the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Hanzze
Posts: 1906
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 12:47 pm
Location: Cambodia

Re: David's Book: Vegetarians/Bhuddists Q/A

Post by Hanzze »

Those which are nead :tongue: If I tell you about good fruits, you maybe would like to have them and they would cut more forest, till the lands make it to places without the possibility for any rebrith to get some benefit from it.

What fruits are growing next to you in your neigborhood?
Just that! *smile*
...We Buddhists must find the courage to leave our temples and enter the temples of human experience, temples that are filled with suffering. If we listen to Buddha, Christ, or Gandhi, we can do nothing else. The refugee camps, the prisons, the ghettos, and the battlefields will become our temples. We have so much work to do. ... Peace is Possible! Step by Step. - Samtach Preah Maha Ghosananda "Step by Step" http://www.ghosananda.org/bio_book.html

BUT! it is important to become a real Buddhist first. Like Punna did: Punna Sutta Nate sante baram sokham _()_
User avatar
yawares
Posts: 1531
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: David's Book: Vegetarians/Bhuddists Q/A

Post by yawares »

Hanzze wrote:Those which are nead :tongue: If I tell you about good fruits, you maybe would like to have them and they would cut more forest, till the lands make it to places without the possibility for any rebrith to get some benefit from it.

What fruits are growing next to you in your neigborhood?

Dear Hanzze,
I'll post Thai fruits tomorrow...I think Thailand/Cambodia have same kind of exotic fruits :heart:
yawares
User avatar
Hanzze
Posts: 1906
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 12:47 pm
Location: Cambodia

Re: David's Book: Vegetarians/Bhuddists Q/A

Post by Hanzze »

Mind is the forerunner of all (good) conditions!

And its not a matter of which kind of pleasure one craves for, but that craving for pleasure is the cause of unpleasant results. For one self and for others.

Cambodians traditionally do not eat much fruits, just what the find next to them, seasonal food next to them. I guess it was not different some times ago in Thailand as well. Now we even can gain motorbikes and TV throught serving for the desire for pleasure of the world.

So good. They even start to eat more fruits, as they have more money jet and it does not depend on season and region any more. We live in a great world of compassion, arn't we. We even have zoo's and wildlife foundations now and animal founds.

From 70% forest to about 14% in only 30 years, but the export increases and we all are so wealth and even health now.

Does anybody know how old "buddist" the vegitarian boom is?
Just that! *smile*
...We Buddhists must find the courage to leave our temples and enter the temples of human experience, temples that are filled with suffering. If we listen to Buddha, Christ, or Gandhi, we can do nothing else. The refugee camps, the prisons, the ghettos, and the battlefields will become our temples. We have so much work to do. ... Peace is Possible! Step by Step. - Samtach Preah Maha Ghosananda "Step by Step" http://www.ghosananda.org/bio_book.html

BUT! it is important to become a real Buddhist first. Like Punna did: Punna Sutta Nate sante baram sokham _()_
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 »

I think that I could have made Buddha into a vegan if I had introduced him to a Thai dish I have only found in Rochester, New York called : "Evil Prince in The Jungle". It is made with Thai egg plant, bean sprouts, rice noodles, chilly peppers, garlic, fresh basil, and minced onions. I don't believe onions and garlic were allowed, though. "Excellent Dish!" I don't really know why. :coffee:
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
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: David's Book: Vegetarians/Bhuddists Q/A

Post by DNS »

Hanzze wrote: Does anybody know how old "buddhist" the vegetarian boom is?
That is hard to say. Is there a boom? There does seem to be somewhat of an increased interest among convert Buddhists. There appears to have been some interest at least all the way back to Ashoka's time, which was very soon after the parinibbana of Buddha.
Ashoka's Edicts wrote: Those nanny goats, ewes and sows which are with young or giving milk to their young are protected, and so are young ones less than six months old. Cocks are not to be caponized, husks hiding living beings are not to be burnt and forests are not to be burnt either without reason or to kill creatures. One animal is not to be fed to another. On the three Caturmasis, the three days of Tisa and during the fourteenth and fifteenth of the Uposatha, fish are protected and not to be sold.

Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always. And in time, not even these three creatures will be killed.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el386.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ron-The-Elder wrote:I think that I could have made Buddha into a vegan if I had introduced him to a Thai dish I have only found in Rochester, New York called : "Evil Prince in The Jungle". It is made with Thai egg plant, bean sprouts, rice noodles, chilly peppers, garlic, fresh basil, and minced onions. I don't believe onions and garlic were allowed, though. "Excellent Dish!" I don't really know why. :coffee:
I know you're joking since the Buddha followed the 3-fold rule, but "Evil Prince in the Jungle" ? :tongue:
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 »

This WIKI seems to cover most points including "What Buddha said". Unfortunately what he said to Theravadins, Mahayana, and Vajrayanins seems to differ. That may explain the variations in opinion regarding the topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_vegetarianism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; :anjali:
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
GraemeR
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:20 am
Location: Thailand

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by GraemeR »

Spiny O'Norman wrote:
So if as Buddhists we choose to buy meat we are expecting somebody else to engage in wrong livelihood.

Spiny
Hmmm If I pay a hired assassin (slaughterman) to kill my wife in an abattoir, do I avoid culpability for her death? :broke:

A clear conscience and all that insurance money :clap:

Graham
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 »

GraemeR wrote:
Hmmm If I pay a hired assassin (slaughterman) to kill my wife in an abattoir, do I avoid culpability for her death? :broke:

A clear conscience and all that insurance money :clap:

Graham
the difference here is one is actively engaged in the process of the murder of the wife (in the example).
there is murderous intent.

but how many people go to the shops with the intent to kill an animal?
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
GraemeR
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:20 am
Location: Thailand

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by GraemeR »

Cittasanto wrote: the difference here is one is actively engaged in the process of the murder of the wife (in the example).
there is murderous intent.

but how many people go to the shops with the intent to kill an animal?
I'm not sure where you can draw the line, if I was a farmer with a pig and I took it to an abattoir to be slaughtered for me, then I know exactly what is going to happen and I am instructing someone to do it,

If I walk to work and stand on an ant, then it's clearly not intention to kill, if I go in a supermarket and buy meat, I know someone has to kill the animal on my behalf.

It may not be direct intention, but I know exactly what will have happened.

Maybe I could argue it's not my direct intention for the assassin to kill my wife, just for me to receive the insurance money :)

Graham
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 »

GraemeR wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: the difference here is one is actively engaged in the process of the murder of the wife (in the example).
there is murderous intent.

but how many people go to the shops with the intent to kill an animal?
I'm not sure where you can draw the line, if I was a farmer with a pig and I took it to an abattoir to be slaughtered for me, then I know exactly what is going to happen and I am instructing someone to do it,

If I walk to work and stand on an ant, then it's clearly not intention to kill, if I go in a supermarket and buy meat, I know someone has to kill the animal on my behalf.

It may not be direct intention, but I know exactly what will have happened.

Maybe I could argue it's not my direct intention for the assassin to kill my wife, just for me to receive the insurance money :)

Graham
The fact that there is no intent to kill is the line.
Knowing death happened and being the cause through intention are not the same, when you see fruit and veg the same has actually happened, animals and other life have been killed in the production.

also each factor should be in place = object (a living being) -> intention (to kill) -> Effort (to cause death) -> death (through effort)

lets put this into your wife example
object (your wife) -> intention (to kill) -> Effort (hiring an assassin to kill wife) -> death (of wife through assassins effort)
so long as the there is an intent to kill the object, and through an effort to kill the object when the object dies the full fault happens.

i know there is a certain amount of insects going to be in vegetarian food and I know they had to loose there life at some point in the production also. that doesnt stop me eating vegetarian food.
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
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

GraemeR wrote:... if I go in a supermarket and buy meat, I know someone has to kill the animal on my behalf.
It may not be direct intention, but I know exactly what will have happened.
I agree. It isn't just about intention, it's about clear comprehension of consequences. We know full well that if we choose to buy meat it will lead to more animals suffering and being slaughtered, but some of us do it anyway - presumably because we like meat and don't want to give it up.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
GraemeR
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:20 am
Location: Thailand

the great vegetarian debate

Post by GraemeR »

Cittasanto wrote: The fact that there is no intent to kill is the line.
Knowing death happened and being the cause through intention are not the same, when you see fruit and veg the same has actually happened, animals and other life have been killed in the production.

also each factor should be in place = object (a living being) -> intention (to kill) -> Effort (to cause death) -> death (through effort)

lets put this into your wife example
object (your wife) -> intention (to kill) -> Effort (hiring an assassin to kill wife) -> death (of wife through assassins effort)
so long as the there is an intent to kill the object, and through an effort to kill the object when the object dies the full fault happens.

i know there is a certain amount of insects going to be in vegetarian food and I know they had to loose there life at some point in the production also. that doesnt stop me eating vegetarian food.
Is wanting the insurance money different to wanting to eat a dead animal??

OK so if I just want the insurance money, her death in inconsequential to me and I am not accountable.

object (my wife) -> intention (to get insurance money) -> Effort (hiring an agent to take action to gain insurance money) -> death (of wife through third party's effort)

I know I'm being pedantic, but I think when you know the results of your actions will have a bad effect, then you should share some guilt.

Graham
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 »

Hi Graham
GraemeR wrote:Is wanting the insurance money different to wanting to eat a dead animal??

OK so if I just want the insurance money, her death in inconsequential to me and I am not accountable.
you are mixing up intentions here!
the intent to kill and intent to get the insurance money are two different intentions.
object (my wife) -> intention (to get insurance money) -> Effort (hiring an agent to take action to gain insurance money) -> death (of wife through third party's effort)

I know I'm being pedantic, but I think when you know the results of your actions will have a bad effect, then you should share some guilt.
if the "third party acted independently from you i.e., you had not engaged them for services; you would not be accountable for the death, even though the insurance still paid you.

your example and association with buying meat are on two different levels, although are not 100% removed, are not comparable.
what you are talking about is intention, particularly good-will, and kamma which is both light and dark; not the precept and dark kamma.
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
GraemeR
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:20 am
Location: Thailand

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by GraemeR »

Cittasanto wrote:Hi Graham

you are mixing up intentions here!
the intent to kill and intent to get the insurance money are two different intentions.

<snip>

your example and association with buying meat are on two different levels, although are not 100% removed, are not comparable.
what you are talking about is intention, particularly good-will, and kamma which is both light and dark; not the precept and dark kamma.
Hi Cittasanto

I accept I'm being facetious for the sake of the debate, but try looking at it this way:

To get insurance money:
object (my wife) -> intention (to get insurance money) -> Effort (hiring agent to create a circumstance to get money) ->Effect (death of wife through agents action)
If my intention is only to get the money and I only instruct an 'agent' to create the circumstance, am I guilty if he chooses to kill her?

To eat meat
object (Piece of dead animal: meat) -> intention (eat flesh of dead animal) -> Effort (by buying meat, indirectly hiring agent to slaughter animal) ->Effect (death of animal through agents effort, part of corpse given to me)

This time I know the animal must die to achieve the objective. If I hire the agent to get the insurance money, he could choose an alternative method, perhaps fraud. If he chooses to kill her, instead of creating an insurance fraud, am I responsible for my wife's death?

Graham
User avatar
Polar Bear
Posts: 1348
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Polar Bear »

GraemeR wrote:
To eat meat
object (Piece of dead animal: meat) -> intention (eat flesh of dead animal) -> Effort (by buying meat, indirectly hiring agent to slaughter animal) ->Effect (death of animal through agents effort, part of corpse given to me)

This time I know the animal must die to achieve the objective. If I hire the agent to get the insurance money, he could choose an alternative method, perhaps fraud. If he chooses to kill her, instead of creating an insurance fraud, am I responsible for my wife's death?

Graham
You seem to either be ignoring or not understanding the fact that the animal is already dead and you can't do anything about it. If you go to a grocery store to buy a steak, when you get there the animal has already been dead for days/weeks. You had nothing to do with the animal getting killed and there is no way you could have stopped that animal from being killed. If you're lost in the wilderness and hungry and you come across a dead deer carcass that was killed by wolves and decide to eat the deer meat, did you indirectly hire the wolves to kill the deer? No.

:namaste:
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
Post Reply