the great vegetarian debate

[Cittasanto]

There is no arguing (or at least there shouldn't be, imo) that if the whole world were Buddhist there wouldn't and couldn't be any slaughter houses (no one to do the killing or to be the butchers). So it is at least an ideal state and perhaps a goal, but the Buddha was interested in including as many as possible on the Path from suffering, so used skillful means in my opinion and also knowing that the majority of the people in Buddhism's infancy were practicing Brahmanism (precursor to Hinduism) and still ate meat. Therefore, there is no requirement to be vegetarian, but from one perspective it can be seen as a 'goal' of practice to eventually eliminate flesh foods from purchase and then as you say, the bhikkhus would become de facto vegetarians (by default).

Certainly in an ideal world all would be practicing Buddhists, but then how many Buddhists do actually work in wrong livelihood establishments in Buddhist countries (fishing, slagughter...)? (and yes I know that is a fallacy argument as I do not know of any statistics)
it is one of those things which can not be forced on people, they will kill if they do not have a good enough reason not to, just look at so called Christian countries and Christian who keep the precept not to murder, the Catholic Church is a fine example of that sentencing people to death then getting the state to do the dirty work so on the surface their hands are clean.

[Ron-The-Elder]

ancientbuddhism añcimā bhikkhave, vaṇijjā upāsakena akaraṇīyā. Katamā pañca:
Satthavaṇijjā, sattavaṇijjā, maṃsavaṇijjā, majjavaṇijjā, visavaṇijjā.
Imā kho bhikkhave, pañca vaṇijjā upāsakena akaraṇīyāti.

“Bhikkhus, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five?

Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in.”

– Vaṇijja Sutta AN.5.177

Yes. We covered this point some time ago. There would be no need to slaughter if there were no demand. Just as there would be no business for drug pushers if there were no drug addicts.

Cittasanto: I misquoted. The story I cited came from The Jataka Tales not from The Dhammapada. Sorry. And, off hand I don't have a citation. I will have to look it up.

[Cittasanto]

Cittasanto: I misquoted. The story I cited came from The Jataka Tales not from The Dhammapada. Sorry. And, off hand I don't have a citation. I will have to look it up.

if you know of a link it would be appreciated also.

[ancientbuddhism]

Certainly in an ideal world all would be practicing Buddhists, but then how many Buddhists do actually work in wrong livelihood establishments in Buddhist countries (fishing, slagughter...)? (and yes I know that is a fallacy argument as I do not know of any statistics)
it is one of those things which can not be forced on people, they will kill if they do not have a good enough reason not to, just look at so called Christian countries and Christian who keep the precept not to murder, the Catholic Church is a fine example of that sentencing people to death then getting the state to do the dirty work so on the surface their hands are clean.

The laity often admit that they cannot keep (or even try to wrt addictions) 5 sīla, what to say of rare injunctions such as in the Vaṇijja Sutta.

I used to feel piqued about my responsibility as a recipient while walking piṇḍapāta through one of BKK’s oldest markets on Thanon Nakhon Sawan. One regular donor there is a butcher who always offered proper foods (not raw or with blood etc.), while I walked through the ice-water mixed with blood in front of their stall.

[Ron-The-Elder]

Cittasanto: I misquoted. The story I cited came from The Jataka Tales not from The Dhammapada. Sorry. And, off hand I don't have a citation. I will have to look it up.

if you know of a link it would be appreciated also.

source: http://www.informatics.buu.ac.th/~suwan ... df=1&id=53

Prince Temiya
The Temiya Jataka is the story of the Bodhisatta in his life as Temiya, who used patience and endurance in the face of
difficult obstacles in order to attain his goal, which was to avoid making bad kamma and to realize his determination to
leave the home life and become a recluse. In this life the Bodhisatta fulfilled the perfection of renunciation (nekkhamma
paramita). Prince Temiya was afraid of ascending the throne because he was saddened to see the king’s men
punishing bandits on the king’s orders, such as by flogging them a thousand times or stabbing them with spears
and knives, so he devised a strategy of pretending to be retarded, deaf and dumb. He didn’t talk to anyone. Even
when he was tested in various ways he was able to withstand them and refrained from showing any suspicious signs.
This was all in order to get out of taking over the throne. This continued until he was 16 years old. The king consulted
with his Brahmans and was advised to take the prince and bury him. The protests of his mother were fruitless, so she
asked if he could at least ascend the throne for seven days. Still the prince refused to talk. At the end of the seven days,
a charioteer took him in a chariot to be buried at the king’s orders. While they were digging the hole, the prince
stepped down from the chariot and announced the truth to the charioteer, that he intended to leave the home life. The
charioteer was inspired by his words and wanted to become a recluse with him. The prince instructed him to take the
chariot back first. The charioteer related what had happened to the prince’s mother and father, and they, together
with their ministers and royal retinue, went to invite the prince back to ascend the throne, but the prince instead
instructed them on the benefits of solitude and renunciation of sensual pleasures. The king and queen and their retinue
were inspired by his teachings and all left the home life to live the homeless life, and there were many other kings who
listened to the prince’s teaching and asked to follow him. ‘I am not going back to the palace. I have
severed myself from enjoyment of all treasures. I have endured for these 16 years. The royal treasures, the city and its
http://www.informatics.buu.ac.th/~suwanna/mambo_bak - Watpahsunan Website, Ajahn Mitsuo Gavesako, watsunantavanaram Powered by Mambo Generated: 3 August, 2012, 18

[porpoise]

Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in.”
– Vaṇijja Sutta AN.5.177

Good point.

[Cittasanto]

Hi Ron
Thanks, is it in the KN or another place?

hi porpoise
where did Ancient Buddhism quote the text to make that point?

[daverupa]

where did Ancient Buddhism quote the text to make that point?

Page 78 of this thread originally, then 87.

[Ron-The-Elder]

Hi Ron
Thanks, is it in the KN or another place?

hi porpoise
where did Ancient Buddhism quote the text to make that point?

Not sure about KN, but here is another reference to the same story:

https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/jrblack/web ... jataka.pdf

Here is another version: http://ignca.nic.in/jatak058.htm

[Cittasanto]

http://ignca.nic.in/jatak058.htm

Hi Ron,
This is to the same site I quoted from earlier with the other Jataka story, at the bottom of the page it says if it is in the pali or not, and in this case it is.

[Ron-The-Elder]

Hi, Dave.

My choices are driven not only by choices, but by health. Try to stick to vegan, but often supplement with (very) small portions of animal flesh. Mostly fish.

[yawares]

Hi, Dave.

My choices are driven not only by choices, but by health. Try to stick to vegan, but often supplement with (very) small portions of animal flesh.

Dear David and "Ron-The-Elder",

Have you ever try MOON CAKE (lotus seed/mung-bean/sessame seed inside..more special/expensive with also salty eggyolk inside.) YUMMY!!!!
you can buy at any big China town in Vegas/Houston/SanFrancisco etc. expensive but YUMMY indeed!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoGd1PZyJak

Just 1 bite and you 'll love it
yawares

[Ron-The-Elder]

Hi, Dave.

My choices are driven not only by choices, but by health. Try to stick to vegan, but often supplement with (very) small portions of animal flesh.

Dear David and "Ron-The-Elder",

Have you ever try MOON CAKE (lotus seed/mung-bean/sessame seed inside..more special/expensive with also salty eggyolk inside.) YUMMY!!!!
you can buy at any big China town in Vegas/Houston/SanFrancisco etc. expensive but YUMMY indeed!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoGd1PZyJak

Just 1 bite and you 'll love it
yawares

Hi, Yawares. Yes! Have tried Moon Cakes, and I actually at one time had a recipe for making them. These are usually found in Chinese/Asian restaurants, which also serve Dim Sum. Ron

[David N. Snyder]

Hi yawares,

mmm, those moon cakes look good. I don't think I have ever tried them. I have had those sesame/bean ball Korean/Chinese desserts; they are good too.

Ron,

Fish? And here I thought you were a Jain.

[Ron-The-Elder]

Hi yawares,

mmm, those moon cakes look good. I don't think I have ever tried them. I have had those sesame/bean ball Korean/Chinese desserts; they are good too.

Ron,

Fish? And here I thought you were a Jain.

Hi, Dave. Nope! Me not Jain. Me Tarzan!

[Cittasanto]

Hi, Dave.

My choices are driven not only by choices, but by health. Try to stick to vegan, but often supplement with (very) small portions of animal flesh. Mostly fish.

isnt that simply being omnivour or flexitarian?

but I am interested how you rational this with the standards you have expressed in this thread?

[Gibraltariana]

For me the choice to become a vegetarian was more of an animal rights issue than anything else. Who am I to say a livi.g creature has to die so I can eat. Today there are so many resources available to vegetarians to meet their nutritional needs that eating meat is a choice. It's also a personal one, so I don't preach at omnivores.

[Ron-The-Elder]

Hi, Dave.

My choices are driven not only by choices, but by health. Try to stick to vegan, but often supplement with (very) small portions of animal flesh. Mostly fish.

isnt that simply being omnivour or flexitarian?

but I am interested how you rational this with the standards you have expressed in this thread?

Dear Friend Cittasanto: My rationale for Medical Veganism is simple, "Fear of death or worse.", which was derived of open heart surgery in 1998, an enarterectomy in 1999 (left carotid surgery), Over 100 Ischemic strokes to right brain perfused from right carotid in 2012, Massive bladder infections due to hospital bred super- version of e-colae bacteria introduced by a poorly managed Foley catheter, while in Intensive Care Unit post surgery.

reference: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=13150&start=20

I still insist that there is no moral superiority for veganism. Veganism is simply a choice which is made for either moral, medical, ethical,environmental or religious reasons. "All life must consume other life to live." And I have stated previously, I hold plant life to be as sacred as all forms of animals, if not more so. As a student and practitioner of Buddhism since 1998 I have learned that all intentional actions (khamma) results in consequences (khamma Vippakha), including dietary habits. My choice to practice Medical veganism was derived from my own personal experience as to health, and a fear of death, which can be stated as clinging to life.

Through study and debate of the issue over the years I have come to understand the environmental, sociological, and the enormous degree of suffering caused by living as a carnivore, and have become motivated to avoid where and when ever possible, while being tolerant of others, who choose to find their nutrition otherwise. My cats,my wife, family members, friends, and neighbors are prime examples.

The ideal nutritional practice, because it causes the least harm, I have to come to understand is that of fruitatarian, and scavenger, because it meets the requirements of The Noble Eight Fold Path (Right View/Harmonious View) and (Right /Harmonious Livelihood) Ron

[Cittasanto]

Hi, Dave.

My choices are driven not only by choices, but by health. Try to stick to vegan, but often supplement with (very) small portions of animal flesh. Mostly fish.

isnt that simply being omnivour or flexitarian?

but I am interested how you rational this with the standards you have expressed in this thread?

Dear Friend Cittasanto: My rationale for Medical Veganism is simple, "Fear of death or worse.", which was derived of open heart surgery in 1998, an enarterectomy in 1999 (left carotid surgery), Over 100 Ischemic strokes to right brain perfused from right carotid in 2012, Massive bladder infections due to hospital bred super- version of e-colae bacteria introduced by a poorly managed Foley catheter, while in Intensive Care Unit post surgery.

reference: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=13150&start=20

I still insist that there is no moral superiority for veganism. Veganism is simply a choice which is made for either moral, medical, ethical,environmental or religious reasons. "All life must consume other life to live." And I have stated previously, I hold plant life to be as sacred as all forms of animals, if not more so. As a student and practitioner of Buddhism since 1998 I have learned that all intentional actions (khamma) results in consequences (khamma Vippakha), including dietary habits. My choice to practice Medical veganism was derived from my own personal experience as to health, and a fear of death, which can be stated as clinging to life.

Through study and debate of the issue over the years I have come to understand the environmental, sociological, and the enormous degree of suffering caused by living as a carnivore, and have become motivated to avoid where and when ever possible, while being tolerant of others, who choose to find their nutrition otherwise. My cats,my wife, family members, friends, and neighbors are prime examples.

The ideal nutritional practice, because it causes the least harm, I have to come to understand is that of fruitatarian, and scavenger, because it meets the requirements of The Noble Eight Fold Path (Right View/Harmonious View) and (Right /Harmonious Livelihood) Ron

I am really sorry ron but you have not mentioned medical or health reasons at all until now as a reason although you do mention health and it was this

As for all the health arguments: Vegans get to live in Samsara longer than carnivores. That is a general medical fact, when you ignore genetics. I am not sure if that is necessarily a good thing based on what I have seen over the years visiting long-lived relatives in nursing homes. If we can live healthily and independently then there is probably some merit in that.

and my argument using health

So, your argument that these people don't have a choice does not hold water.

that actually wasn't my argument, and there was more than just that one part!
There are reasons due to certain conditions beyond our control (such as weather/climate, location, social situation, health, famine to name a few) which can effect.

and I make reference to it as a reason here viewtopic.php?f=16&t=9229&start=1660#p197899

[Ron-The-Elder]

Dear Friend Cittasanto: And your point is?

by Bhikkhu Pesala » Thu Mar 05, 2009 1:33 pm

In my opinion a Buddhist shouldn't be a strict vegetarian or vegan. To take such a stance would just be attachment to views. The Āmagandha Sutta makes it clear. To be a vegetarian for reasons of health or frugality makes more sense than for reasons of ethics.

If you lived near a farm where the farmer grew cabbages, and you knew that the farmer shot rabbits. Then at the farm shop, would you buy cabbages, or rabbit meat, both, or neither? On what basis would you make that decision?

All modern farming methods involve the intentional destruction of living beings — even for growing vegetables. If you have time, you can grow your own organic veggies and take reasonable care to ensure that no living beings are killed in the process, but growing wheat and making your own bread is not easy. So, why not just be mindful of your intention and save a whole lot of grief that arises from attachment to views?

In four ways one can break the precept of killing living beings:
One kills living beings by one's own hand
One urges another to do it
One grants permission to another to do it
One speaks in praise of killing

My other point you apparently miss, or with which you disagree, is that Plants are life-forms, too and in many respects sentient if not sapient! Therefore none of us are free from the guilt of killing to eat except for fruitatarianism and scavaging.

In my case, health put me down the nutritional path that I am on.

āmagandha

A brahmin. Before the appearance of the Buddha in the world, āmagandha became an ascetic and lived in the region of the Himālaya with five hundred pupils. They ate neither fish nor flesh. Every year they came down from their hermitage in search of salt and vinegar, and the inhabitants of a village near by received them with great honour and showed them every hospitality for four months.

Then one day the Buddha, with his monks, visited the same village, and the people having listened to his preaching became his followers. That year when āmagandha and his disciples went as usual to the village, the householders did not show towards them the same enthusiasm as heretofore. The brahmin, enquiring what had happened, was full of excitement on hearing that the Buddha had been born, and wished to know if he ate "āmagandha," by which he meant fish or flesh. He was greatly disappointed on learning that the Buddha did not forbid the eating of āmagandha, but, desiring to hear about it from the Buddha himself, he sought him at Jetavana. The Buddha told him that āmagandha was not really fish or flesh, but that it referred to evil actions, and that he who wished to avoid it should abstain from evil deeds of every kind. The same question had been put to the Buddha Kassapa by an ascetic named Tissa, who later became his chief disciple. In giving an account of the conversation between Kassapa Buddha and Tissa, the Buddha preached to āmagandha the āmagandha Sutta. The Brahmin and his followers entered the Order and in a few days became arahants. Sn., pp.42-5; SnA.i.278ff.

āmagandha Sutta.-The conversation between the Buddha and the brahmin āmagandha mentioned above (Sn.42ff). According to Buddhaghosa (SnA.i.280ff) this was merely a reproduction of the conversation of the Buddha Kassapa with the ascetic Tissa, who later became his chief disciple.

The sutta is particularly interesting as being one of the few passages in which sayings of the previous Buddhas are recorded. The Buddha's view is put forward as being identical with that which had been enunciated long ago, with the intended implication that it was a self-evident proposition accepted by all the wise.