the great vegetarian debate

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Mkoll » Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:47 am

chownah wrote:Seems like you think that rather than killing a cow in a calm setting with a quick and virtually painless method is less humane than chasing it around the pasture a few times and then shooting it with arrows until it bleeds to death......


Right trollnah, because Native American hunter-gatherers had factory farming, boltguns, and grocery stores.

:rolleye:

I agree that there are more and less humane ways of raising and slaughtering animals today. But it's relative: in the end, intentional killing is still intentional killing no matter how you want to justify it.

Also, why don't you watch the documentary Earthlings I posted to get a look at the living hell most livestock animals live in. I'd much rather live my life free and then be shot up by hunted in the end. That's better than a life of prolonged misery in a cage.
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby chownah » Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:17 pm

Mkoll wrote:
"Also, why don't you watch the documentary Earthlings I posted to get a look at the living hell most livestock animals live in. I'd much rather live my life free and then be shot up by hunted in the end. That's better than a life of prolonged misery in a cage."

Mkoll,
I'm not sure if you have read my posts.....I understand fully the inhumane way that animals are raised and the entire point of my previous posting was to explain how it is that this sad state of affairs with the inhumane conditions animals are made to live in and I don't need to see some documentary showing it. If people who think animals should be raised humanely raised animals then animals would be raised humanely.....but people who think animals should be raised humanely do not raise animals so it is the people who do not care if animals are raised humanely who raise animals and so animals get raised in inhumane conditions. Seems like YOU think animals should be raised humanely but do YOU raise animals?...probably not.....it is the same all around.....people who think animals should be raised humanely don't raise animals....so.....it ends up that people who don't care end up doing it and the results are pretty repulsive. Animals have been raised, are being raised and will be raised....as long as people who don't care do it then conditions will not change. You might wish that people would stop eating meat.....but like they say, you can wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which fills up first.......in other words, your wishful thinking is not changing the way animals are raised....what changes it is when people who care that animals are treated humanely start raising animals and obviously this doesn't happen very often.
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby seeker242 » Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:20 pm

I believe it would be called "wrong livelihood" to raise animals for slaughter, so helping animals this way would not really be an option. :anjali:
User avatar
seeker242
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby chownah » Sat Feb 22, 2014 2:37 pm

Raising animals with the intent of assuring that they are humanely treated would not be wrong livelihood.
chownah
P.S. Can you find a Sutta reference that says that raising animals is wrong livelihood?
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Mkoll » Sat Feb 22, 2014 7:41 pm

chownah wrote:If people who think animals should be raised humanely raised animals then animals would be raised humanely.....but people who think animals should be raised humanely do not raise animals so it is the people who do not care if animals are raised humanely who raise animals and so animals get raised in inhumane conditions.


I don't get what your argument is.

If I started raising animals humanely or even a million people started raising animals humanely, that would do nothing to stop the other 100 million people from raising animals inhumanely.

chownah wrote:Seems like YOU think animals should be raised humanely but do YOU raise animals?...probably not.....


I do think they should be raised humanely. But there's nothing I can to do to stop others from treating them inhumanely other than try to convince those who will listen of the callousness of their actions.

NB I am talking here of affluent societies who have the means not to eat meat if they so choose. Some people are forced to eat or hunt animals and one can't blame them for trying to survive.
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby seeker242 » Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:21 pm

chownah wrote:Raising animals with the intent of assuring that they are humanely treated would not be wrong livelihood.
chownah
P.S. Can you find a Sutta reference that says that raising animals is wrong livelihood?
chownah


"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison. "These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in." AN 5.177 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

There are farmers who do treat their animals very humanly. They live out quite nice lives and then sent to slaughter. And they sell "humane meat" as it's sometimes called in the marketplace. These farmers, even though they are very nice to the animals, are still engaged in wrong livelihood because the animals are raised for the purpose of providing meat. By the very definition of that activity, it intrinsically includes the intent to kill them or have them killed, because obviously you can't get meat without the animal being killed.

Raising animals itself is not wrong livelihood. Raising animals to provide meat is. I don't think anyone can afford to raise animals and just give the meat away for free, that would be extremely expensive! The meat would of course have to be sold just to be able to afford raising the animals. This is, by definition, "business in meat" mentioned above.

Another thread that touches on the topic where Bhikkhu Pesala gives a good explanation IMO. viewtopic.php?f=13&t=16659

:anjali:
User avatar
seeker242
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby waterchan » Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:57 pm

Has anyone else found it very easy to be vegetarian in India?

I love meat as much as anyone, and it's exceedingly rare for me to have a meal that does not contain some form of meat. However, during my travels in Northern India, most of the food that available was vegetarian and many small, family-run restaurants serve only vegetarian, since a great number of Hindus are vegetarian. But between the fantastic tastes and aromas of dal fry, aloo gobi, palak paneer and whatnot, I found Indian cuisine extremely satiating. I regularly stuffed myself up with many plates of rice and aloo gobi and I can totally see myself living on Indian vegetarian food for months.

I bet those Indians don't have vegetarian debates very often.

Just thinking about those foods makes my mouth water. Definitely gonna make myself some aloo gobi some time soon. Yum!
quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur
(Anything in Latin sounds profound.)
User avatar
waterchan
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 7:17 pm
Location: Sereitei

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby chownah » Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:19 am

seeker242 wrote:
chownah wrote:Raising animals with the intent of assuring that they are humanely treated would not be wrong livelihood.
chownah
P.S. Can you find a Sutta reference that says that raising animals is wrong livelihood?
chownah


"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison. "These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in." AN 5.177 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

There are farmers who do treat their animals very humanly. They live out quite nice lives and then sent to slaughter. And they sell "humane meat" as it's sometimes called in the marketplace. These farmers, even though they are very nice to the animals, are still engaged in wrong livelihood because the animals are raised for the purpose of providing meat. By the very definition of that activity, it intrinsically includes the intent to kill them or have them killed, because obviously you can't get meat without the animal being killed.

Raising animals itself is not wrong livelihood. Raising animals to provide meat is. I don't think anyone can afford to raise animals and just give the meat away for free, that would be extremely expensive! The meat would of course have to be sold just to be able to afford raising the animals. This is, by definition, "business in meat" mentioned above.

Another thread that touches on the topic where Bhikkhu Pesala gives a good explanation IMO. viewtopic.php?f=13&t=16659

:anjali:

Having a business in meat is wrong livelihood. This does not show that raising animals is wrong livelihood. Raising animals does not have the intrinsic intention to kill them.....in fact it is possible to raise animals with the intention of providing them a humane existence.
I think we all agree that raising an animal will end in the animal's death. You seem to think that in raising an animal one is somehow automatically in some way responsible for their death.
chownah
P.S. Some farmers raise cows and sell cows....they never kill a cow and they never sell meat.
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Mkoll » Sun Feb 23, 2014 4:49 am

chownah wrote:Raising animals does not have the intrinsic intention to kill them.....in fact it is possible to raise animals with the intention of providing them a humane existence.


That's called raising a pet. The intention of raising livestock is to use them for the material goods that they provide.

chownah wrote:P.S. Some farmers raise cows and sell cows....they never kill a cow and they never sell meat.
chownah


Some farmers sell cows to people. And the farmers know those people will slaughter the cows. You really think that isn't wrong livelihood? Do you think those farmers haven't done bad kamma?
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby chownah » Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:21 am

Seems like it is a matter of intentions.
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby lyndon taylor » Sun Feb 23, 2014 7:49 am

I think the worse kamma goes to the people that pay for the animal to be killed so that they can eat it......
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community that has so generously given me so much, sincerely former monk John
User avatar
lyndon taylor
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby cooran » Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:22 am

Recently. some children in a local school were surprised to learn that milk came from a female cow. They thought it was made in a factory.

We are really distanced from nature.

I wonder if many people don't understand that eggs, and packaged meat, actually come from birds and animals who have been specifically raised for that purpose?

With metta,
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
cooran
 
Posts: 7390
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby chownah » Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:00 am

chownah wrote:If people who think that animals should be raised humanely would raise animals then animals would be raised humanely....but people who think animals should be raised humanely don't raise animals so it is the people who don't care about raising animals humanely that end up doing it.
chownah

This was my entry into recent discussion.....I stick by it whole heartedly.
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Spiny Norman » Sun Feb 23, 2014 10:15 am

chownah wrote:
chownah wrote:If people who think that animals should be raised humanely would raise animals then animals would be raised humanely....but people who think animals should be raised humanely don't raise animals so it is the people who don't care about raising animals humanely that end up doing it.
chownah

This was my entry into recent discussion.....I stick by it whole heartedly.
chownah


It still looks like a :strawman: though.
Well, oi dunno...
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Spiny Norman » Sun Feb 23, 2014 10:23 am

Mkoll wrote: But it's relative: in the end, intentional killing is still intentional killing no matter how you want to justify it.


Good point. It's not something I want to be involved in, or contribute to by buying meat.
Well, oi dunno...
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby chownah » Sun Feb 23, 2014 12:35 pm

In the end, raising an animal is not intentional killing.
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby seeker242 » Sun Feb 23, 2014 1:51 pm

chownah wrote:
seeker242 wrote:
chownah wrote:Raising animals with the intent of assuring that they are humanely treated would not be wrong livelihood.
chownah
P.S. Can you find a Sutta reference that says that raising animals is wrong livelihood?
chownah


"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison. "These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in." AN 5.177 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

There are farmers who do treat their animals very humanly. They live out quite nice lives and then sent to slaughter. And they sell "humane meat" as it's sometimes called in the marketplace. These farmers, even though they are very nice to the animals, are still engaged in wrong livelihood because the animals are raised for the purpose of providing meat. By the very definition of that activity, it intrinsically includes the intent to kill them or have them killed, because obviously you can't get meat without the animal being killed.

Raising animals itself is not wrong livelihood. Raising animals to provide meat is. I don't think anyone can afford to raise animals and just give the meat away for free, that would be extremely expensive! The meat would of course have to be sold just to be able to afford raising the animals. This is, by definition, "business in meat" mentioned above.

Another thread that touches on the topic where Bhikkhu Pesala gives a good explanation IMO. viewtopic.php?f=13&t=16659

:anjali:

Having a business in meat is wrong livelihood. This does not show that raising animals is wrong livelihood. Raising animals does not have the intrinsic intention to kill them.....in fact it is possible to raise animals with the intention of providing them a humane existence.
I think we all agree that raising an animal will end in the animal's death. You seem to think that in raising an animal one is somehow automatically in some way responsible for their death.
chownah
P.S. Some farmers raise cows and sell cows....they never kill a cow and they never sell meat.
chownah


From the thread I linked. :anjali:

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Maṃsavaṇijjāti sūkaramigādayo posetvā tesaṃ vikkayo.
Trading in meat means, having raised pigs or deer, etc., he sells them.

In my opinion this would include any kind of living-being sold for its meat or hide, but not if sold for other purposes, e.g. oxen for pulling carts, horses for riding, or dogs for pets or work.


Bhikkhu Pesala wrote: Trading in flesh, according to the Commentary, means trading in animals for slaughter, whether one raises them oneself, or buys them from the farmer and sells them to the slaughter-house.



A farmer who raises animals to kill, kills them and sells the meat, is wrong livelihood. A farmer who raises animals and does not kill them, but sells them to a slaughterhouse, is still engaged in wrong livelihood. It does not matter if you actually kill the animal and it doesn't matter if you sell actual meat as "business in meat" means selling the animals OR the meat after you have killed the animal. If one raises animals very humanly and then sells the animals to someone to kill, to make meat, this is wrong livelihood. If the purpose of raising the animal is to provide meat, it's wrong livelihood regardless of who actually does the killing, regardless of how the animals are treated and regardless of who sells slabs of meat itself. "Business in meat" includes the whole process of production from the beginning. Even if you were to just breed animals and immediately sell the babies to someone who will raise them for meat, this would still be wrong livelihood.

:anjali:
User avatar
seeker242
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby chownah » Sun Feb 23, 2014 2:47 pm

Seeker242 wrote: " A farmer who raises animals and does not kill them, but sells them to a slaughterhouse, is still engaged in wrong livelihood. "

I think this is wrong. I think the Buddha never taught this. Is there a Sutta reference which says this? I believe that there is a Sutta where the Buddha distinguishes between "cow" and "meat" but I have not been able to find it. As I remember it did not have to do with right livelihood ....and as I remember the Buddha said something like after you cut up a cow you refer to it as meat and not as cow. I hope someone can find this since my present internet devise doesn't seem to have very good search abilities.
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby daverupa » Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:09 pm

chownah wrote: I remember the Buddha said something like after you cut up a cow you refer to it as meat and not as cow.


This is from the Mahasatipatthana Sutta, where the Buddha discusses observing elements of the body in the way that a cut-up cow is observed to be meat parts, and not whole cow. I think Buddhaghosa comments further in the Vsm.
    "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.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4074
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby lyndon taylor » Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:24 pm

The correct term would be cow meat or meat of the cow.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community that has so generously given me so much, sincerely former monk John
User avatar
lyndon taylor
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Nicolas, Sokehi, Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests