the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by DNS »

Ron-The-Elder wrote: 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).
User avatar
waimengwan
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:22 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by 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.
User avatar
waimengwan
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:22 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by waimengwan »

The last part came out a little bit like Russell Peters ' Somebody's going to get hurt!'. :) Have a great weekend everyone.
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ben »

waimengwan wrote: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
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by LonesomeYogurt »

Ben wrote: 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.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

LonesomeYogurt wrote: . 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.
:clap:
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
waimengwan
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:22 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by waimengwan »

Lonesomeyogurt That really nailed it for me what you said.
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ben »

LonesomeYogurt wrote:
Ben wrote: 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
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by robertk »

porpoise wrote:
LonesomeYogurt wrote: . 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.
:clap:
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.
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ben »

Thank you, Robert.
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by LonesomeYogurt »

Ben wrote: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!
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Cittasanto »

LonesomeYogurt wrote: 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.
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
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by LonesomeYogurt »

Cittasanto wrote: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 I mean to say is that the complex economy of today's world, in which consumer demand at supply points influences greater production on a mass scale through factories and industrialized farming, responds to our actions far differently than the economy of the Buddha's time.
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.
Are you implying that somehow these are not good guidelines for making responsible, compassionate choices? It seems to me that they provide a wonderful framework for monks and laypeople as well.
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.
You're right that it is wrong to accuse others or criticize those who eat meat, and I agree that accepting meat in certain situations is the best approach. I'm simply arguing that the most pure expression of the Buddha's teachings would imply at least a passive preference for non-flesh foods.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
User avatar
manas
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by manas »

I was a 'flexitarian' (if that refers to someone who does not purchase meat for their own use, but will eat it out of politeness, while a guest at someone's home etc), but I have had to give that up, because after years of mostly vegetarianism, when I do eat animal flesh my mind gets darkened the next day. So I am not criticizing anyone else here, because I wish I could just 'gratefully accept whatever is offered'; but since meat can cause a depressive mind-state for a day or two after consumption - and this has happened too many times for me to think it a mere coincidence - I will now have to just tell people that my system cannot handle meat at all, I just have to politely decline it. I wonder if any other long-term vegetarians have noticed how, if you do venture to eat some meat, the mind is affected? I would be interested to hear.

In the interests of complete honesty, I need to add that I ate two little tins of tuna that I bought for myself recently, so I wasn't being compelled, I just thought my body might benefit from some extra 'animal protein' as I've often heard well-meaning relatives say to me. But once again, a day of depression followed, and now I really am seeing a connection between any meat consumption, even just a bit of fish, and my state of mind. That's it for me, no more meat experiments!

with metta

:anjali:
Last edited by manas on Sat Jul 21, 2012 8:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by LonesomeYogurt »

I know for certain that my gut is affected!
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
Post Reply