peace. I am guessing that plant base food doesn't feel pain when eaten. I suppose plants don't have a nervous system to process pain. Wouldn't it be like cuting your nails or hair when we do it to fruits, vegetables, nuts, etc. Plants don't have brains also to process pain.
I would say that it would mean that we are more compassionate if we where vegan for the reasons I mentioned. Yet sometimes I think it might be ok to eat meat. I suppose the monotheistic teachings say that you can eat animals.
So what do you think? Is it more compassionate to be vegan?
And if and or since you don't believe in monotheism where do you get moral authority from to eat animals and their products?
Thanks
Ervin, your question has already been addressed in this thread. I Second Dave's suggestion about your reading the thread first before asking the same questions again, and again, and again.
However,
Plants do have nervous systems. They do communicate. They also have vascular systems. You need to study plant physiology and behavior first before drawing any conclusions about them feeling pain and being less important life-forms. The fact is, Plants are our partners in life. We cannot live without them. In many ways they are like our mothers, which is the justification given for not eating animals by vegans.
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
Ron-The-Elder wrote:Plants do have nervous systems. They do communicate. They also have vascular systems.
Just as a point of information in this connection: harming plants and harming animals are the same type of offense (dukkata) in the Vinaya. It tends to undermine the claim that non-meat diets are morally superior ones. Eating, as an activity, doesn't seem to be something any primate can do without causing suffering for another form of life.
Welcome to samsara.
Complex stuff, but at least we aren't held to a Jain standard, here in the Dhamma.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
Ron-The-Elder wrote:Plants do have nervous systems. They do communicate. They also have vascular systems.
Just as a point of information in this connection: harming plants and harming animals are the same type of offense (dukkata) in the Vinaya. It tends to undermine the claim that non-meat diets are morally superior ones. Eating, as an activity, doesn't seem to be something any primate can do without causing suffering for another form of life.
Welcome to samsara.
Complex stuff, but at least we aren't held to a Jain standard, here in the Dhamma.
the reason behind the rules are different, so your rational is flawed.
the rule about plants was because of complaints from lay supporters about their crops being destroyed... vassa started because of this also, the rule regarding animals was because of the act itself being brought to the attention of the Buddha.
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
Also, one rule is part of many of the Patimokkha. The other regarding not killing living beings (humans and animals) is part of the First Precept of the Five Precepts.
Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
(I undertake the precept to refrain from killing living creatures.)
All precepts and rules are important, but the Five Precepts are the core, which apply to lay and ordained alike.
David N. Snyder wrote:Also, one rule is part of many of the Patimokkha. The other regarding not killing living beings (humans and animals) is part of the First Precept of the Five Precepts.
Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
(I undertake the precept to refrain from killing living creatures.)
All precepts and rules are important, but the Five Precepts are the core, which apply to lay and ordained alike.
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
"There is a wider problem, and I think the discussions of the issue among Buddhists generally avoid this. And the wider issue is this: meat eating is clearly harmful. That harm is a direct but unintended consequence of eating meat. Since there is no intention to cause harm, eating meat is not bad kamma. There are therefore two logical possibilities: eating meat is ethical; or kamma is not a complete account of ethics.
"I am suggesting that, while kamma deals with the personal, ethics includes both the personal and the environmental.
"As well as broadening ethics in this way, I would suggest we should deepen it. Ethics is not just what is allowable. Sure, you can argue that eating meat is allowable. You can get away with it. That doesn’t mean that it’s a good thing. What if we ask, not what can I get away with, but what can I aspire to?"
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
“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
daverupa wrote: You can get away with it. That doesn’t mean that it’s a good thing. What if we ask, not what can I get away with, but what can I aspire to?"
I think that's excellent advice in any discussion on ethics and sila.
"There is a wider problem, and I think the discussions of the issue among Buddhists generally avoid this. And the wider issue is this: meat eating is clearly harmful. That harm is a direct but unintended consequence of eating meat. Since there is no intention to cause harm, eating meat is not bad kamma. There are therefore two logical possibilities: eating meat is ethical; or kamma is not a complete account of ethics.
"I am suggesting that, while kamma deals with the personal, ethics includes both the personal and the environmental.
"As well as broadening ethics in this way, I would suggest we should deepen it. Ethics is not just what is allowable. Sure, you can argue that eating meat is allowable. You can get away with it. That doesn’t mean that it’s a good thing. What if we ask, not what can I get away with, but what can I aspire to?"
I guess the Buddha could have aspired to not eating meat.
I know he ate whatever he was offered but he could have taught people that he was aspiring to not eat meat in which case I'm pretty sure they mostly wouldn't have given him any.
Some people say that he did not teach people this because it would alienate too many of them and drive them away from the Dhamma.....so to these same people I ask "have people changed or even today will teaching people to not eat meat still drive them away from the Dhamma?"....
chownah
In the above translation, I read "engage in a business" as something that involves both seller and the buyer. Is that translator's intention... or just my way of reading it?
beeblebrox wrote:In the above translation, I read "engage in a business" as something that involves both seller and the buyer. Is that translator's intention... or just my way of reading it?
I'm not sure who you are asking, but ...
'... vaṇijjā (trade) upāsakena ('one who draws near' i.e. to the saṅghā = a layman) akaraṇīyā ('should not be done')...'
Because vaṇijjā indicates a reciprocal relationship, the responsibility is on both parties.
“I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854
Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)