the great vegetarian debate

[samseva]

One reason why it's flawed, the main reason IMO, is because they are doing a comparison using calories as the scale. Not necessarily a problem in and of itself. However, what they did was compare high calorie density food to low calorie density food. Problem is, nobody eats foods like lettuce for calories to begin with!

2 slices of fried bacon is about 86 calories. 1 cup of shredded lettuce is about 5 calories. That would mean you need about 17 cups of lettuce to equal 2 slices of bacon. Who eats 17 cups of lettuce in one meal? Nobody! What they should have done is compare a typical serving size to a typical serving size.

Yes, lettuce barely has any calories at all. A dab of toothpaste probably has more calories than a cup of lettuce.

Plus, there are probably a million better ways to decrease the environmental impact on the planet than stopping from eating vegetables.

[lyndon taylor]

Seems to me for a lot of people, freeing sentient beings from suffering involves paying a butcher to kill animals so you can eat them. In fact you're more concerned about alleviating your own hunger than freeing any sentient beings!!

[Teramangalho]

To be honest, this doesn't surprise me, considering agriculture is worth around 10% of Australia's economy, with beef and dairy being the 1st and 4th sectors respectively within agriculture.

Didn't the Australian meat marketing board once run an ad campaign "eat more meat, you bastards!"?

It's a shame that so much money rides on exploiting the suffering of other living beings, but things are changing slowly. A restaurant just had to pull this advertising campaign in the UK after pressure from vegetarians and vegans: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01 ... 08024.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

A restaurant just had to pull this advertising campaign in the UK after pressure from vegetarians and vegans: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01 ... 08024.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They had to eat Humble Pie. Phrase Dictionary. That might be more horrible than grass.

In the 14th century, the numbles (or noumbles, nomblys, noubles) was the name given to the heart, liver, entrails etc. of animals, especially of deer - what we now call offal or lights. By the 15th century this had migrated to umbles, although the words co-existed for some time. There are many references to both words in Old English and Middle English texts from 1330 onward. Umbles were used as an ingredient in pies, although the first record of 'umble pie' in print is as late as the 17th century. Samuel Pepys makes many references to such pies in his diary; for example, on 5th July 1662:

[Teramangalho]

They had to eat Humble Pie. Phrase Dictionary. That might be more horrible than grass.

In the 14th century, the numbles (or noumbles, nomblys, noubles) was the name given to the heart, liver, entrails etc. of animals, especially of deer - what we now call offal or lights. By the 15th century this had migrated to umbles, although the words co-existed for some time. There are many references to both words in Old English and Middle English texts from 1330 onward. Umbles were used as an ingredient in pies, although the first record of 'umble pie' in print is as late as the 17th century. Samuel Pepys makes many references to such pies in his diary; for example, on 5th July 1662:

Interesting etymology, thanks!

[drianmcdonald]

Hi,

I'm working on a radio history of vegetarianism being broadcast on community radio. I'm currently editing the episode covering the birth of Buddhism (a powerful voice for ahimsa without all its paths necessarily supporting what we would now call "vegetarianism").

I'm featuring a dramatisation of the story of General Siha in the Mahavagga of the Vinaya Pitaka because it shows the classical Theravada attitudes to meat-eating contrasted with the other contemporary group in my story, the Jains ('Niganthas').

Here is a nineteenth century translation on archive.org. The story begins with the first sentence on the page:
https://archive.org/stream/bookofdiscip ... 4/mode/2up" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In summary:

• General Siha becomes a Buddhist
• He entertains the sangha, asking a servant if there is meat "to hand".
• Jains protest loudly that a bull is being killed for the Buddha
• A bystander condemns the Jains for their lies
• After eating, the Buddha gives the 3Ss rule.

It's obviously important that I represent the Theravada interpretation of the story properly. I believe that I'm meant to understand from the text that General Siha fed the Sangha meat that was "to hand", with no animals specifically slaughtered. And the Sangha had no grounds to "suspect" that animals had been killed for them.

Is this correct?

What I'm struggling to understand is that General Siha himself - as a recent convert from Jainism (the 'Niganthas') - wouldn't have had any meat to hand in the first place if not for Gautama's influence. And grounds for suspicion had been shouted through the streets, albeit by a rival sect. I'm assuming that's not how the text is meant to be interpreted; so I'd appreciate knowing the Theravada interpration(s).

Many thanks,

Ian

[DNS]

What I'm struggling to understand is that General Siha himself - as a recent convert from Jainism (the 'Niganthas') - wouldn't have had any meat to hand in the first place if not for Gautama's influence. And grounds for suspicion had been shouted through the streets, albeit by a rival sect. I'm assuming that's not how the text is meant to be interpreted; so I'd appreciate knowing the Theravada interpration(s).

Correct, I've noticed this too. In a previous topic on this, one poster called it anti-Jain propaganda and may have been created to disparage Jains in general.

In that Sutta, it is reported that General Siha is a stream-entrant. In another Sutta the Buddha reports that soldiers are not headed to heavenly realms and in fact have rebirth to lower realms (Samyutta Nikaya 42.3). A stream entrant has no more than 7 more rebirths and they are always in higher destinations of human or deva realms. Therefore, General Siha could not have been a stream entrant and / or the passage about him purchasing meat must have been added by later writers of the Tipitaka.

[robertk]

1. certainly soldiers can be stream enterers. There are many soldiers who don't kill.
2. one can eat meat without killing also.

[drianmcdonald]

I have assumed it was anti-Jain propaganda. (After all, a servant takes times to disparage the Jains, and they are shown being far from serene.) They're portrayed as "extreme" and "intolerant".

The whole point of the 3S rule introduced at the end of the story (and also mentioned in response to Devadatta in a different story) is that you can (says Theravada Buddhism) eat meat without killing. There are long debates between the Jains and the Buddhists thoughout Indian history - such as in Tamil epics like Nilakeci - over whether this is really true in the long run. The issue is that the general Siha story seems to be a case in point - and it's the *Jains* who are clearly in the right.

I'm assuming I must have missed something in that last bit, because otherwise, what's it doing in the Pali canon?

Is there a traditional commentary on this story?

[pilgrim]

This incident was before the time we had refrigeration. Having meat "to hand" does not necessarily mean meat already in possession. Indeed that would be unlikely as meat would spoil within hours in India's climate. And Siha would have known if one of his cattle was slaughtered that day. I think it is possible that Siha asked the man if there was meat sold in the market.

[Dhammanando]

What I'm struggling to understand is that General Siha himself - as a recent convert from Jainism (the 'Niganthas') - wouldn't have had any meat to hand in the first place if not for Gautama's influence.

I think you may be reading too much into the phrase "meat to hand". Like the English word "flesh" the Pali "maṃsa", by itself, may refer either to the flesh on a living animal or to meat from a dead animal. If one needs to disambiguate, then "alla-maṃsa" is used for living flesh and "pavatta-maṃsa" for dead meat. Now "meat to hand" is simply I.B. Horner's rendering of "pavatta-maṃsa". And so the passage doesn't carry any implication, say, that Sīha already had meat stored in his larder. The point of stipulating "pavatta-maṃsa" is to spell out that Sīha was sending the man to get meat from an animal already dead, as opposed to commissioning an act of butchery.

Compare it with the following story from the same volume:

On rejection of human flesh

Then the Lord, having stayed at Rājagaha for as long as he found suiting, set out on tour for Benares. In due course, walking on tour, he arrived at Benares. The Lord stayed there near Benares at Isipatana in the deer-park. Now at that time in Benares the lay-follower, Suppiya, and the woman lay-follower, Suppiyā, were both pleased; they were benefactors, servitors, supporters of the Order. Then the woman lay-follower, Suppiyā, having gone to the monastery, having approached dwelling-place after dwelling-place, cell after cell, asked the monks: “Who, honoured sirs, is ill? What may be conveyed for whom?”

Now at that time a certain monk had drunk a purgative. Then that monk spoke to the woman lay-follower, Suppiyā, thus:

“I have drunk a purgative, sister. I need meat-broth.” She said:

“Very well, master, it shall be conveyed (to you),” and having gone to her house, she enjoined a servant, saying:

“Go, good fellow, find meat that is to hand.”

“Yes, lady,” but that man, having answered the woman lay-follower Suppiya in assent, touring the whole of Benares, saw no meat that was to hand. Then that man approached the woman lay-follower Suppiyā; having approached the woman lay-follower Suppiyā, he spoke thus: “There is no meat, lady, that is ready to hand; today is a non-slaughter (day).”

Then it occurred to the woman lay-follower, Suppiyā: “If that ill monk is unable to obtain meat-broth his affliction will greatly increase or he will pass away. It is not fitting in me, that I, having answered him in assent, should not have meat-broth conveyed”, and having taken a butcher’s knife, having cut flesh from her thigh, she gave it to a slave-woman, saying:

“Come now, having prepared this meat—in such and such a dwelling-place there is an ill monk, you may give it to him, and if anyone asks for me, let it be known that I am ill,” and having wrapped her upper robe round her thigh, having entered an inner room, she lay down on a couch.

Then the lay-follower, Suppiya, having gone to the house, asked the slave-woman, saying: “Where is Suppiyā?”

“She, master, is lying down in an inner room.” Then the lay-follower Suppiya, approached the woman lay-follower Suppiyā, and having approached he spoke thus to the woman lay-follower Suppiyā:

“Why are you lying down?”

“I am ill,” she said.

“What is your affliction?” Then the woman lay-follower Suppiyā told this matter to the lay-follower Suppiya. Then the lay-follower Suppiya, thinking: “Indeed, it is marvellous, indeed, it is wonderful, that this Suppiyā is so faithful and believing that she gives up even her own flesh. What other thing could there be that she would not give?” and joyful, elated, he approached the Lord; having approached, having greeted the Lord, he sat down at a respectful distance.

As he was sitting down at a respectful distance the lay-follower Suppiya spoke thus to the Lord: “Lord, may the lord consent to a meal with me on the morrow together with the Order of monks”. The Lord consented by becoming silent. Then the lay-follower Suppiya, having understood the Lord’s consent, rising from his seat, having greeted the Lord, departed keeping his right side towards him. Then the lay-follower Suppiya, towards the end of that night, having had sumptuous solid foods, soft foods, prepared, had the time announced to the Lord, saying: “It is time, Lord, the meal is ready”. Then the Lord, dressing in the morning, taking his bowl and robe, approached the dwelling of the lay-follower Suppiya; having approached, he sat down together with the Order of monks on the appointed seat.

Then the lay-follower Suppiya approached the lord; having approached, having greeted the Lord, he stood at a respectful distance. As the lay-follower Suppiya was standing at a respectful distance, the Lord spoke thus to him:

“How is Suppiyā?”

“She is ill, Lord.”

“Well then, let her come.”

“She is not able to do so, Lord.”

“Well then, having taken hold of her, bring her along.” Then the lay-follower Suppiya, having taken hold of the woman lay-follower Suppiyā, brought her along. When the Lord saw her, even that great wound became healed, the skin was (made) good with (small) hairs growing on it.

Then the lay-follower Suppiya and the woman lay-follower Suppiyā, saying: “Wonderful indeed, marvellous indeed are the great psychic power and the great potency of the Truth-finder, inasmuch as when the Lord sees (someone) even a great wound will be healed, the skin (made) good with (small) hairs growing on it,” and joyful, elated, having with their own hands served, and satisfied the Order of monks with the enlightened one at its head with sumptuous foods, solid and soft, when the Lord had eaten and had withdrawn his hand from the bowl, they sat down at a respectful distance. Then the Lord having gladdened, rejoiced, roused, delighted the lay-follower Suppiya and the woman lay-follower Suppiya with talk on dhamma, rising from his seat, departed.

Then the Lord on this occasion, in this connection, having had the Order of monks convened, questioned the monks, saying: “Who, monks, asked the woman lay-follower Suppiyā for meat?” When he had spoken thus, that monk spoke thus to the Lord:

“I, Lord, asked the woman lay-follower Suppiyā for meat.”

“Has it been conveyed (to you), monk?”

“It has been conveyed, Lord.”

“Did you, monk, make use of it?”

“I, Lord, made use of it.”

“Did you, monk, inquire about it?”

“I, Lord, did not inquire about it.”

The enlightened one, the Lord rebuked him, saying: “How an you, foolish man, make use of meat without having inquired about it? Foolish man, human flesh has been made use of by you. It is not, foolish man, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased …” And having rebuked him, having given reasoned talk, he addressed the monks, saying:

“There are, monks, people who are faithful and believing; even their own flesh is given up by these. Monks, you should not make use of human flesh. Whoever should make use of it, there is a grave offence. Nor, monks, should you make use of flesh without inquiring about it. Whoever should (so) make use of it, there is an offence of wrong-doing.”

[Dhammanando]

Here is a nineteenth century translation on archive.org.

Just a quibble, but Book of the Discipline is actually a twentieth century translation of the Vinaya Piṭaka. The nineteenth century (incomplete) translation is Vinaya Texts by T.W. Rhys Davids and Herman Oldenberg.

The earlier rendering of the Sīha episode is here:

http://sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe17/sbe17045.htm

And the Suppiyā episode:

http://sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe17/sbe17037.htm

And Oldenberg's note on pavatta-maṃsa:

Pavattamaṃsa, which Buddhaghosa explains, 'matassa maṃsaṃ.' Pavatta means 'already existing,' opposed to what is brought into existence for a special purpose, and pavattamaṃsa is said here, therefore, in order to exclude uddissa-kata-maṃsa (meat of animals killed especially for them), which Bhikkhus were not allowed to partake of (see chap. 3,1. 14). Compare also pavattaphala-bhojana at Jātaka I, p. 6.

http://sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe17/sbe17037.htm

[Dhammanando]

I have assumed it was anti-Jain propaganda. (After all, a servant takes times to disparage the Jains, and they are shown being far from serene.) They're portrayed as "extreme" and "intolerant".

I don't see any call to dismiss the episode as anti-Jain propaganda. The behaviour reported of the Jains is (humanly speaking) a quite understandable response. It's a well-attested phenomenon that when a prominent and respected figure in religion X converts to religion Y, some of the followers of religion X will respond to his conversion with a sour-grapes attitude: "Well, he was never any good even when he was with us, and just look at how he's gone to the dogs now!"

Take a look, for example, at how some Buddhists behave when one of their formerly respected brethren decides to go over to Rome:

"Look, the man has clearly suffered some sort of blunt force head trauma. The only proper response from Buddhists to his conversion is obviously compassion."

Buddhist Scholar Paul Williams Conversion to Catholicism

[drianmcdonald]

Thank you for your thoughtful and informative reply.

I don't see any call to dismiss the episode as anti-Jain propaganda. The behaviour reported of the Jains is (humanly speaking) a quite understandable response.

When I call it anti-Jain propaganda, I'm not *dismissing it*. It's entirely believable that the Jains wouldn't be happy about the loss of a major sponsor and would run riot in the streets of Vaisali at the idea of him then offering a non-vegetarian banquet. I just mean that it's very much on the side of the Buddhists, citing the episode to show the three jewels as superior to Jainism.

But I do think you've elucidated what I'm missing.

[drianmcdonald]

I think it is possible that Siha asked the man if there was meat sold in the market.

That seems to be the only logical explanation.

I had assumed that any great feast for a large assembly of monks would involve someone being slaughtered. When shown this story, a lecturer in Jainology told me that the Jains use metaphorical language to ask for something - "There is a cow" for "Please can I have some milk", and assumed that was normal for Pali & Prakit speakers. But of course, he wasn't working from the original Pali and something would have been lost in translation.

Now I know (thanks to Dhammanando) that it's specifically "meat already dead" - and that that can only plausibly come from the market.

So I think we've got this now.

1. The servant with tasked with getting some already-dead meat.
2. The servant gets some. The text is silent on where (it doesn't matter to the composer?).
3. The Jains, not unreasonably, assume this comes from a freshly killed beast, and run riot, shouting hypocrisy.
4. But the Jains are wrong. The animal was already dead so no harm, no foul. (The laws of supply & demand come later.)
5. The Buddha, prompted by the controversy, introduces (or re-iterates) the rule of the 3Ss.

Cheers,

Ian