the great vegetarian debate

Where members are free to take ideas from the Theravāda Canon out of the Theravāda framework. Here you can question rebirth, kamma (and other contentious issues) as well as examine Theravāda's connection to other paths
User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4521
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby clw_uk » Wed Feb 26, 2014 7:40 am

lyndon taylor wrote:you posted only one minute after my post clw UK so how could you possibly have even read the link I posted???



I haven't I'm just about to start my day so don't have time to read it yet, which is why I haven't commented on it
The dogmatists have claimed to have found the truth, others say that it cannot be apprehended; the Sceptics continue the search.
Sextus Empiricus

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby lyndon taylor » Wed Feb 26, 2014 7:57 am

For your information, my opinion is that vegetarianism and especially veganism is a great way to reduce ones karmic footprint and cause LESS suffering to sentient beings, why one would want to champion a lifestyle of meat eating that obviously causes MORE suffering to animals when one calls oneself a Buddhist is beyond me. The Buddha gave you some option to eat meat if you so insist, he definetly didn't support giving you right to belittle and criticize those who choose through vegetarianism to cause as little suffering to animals as they possibly can. How could the Buddha, or any true Buddhist for that matter, makes statements against reducing the suffering of animals, after all reduction of suffering was the core of the Buddha's teaching.
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
clw_uk
Posts: 4521
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby clw_uk » Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:03 am

lyndon taylor wrote:For your information, my opinion is that vegetarianism and especially veganism is a great way to reduce ones karmic footprint and cause LESS suffering to sentient beings, why one would want to champion a lifestyle of meat eating that obviously causes MORE suffering to animals when one calls oneself a Buddhist is beyond me. The Buddha gave you some option to eat meat if you so insist, he definetly didn't support giving you right to belittle and criticize those who choose through vegetarianism to cause as little suffering to animals as they possibly can. How could the Buddha, or any true Buddhist for that matter, makes statements against reducing the suffering of animals, after all reduction of suffering was the core of the Buddha's teaching.



That wasn't your original argument that I addressed though. You can't move the goal posts.


he definetly didn't support giving you right to belittle and criticize those who choose through vegetarianism to cause as little suffering to animals as they possibly can.



No one is doing that
The dogmatists have claimed to have found the truth, others say that it cannot be apprehended; the Sceptics continue the search.
Sextus Empiricus

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby lyndon taylor » Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:13 am

Actually no, that is my actual argument, I hadn't actually previously stated my argument, just facts relating to the case. You interpreted the facts I presented as representing an argument which you, not I, made up then you argued against it, If you are going to argue you wish to cause more suffering for animals, then good luck defending that, if you are going to argue that meat eating does not cause suffering for animals, you have no argument, because its simply not true, what exactly is your argument other than you just like to troll argumentedly.
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
clw_uk
Posts: 4521
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby clw_uk » Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:21 am

lyndon taylor wrote:Actually no, that is my actual argument, I hadn't actually previously stated my argument, just facts relating to the case. You interpreted the facts I presented as representing an argument which you, not I, made up then you argued against it, If you are going to argue you wish to cause more suffering for animals, then good luck defending that, if you are going to argue that meat eating does not cause suffering for animals, you have no argument, because its simply not true, what exactly is your argument other than you just like to troll argumentedly.



That buying meat from a store isn't unwholesome kamma
The dogmatists have claimed to have found the truth, others say that it cannot be apprehended; the Sceptics continue the search.
Sextus Empiricus

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby lyndon taylor » Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:34 am

So you are saying that causing suffering for animals is not unwholesome Kamma, or are you trying to assert that buying meat does not, through cause and effect, in any way contribute to the suffering of animals. In either case you don't have a very strong argument IMHO
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
clw_uk
Posts: 4521
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby clw_uk » Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:38 am

lyndon taylor wrote:So you are saying that causing suffering for animals is not unwholesome Kamma, or are you trying to assert that buying meat does not, through cause and effect, in any way contribute to the suffering of animals. In either case you don't have a very strong argument IMHO



No, it's about intention and context

And once again, by your line of argument, vegetarianism does the same

So either way we are trapped in kamma unless we engage in inaction, and once again you lead us back to Jainism
The dogmatists have claimed to have found the truth, others say that it cannot be apprehended; the Sceptics continue the search.
Sextus Empiricus

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby lyndon taylor » Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:51 am

Whether you intend it or not, your arguments seem to be in support of the idea that meat eating, and its inherent greater suffering for sentient beings, is just a valid option as vegetarianism, with its lower net suffering produced to sentient beings, that they are kammically equivalent options, and not only do you believe it but you want to convince other potential vegetarians on this forum that buddhism has nothing to do with vegetarianism and reducing suffering for animals, so not only are you making a bad choice for yourself, which is your right as a free individual, but you want to convince other people that this is right, so you are not content with the kamma of the animal suffering you cause yourself, but you want to encourage others to cause more suffering for animals, by telling them, without exception, YOU ARE NOT WHAT YOU EAT, a go ahead and eat whatever you want.
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
clw_uk
Posts: 4521
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby clw_uk » Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:04 am

lyndon taylor wrote:Whether you intend it or not, your arguments seem to be in support of the idea that meat eating, and its inherent greater suffering for sentient beings, is just a valid option as vegetarianism, with its lower net suffering produced to sentient beings, that they are kammically equivalent options, and not only do you believe it but you want to convince other potential vegetarians on this forum that buddhism has nothing to do with vegetarianism and reducing suffering for animals, so not only are you making a bad choice for yourself, which is your right as a free individual, but you want to convince other people that this is right, so you are not content with the kamma of the animal suffering you cause yourself, but you want to encourage others to cause more suffering for animals, by telling them, without exception, YOU ARE NOT WHAT YOU EAT, a go ahead and eat whatever you want.



No

If you read some of my posts you would see that I said choosing the option with the least suffering is best, if a person can.

What I'm arguing against is your injection of Jainism into Buddhism
The dogmatists have claimed to have found the truth, others say that it cannot be apprehended; the Sceptics continue the search.
Sextus Empiricus

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby lyndon taylor » Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:18 am

Seventh Day Adventists teach vegetarianism, Hindus often practice vegetarianism, Half the Buddhists in China teach vegetarianism, and you think it all has to do with Jainism???? It has to do with the first precept, no killing, unlike Christians and Jews, the Buddha made it perfectly clear that no killing refers to any animals as well, the rest is a matter of interpretation, or in many cases rationalization......
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
clw_uk
Posts: 4521
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby clw_uk » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:09 am

lyndon taylor wrote:Seventh Day Adventists teach vegetarianism, Hindus often practice vegetarianism, Half the Buddhists in China teach vegetarianism, and you think it all has to do with Jainism???? It has to do with the first precept, no killing, unlike Christians and Jews, the Buddha made it perfectly clear that no killing refers to any animals as well, the rest is a matter of interpretation, or in many cases rationalization......



No just your kammic version of it


What is clear is that you have not established a connection between the first precept for laypeople and buying meat in a supermarket, without falling into a Jain theory of Kamma
The dogmatists have claimed to have found the truth, others say that it cannot be apprehended; the Sceptics continue the search.
Sextus Empiricus

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby lyndon taylor » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:21 am

Unfortunately what you believe about kamma and what kamma actually is are two completely different things, kamma happens, your belief about it isn't going to change how kamma actually works.

And actually scriptural evidence points to the Buddha considering lay people buying meat slaughtered from the market to be a breaking of the first precept, at least from what David Snyder brought up earlier, but never came up with the citations.
Last edited by lyndon taylor on Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
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: 1244
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby lyndon taylor » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:31 am

This is the quote I am refering to; And actually David misread my question, his answer should read. No, as far as I know......(as there Are other references to lay people purchasing meat in the scriptures)

David N. Snyder wrote:
lyndon taylor wrote:And this is the only reference to animals killed for market being purchased in the scriptures???


Yes, as far as I know, this is the only example of where a lay person purchases meat and the Buddha does not scold nor stop him.


In other words there is this one case where the Buddha did not scold the General for buying meat at the market, but in other cases he does scold or stop lay members from buying meat at the market, or do I have this wrong David????
Last edited by lyndon taylor on Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
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
cooran
Posts: 8408
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby cooran » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:34 am

Can you post a link to the post you are referring to where David Snyder brought this up please? I can't locate it.

With metta,
Chris
---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 ---

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby lyndon taylor » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:44 am

David first posted about the General buying meat at the market on page 125 near the bottom of the page, then my quote above is David posting near the top of page 126 of this thread, I don't know how to do a link to an individual post.
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
clw_uk
Posts: 4521
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby clw_uk » Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:38 pm

Unfortunately what you believe about kamma and what kamma actually is are two completely different things, kamma happens, your belief about it isn't going to change how kamma actually works.



I agree with the Buddhas teaching of Kamma, that kamma is intention. What you are putting forward is a Jain theory of Kamma, one that looks at the actions themselves and not the intent.


As I said your posts are good Jainism but not good Buddhism
The dogmatists have claimed to have found the truth, others say that it cannot be apprehended; the Sceptics continue the search.
Sextus Empiricus

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby lyndon taylor » Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:51 pm

The buddha always taught that intention was closely linked to action, in fact when he mentions intention, it is often assumed that intention results in an action, the idea that intention without any action equals kamma is a stretch at best.

Kamma is also cause and effect, the intention might be a cause, and the effect can be an action.
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

chownah
Posts: 3878
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby chownah » Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:13 pm

The Buddha taught quite clearly that intention is kamma.....how clearly did he say this?......he is reported to have said, "kamma is intention."......or was it, "intention is kamma."?......I forget which......
chownah

User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby seeker242 » Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:03 pm

clw_uk wrote:
I don't think that is really the argument coming from most vegetarians. It's more like "intentionally choosing the most harmful option is unwholesome kamma, when you have a choice to choose lesser harm".


Wouldn't that depend on the intention behind it?



Perhaps, but even if there is no intention to cause harm, what if the action is simply a product of ignorance or a product of denial? Perhaps one can say that if a person is completely oblivious to the harm being caused, then one can say it's not unwholesome because they are oblivious to the whole situation. However, if a person becomes fully aware of the harm being caused, actually does have a choice in the matter, but chooses to ignore the fact that this harm is being caused and just does whatever, I don't think it can be called completely blameless anymore because the person is now fully aware of the fact that their choice equates with causing more harm.

If you are fully aware that one choice causes more harm than another, but choose the more harmful one because of some other reason, you could say the intent is not to cause harm but rather simply to enjoy whatever the more harmful choice brings. However, full knowledge and awareness of one choice being more harmful than the other, and choosing the more harmful one for some unrelated reason, still seems to me to bring an element of blamefulness into the picture. Because in order to do that, you have to essentially ignore the fact that you are choosing a more harmful option when you could be choosing a less harmful option. Now if choosing the more harmful option is a matter of real necessity, AKA you actually don't have a choice in the matter, then all of that would not apply.

:anjali:

User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 4886
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Aloka » Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:11 pm

chownah wrote:The Buddha taught quite clearly that intention is kamma.....how clearly did he say this?......he is reported to have said, "kamma is intention."......or was it, "intention is kamma."?......I forget which......
chownah


The Buddha said :


"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."

— AN 6.63



Vipaka = the result of kamma


:anjali:


Return to “Fringe Theravāda Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 34 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine