the great vegetarian debate

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Spiny Norman » Sun Jun 29, 2014 10:30 am

Ron-The-Elder wrote:It seems to me that whenever we lecture other adults :soap: as to the moral superiority of our ways, while at the same time condemning or labeling their ways as inferior, even though we may in fact be right and just in our decisions as to how to live our lives , we should consider if we are guilty of demonstrating excessive pride, excessive self-confidence and arrogance, which behaviors define "hubris".


I think generally people are just stating their opinions on a question of Buddhist ethics. I wonder if the perception of "lecturing" occurs when others don't like those opinions?
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2349
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Mkoll » Sun Jun 29, 2014 10:38 am

Ron-The-Elder wrote:.....Are fruits, seeds, and stalks of plants freely given, or does stealing them from plants prevent natural plant reproduction? ( I could honestly argue either case.)

I'm sorry but if you want to go that far, then it follows we shouldn't be eating anything because no matter what we eat we will be killing someething or preventing something from living. If that were the case, then we should all just starve to death so we don't hurt anything.

I think the Jains have a view that starving to death to prevent harming other beings is the best spiritual practice. Admirable, but I wouldn't call that wise. Don't take my word for it though, I'm not sure if that's actually true in their case.
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 2797
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby chownah » Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:02 am

beeblebrox wrote:
chownah wrote:Then don't work in those industries and don't buy anything from any store that sells meat because in shopping there you are supporting the meat industry.
chownah


Hi Chownah,

I don't buy meat. It's that simple. You don't need to try pervert it into something else.

:anjali:

I have no idea what it is that I am accused of trying to pervert. Spiny Norman said he didn't want to contribute in even a small way to the meat industry or slaughter house business so I offered what seemed like a way to avoid making that contribution......where does this pervert thing come in?
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2627
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby beeblebrox » Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:16 am

Hi Chownah,

I apologize for trying to say that your argument was a perversion on someone's intention.

:anjali:
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby chownah » Sun Jun 29, 2014 1:11 pm

Beeblebrox,
Thank you for offering the apology which I accept with gratitude for the graciousness with which it was offered.
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2627
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Mkoll » Sun Jun 29, 2014 1:20 pm

It seems our taste buds can get used to eating differently. I've found this to be true in my own experience on both ends of the like/dislike spectrum.

Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 2797
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:23 pm

Spiny: I think generally people are just stating their opinions on a question of Buddhist ethics. I wonder if the perception of "lecturing" occurs when others don't like those opinions?


What you say may be true for some, but in general from my experience, at least in the The Western Cultures, it is the idea of "The Rules of Debate", which place us in the position of adversaries. The conversation turns from "sharing" what we do to live and how we have learned to live, and letting others in on our personal perspectives to "fencing", where there can only be winners, losers and judges. Hubris becomes our armor and passive aggressiveness, overt aggression, character smearing, and ballistic ad hominem our dueling weapons.

Ironically, none of us are morally superior when it comes to surviving by ingesting nutrients. :console: We each for our karmic benefit or detriment have an obligation to understand and decide what to consume for the sake of our samsaric survival and decide which form of karmic consequences to accept as a consequence of doing so. Of course we can choose to starve as others have already pointed out. Not my path, though. "Me Tarzan! You Jain?"
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
 
Posts: 988
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Mkoll » Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:04 pm

Ron-The-Elder wrote:\Ironically, none of us are morally superior when it comes to surviving by ingesting nutrients. :console: We each for our karmic benefit or detriment have an obligation to understand and decide what to consume for the sake of our samsaric survival and decide which form of karmic consequences to accept as a consequence of doing so. Of course we can choose to starve as others have already pointed out. Not my path, though. "Me Tarzan! You Jain?"

I agree that there's no point in judging others for meat-eating. It's their prerogative, their kamma. I'm just providing reasons for rethinking that habit. Food for thought, if you will. :P

To me, the focus is not one person being morally superior to another. Rather, the focus is kamma and compassion, as you've said. By avoiding the eating of flesh, I think one sows seeds of harmlessness for other beings in future lives and gains the fruits thereof.

MN 135 wrote:The Blessed One said: "There is the case, student, where a woman or man is a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, hell. If, on the break-up of the body, after death — instead of reappearing in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, hell — he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is short-lived wherever reborn. This is the way leading to a short life: to be a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings.

...

"There is the case where a woman or man is one who harms beings with his/her fists, with clods, with sticks, or with knives. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is sickly wherever reborn. This is the way leading to sickliness: to be one who harms beings with one's fists, with clods, with sticks, or with knives.
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 2797
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby chownah » Mon Jun 30, 2014 2:13 am

Spiny Norman wrote:
But we all have choices. I wouldn't want to contribute even in a small way to all the suffering involved in the meat industry in general and slaugherhouses in particular.

Some people who feel the way you do don't purchase milk or milk products because clearly in purchasing them one is contributing to the meat industry and slaughterhouses in a small way.
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2627
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Spiny Norman » Mon Jun 30, 2014 8:21 am

chownah wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:
But we all have choices. I wouldn't want to contribute even in a small way to all the suffering involved in the meat industry in general and slaugherhouses in particular.

Some people who feel the way you do don't purchase milk or milk products because clearly in purchasing them one is contributing to the meat industry and slaughterhouses in a small way.
chownah


Yes, true. But again, most of us have a choice about what the kind of food we buy. We can't do everything, but we can do something.
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2349
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Spiny Norman » Mon Jun 30, 2014 8:27 am

Ron-The-Elder wrote: Hubris becomes our armor and passive aggressiveness, overt aggression, character smearing, and ballistic ad hominem our dueling weapons.


Yes, that can be a problem when controversial topics are being discussed. But IMO the answer is to be mindful of our debating style, not to ban controversial topics or suppress discussion.
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2349
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby lyndon taylor » Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:10 pm

On this forum I am very thankful we have a balance of meat eaters and vegetarians contributing, on another forum I browse, the vehement meat eaters run the show, call for the topic to be banned, and the moderators step in and ban the vegetarians from saying anything, so much for freedom of expression!! (there not here) They also have a thread where everyone calls for moderate drinking alcohol, and no end of rudeness to anyone that says you shouldn't drink. Seems like some other forums stop being Buddhist forums, and simply become people claiming to be buddhist forums!!
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: 860
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Spiny Norman » Tue Jul 01, 2014 9:36 am

lyndon taylor wrote:On this forum I am very thankful we have a balance of meat eaters and vegetarians contributing, on another forum I browse, the vehement meat eaters run the show, call for the topic to be banned, and the moderators step in and ban the vegetarians from saying anything, so much for freedom of expression!! (there not here) They also have a thread where everyone calls for moderate drinking alcohol, and no end of rudeness to anyone that says you shouldn't drink. Seems like some other forums stop being Buddhist forums, and simply become people claiming to be buddhist forums!!


It takes all sorts I guess. ;)
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2349
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby walkart » Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:27 am

lyndon taylor wrote:On this forum I am very thankful we have a balance of meat eaters and vegetarians contributing, on another forum I browse, the vehement meat eaters run the show, call for the topic to be banned, and the moderators step in and ban the vegetarians from saying anything, so much for freedom of expression!! (there not here) They also have a thread where everyone calls for moderate drinking alcohol, and no end of rudeness to anyone that says you shouldn't drink. Seems like some other forums stop being Buddhist forums, and simply become people claiming to be buddhist forums!!


I was banned on some buddhist forum because i was in contradiction with some bhikkhus who said that killing for self defence and during the war its ok, that muslims must be eradicated, that HHDL was à b*** and that when some bhikkhu buy meat with money its ok too...
walkart
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 6:13 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby LXNDR » Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:46 pm

walkart wrote:I was banned on some buddhist forum because i was in contradiction with some bhikkhus who said that killing for self defence and during the war its ok, that muslims must be eradicated, that HHDL was à b*** and that when some bhikkhu buy meat with money its ok too...


bhikk who? :smile:
LXNDR
 
Posts: 450
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 5:15 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby walkart » Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:12 pm

LXNDR wrote:
walkart wrote:I was banned on some buddhist forum because i was in contradiction with some bhikkhus who said that killing for self defence and during the war its ok, that muslims must be eradicated, that HHDL was à b*** and that when some bhikkhu buy meat with money its ok too...


bhikk who? :smile:

Good question )
walkart
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 6:13 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:22 am

Bhikk-whooooo?

Image

A truly wise monk? :focus:
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
 
Posts: 988
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby cooran » Fri Jul 04, 2014 7:18 pm

Interesting research - but what does it mean for Vegans??

Plants can hear themselves being eaten:
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-an ... eing-eaten

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
cooran
 
Posts: 7483
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby TheNoBSBuddhist » Fri Jul 04, 2014 7:25 pm

It means they can still eat vegetables. It's a defence mechanism, not a cry for help. A plant can 'feel' in the sensory sense, not in the emotional sense. It is not a good idea to anthropomorphise everything. In fact it's a decidedly foolish and ignorant thing to do.
:namaste:

You will not be punished FOR your 'emotions'; you will be punished BY your 'emotions'.



Image

Pay attention, simplify, and (Meditation instruction in a nutshell) "Mind - the Gap."
‘Absit invidia verbo’ - may ill-will be absent from the word. And mindful of that, if I don't respond, this may be why....
User avatar
TheNoBSBuddhist
 
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:06 pm
Location: Loch Lomond, via the High AND Low road....

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby culaavuso » Fri Jul 04, 2014 8:01 pm

TheNoBSBuddhist wrote:It's a defence mechanism, not a cry for help. A plant can 'feel' in the sensory sense, not in the emotional sense. It is not a good idea to anthropomorphise everything. In fact it's a decidedly foolish and ignorant thing to do.


What is an Emotion? by William James wrote:Our natural way of thinking about these standard emotions is that the mental perception of some fact excites the mental affection called the emotion, and that this latter state of mind gives rise to the bodily expression. My thesis on the contrary is that the bodily changes follow directly the PERCEPTION of the exciting fact, and that our feeling of the same changes as they occur IS the emotion. Common sense says, we lose our fortune, are sorry and weep; we meet a bear, are frightened and run; we are insulted by a rival, are angry and strike. The hypothesis here to be defended says that this order of sequence is incorrect, that the one mental state is not immediately induced by the other, that the bodily manifestations must first be interposed between, and that the more rational statement is that we feel sorry because we cry, angry because we strike, afraid because we tremble, and not that we cry, strike, or tremble, because we are sorry, angry, or fearful, as the case may be. Without the bodily states following on the perception, the latter would be purely cognitive in form, pale, colourless, destitute of emotional warmth. We might then see the bear, and judge it best to run, receive the insult and deem it right to strike, but we could not actually feel afraid or angry.


Emotion (p. 3) by James W. Kalat and Michelle N. Shiota wrote:If you wave your arm at a housefly, it flies away. Do you conclude that the housefly feels fear? We don't know what a housefly feels, if anything. You might not assume it feels fear. If you damage a beehive, the bees come at you to sting you. Are they angry? Again, you could quite reasonably answer either "no" or "I don't know."
...
In short, the question of emotions in extraterrestrial animals may be unanswerable. At best you could say that in certain situations these animals act as if they are fearful or angry. Here is a key point: We never observe emotions. We only infer them.


Pain in Babies (Wikipedia) wrote:In the late nineteenth, and first half of the twentieth century, doctors were taught that babies did not experience pain, and were treating their young patients accordingly. From needle sticks to tonsillectomies to heart operations were done with no anaesthesia or analgesia, other than muscle relaxation for the surgery. The belief was that in babies the expression of pain was reflexive and, owing to the immaturity of the infant brain, the pain could not really matter.
culaavuso
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: palchi and 10 guests