the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Post by Cittasanto »

DAWN wrote:
I asked you for 3 times, you have never give me answer. It's sad.

Good continuation in your practice.
With compassion. :heart:
eating is not the same as stealing so the answer is not evasive it is simply dealing with the logic involved.
and you didn't ask me anything related to eating meat and the op three times.
and regarding my practice that is by far not related to this thread or the path to comment in such a way.
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
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Meat eating

Post by beeblebrox »

I keep on seeing a lot of eel-wrigglings with this topic. When asked if there's a relationship in between buying the meat (at least in today's marketplace), and others' intention of killing the animals, we only get the answer that they're not responsible.

They refuse to acknowledge (or disacknowledge) the relationship. I think that this kind of habit in eel-wriggling is not useful for the practice, as per the Brahmajala Sutta. I know that the sutta really has more to do with the question of whether or not there is a self... but I think it's still not a good habit.

There also seem to be a lot of inferences that are being drawn to the suttas (or commentaries)... making an attempt to show some kind of relationship (or the lack of it) between the eating of meat and the killing of the animals. I think that this kind of habit should also be discouraged. (See: AN 3.66)

If we still must make some kind of inference, then I think it's a good idea to make sure that it's a wholesome one... i.e., that eating the meat being offered is meant to encourage generosity (which I think would be a blameless inference); not to show that it's OK for us to just allow others to continue the killing, nor to show that there is no relationship at all in between what one eats (especially when he procured what he ate) and the animals being killed. The latter two I think would be seen as unwholesome inferences, at least to a sane person... and I don't see what their usefulness might be at all to the practice. I think they might even be pernicious if the practitioner is unaware of what habits gave rise to these kind of inferences in the first place.

Ben, your suggestion about eating the deceased human remains seems like it might be a good idea on the surface (at least for those who feel like that they must continue to eat meat for the nutrient value)... but I even wouldn't suggest that to them, because of the prions. Most people are likely to gain some kind of serious degenerative disease from that... similar to the mad cow, which was what happened after the farmers fed their cows some ground-up leftover cow parts... as an attempt to save on the cost of feeding them grass, or even grains.

I think that a better suggestion would be to just get your meat from a dumpster, after the supermarket throws out the stuff that no one bought. This might even be a good practice, to study what kind of habits arise... and whether the person would think it's worth it to continue obtaining the meat in such a way, just to sustain himself... especially on a daily basis, considering other alternatives.
Last edited by beeblebrox on Sun Nov 18, 2012 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
BubbaBuddhist
Posts: 640
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:55 am
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Post by BubbaBuddhist »

Of course there is a relationship between supply and demand. But the question is:What is this relationship, and is this an economic law or a moral law?

BB
Author of Redneck Buddhism: or Will You Reincarnate as Your Own Cousin?
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Post by Cittasanto »

BubbaBuddhist wrote:Of course there is a relationship between supply and demand. But the question is:What is this relationship, and is this an economic law or a moral law?

BB
no eal wrigling just plain and simple answer.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p216211" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Meat eating

Post by Mr Man »

Cittasanto wrote:
BubbaBuddhist wrote:Of course there is a relationship between supply and demand. But the question is:What is this relationship, and is this an economic law or a moral law?

BB
no eal wrigling just plain and simple answer.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p216211" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
With respect, if you think that answer was plain and simple....
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Meat eating

Post by beeblebrox »

Cittasanto wrote: There is a connection on a Business plan level, i.e. the level in which we have no say or control.
Is this an appropriate view of kamma? For example, I think that in this world, everything is stacked even more heavily against a person to attain the complete cessation of greed, hatred and delusion, than to simply not to buy the meat, and to encourage others to do the same.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Post by Cittasanto »

Mr Man wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
BubbaBuddhist wrote:Of course there is a relationship between supply and demand. But the question is:What is this relationship, and is this an economic law or a moral law?

BB
no eal wrigling just plain and simple answer.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p216211" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
With respect, if you think that answer was plain and simple....
you had plenty of time to respond earlier if you wanted clarification.
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
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Post by Cittasanto »

Hi Beeblebrox
Sorry for the delay
beeblebrox wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: There is a connection on a Business plan level, i.e. the level in which we have no say or control.
Is this an appropriate view of kamma? For example, I think that in this world, everything is stacked even more heavily against a person to attain the complete cessation of greed, hatred and delusion, than to simply not to buy the meat, and to encourage others to do the same.
how is accusing people of murder helpful to the ends thus described; or denying one animals life is just as important as another's (as has been done and boohooed by Tilt)? surely that is just causing hindrances for those who do not see anything wrong with sustaining their body.

Everyone needs to decide for themselves what is practicable for their circumstances. Buying some beef does not equate to slitting a cows throat oneself, particularly when the whole system operates on forecasting based (non-exclusively) on some aspects of what I mentioned. The continuation you omit from the quote shows several factors a slaughter house, supermarket... may use to predict demand and the amount of meat of the different animals they need to meet the specific forecasts, and in some cases there will be over or under ordering for various reasons. Someone may eat meat more or less based on the availability in the shops, but this isn't them demanding meat or killing, the intention is to feed themselves and their family.

Our primary reason to eat is to sustain this body, some may be addicted to the fat content... but some may also be addicted to the morals....
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
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Meat eating

Post by Mr Man »

Cittasanto wrote:
you had plenty of time to respond earlier if you wanted clarification.
I didn't want clarification. Thanks though.
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Meat eating

Post by Mr Man »

Cittasanto wrote: how is accusing people of murder helpful to the ends thus described
I just looked back over this thread and couldn't find what you are referring to. Where is the accusation of murder?

Cittasanto wrote:or denying one animals life is just as important as another's (as has been done and boohooed by Tilt)?
Do you see all animal life as equal?
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Indian Textbook Claims Meat Eaters...

Post by cooran »

He also ate the meat given.
---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 ---
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Meat eating

Post by beeblebrox »

Cittasanto wrote: how is accusing people of murder helpful
Which people do you think I'm accusing of killing? (Murder is usually reserved to the killing of an human being.) If you meant some of the people who work in a slaughterhouse... then you don't think it's helpful to point out these actions, along with seeing which conditions are supporting them?

I'd like to go back to what you said earlier on, but to look at from a bit different viewpoint:
Cittasanto wrote: There is a connection on a Business plan level, i.e. the level in which we have no say or control.
Why "Business" with a capital letter?

Do you see it as some sort of a self-sustaining entity, that exists apart from people? How is that different from the way the priests used "Brahma," as a way of telling their people that they don't have any say or control over what conditions they're born into? I think that is exactly the sort of view on Kamma that the Buddha refuted.
User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Indian Textbook Claims Meat Eaters...

Post by DAWN »

It's true :pig:
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
BubbaBuddhist
Posts: 640
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:55 am
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Contact:

Re: Indian Textbook Claims Meat Eaters...

Post by BubbaBuddhist »

Image
"I shoulda never left the shade of that banyan tree."


And....

Image
"Just leave me out of it."

BB
Author of Redneck Buddhism: or Will You Reincarnate as Your Own Cousin?
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Post by Cittasanto »

beeblebrox wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: how is accusing people of murder helpful
Which people do you think I'm accusing of killing? (Murder is usually reserved to the killing of an human being.) If you meant some of the people who work in a slaughterhouse... then you don't think it's helpful to point out these actions, along with seeing which conditions are supporting them?
I should of be more precise here sorry! I meant this is something which does happened if you look at this or the great rebirth thread. eating meat is so closely connected to the actual livelihood it is made tantamount to doing the killing oneself.
but to frame something as wrong livelihood is appropriate, when it is livelihood under discussion.
I'd like to go back to what you said earlier on, but to look at from a bit different viewpoint:
Cittasanto wrote: There is a connection on a Business plan level, i.e. the level in which we have no say or control.
Why "Business" with a capital letter?
no particular reason. I do sometimes capital letters without realising (particularly if I stop and start for some reason) and lower case them later when I see.
Do you see it as some sort of a self-sustaining entity, that exists apart from people? How is that different from the way the priests used "Brahma," as a way of telling their people that they don't have any say or control over what conditions they're born into? I think that is exactly the sort of view on Kamma that the Buddha refuted.
no, not self sustaining, however when I say "Everyone needs to decide for themselves what is practicable for their circumstances." I mean it, everyone has different requirement due to internal and external circumstances; having a particular diet maybe suitable for some yet for others it is not healthy (Take wheat, gluten, or coffee as an example, I can eat and drink pretty much as much as I like yet I know people who would be on the floor shaking and in pain.

but just to pull back what I initially said
But in my opinion section 13 does show we are not responsible for future actions, after the fact, for our intent to buy food. It is our intention that matters not another's possible actions.
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
Post Reply