the great vegetarian debate

[Mr Man]

To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales.

Was general siha involved in killing animals
when he fed meat to the monks?

I'm not sure of the relevance. Can't you see the connection between eating meat and the killing of animals though? Animals are killed so humans can eat meat - it is that simple. If you want to eat meat eat meat but be grown up and except responsibility. Maybe it isn't a big deal? I certainly don't see diet as a great barometer of wisdom or compassion.

[Cittasanto]

To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales.

Was general siha involved in killing animals
when he fed meat to the monks?

I'm not sure of the relevance. Can't you see the connection between eating meat and the killing of animals though? Animals are killed so humans can eat meat - it is that simple. If you want to eat meat eat meat but be grown up and except responsibility. Maybe it isn't a big deal? I certainly don't see diet as a great barometer of wisdom or compassion.

hopefully this will clear up the relevance.

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.

[Mr Man]

hopefully this will clear up the relevance.

Thanks Cittasanto, I knew what was being refered to but I do not see it's relevance to my comment. Is it meant as a rebuttal?

[LonesomeYogurt]

Yes. Well, there are mountains of data that illustrate that the production of food in general involves the mass destruction of living beings.

From a purely utilitarian standpoint, it is hard to argue that a strict vegetarian diet is even close to as destructive as one based on meat; moreover, from a philosophical standpoint, it's far more reasonable to advocate a system that unintentionally results in collateral damage over one that is designed specifically to kill.

[tiltbillings]

Yes. Well, there are mountains of data that illustrate that the production of food in general involves the mass destruction of living beings.

From a purely utilitarian standpoint, it is hard to argue that a strict vegetarian diet is even close to as destructive as one based on meat; moreover, from a philosophical standpoint, it's far more reasonable to advocate a system that unintentionally results in collateral damage over one that is designed specifically to kill.

Naw. Once you know that what you eat entails death and a lot of it, you know. Trying to say that this death is of lesser importance than that death is self-serving.

[Ben]

How about eating the deceased (humans)?

e92c44d2ca970b524a49ae4a2e0da1bf (1).jpg (393.36 KiB) Viewed 414 times

[LonesomeYogurt]

Naw. Once you know that what you eat entails death and a lot of it, you know. Trying to say that this death is of lesser importance than that death is self-serving.

You honestly don't see a difference between harvesting non-living things, incapable of suffering, in ways that result in the death of lesser beings, and killing living beings directly to eat their dead bodies? There isn't even the slightest bit of difference between those two?

It hardly matters anyway, considering that the meat industry is not an alternative but an addition to industrial agriculture; after all, what do you think we feed to cows to make them nice and fat?

[tiltbillings]

Naw. Once you know that what you eat entails death and a lot of it, you know. Trying to say that this death is of lesser importance than that death is self-serving.

You honestly don't see a difference between harvesting non-living things, incapable of suffering, in ways that result in the death of lesser beings, and killing living beings directly to eat their dead bodies? There isn't even the slightest bit of difference between those two?

I am not talking about harvesting non-living things. The act of planting and maintaining and harvesting grains, for example, is highly destructive of "lesser beings" and has a detrimental, deadly, impact, on the environment. And you are going to distinguish between "lesser beings," such as insects, rodents, birds, and other such mammals and such that are directly impacted by farming and "higher beings" such as cattle and sheep? Life is predicated upon death.

[DAWN]

It's impossible to delete all harm, it's possible to minimize it as it possible. Termodinamic law dont allow us to exist without any distruction.

A cow eat 25 pounds of corn per day (11.36kg), one meal per day is about 100g (0.22 Lbs).
By simple calcul we see that for feed one cow, we can feed 100 monks.

http://www.youaskandy.com/questions-ans ... -eat-.html

[Ben]

It's impossible to delete all harm, it's possible to minimize it as it possible. Termodinamic law dont allow us to exist without any distruction.

A cow eat 25 pounds of corn per day (11.36kg), one meal per day is about 100g (0.22 Lbs).
By simple calcul we see that for feed one cow, we can feed 100 monks.

http://www.youaskandy.com/questions-ans ... -eat-.html

And how many people will one cow feed?

[DAWN]

It's impossible to delete all harm, it's possible to minimize it as it possible. Termodinamic law dont allow us to exist without any distruction.

A cow eat 25 pounds of corn per day (11.36kg), one meal per day is about 100g (0.22 Lbs).
By simple calcul we see that for feed one cow, we can feed 100 monks.

http://www.youaskandy.com/questions-ans ... -eat-.html

And how many people will one cow feed?

If i understand rightly your queestion,
One cow can eat 2 humans per day

[Cittasanto]

hopefully this will clear up the relevance.

Thanks Cittasanto, I knew what was being refered to but I do not see it's relevance to my comment. Is it meant as a rebuttal?

I can not speak for RobertK.
But in my opinion section 13 does show we are not responsible for future actions, after the fact, for our intent to buy food. It is our intention that matters not another's possible actions.

[DAWN]

We have to stop to be so egocentric...

My intention, my kamma, my ass bla bla bla... and the fact that some living beings die, we have no metter.

Very good, very good. The Lord Buddha would be pride of us.

[Mr Man]

hopefully this will clear up the relevance.

Thanks Cittasanto, I knew what was being refered to but I do not see it's relevance to my comment. Is it meant as a rebuttal?

I can not speak for RobertK.
But in my opinion section 13 does show we are not responsible for future actions, after the fact, for our intent to buy food. It is our intention that matters not another's possible actions.

So can you not see a connection between the eating of meat and the killing of animals?

[Cittasanto]

Thanks Cittasanto, I knew what was being refered to but I do not see it's relevance to my comment. Is it meant as a rebuttal?

I can not speak for RobertK.
But in my opinion section 13 does show we are not responsible for future actions, after the fact, for our intent to buy food. It is our intention that matters not another's possible actions.

So can you not see a connection between the eating of meat and the killing of animals?

on a business plan level, but can you not see the difference in ones own and another's actions?
but what I can or can not see has no relation on what the Buddha taught on the matter of responsibility for ones own actions.

[Cittasanto]

We have to stop to be so egocentric...

My intention, my kamma, my ass bla bla bla... and the fact that some living beings die, we have no metter.

Very good, very good. The Lord Buddha would be pride of us.

the world is ourselves in the Buddhas teaching and it is ourselves that we correct instead of pointing the finger at others.

[Mr Man]

So can you not see a connection between the eating of meat and the killing of animals?

on a business plan level, but can you not see the difference in ones own and another's actions?
but what I can or can not see has no relation on what the Buddha taught on the matter of responsibility for ones own actions.

Cittasanto, you don't seem to have answed my question.

To answer your question; of couse I can see the difference between my own actions and those of another but I also know there is relationship.

[DAWN]

[Cittasanto]

So can you not see a connection between the eating of meat and the killing of animals?

on a business plan level, but can you not see the difference in ones own and another's actions?
but what I can or can not see has no relation on what the Buddha taught on the matter of responsibility for ones own actions.

Cittasanto, you don't seem to have answed my question.

To answer your question; of couse I can see the difference between my own actions and those of another but I also know there is relationship.

from previous expressions of others this "relationship" is placed to close together by equating buying food with oneself directly killing when this is not happening.
but to clarify my short response earlier (sorry for delay I had to run out)
There is a connection on a Business plan level, i.e. the level in which we have no say or control. there are several factors that are accounted for here, from sales period to year on year analysis and projections based on current sales trends in previous weeks and months and current stock levels. this is wrong livelihood and it is here that the connection is.

[DAWN]

Imagine that there is some theif, who come into your home and steal somethink that have a very big importance to you, some unic object, that only you have it, the vase that you made with your dead parents when you was little, the vase on wich we can see their prints...
This wase were stolen by this theif, and he sell it to some one.
It was a tragedy for you, horrible moment.
And once, you go for a dinner for your new friend, who love rare and unic objects. So taking a meal with him at his home, he tell you that his beatifull and very expensive collection comes frome some one who can get it, but he dont care, because he pay fot it, he pay many money because he knows that this man make all very clear, and so he has never any problem with object from him.
Your friend was very rich and very powerfull, he was proud of him self, and to show you his wealth, he said:
- Watch at me, how i'am powerfull and ritch, now i will take my favorite vase, the last one what i bought for 5 billion dollars, and i will broke it ! blow it off ! So he take your vase and blow it off

What you will do ? Tell me please...