the great vegetarian debate

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation
User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 3208
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Spiny Norman » Sat Sep 07, 2013 8:47 am

daverupa wrote:But now it's a choice between someone who doesn't care, and someone who not only likes meat but doesn't want to give it up. Neither one was denoted at first, so how can either one be the specific group I meant?


So which specific group did you mean? I'm still not clear. On the face of it there seems to be 3 possibilities:
1. People who don't like eating meat;
2. People who don't care /mind what they eat;
3. People who like eating meat.
"I ride tandem with the random, Things don't run the way I planned them, In the humdrum."
Peter Gabriel lyric

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 3208
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Spiny Norman » Sat Sep 07, 2013 8:52 am

clw_uk wrote:However if someone goes for a meal at someone's house and is offered a slice of turkey as part of the meal, they should eat it. Otherwise they are clinging to the ideal of vegetarianism instead of practicing equanimity.


I see your point here, particularly if the turkey has already been cooked and would be eaten by somebody else or thrown away ( as per the 3-fold rule ). But from a practical point of view I'd find this difficult because I now find meat revolting, it really feels like eating flesh - so, yes there is some aversion but it's not causing harm to anyone - on the contrary, it means I'm not contributing to the suffering involved in breeding and killing animals for food.
"I ride tandem with the random, Things don't run the way I planned them, In the humdrum."
Peter Gabriel lyric

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 2981
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Alex123 » Sat Sep 07, 2013 10:43 am

Spiny Norman wrote:So which specific group did you mean? I'm still not clear. On the face of it there seems to be 3 possibilities:
1. People who don't like eating meat;
2. People who don't care /mind what they eat;
3. People who like eating meat.


What about 4th group which includes "eating for protein and, perhaps, saturated fat"?
"dust to dust...."

User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby seeker242 » Sat Sep 07, 2013 10:47 am

Alex123 wrote:
seeker242 wrote:Yes! However, those differences become completely irrelevant when speaking in the context of a 2,500 calorie diet that is balanced from a variety of plant foods.


If a person needs at least 100g of protein, then what vegetarian foods do you suggest?

While I do soak and blend cashews or pumpkin seeds, because they are too high in calories (and only eating them is iffy), it is not the optimum for me, for now. Not considering the cost either.

Also, whey is optimum post workout shake, but it is not vegetarian food. :( There is no equivalent vegetarian substitute for it. I am not going to take soy.


For bodybuilders I would assume it would be more difficult if there is not soy, but not impossible I would think. Not really sure because I'm not a bodybuilder. Below is a normal person sample menu.

Image

Now if you were to add one clark builder bar (20g), or something like that, that would bring you to almost 100g. For people I have read about that don't use soy, they usually use some kind of non soy protein supplement shake like Pea, Brown Rice, Chlorella, Buckwheat, Spirulina, or Hemp Protein. If you really want to look into it though, the folks over at http://veganbodybuilding.com have it all figured out. But of course the supplement shakes are more expensive than just normal food and of course you need to have access to places to purchase them.

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 2981
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Alex123 » Sat Sep 07, 2013 10:57 am

Hello seeker242,

Thank you for your post. The problem is that one of the highest protein food still has too much others (carbs/fats). For example, I've calculated that I can take about 1500calories from cashews per meal to eat ~48g of protein. I am drinking it right now. That is my breakfast.

As for shakes. Some cheap whey (2lb and 5lb) jars are cheaper for protein than most food, (except for red kidney beans). As much as I like red kidney beans, it would be tough to eat them every day. It is easy to find cheap whey, but I haven't seen vegetarian protein jars being sold in as many places.
Last edited by Alex123 on Sat Sep 07, 2013 11:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
"dust to dust...."

User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby seeker242 » Sat Sep 07, 2013 11:07 am

mikenz66 wrote:
clw_uk wrote:In the sense of it involves killing a human, then yes. However this is no different to the killing of cows for meat. Therefore if a monk visited Hannibal lectres house, and he provides a meal of liver and beans, with some wine ;) the monk would have to eat it, as long as he hadn't seen it or suspected the guy was killed for him to eat, yet not drink the wine ;)

This would be an un-allowable food so would be refused.
The following types of meat are unallowable: that of human beings, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, and hyenas. Human beings, horses, and elephants were regarded as too noble to be used as food. The other types of meat were forbidden either on grounds that they were repulsive ("People criticized and complained and spread it about, 'How can these Sakyan-son monks eat dog meat? Dogs are loathsome, disgusting'") or dangerous (bhikkhus, smelling of lion's flesh, went into the jungle; the lions there, instead of criticizing or complaining, attacked them).
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... h08-4.html


Perhaps someone with a good knowledge of the vinaya could confirm, but my impression is that bhikkus are not required to eat everything that is offered (which would clearly be impossible in most cases). They are free to choose from what is offered. That's what I've always observed of a variety of Bhikkhus.

Of courses, in some circumstances (such as those described by Ajahn Brahm in Isaan in the early 1970's) there is little choice, so eating frogs or whatever might be the only way to get enough food. However, that sort of situation is probably uncommon today.

:anjali:
Mike


I was reading something yesterday that gave me the impression that if a monk sees meat in his bowl and does not recognize what kind it is, he MUST ask what kind it is so he can discern if he can accept it or not. If he does not, he commits an offense.

"To eat human flesh entails a thullaccaya; to eat any of the other unallowable types, a dukkaṭa (Mv.VI.23.9-15). If a bhikkhu is uncertain as to the identity of any meat presented to him, he incurs a dukkaṭa if he doesn't ask the donor what it is before eating it (Mv.VI.23.9). The Commentary interprets this as meaning that if, on reflection, one recognizes what kind of meat it is, one needn't ask the donor about the identity of the meat. If one doesn't recognize it, one must ask. If one mistakenly identifies an unallowable sort of meat as allowable and then goes ahead and consumes it under that mistaken assumption, there is no offense." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... h08-4.html

It seems obvious that a bhikkhu is certainly not required to eat anything offered. If that were the case, then there would be no dukkaṭa for not asking about meat of an uncertain origin. A bhikkhu would not be allowed to eat at Hannibal lectres house! Even if it was not "seen, heard or suspected" the guy was killed for him to eat. With regards to unallowable types of meat, it appears that "seen, heard or suspected" becomes irrelevant. That is how I read it anyway.

:namaste:

Alex123 wrote:Hello seeker242,

Thank you for your post. The problem is that one of the highest protein food still has too much others (carbs/fats). For example, I've calculated that I can take about 1500calories from cashews per meal to eat ~48g of protein. I am drinking it right now. That is my breakfast.

As for shakes. Some cheap whey (2lb and 5lb) jars are cheaper for protein than most food, (except for red kidney beans). As much as I like red kidney beans, it would be tough to eat them every day.


Thank you for saying thank you! :smile:

:namaste:

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 3208
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Spiny Norman » Sat Sep 07, 2013 1:03 pm

Alex123 wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:So which specific group did you mean? I'm still not clear. On the face of it there seems to be 3 possibilities:
1. People who don't like eating meat;
2. People who don't care /mind what they eat;
3. People who like eating meat.


What about 4th group which includes "eating for protein and, perhaps, saturated fat"?


I'd class that as a subset of group 3. Leaving aside the issue of which type of protein is better, I think it is clear that we can get protein from non-meat foodstuffs - lots of people do.
"I ride tandem with the random, Things don't run the way I planned them, In the humdrum."
Peter Gabriel lyric

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 2981
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Alex123 » Sat Sep 07, 2013 1:14 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:
Alex123 wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:So which specific group did you mean? I'm still not clear. On the face of it there seems to be 3 possibilities:
1. People who don't like eating meat;
2. People who don't care /mind what they eat;
3. People who like eating meat.


What about 4th group which includes "eating for protein and, perhaps, saturated fat"?


I'd class that as a subset of group 3. Leaving aside the issue of which type of protein is better, I think it is clear that we can get protein from non-meat foodstuffs - lots of people do.



Well the problem is that good vegetarian sources of protein have also a lot of calories coming from carbs/fat. If one needs higher protein intake without considerably higher calories, then it is tough without either meat or pure protein shakes (the best of which are whey).
"dust to dust...."

dagon
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:45 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby dagon » Sat Sep 07, 2013 1:25 pm

chownah wrote:
David N. Snyder wrote:A bhikkhu can refuse certain foods, for example those from the kinds of meat not allowable or for example, a bottle of liquor. The threefold rule does not require the monk to accept everything. Also, if food is offered at the wrong time, i.e., in the afternoon, it must also be refused.

mikenz66 wrote:Of courses, in some circumstances (such as those described by Ajahn Brahm in Isaan in the early 1970's) there is little choice, so eating frogs or whatever might be the only way to get enough food. However, that sort of situation is probably uncommon today.


I have often wondered about this one. AB mentions this event when the subject of eating or vegetarianism comes up. He reports that the whole frog was there in his bowl. Another monk stuck his fork into the frog and hit the bladder and urine spilled out. The other monk got disgusted and didn't eat. AB knew where the bladder was and was able to eat the frog in his bowl.

Since the whole frog was there in the bowl (not parts), couldn't or shouldn't he have "suspected" that the animal was killed specifically for him and the other monks? After all, it is the whole animal there in the bowl. I suppose it is possible the frog died of natural causes, but knowing that meat-eating and production is common in that area, it would seem that it is likely the frogs were killed specifically for lunch dana for the bhikkhus.

In Isaan and in Thailand in general, eating frogs is not unusual. I have eaten it many many times prepared in different manners.......my wife cooks it herself sometimes.......there are at least two different kinds eaten where I live which can be differentiated by seeing that one kind is big and one kind is small. The small ones are typically fried whole after a rudimentary cleaning of only a small amount of internal organs most of which are left intact. They are crispy and each one is a single bite or maybe two. The big frogs are about the size of what most people consider to be a regular or large sized frog....a medium to small sized one would cover a child's palm and a big one would cover an adult's hand. They are prepared on different ways one of which is to roast it whole after a rudimentary cleaning which seems to be more thorough than what is give to the previously mentioned small frogs. So, these large frogs that are roasted are usually served whole. I have eaten them this way along with my wife and the issue of the bladder being present or not has never come up. If the bladder is intact after cleaning (maybe it is removed, I don't know) then it is likely that it's contents have been realeased although I don't know.....and then it would be washed away in the final rinse before cooking. If the urine is cooked then it probably just adds to the flavor.......you can be sure that if urine left in could squirt out and give a bad flavor then the Thai people would remove it.....Thai cooks know a lot about which internal organs are edible or not since internal organs are usually eaten if they are good......organs you have probably not thought of.......a chickens internal organs are pretty much all edible......and taste good.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that unless someone is an expert in frog anatomy it is unlikely that they would know if they had punctured a bladder or not and if they did it probably would not give a bad flavor to the food as if it would do this it would likely have been removed when the frog was cleaned because Thai cooks are knowledgeable in these matters and they pride themselves on their food.

And the real bottom line is that there would be no reason to think that the frogs were killed specifically for the monks in that if the season is right you go collect frogs.......then you usually cook all of the ones you have caught after giving some to family and friends if there are a lot.........and then eat them whenever it is time to eat if you are so inclined. The frogs the monks ate might have been caught and roasted the night before and the next morning there were a bunch still left so someone decided to give it to the monks at bindabat...........but I don't know for sure how it transpired......but no reason to think the frogs were killed for the monks specifically.

chownah


I respect anyone who can face this on their plate with equanimity
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1234907_622918491086235_962979296_n.jpg

metta
paul

dagon
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:45 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby dagon » Sat Sep 07, 2013 1:51 pm

Hi all

Do athletes require more protein?

In the last 20 years, detailed research has enabled scientists to measure protein metabolism during exercise and recovery, and to monitor protein balance in athletes. Endurance athletes in heavy training require extra protein to cover a small proportion of the energy costs of their training and to assist in the repair and recovery process after exercise. Strength athletes, who are interested in gaining muscle size and function, require more protein in the early stages of very intensive resistance exercise. However, strength athlete’s muscles seem to adapt to the stress of resistance exercise, so that the protein requirements to maintain protein balance in very well-trained athletes are only marginally greater than those of generally active people. Athletes, who are growing, such as adolescents, have additional protein requirements. The table below summarises protein requirements for different types of athletes or exercise activities. Since athletes come in various shapes and sizes, it is easier to keep track of these requirements by relating them to the size (body mass or BM) of the athlete.

Table 1: Estimated protein requirements for athletes

Group
Protein intake (g/kg/day)
Sedentary men and women 0.8-1.0
Elite male endurance athletes 1.6
Moderate-intensity endurance athletes (a) 1.2
Recreational endurance athletes (b) 0.8-1.0
Football, power sports 1.4-1.7
Resistance athletes (early training) 1.5-1.7
Resistance athletes (steady state) 1.0-1.2
Female athletes ~15% lower than male athletes
(a) Exercising approximately four to five times per week for 45-60 min
(b) Exercising four to five times per week for 30 min at <55% VO2peak

Source: Burke and Deakin, Clinical Sports Nutrition, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Ltd, 2006

Table 2: Protein rich foods for athletes. Each of the following foods provides approximately 10 g of protein. These foods have moderate to low fat contents and are rich in other nutrients.
Animal Foods
    2 small eggs
    30 g (1.5 slices) reduced fat cheese
    70 g cottage cheese
    1 cup (250 ml) low-fat milk
    35 g lean beef, lamb or pork (cooked weight)
    40 g lean chicken (cooked weight)
    50 g grilled fish
    50 g canned tuna or salmon
    200 g reduced fat yoghurt
    150 g light fromage frais

Plant Foods
    4 slices (120 g) wholemeal bread
    3 cups (90 g) wholegrain cereal
    2 cups (330 g) cooked pasta
    3 cups (400 g) cooked rice
    3/4 cup (150 g) lentils or kidney beans
    200 g baked beans
    120 g tofu
    60 g nuts or seeds
    300 ml soy milk
    100 g soy meat


http://www.ausport.gov.au/ais/nutrition ... -_how_much

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 4551
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby daverupa » Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:47 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:
daverupa wrote:But now it's a choice between someone who doesn't care, and someone who not only likes meat but doesn't want to give it up. Neither one was denoted at first, so how can either one be the specific group I meant?


So which specific group did you mean? I'm still not clear. On the face of it there seems to be 3 possibilities:
1. People who don't like eating meat;
2. People who don't care /mind what they eat;
3. People who like eating meat.


I meant those people who just like eating meat. Probably, in thinking about Venn diagrams here, this category is broad enough to encompass both those people who don't mind what they eat but think meat has a positive flavor, as well as people who enjoy meat and seek it out as part of their diet (above, that's #3 and some of #2). The first group will not make special efforts about meat at the grocery store, while the second group will. Both groups are held in the group "just like eating meat", as I understand it. Those who don't like it, obviously, are not included, as well as those who don't care what they eat but think meat has a negative flavor.

The example of someone eating a well-done steak who is yet revolted at seeing a rare steak being eaten is an example of someone who both does and does not just like eating meat, depending on the situation, but I decided not to be pedantic about the term 'just' and include these people in the group 'just like eating meat' as well.
    "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]

chownah
Posts: 3044
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby chownah » Sat Sep 07, 2013 3:41 pm

daverupa wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:
daverupa wrote:But now it's a choice between someone who doesn't care, and someone who not only likes meat but doesn't want to give it up. Neither one was denoted at first, so how can either one be the specific group I meant?


So which specific group did you mean? I'm still not clear. On the face of it there seems to be 3 possibilities:
1. People who don't like eating meat;
2. People who don't care /mind what they eat;
3. People who like eating meat.


I meant those people who just like eating meat. Probably, in thinking about Venn diagrams here, this category is broad enough to encompass both those people who don't mind what they eat but think meat has a positive flavor, as well as people who enjoy meat and seek it out as part of their diet (above, that's #3 and some of #2). The first group will not make special efforts about meat at the grocery store, while the second group will. Both groups are held in the group "just like eating meat", as I understand it. Those who don't like it, obviously, are not included, as well as those who don't care what they eat but think meat has a negative flavor.

The example of someone eating a well-done steak who is yet revolted at seeing a rare steak being eaten is an example of someone who both does and does not just like eating meat, depending on the situation, but I decided not to be pedantic about the term 'just' and include these people in the group 'just like eating meat' as well.

In Venn terms don't 2 and 3 overlap in that some people who don't care what they eat also like meat? And similar to your rare steak position aren't there some people who don't like eating meat (category 1) but who can enjoy the company of other people eating meat so they would also qualify as "does and does not" enjoy eating meat......I really like this "does and does not" option. It reminds me somehow of my most recent musings on rebirth. If you can expand on this option maybe you could start a thread about it......I would attend such a thread regularly......
chownah

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 4551
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby daverupa » Sat Sep 07, 2013 3:59 pm

chownah wrote:In Venn terms don't 2 and 3 overlap in that some people who don't care what they eat also like meat?


The way it's phrased, 2 overlaps with both 1 and 3 in various ways. I broke this apart in the text but left them apart at the end, so I apologize for this lack of clarity. Probably I should have added a diagram.

And similar to your rare steak position aren't there some people who don't like eating meat (category 1) but who can enjoy the company of other people eating meat so they would also qualify as "does and does not" enjoy eating meat


This is the goal of equanimity in this case; I think the ability to enjoy the company of this or that culinary companion will be informed by equanimity in personally difficult cases, good-will in personally easeful cases. The Vinaya rule to keep your eyes on your own bowl is instructive here. A discussion of the ethics of eating can happen with ones eyes on one's own bowl.

......I really like this "does and does not" option. It reminds me somehow of my most recent musings on rebirth. If you can expand on this option maybe you could start a thread about it......I would attend such a thread regularly......
chownah


I'm not sure how it can be expanded, exactly. For any disposition, there is a way to chart other dispositions such that some are held favorably and some are held disfavorably. No one person is wholly praised or wholly blamed, you know? I find that it's important to remember the contextual nature of our personal views; the Buddha's encompassing wisdom suggested, in the Brahmajala Sutta, that making hard and fast claims on the basis of limited access to information was a rather huge problem...
    "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
Spiny Norman
Posts: 3208
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Spiny Norman » Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:17 am

daverupa wrote:
chownah wrote:In Venn terms don't 2 and 3 overlap in that some people who don't care what they eat also like meat?


The way it's phrased, 2 overlaps with both 1 and 3 in various ways. I broke this apart in the text but left them apart at the end, so I apologize for this lack of clarity. Probably I should have added a diagram.

This is the goal of equanimity in this case; I think the ability to enjoy the company of this or that culinary companion will be informed by equanimity in personally difficult cases, good-will in personally easeful cases. The Vinaya rule to keep your eyes on your own bowl is instructive here. A discussion of the ethics of eating can happen with ones eyes on one's own bowl.



Yes, my groups were simplistic, and in practice it's a continuum. But is distinguishing equanimity from indifference really that straightforward? In the first case we don't mind, in the second we don't care - but then, perhaps we should care what's "in our bowl" - that seems to be the implication of the 3-fold rule.
"I ride tandem with the random, Things don't run the way I planned them, In the humdrum."
Peter Gabriel lyric

User avatar
appicchato
Posts: 1603
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:47 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Bridge on the River Kwae

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby appicchato » Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:16 am

...is distinguishing equanimity from indifference really that straightforward?


I was trying to wrap my head around this one...and came to the conclusion (at this point in time) that it is...what's the dif whether we don't mind or we don't care?...checking the dictionary out for origins (not necessarily their etymology), equanimity, basically, boils down to 'equal mind', and indifference, basically, boils down to 'having no partiality for, or against', or 'not making any difference'...one could nitpick, although it might seem (to some) to be a case of basic semantics...so, this one opts for discerning over distinguishing...
'

User avatar
appicchato
Posts: 1603
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:47 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Bridge on the River Kwae

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby appicchato » Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:05 am

...the Buddha did eat meat if it was offered


Not everyone believes this to be carved in stone...personally, this rube likes to think, and believes, that the Buddha was a vegi...

To state the obvious, eating meat requires the taking of life, period...in my heart of heart's I truly think the Buddha thought long and hard before making the 'allowance'...it's (to me) a little ironic that just a little north from his home turf (Tibet), some people subsist solely on barley their entire lives, nothing else, just barley (so I've read)...

The 'last meal' details are neither definitive, nor conclusive, one way or the other...
:pig:

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 4551
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby daverupa » Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:30 am

Spiny Norman wrote:But is distinguishing equanimity from indifference really that straightforward? In the first case we don't mind, in the second we don't care - but then, perhaps we should care what's "in our bowl" - that seems to be the implication of the 3-fold rule.


I'm not sure indifference and equanimity need to be distinguished, as these words might mean the same or different things depending on the sentences they end up being used within. Distinguish them for oneself, as necessary, else they can be synonyms.

And we should care what's in our bowls because we should be attending to our own training with great concern - but a lot of this thread is caring about what's in other peoples' bowls, grouping others and expressing ill-will towards those groups, and so forth...
    "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]

Jhana4
Posts: 1309
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:20 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: U.S.A., Northeast

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Jhana4 » Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:59 am

Is there any point to this thread? It seems like the same people or similar people talking past each other( over and over again). If you take the time to post a quality post it will only be visible for a few days before it gets lost in a heap of more than 2000 posts.
In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.

User avatar
cooran
Posts: 7816
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby cooran » Sun Sep 08, 2013 12:05 pm

Jhana4,

If you don't see any point in a thread - don't enter the discussion,

With metta,
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 3208
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Spiny Norman » Sun Sep 08, 2013 12:17 pm

appicchato wrote:
...is distinguishing equanimity from indifference really that straightforward?


I was trying to wrap my head around this one...and came to the conclusion (at this point in time) that it is...what's the dif whether we don't mind or we don't care?.....
'


The point I was making was that the 3-fold rule suggests we should care about what we eat. I would also suggest that the 3-fold rule sits in a wider context of Right Intention, metta and the first precept.
"I ride tandem with the random, Things don't run the way I planned them, In the humdrum."
Peter Gabriel lyric


Return to “Open Dhamma”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Max Nanasy and 5 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine