the great vegetarian debate

[Cittasanto]

Our Digestive tracts is very similar to animals who eat plants, unlike Carnivores who have a very short one so that meat does not decay in the intestinal tract.

http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html

This study says a lot about what are the natural foods for us.

do you have a link to a peer reviewed article?
here is the actual article used to make the table
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2009/11/t ... ating.html
and an interesting snippet from there

The human small intestine is long, averaging from 10 to 11 times the body length. (Our small intestine averages 22 to 30 feet in length. Human body size is measured from the top of the head to end of the spine and averages between two to three feet in length in normal-sized individuals.)

and an interesting fact I did not know
although does seam quite odd to use that measurement to me as I do not know of any field where this is used for humans?
is there a field where bipeds are measured in this way?
if not it work out as 4.5 times the length for the intestines based on means of 1.76m tall person & 26ft long intestine

[Kim O'Hara]

The human small intestine is long, averaging from 10 to 11 times the body length. (Our small intestine averages 22 to 30 feet in length. Human body size is measured from the top of the head to end of the spine and averages between two to three feet in length in normal-sized individuals.)

and an interesting fact I did not know
although does seam quite odd to use that measurement to me as I do not know of any field where this is used for humans?
is there a field where bipeds are measured in this way?
if not it work out as 4.5 times the length for the intestines based on means of 1.76m tall person & 26ft long intestine

I think the point is that we are not significantly different, anatomically, from quadrupeds* and quadrupeds are normally measured in terms of head+body length (leaving out the tail, if they have one, and the length of the hind legs) so this measurement gives us a better comparison.


Kim

*We are quadrupeds who learned to stand upright, and all sorts of problems, particularly spinal problems, arise from that - but that's another issue altogether.

[Ben]

So there is a huge difference i a Buddha eating meat, a monk eating meat and lay person eating meat.

With respect, you are wrong here. If it were so, there would have been a lay precept against eating meat. The fact is, there is no moral difference if one eats a steak or a carrot. Except for any craving created, the act of eating, whether meat or vegetable, is kammically neutral. When Devadatta insisted the Sangha adopt vegetarianism - the Buddha refused.

Where on earth do people think meat comes from, some mythical meat tree?

You best beware the hambush.
kind regards,

Ben

[Ron-The-Elder]

If it were so, there would have been a lay precept against eating meat. The fact is, there is no moral difference if one eats a steak or a carrot. Except for any craving created, the act of eating, whether meat or vegetable, is kammically neutral. When Devadatta insisted the Sangha adopt vegetarianism - the Buddha refused.

Where on earth do people think meat comes from, some mythical meat tree?

You best beware the hambush.
kind regards,

Ben

Thank you, Ben. And there you have it: "No moral high ground for not eating meat and killing and eating plants instead of animals." Vegans can no longer justify their botanical butchery by claiming that it does no harm. When vegans rip plants up from their roots, cut them up, slice them and dice them, they are doing as much harm to living creatures as those slicing-up a fish, or throwing a lobster or clam into a pot of boiling water, dipping them in butter and sliding them down their gullets.

"Life must consume life in order to live." It is a well established routine in The Samsaric Rounds."

As for all the health arguments: Vegans get to live in Samsara longer than carnivores. That is a general medical fact, when you ignore genetics. I am not sure if that is necessarily a good thing based on what I have seen over the years visiting long-lived relatives in nursing homes. If we can live healthily and independently then there is probably some merit in that.

Vegans do cause less harm to the environment only if you consider plants not to be a part of the environment. Vegans have to ask themselves how they would like it if their family members and offspring were kept by cannibals as a food source, collected, chopped up and eaten with a light oil and vinegar dressing? Would you like to be served with beans, or croutons?

Life must eat life in order to live. This is the reality of life in The Animal and Plant realm in which we live until we learn how to survive on text messages alone in this cyber age of ours.

[Wesley1982]

Its ok to eat meat once in a while

[David N. Snyder]

And there you have it: "No moral high ground for not eating meat and killing and eating plants instead of animals." Vegans can no longer justify their botanical butchery by claiming that it does no harm. When vegans rip plants up from their roots, cut them up, slice them and dice them, they are doing as much harm to living creatures as those slicing-up a fish, or throwing a lobster or clam into a pot of boiling water, dipping them in butter and sliding them down their gullets.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but in case you are not; I think you are confusing Jain ethics with Buddhist ethics again. There is no 'soul' in plants or animals or humans. Plants are not part of the Buddhist cosmology. You cannot get reborn as a plant (according to Buddhism). In Buddhism killing of animals is frowned upon and whether that calls for a omnivore, flexitarian, vegetarian, or vegan diet is up to the practitioner to decide, but in general Buddhist ahimsa values not killing living beings such as animals but does not put plants at this same level. You frequently mention about the sentience and consciousness of plants; have you considered the Jain path? I mean that seriously, not being rude (I know it can be hard to see tone in the written word).

[Cittasanto]

The human small intestine is long, averaging from 10 to 11 times the body length. (Our small intestine averages 22 to 30 feet in length. Human body size is measured from the top of the head to end of the spine and averages between two to three feet in length in normal-sized individuals.)

and an interesting fact I did not know
although does seam quite odd to use that measurement to me as I do not know of any field where this is used for humans?
is there a field where bipeds are measured in this way?
if not it work out as 4.5 times the length for the intestines based on means of 1.76m tall person & 26ft long intestine

I think the point is that we are not significantly different, anatomically, from quadrupeds* and quadrupeds are normally measured in terms of head+body length (leaving out the tail, if they have one, and the length of the hind legs) so this measurement gives us a better comparison.


Kim

*We are quadrupeds who learned to stand upright, and all sorts of problems, particularly spinal problems, arise from that - but that's another issue altogether.

yes but apes aren't measured in the same way as quadrupeds in general to my knowledge, although I have discovered this measuring method is used when body mass can not be used for comparison, and the tail length can vary tremendously between animals (look at cats some dont have them some have half length...)
although I would substitute quadruped for herbivore.

[Ron-The-Elder]

And there you have it: "No moral high ground for not eating meat and killing and eating plants instead of animals." Vegans can no longer justify their botanical butchery by claiming that it does no harm. When vegans rip plants up from their roots, cut them up, slice them and dice them, they are doing as much harm to living creatures as those slicing-up a fish, or throwing a lobster or clam into a pot of boiling water, dipping them in butter and sliding them down their gullets.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but in case you are not; I think you are confusing Jain ethics with Buddhist ethics again. There is no 'soul' in plants or animals or humans. Plants are not part of the Buddhist cosmology. You cannot get reborn as a plant (according to Buddhism). In Buddhism killing of animals is frowned upon and whether that calls for a omnivore, flexitarian, vegetarian, or vegan diet is up to the practitioner to decide, but in general Buddhist ahimsa values not killing living beings such as animals but does not put plants at this same level. You frequently mention about the sentience and consciousness of plants; have you considered the Jain path? I mean that seriously, not being rude (I know it can be hard to see tone in the written word).

Precepta lOOK

Our Digestive tracts is very similar to animals who eat plants, unlike Carnivores who have a very short one so that meat does not decay in the intestinal tract.

http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html

This study says a lot about what are the natural foods for us.

having said that consuming meat of ruminant animals, creates the demand for such animals to be bred, this leads to more deforestation hence more global warming and methane gases from ruminant animals like cows contribute 20% of methane gas in the world.

Also would we eat meat if we have to kill it ourselves in this time and age? Yes Theravadan monks eat anything, but these are holy monks who hold so many vows and they have pure conduct and practice detachment, what do we do , we just indulge in our sense mostly. So there is a huge difference i a Buddha eating meat, a monk eating meat and lay person eating meat.

Have any of us been to abbatoirs to witness animals being killed, these are sentient beings too. One day we also can take an animal rebirth too, do we want to go in that manner?

This is a funny but insightful video
Where on earth do people think meat comes from, some mythical meat tree?
http://blog.tsemtulku.com/tsem-tulku-ri ... video.html

Jain Precepts:

26. Useful Addresses
27. Useful Banners
28. Useful Jain Sites

Lord Mahavir and His Teachings Home » Jainism - Simplified » Lord Mahavir and His Teachings
Lord Mahavir was the twenty fourth and last Tirthankara of the Jain religion of this era. According to Jain philosophy, all Tirthankaras were human beings but they attained a state of perfection or enlightenment through meditation and self-realization. The Jains thus consider these “perfect supreme beings” as God. The concept of God as a creator, protector, and destroyer of the universe does not exist in Jainism. Also the idea of God's reincarnation as a human being to destroy the demons is not accepted in Jainism.

Lord Mahavir was born on the thirteenth day of rising moon of Chaitra month, in 599 B.C. in the state of Bihar, India. This day falls in the month of April as per Gregorian calendar. His birthday is celebrated as Mahavir Jayanti each year.

Mahavir was a prince and was given the name Vardhaman by his parents. Being the son of a king, he had many worldly pleasures, comforts, and services at his command. But at the age of thirty, he left his family and royal household, gave up the worldly possessions, and become a monk in search of a solution to eliminate pain, sorrow, and sufferings.

Mahavir spent the next twelve and half years in deep silence and meditation with an to conquer his desires, feelings, and attachments. He carefully avoided harming or annoying other living beings including animals, birds, and plants. He also went without food for long periods. He was calm and peaceful when faced with unbearable hardships. These qualities earned him the name Mahavir, meaning very brave and courageous. During this period, his spiritual powers fully developed and at the end he was able to reach a stage of absolute realization of self. This realization is known as keval jnana or the perfect enlightenment.

Mahavir spent the next thirty years travelling on bare foot across India preaching people the eternal truth that he had realized. The ultimate objective of his teaching was how one can attain total freedom from the cycle of birth, life, pain, misery, and death, and achieve the permanent state of bliss. This is also known as liberation, nirvana, absolute freedom, or Moksha.

Mahavir explained that since eternity, every living being (soul) due to its ignorance is fettered by karma. These karmic atoms are continuously accumulated by our good or bad deeds. Under the influence of karma, the soul is habituated to seek pleasures in materialistic belongings and possessions. This is the deep-rooted cause of self-centered violent thoughts, deeds, anger, hatred, greed, and other such vices. These result in further accumulation of karmas.

Mahavir preached that right faith (samyak darshana), right knowledge (samyak jnana), and right conduct (samyak charitra) together were the real path to free the soul from the bondage of karma.

The Five Pillars of Jainism

NONVIOLENCE (AHIMSA)
not to cause harm to any living beings
TRUTHFULNESS (SATYA)
to speak the harmless truth only
NON STEALING (ASTEYA)
not to take anything not properly given
CHASTITY (BRAHMACHARYA)
not to indulge in sexual pleasures
NON POSSESSION/ NON ATTACHMENT (APARIGRAHA)

[David N. Snyder]

Precepta lOOK

Jain Precepts:

26. Useful Addresses
27. Useful Banners
28. Useful Jain Sites

?

What does the above mean? Useful addresses, banners, sites; what does that mean?

Lord Mahavir and His Teachings Home » Jainism - Simplified » Lord Mahavir and His Teachings

So you are a Jain? (Just curious; nothing wrong with being a Jain. Many people have commented on how peaceful the world would be if even a sizable number were Jains).

[waimengwan]

What I felt was that Devadatta wasn't trying to make the Sangha better his intention he wanted to show that he was purer and better than the BUddha and that action was not a dharmic action. The action was based on him wanting to top the Buddha to show he was more holy than the Buddha and the intention was maybe he can succeed the Buddha. Hence I think the Buddha stopped Devadatta.

When we consume meat, it is not us going to Tsecos or Sainsbury just picking a slab of meat or two. A being a sentient being had be killed for us to enjoy the sausage or fillet, a sentient being in fear, anger, pain had to die for us to get our hamburger. Buddha's teachings focuses on compassion for oneself and others, he may not explicitly ban meat eating but would Buddha really encourage sentient beings to experience the pain of being slaughtered so that we humans can enjoy our BBQ?

How many of us kill our own meat? Is this a put down if you eat meat. No it is not, I have eaten meat in the past myself. But after seeing many of the information available like on the video Earthlings, I cannot think that by eating meat it is just an act whereby I am just buying fillet from Tescos and Sainsbury and nobody gets hurt, because some being did.

[waimengwan]

The last part came out a little bit like Russell Peters ' Somebody's going to get hurt!'. Have a great weekend everyone.

[Ben]

What I felt was that Devadatta wasn't trying to make the Sangha better his intention he wanted to show that he was purer and better than the BUddha and that action was not a dharmic action. The action was based on him wanting to top the Buddha to show he was more holy than the Buddha and the intention was maybe he can succeed the Buddha. Hence I think the Buddha stopped Devadatta.

Yet, the Buddha did not advocate vegetarianism for the ordained sangha or for the rest of the four-fold assembly.

When we consume meat, it is not us going to Tsecos or Sainsbury just picking a slab of meat or two.

That is exactly what it is. The fact of the matter is that the animal is dead regardless if I puchase a piece of it or not.
Buying a piece of meat from the supermarket is about as kammically volatile as buying a packet of corn flakes.
kind regards,

Ben

[LonesomeYogurt]

Yet, the Buddha did not advocate vegetarianism for the ordained sangha or for the rest of the four-fold assembly.

However, he did place three conditions upon which meat could be eaten, conditions which some could argue do not mesh well with a demand-driven consumer economy.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the act of placing dead flesh in your mouth is bad kamma. What some people might argue, very effectively in my mind, is that one cannot participate in the buying and selling of meat today without violating the prohibition on consumption of that which is "seen, heard, or suspected" of intentional slaughter.

[Spiny Norman]

. What some people might argue, very effectively in my mind, is that one cannot participate in the buying and selling of meat today without violating the prohibition on consumption of that which is "seen, heard, or suspected" of intentional slaughter.

[waimengwan]

Lonesomeyogurt That really nailed it for me what you said.

[Ben]

Yet, the Buddha did not advocate vegetarianism for the ordained sangha or for the rest of the four-fold assembly.

However, he did place three conditions upon which meat could be eaten, conditions which some could argue do not mesh well with a demand-driven consumer economy.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the act of placing dead flesh in your mouth is bad kamma. What some people might argue, very effectively in my mind, is that one cannot participate in the buying and selling of meat today without violating the prohibition on consumption of that which is "seen, heard, or suspected" of intentional slaughter.

With respect, LY, I believe you are over-reaching.
kind regards,

Ben

[robertk]

. What some people might argue, very effectively in my mind, is that one cannot participate in the buying and selling of meat today without violating the prohibition on consumption of that which is "seen, heard, or suspected" of intentional slaughter.

That is a misquote of what the buddha said. He said that monks were not to eat any meat that they knew or suspected had been killed specifically for them.
any person going to a supermarket or hamburger shop cannot buy meat specifically killed for them, except in the case of shops that stock live animals, such as a few fish restaurants, where one choses a fish and he chef kills it freshly for them.

[Ben]

Thank you, Robert.

[LonesomeYogurt]

With respect, LY, I believe you are over-reaching.
kind regards,

Ben

It can be a difficult task to take guidelines from so long ago and try and apply them accurately in an economic or social structure so different from that in which the original teachings were set down, and I absolutely understand those who disagree with me on the issue. In the end, I think we'd both agree that it's not the most important thing in the world anyway!

[Cittasanto]

However, he did place three conditions upon which meat could be eaten, conditions which some could argue do not mesh well with a demand-driven consumer economy.

out of interest when would be buying and selling anything not be demand driven, or was there a time when supply was not tried to meet the demand, and great losses were the norm in revenue due to underselling or understocked?

What some people might argue, very effectively in my mind, is that one cannot participate in the buying and selling of meat today without violating the prohibition on consumption of that which is "seen, heard, or suspected" of intentional slaughter.

except those prohibitions are not for lay people, and designed for alms mendicants (due to a criticism of accepting food offered by a former nigantha supporting general sila (?name)) not those who could decide what to have when they wanted, i.e., lay people.
so not very effective as an argument against lay people eating meat.

the only actual argument that could be supported within Buddhism is for a flexitarian type diet. eating vegetarian food when of your own design (bought/sought and made oneself) and eating meat when the food is offered such as as a guest at someone's home, so you are not inconveniencing them with special dietary needs not medically needed. this neither adopts the monastic rules nor goes against wrong livelihood; but then again eating a meat based diet does not specifically go against wrong livelihood as you are not making your living through that means, although if one is basing their argument on ahimsa - harmlessness (put down the stick and sword) the supply and demand argument is a valid one to make so long as it doesn't dictate onto others which would render the effacement regarding views (only this is correct) useless.