the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1909
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ron-The-Elder »

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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
Buddha
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: Centre of Universe

Are you a vegetarian/vegan?

Post by Buddha »

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
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Are you a vegetarian/vegan?

Post by Cittasanto »

you may wish to look at these polls
Which diet are you?
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... arian+poll" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Poll: Are you vegetarian/vegan?
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... arian+poll" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Cittasanto »

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.]
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
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1909
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ron-The-Elder »

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
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Cittasanto »

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.
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
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1909
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ron-The-Elder »

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
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Cittasanto »

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.
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
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1909
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ron-The-Elder »

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
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Cittasanto »

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!
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
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1909
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ron-The-Elder »

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.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by daverupa »

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
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1909
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ron-The-Elder »

daverupa wrote: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...
I think this is exactly right, because it is clinging to views, which causes suffering, which you can see on these boards. The reality is that life must consume life in order to live. The question is, "which forms and methods of consumption cause the least harm?"....This is what a Buddha would teach. Eating the least amount necessary (Eating to live.) rather than "living to eat". Scavaging for animals who died from accidental causes, and eating what plants have to offer in forms of nuts, seeds, nectar, and fruit violates none of the precepts held in common amongst all schools of Buddhism. These methods cause the least amount of harm in my estimation. :hug: :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.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by daverupa »

Ron-The-Elder wrote:The question is, "which forms and methods of consumption cause the least harm?"....This is what a Buddha would teach.
Nutriment is dukkha; this is what is taught, not "choose nutriment that is best":
SN 12.11 wrote:Monks, there are these four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born. Which four? Physical food, gross or refined... Now, these four nutriments have what as their cause, what as their origination, what as their source, what as that which brings them into play? These four nutriments have craving as their cause, craving as their origination, craving as their source, craving as that which brings them into play...
  • "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
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ben »

daverupa wrote:
Ron-The-Elder wrote:The question is, "which forms and methods of consumption cause the least harm?"....This is what a Buddha would teach.
Nutriment is dukkha; this is what is taught, not "choose nutriment that is best":
SN 12.11 wrote:Monks, there are these four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born. Which four? Physical food, gross or refined... Now, these four nutriments have what as their cause, what as their origination, what as their source, what as that which brings them into play? These four nutriments have craving as their cause, craving as their origination, craving as their source, craving as that which brings them into play...
Well said, Dave!
“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]..
Post Reply