the great vegetarian debate

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:33 pm

porpoise wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
porpoise wrote:The intention of the 3-fold rule is that we should not cause another life to be taken. In the example above it seems to me that both options result in another turkey being killed.

hI Porpoise,
please read what else I have said on the matter of that rule.

it is not a rule for lay people, and is layed down for mendicants for a reason


OK, so would these verses from the Dhammapada have more general application? Note the section about not causing another to kill.

129. All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
130. All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.


This is an another example of how in some Suttas all are instructed not to kill, but for the sake of some reasoning, but in the Vinaya the act of killing for food not prepared for the monks specifically, so as to not offend the feelings of hosts during the alms rounds, or when in the company of supporters during various events to which a monk is invited it is OK to eat meat. Inconsistent and just a little suspicious to say the least. One has to ask the question: " Did Buddha teach non-violence in all things, or did he not?" Did he mean what he said, when he stated that "..acts of violence lead only to more violence or did he not?"

Another example of Buddha's reported position regarding non-violence, one most memorable to me, is found in The Simile of The Saw, where Buddha states that it is better to have one's limbs removed than to commit an act of violence in retribution.

"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves.


Then we must ask ourselves would Buddha approve of what goes on in the slaughter houses of the world?,when he spoke ? source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Still another seeming confusion can be found in a Jataka Tales story for children, where Buddha, in a previous life as a hare or rabbit came upon a mother tiger and her cubs. The mother was apparently injured according to one version I have heard, and because of loss of vigor could not feed her cubs. Understanding the plight of the tiger family this rabbit, through compassion and loving-kindness, donated his body in the ultimate sacrifice to provide the starving family with a meal. Now, does this mean that Buddha is advising us to cut off an arm, cook it and feed the starving masses? No! What it means (to me) is that the general principle being taught by Buddha is to treat others (all others) with compassion and loving-kindness, no matter what it takes if we have the resources that would be helpful to others in need of our services, and to never "intentionally"cause harm to other living creatures where and when we have a choice. Monks eating what is offered by village families out of the kindness and compassion of their hearts to monks does not constitute an intentional harmful act on the parts of the monk. However, should a monk realize that the family is cooking extra meat "just for him", then it is his obligation to politely explain that he is not allowed to do so and why.

This is the message that I take from these stories and my understanding of The Vinaya rule.

By logical reasoning, Lay persons must think along the same lines to avoid the consequences of their kamma ( intentional actions) when they make food choices before purchasing, understanding that what they choose to buy supports the actions of the supplier. Illegal Drug buyers are part of the causal chain of events, which in turn leads drug suppliers to kill each other to compete for illegal drug user business. Just so, meat buyers are a part of the causal chain which leads to butchery of living beings, and just so, vegetarian buyers are part of the causal chain which leads to mass planting and harvesting in agriculture. Question is: Which route causes "less suffering" and "least harm"? :anjali: Ron
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: 1129
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Cittasanto » Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:34 pm

porpoise wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
porpoise wrote:OK, so would these verses from the Dhammapada have more general application? Note the section about not causing another to kill.

129. All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
130. All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.



yes these would, However, please understand the rule you are trying to use is saying something else to these verses; and what these verses are talking about are within the pārājika 3 & pācittiyā 61 not the Mahavagga passage or context you are trying to put it into.


Sorry but you've lost me - are you saying these Dhammapada verses don't have general application?

I am not saying that at all!
I agree these have general application, however, I move on to point out that that is not what the rule is saying.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5826
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Cittasanto » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:57 pm

Hi Ron,
you do know the first precept of the five; eight; & ten precepts does not include harmlessness, only the deliberate removal of the life faculty from a living being is included?
harmlessness is not a precept for lay people, nor is it 100% binding and all encompassing, such as the example of the allowance for even mendicants, who do have precepts related to harmlessness, to defend themselves in order to escape violence.

The simile of the saw is not referring to physical forms of violence which may be necessary to defend oneself, rather to the mind state one has, which is clearly being described.
'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate.

the problem is the actual taking of life as a physical expression, not the use of violence when it is necessary, as in self defence, or demolishing a dwelling (found in another rule)! as the Buddha didn't say anywhere that eating was wrong, only the actual act of deliberately killing was.

here is part of the background story from the Mahavaga with the relevant lines highlighted
VinMv.6.31.12/13 Translated from the pali by T.W. Rhys Davids & Hermann Oldenberg wrote:12. And the Blessed One preached to Sîha, the general, in due course; that is to say, he talked about the merits obtained by almsgiving, about the duties of morality (&c., in the usual way; see, for instance, I, 8, 2, 3, down to:) dependent on nobody else for knowledge of the doctrine of the Teacher, he said to the Blessed One; 'Lord, may the Blessed One consent to take his meal with me to-morrow, together with the fraternity of Bhikkhus.'

The Blessed One expressed his consent by remaining silent. Then Sîha, the general, when he understood that the Blessed One had accepted his invitation, rose from his seat, respectfully saluted the Blessed One, and, passing round him with his right side towards him, went away.

And Sîha, the general, gave order to a certain man (among his subalterns, saying), 'Go, my friend, and see if there is any meat to be had 1: And when that night had elapsed, Sîha, the general, ordered excellent food (&c., as in chap. 23. 5, down to the end).

13. At that time a great number of Niganthas (running) through Vesâlî, from road to road and from cross-way to cross-way, with outstretched arms, cried: 'To-day Sîha, the general, has killed a great ox and has made a meal for the Samana Gotama; the Samana Gotama knowingly eats this meat of an animal killed for this very purpose, and has thus become virtually the author of that deed (of killing the animal)!' [my note here - this is a false accusation]

Then a certain man went to the place where Sîha, the general, was. Having approached him he said to Sîha, the general, into his ear: 'Please, Lord, have you noticed that a great number of Niganthas (running) through Vesâlî, &c.?'

'Do not mind it, my good Sir. Long since those venerable brethren are trying to discredit the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Samgha; and those venerable brethren do not become tired of telling false, idle, vain lies of the Blessed One. Not for our life would we ever intentionally kill a living being.'
Note
1 - Pavattamamsa, which Buddhaghosa explains, 'matassa mamsam.' Pavatta means 'already existing,' opposed to what is brought into existence for a special purpose, and pavattamamsa is said here, therefore, in order to exclude uddissa-kata-mamsa (meat of animals killed especially for them), which Bhikkhus were not allowed to partake of (see chap. 3,1. 14). Compare also pavattaphala-bhogana at Gâtaka I, p. 6.

You and anyone else can make out that eating & buying meat is wrong due to the supply & demand argument, or because of your own interpretation but it is pretty clear that the Buddha differentiated between harmlessness & violence; murder etc. just by looking at the effacements alone in MN8
MN8 wrote:(1) Others will be harmful; we shall not be harmful here — thus effacement can be done.
(2) Others will kill living beings; we shall abstain from killing living beings here — thus effacement can be done.

and these still place emphasis on what one intentionally does!
buying meat that has not been specifically killed for oneself is the same as getting road kill from the textual point of view, non-violence is ones own actions not those of another's, hence, the rule being laid down the way it was.

the jataka tales are not necessarily early or comparative, the ones in KN are considered early and do in some cases give an example using extremes, like the recluse who practised patience to the extent that he had his body cut up by a prince who thought he was a fake recluse trying to have his way with the princesses (who was born and became anna Kondanya in his last life), which goes against the Buddhas advice to look after ones body, remember these stories are not about an enlightened Buddha but previous unenlightened births, and sometimes are pointing something out which is not the only thing one can get from the story, and stories of this type can also be seen in the vinaya!

The one you mention comes in many forms and is sometimes attributed to a famous Tibetan monk, and is obviously of a later date, not being part of the KN stories. you can not view the vinaya in comparison to every piece of Buddhist Literature, particularly when its origin is doubtful.
http://www.ignca.nic.in/jatak025.htm wrote:Vyaghri-Jataka, Mathura
Once, the Bodhisatta was born in a respectable family of the scholars; and mastered several Shastras. Soon he was disillusioned with the worldly life and renounced the same for the spiritual uplift. In course of time, he proved his excellence in his pursuit and became the guru of several ascetics.

One day, when wandering in a forest along with his disciple Ajita, he saw from the top of a hill that a tigress was lurking to kill and eat her own cubs out of hunger. Moved by compassion he thought of sacrificing his own body to feed the tigress and save the cubs. So, he sent away his disciple in search of some food for the tigress lest he might prevent him from his sacrifice. No sooner than Ajita left the site, the Bodhisatta jumped from the precipice in front of the tigress and offered his body. The noise of the fall caught the attention of the hungry tigress, who in no time scooped over him and tore him off in pieces and feasted upon them with her cubs.

When Ajita returned and did not find his guru in the same place, he looked around and was surprised to see that the tigress was no longer looked hungry. Her cubs were also frolicking. But soon, he was shocked to detect the blood stained rags of his guru’s dress scattered there. So, he knew that his guru had offered his body to feed a hungry tigress and protected her young ones as an act of great charity. Now, he also knew why was he sent away by his guru.

do note in this rendering and the Tibetan one I am familiar with (where it is a famous (?) Tibetan monk not a previous birth) the tigress does not kill yet eats the meat.

The Buddha advocated a Middle Path, and using what is available and within ones means, not the nigantha attitude to Kamma, however The Buddha did see a fault in accepting what was deliberately sacrificed for them and thus prohibited the acceptance of such meat, not the acceptance of meat entirely, as it could be the only source of food someone has available to them, or someone who simply wants to give a gift who is not a follower of the Buddhas teachings.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5826
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Spiny Norman » Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:15 am

Cittasanto wrote:
MN8 wrote:(1) Others will be harmful; we shall not be harmful here — thus effacement can be done.
(2) Others will kill living beings; we shall abstain from killing living beings here — thus effacement can be done.



Which demonstrates that the Buddha taught not harming as well as not killing.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2843
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby robertk » Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:29 pm

Very clear again cittasanto, thanks.
User avatar
robertk
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Thu Jul 26, 2012 2:31 pm

Cittasanto wrote:Hi Ron,
you do know the first precept of the five; eight; & ten precepts does not include harmlessness, only the deliberate removal of the life faculty from a living being is included?
harmlessness is not a precept for lay people, nor is it 100% binding and all encompassing, such as the example of the allowance for even mendicants, who do have precepts related to harmlessness, to defend themselves in order to escape violence.

The simile of the saw is not referring to physical forms of violence which may be necessary to defend oneself, rather to the mind state one has, which is clearly being described.
'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate.

the problem is the actual taking of life as a physical expression, not the use of violence when it is necessary, as in self defence, or demolishing a dwelling (found in another rule)! as the Buddha didn't say anywhere that eating was wrong, only the actual act of deliberately killing was.

here is part of the background story from the Mahavaga with the relevant lines highlighted
VinMv.6.31.12/13 Translated from the pali by T.W. Rhys Davids & Hermann Oldenberg wrote:12. And the Blessed One preached to Sîha, the general, in due course; that is to say, he talked about the merits obtained by almsgiving, about the duties of morality (&c., in the usual way; see, for instance, I, 8, 2, 3, down to:) dependent on nobody else for knowledge of the doctrine of the Teacher, he said to the Blessed One; 'Lord, may the Blessed One consent to take his meal with me to-morrow, together with the fraternity of Bhikkhus.'

The Blessed One expressed his consent by remaining silent. Then Sîha, the general, when he understood that the Blessed One had accepted his invitation, rose from his seat, respectfully saluted the Blessed One, and, passing round him with his right side towards him, went away.

And Sîha, the general, gave order to a certain man (among his subalterns, saying), 'Go, my friend, and see if there is any meat to be had 1: And when that night had elapsed, Sîha, the general, ordered excellent food (&c., as in chap. 23. 5, down to the end).

13. At that time a great number of Niganthas (running) through Vesâlî, from road to road and from cross-way to cross-way, with outstretched arms, cried: 'To-day Sîha, the general, has killed a great ox and has made a meal for the Samana Gotama; the Samana Gotama knowingly eats this meat of an animal killed for this very purpose, and has thus become virtually the author of that deed (of killing the animal)!' [my note here - this is a false accusation]

Then a certain man went to the place where Sîha, the general, was. Having approached him he said to Sîha, the general, into his ear: 'Please, Lord, have you noticed that a great number of Niganthas (running) through Vesâlî, &c.?'

'Do not mind it, my good Sir. Long since those venerable brethren are trying to discredit the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Samgha; and those venerable brethren do not become tired of telling false, idle, vain lies of the Blessed One. Not for our life would we ever intentionally kill a living being.'
Note
1 - Pavattamamsa, which Buddhaghosa explains, 'matassa mamsam.' Pavatta means 'already existing,' opposed to what is brought into existence for a special purpose, and pavattamamsa is said here, therefore, in order to exclude uddissa-kata-mamsa (meat of animals killed especially for them), which Bhikkhus were not allowed to partake of (see chap. 3,1. 14). Compare also pavattaphala-bhogana at Gâtaka I, p. 6.

You and anyone else can make out that eating & buying meat is wrong due to the supply & demand argument, or because of your own interpretation but it is pretty clear that the Buddha differentiated between harmlessness & violence; murder etc. just by looking at the effacements alone in MN8
MN8 wrote:(1) Others will be harmful; we shall not be harmful here — thus effacement can be done.
(2) Others will kill living beings; we shall abstain from killing living beings here — thus effacement can be done.

and these still place emphasis on what one intentionally does!
buying meat that has not been specifically killed for oneself is the same as getting road kill from the textual point of view, non-violence is ones own actions not those of another's, hence, the rule being laid down the way it was.

the jataka tales are not necessarily early or comparative, the ones in KN are considered early and do in some cases give an example using extremes, like the recluse who practised patience to the extent that he had his body cut up by a prince who thought he was a fake recluse trying to have his way with the princesses (who was born and became anna Kondanya in his last life), which goes against the Buddhas advice to look after ones body, remember these stories are not about an enlightened Buddha but previous unenlightened births, and sometimes are pointing something out which is not the only thing one can get from the story, and stories of this type can also be seen in the vinaya!

The one you mention comes in many forms and is sometimes attributed to a famous Tibetan monk, and is obviously of a later date, not being part of the KN stories. you can not view the vinaya in comparison to every piece of Buddhist Literature, particularly when its origin is doubtful.
http://www.ignca.nic.in/jatak025.htm wrote:Vyaghri-Jataka, Mathura
Once, the Bodhisatta was born in a respectable family of the scholars; and mastered several Shastras. Soon he was disillusioned with the worldly life and renounced the same for the spiritual uplift. In course of time, he proved his excellence in his pursuit and became the guru of several ascetics.

One day, when wandering in a forest along with his disciple Ajita, he saw from the top of a hill that a tigress was lurking to kill and eat her own cubs out of hunger. Moved by compassion he thought of sacrificing his own body to feed the tigress and save the cubs. So, he sent away his disciple in search of some food for the tigress lest he might prevent him from his sacrifice. No sooner than Ajita left the site, the Bodhisatta jumped from the precipice in front of the tigress and offered his body. The noise of the fall caught the attention of the hungry tigress, who in no time scooped over him and tore him off in pieces and feasted upon them with her cubs.

When Ajita returned and did not find his guru in the same place, he looked around and was surprised to see that the tigress was no longer looked hungry. Her cubs were also frolicking. But soon, he was shocked to detect the blood stained rags of his guru’s dress scattered there. So, he knew that his guru had offered his body to feed a hungry tigress and protected her young ones as an act of great charity. Now, he also knew why was he sent away by his guru.

do note in this rendering and the Tibetan one I am familiar with (where it is a famous (?) Tibetan monk not a previous birth) the tigress does not kill yet eats the meat.

The Buddha advocated a Middle Path, and using what is available and within ones means, not the nigantha attitude to Kamma, however The Buddha did see a fault in accepting what was deliberately sacrificed for them and thus prohibited the acceptance of such meat, not the acceptance of meat entirely, as it could be the only source of food someone has available to them, or someone who simply wants to give a gift who is not a follower of the Buddhas teachings.


I Guess how precepts are worded depends upon which school of monks/tradition we each follow: Following are the precepts as written and found in "What The Blessed Buddha Actually Said in Plain English, Bhikkhu Samahita et al:

I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Killing.
I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Stealing.
I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Sexual Abuse.
I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Dishonesty.
I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Alcohol & Drugs.

Then one keeps and protects these sacred vows better than one's own
eyes & children, since they protects you & all other beings much better
than any army! They are the highest offer one can give in & to this world!
This is the very start on the path towards Nibbāna -the Deathless Element-
This is the Noble Way to Peace, to Freedom, to Bliss, initiated by Morality,
developed further by Dhamma-Study and fulfilled by training Meditation...

source: http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/Fullm ... ce_Day.htm


Bhikkhu Samahita is of The Theravadin Forest MInistry, Sri Lanka
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: 1129
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Cittasanto » Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:05 pm

porpoise wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
MN8 wrote:(1) Others will be harmful; we shall not be harmful here — thus effacement can be done.
(2) Others will kill living beings; we shall abstain from killing living beings here — thus effacement can be done.



Which demonstrates that the Buddha taught not harming as well as not killing.

Which demonstrates what I was saying, not that I ever said that it wasn't taught!
Last edited by Cittasanto on Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5826
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Cittasanto » Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:22 pm

Hi Ron,
Ron-The-Elder wrote:I Guess how precepts are worded depends upon which school of monks/tradition we each follow: Following are the precepts as written and found in "What The Blessed Buddha Actually Said in Plain English, Bhikkhu Samahita et al:

I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Killing.
I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Stealing.
I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Sexual Abuse.
I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Dishonesty.
I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Alcohol & Drugs.

Then one keeps and protects these sacred vows better than one's own
eyes & children, since they protects you & all other beings much better
than any army! They are the highest offer one can give in & to this world!
This is the very start on the path towards Nibbāna -the Deathless Element-
This is the Noble Way to Peace, to Freedom, to Bliss, initiated by Morality,
developed further by Dhamma-Study and fulfilled by training Meditation...

source: http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/Fullm ... ce_Day.htm


Bhikkhu Samahita is of The Theravadin Forest MInistry, Sri Lanka

I do not see what you are getting at here?
although the pali words are quite clear as to their meaning!
Pāṇātipātā
Pāṇā - life; breath; a living being.
Atipātā - slayer; destroyer.
although if you are referring to my use of "removal of the life faculty" I was not directly quoting the precept, rather the description of what death is as found in the texts such as the Mahasatipatthana sutta DN22 amongst others.
Katamañ-ca, bhikkhave, maraṇaṃ?
Mendicants, what is death?
Yaṃ tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ tamhā tamhā sattanikāyā
For the numerous types of living beings in the many groupings of beings
cuti, cavanatā, bhedo, antaradhānaṃ, maccu, maraṇaṃ, kālakiriyā;
there is a fall, a falling away, a breaking up, a disappearance, a dying, a death, a making of time;
khandhānaṃ bhedo, kaḷebarassa nikkhepo;
the break up of the constituent groups (of mind and body), the throwing off of the body;
jīvitindriyassupacchedo:
the cutting off of the life faculty:

and "life faculty" is used in explaining what the "depriving of life" is within the Third Parajikas vibhanga in the word analysis (which is a direct corresponding rule as is pācittiyā 61 where it is also found).
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5826
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:09 am

Cittasanto wrote:Hi Ron,
Ron-The-Elder wrote:I Guess how precepts are worded depends upon which school of monks/tradition we each follow: Following are the precepts as written and found in "What The Blessed Buddha Actually Said in Plain English, Bhikkhu Samahita et al:

I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Killing.
I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Stealing.
I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Sexual Abuse.
I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Dishonesty.
I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Alcohol & Drugs.

Then one keeps and protects these sacred vows better than one's own
eyes & children, since they protects you & all other beings much better
than any army! They are the highest offer one can give in & to this world!
This is the very start on the path towards Nibbāna -the Deathless Element-
This is the Noble Way to Peace, to Freedom, to Bliss, initiated by Morality,
developed further by Dhamma-Study and fulfilled by training Meditation...

source: http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/Fullm ... ce_Day.htm


Bhikkhu Samahita is of The Theravadin Forest MInistry, Sri Lanka

Cittasanto: I do not see what you are getting at here?
although the pali words are quite clear as to their meaning!
Pāṇātipātā
Pāṇā - life; breath; a living being.
Atipātā - slayer; destroyer.
although if you are referring to my use of "removal of the life faculty" I was not directly quoting the precept, rather the description of what death is as found in the texts such as the Mahasatipatthana sutta DN22 amongst others.
Katamañ-ca, bhikkhave, maraṇaṃ?
Mendicants, what is death?
Yaṃ tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ tamhā tamhā sattanikāyā
For the numerous types of living beings in the many groupings of beings
cuti, cavanatā, bhedo, antaradhānaṃ, maccu, maraṇaṃ, kālakiriyā;
there is a fall, a falling away, a breaking up, a disappearance, a dying, a death, a making of time;
khandhānaṃ bhedo, kaḷebarassa nikkhepo;
the break up of the constituent groups (of mind and body), the throwing off of the body;
jīvitindriyassupacchedo:
the cutting off of the life faculty:

and "life faculty" is used in explaining what the "depriving of life" is within the Third Parajikas vibhanga in the word analysis (which is a direct corresponding rule as is pācittiyā 61 where it is also found).


OK. Try this one, instead:

The Buddha on Goodwill:
As I am, so are others...
As others are, so am I...
Having thus identified self and others,
Never Harm anyone, nor have any abused.

Sutta Nipata 3.710
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: 1129
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Are you a vegetarian/vegan?

Postby Buddha » Sun Jul 29, 2012 9:26 am

I'm an pescatarian,but im planing to go vegetarian when i finish shcool.Currently im an pescatarian for 2 years now.
Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without
User avatar
Buddha
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: Centre of Universe

Re: Are you a vegetarian/vegan?

Postby Cittasanto » Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:09 am

you may wish to look at these polls
Which diet are you?
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=8095&start=0&hilit=vegetarian+poll
Poll: Are you vegetarian/vegan?
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=805&start=0&hilit=vegetarian+poll
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5826
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Cittasanto » Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:14 am

Ron-The-Elder wrote:OK. Try this one, instead:

The Buddha on Goodwill:
As I am, so are others...
As others are, so am I...
Having thus identified self and others,
Never Harm anyone, nor have any abused.

Sutta Nipata 3.710

Although I still do not know what you were getting at above, I believe I have actually covered this argument earlier in the above post right under the effacement quote to point to one way I have refuted it already.
[edit - I will advise you to look at the rest of my posts.
although the reference is Sn.v710 or Sn3.11.v710 and you may wish to read Sn3.11.v704/705
[Nalaka:]
Now that I know Asita's words to be true, I ask you, Gotama, you who have gone to the beyond of all things.
I'm intent on the homeless life; I long for the almsround. Tell me sage, when I ask you, the utmost state of sagacity.

which shows the context of your quote, and such contex has been mentioned before.]
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5826
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Cittasanto wrote:
Ron-The-Elder wrote:OK. Try this one, instead:

The Buddha on Goodwill:
As I am, so are others...
As others are, so am I...
Having thus identified self and others,
Never Harm anyone, nor have any abused.

Sutta Nipata 3.710

Although I still do not know what you were getting at above, I believe I have actually covered this argument earlier in the above post right under the effacement quote to point to one way I have refuted it already.
[edit - I will advise you to look at the rest of my posts.
although the reference is Sn.v710 or Sn3.11.v710 and you may wish to read Sn3.11.v704/705
[Nalaka:]
Now that I know Asita's words to be true, I ask you, Gotama, you who have gone to the beyond of all things.
I'm intent on the homeless life; I long for the almsround. Tell me sage, when I ask you, the utmost state of sagacity.

which shows the context of your quote, and such contex has been mentioned before.]


Well, you say "refute". I don't accept your explanation/ rationalization as valid, simply because you cannot have it both ways. One is either against causing harm, or one is not. One either recognizes all life as precious, or one makes exceptions to justify his/her perversions. If I can justify taking life to satisfy my hunger, why cannot I then justify picking your pocket to by my want for a new pair of shoes. Why can't I then justify taking your virgin daughter, because I am feeling lust.

" It just doesn't work." Societies break down when such freedom to satisfy our personal desires are left unchecked.

My point is that a Buddha would not be so arbitrary, because he would understand such things. I see such leniency as corruptions of The Dhamma, whether it be for monk or man-on-the-street.

One must by nature of food consumption cause harm in one respect or another, unless we practice fruitatarianism, or become scavangers. If we kill plants to live we are plant killers as plants are living creatures. If we kill aniamals we are butchers. If we buy butchered food we are butcher supporters, just as illegal drug buyers are supporting drug dealers. If we attend to prostitutes we are supporting prostitution. If we buy slaves were are supporting the slave trade. That is my point.

Through thinking about these issues I am coming to understand why monks eat but one meal per day before noon.
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: 1129
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Cittasanto » Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:29 pm

Ron-The-Elder wrote:Well, you say "refute". I don't accept your explanation/ rationalization as valid, simply because you cannot have it both ways. One is either against causing harm, or one is not. One either recognizes all life as precious, or one makes exceptions to justify his/her perversions. If I can justify taking life to satisfy my hunger, why cannot I then justify picking your pocket to by my want for a new pair of shoes. Why can't I then justify taking your virgin daughter, because I am feeling lust.

yes, one can not have it both ways except you have not shown that eating meat is any more than eating something that is already dead. and you have not shown any argument against it, all you have done it try to use other texts (out of context) & texts where one being gives its life up for another to eat (sounds like the animals life faculty was removed for the express purpose of the tiger to eat!)
I wonder how much meat you think I eat?

Ron-The-Elder wrote:" It just doesn't work." Societies break down when such freedom to satisfy our personal desires are left unchecked.

My point is that a Buddha would not be so arbitrary, because he would understand such things. I see such leniency as corruptions of The Dhamma, whether it be for monk or man-on-the-street.

and what evidence have you for them being corrupted?
although you also can not have it both ways, the Buddha either understood a vegetarian diet was not possible for all or not, take as an example tibet where crop farming is difficult and the diet is predominantly meat based or inuit society where the diet is 100% meat based before other food stuffs came through travel link improvements, or a famine where the crop harvest has failed? animal products are at times easier to come accross for people to use for sustinence, and just because the society you happen to live in can cater for a 100% vegetarian or vegan diet doesn't mean it is always possible, something the Buddha would of been aware of.

One must by nature of food consumption cause harm in one respect or another, unless we practice fruitatarianism, or become scavangers. If we kill plants to live we are plant killers as plants are living creatures. If we kill aniamals we are butchers. If we buy butchered food we are butcher supporters, just as illegal drug buyers are supporting drug dealers. If we attend to prostitutes we are supporting prostitution. If we buy slaves were are supporting the slave trade. That is my point.

certainly, eating in any form can be seen as violent, but this interpretation is Nigantha, NOT Buddhist.
But what are you trying to get at earlier with the precept quote?
Through thinking about these issues I am coming to understand why monks eat but one meal per day before noon.

That would be an ascetic observance, the usual is at one time (of day) so they are not a burden to lay supporters!
Last edited by Cittasanto on Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5826
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:03 pm

cittasanto: "But what are you trying to get at earlier with the precept quote?"


The first precept is all that is necessary to understand why one must not support the meat trade, or become a butcher one's self. But, by the same token if we recognize plants as a life form, then we must hold killing vegetables for our consumption to be equally harmful. This is the trap of samsara. No matter what we do, with the exceptions of fruitatarianism or scavaging, we will be causing harm,killing, or supporting killing. Therefore the only way out is to escape from samsara into the state of The Deathless, Nibbana, by route of The Noble Eight Fold Path. :anjali: Ron
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: 1129
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Cittasanto » Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:38 pm

Ron-The-Elder wrote:
cittasanto: "But what are you trying to get at earlier with the precept quote?"


The first precept is all that is necessary to understand why one must not support the meat trade, or become a butcher one's self. But, by the same token if we recognize plants as a life form, then we must hold killing vegetables for our consumption to be equally harmful. This is the trap of samsara. No matter what we do, with the exceptions of fruitatarianism or scavaging, we will be causing harm,killing, or supporting killing. Therefore the only way out is to escape from samsara into the state of The Deathless, Nibbana, by route of The Noble Eight Fold Path. :anjali: Ron

like I said in my last reply, this is a Nigantha (now known as jain) teachings.
firstly we eat to sustain this body, eating food is not directly killing in the Buddhist teachings; and then it is only deliberately taking a life which is meant.
Secondly there are circumstances where eating meat or meat products may be neccesary as noted before, either due to circumstances or politeness due to circumstances.

although if you do not accept something you deed to express and provide an alternative interpretation which can be supported, not just ones sense.
Last edited by Cittasanto on Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5826
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:41 am

Cittasanto wrote:
Ron-The-Elder wrote:
cittasanto: "But what are you trying to get at earlier with the precept quote?"


The first precept is all that is necessary to understand why one must not support the meat trade, or become a butcher one's self. But, by the same token if we recognize plants as a life form, then we must hold killing vegetables for our consumption to be equally harmful. This is the trap of samsara. No matter what we do, with the exceptions of fruitatarianism or scavaging, we will be causing harm,killing, or supporting killing. Therefore the only way out is to escape from samsara into the state of The Deathless, Nibbana, by route of The Noble Eight Fold Path. :anjali: Ron

like I said in my last reply, this is a Nigantha (now known as jain) teachings.
firstly we eat to sustain this body, eating food is not directly killing in the Buddhist teachings; and then it is only deliberately taking a life.
Secondly there are circumstances where eating meat or meat products may be neccesary as noted before, either due to circumstances or politeness due to circumstances.

although if you do not accept something you deed to express and provide an alternative interpretation which can be supported, not just ones sense.


Friend Cittasanto: The "support" you continue to ignore is the fact that a samma sam Buddha is all knowing and understands that samsara is a place of contradictions. He would not teach us to commit intentional actions which would send us to the hell realms. Therefore any teaching otherwise, any exceptions to the law of kamma which would result in causing harm to others is a false teaching, which is but simple logic that almost anyone could easily understand. :console:
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: 1129
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Cittasanto » Tue Jul 31, 2012 6:19 am

Ron-The-Elder wrote:Friend Cittasanto: The "support" you continue to ignore is the fact that a samma sam Buddha is all knowing and understands that samsara is a place of contradictions. He would not teach us to commit intentional actions which would send us to the hell realms. Therefore any teaching otherwise, any exceptions to the law of kamma which would result in causing harm to others is a false teaching, which is but simple logic that almost anyone could easily understand. :console:


how would eating meat do that? the intention is to sustain the body, you know what the Buddha taught food was for!
how about road kill? the death was not intentional yet there is still meat to be eaten!
intention has been gone over and you have ignored this, and your personal opinion is, unfortunately for you, not supported within the texts and actually in keeping with the Nigantha idea.

but just to point out again, I do not have to equate eating for sustinance with murder, and the all knowing try looking at the Sabbe sutta which has been discussed on this forum several times!

and ignoring? try dealing with the arguments above you hapilly ignored looking at, and have been asked several times to explain your response to!
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5826
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:05 am

Cittasanto wrote:
Ron-The-Elder wrote:Friend Cittasanto: The "support" you continue to ignore is the fact that a samma sam Buddha is all knowing and understands that samsara is a place of contradictions. He would not teach us to commit intentional actions which would send us to the hell realms. Therefore any teaching otherwise, any exceptions to the law of kamma which would result in causing harm to others is a false teaching, which is but simple logic that almost anyone could easily understand. :console:


how would eating meat do that? the intention is to sustain the body, you know what the Buddha taught food was for!
how about road kill? the death was not intentional yet there is still meat to be eaten!
intention has been gone over and you have ignored this, and your personal opinion is, unfortunately for you, not supported within the texts and actually in keeping with the Nigantha idea.

but just to point out again, I do not have to equate eating for sustinance with murder, and the all knowing try looking at the Sabbe sutta which has been discussed on this forum several times!

and ignoring? try dealing with the arguments above you hapilly ignored looking at, and have been asked several times to explain your response to!


Dearest friend Cittasanto: I ignore your arguments, because they are false teachings in that they do not agree with Buddha's teachings which reduce dukkha. However, we are both in agreement regarding "road kill" (scavaging). No harm is caused in this action. The same for breathing oxygen, eating fruit, nuts, nectar, and seeds. Plants have evolved to offer these to animals in exchange for services rendered, such as reproduction and CO2 from which plants build their somatic matrices. :anjali: Ron
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: 1129
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby daverupa » Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:26 am

Is it the case that vegetarians can practice for revulsion towards body nutriment the same as non-vegetarians can? Does eating plants make one less-likely to choose to see their food as the flesh of their child, per the Sutta simile? Perhaps eating meat does so. Perhaps it's not what you eat, but what you cling to...
    "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: 4243
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests