the great vegetarian debate
- lyndon taylor
- Posts: 1835
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
- Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
- Contact:
Re: the great vegetarian debate
On another thread people are worried about killing mosquitos, I can't help but wonder if they aren't sitting down to a steak or chicken dinner......
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John
http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
-
- Posts: 10184
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: the great vegetarian debate
Relevance?chownah wrote:If people who think that animals should be raised humanely would raise animals then animals would be raised humanely....but people who think animals should be raised humanely don't raise animals so it is the people who don't care about raising animals humanely that end up doing it.
chownah
Buddha save me from new-agers!
-
- Posts: 10184
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: the great vegetarian debate
Yes, we can be quite selective about our ethical concerns at times.lyndon taylor wrote:On another thread people are worried about killing mosquitos, I can't help but wonder if they aren't sitting down to a steak or chicken dinner......
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: the great vegetarian debate
For example, the humane treatment of hamburger.Spiny Norman wrote:Relevance?chownah wrote:If people who think that animals should be raised humanely would raise animals then animals would be raised humanely....but people who think animals should be raised humanely don't raise animals so it is the people who don't care about raising animals humanely that end up doing it.
chownah
chownah
Re: the great vegetarian debate
Pardon me?chownah wrote:For example, the humane treatment of hamburger.Spiny Norman wrote:Relevance?chownah wrote:If people who think that animals should be raised humanely would raise animals then animals would be raised humanely....but people who think animals should be raised humanely don't raise animals so it is the people who don't care about raising animals humanely that end up doing it.
chownah
chownah
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Re: the great vegetarian debate
Mkoll wrote:Pardon me?chownah wrote:For example, the humane treatment of hamburger.
chownah
Kindness to hamburgers ?
.
Re: the great vegetarian debate
No need to jump. It's clear in the essay you linked that Ledi Sayadaw places cows and buffalos above and beyond other animals, to the point of comparing them to one's parents. As if none of the other livestock played a role in the ecology. We owe just as much to cows as we do to chickens, ducks, fish, and even animals we wouldn't eat such as spiders and frogs.Ben wrote:Water chan, I think your post is rather curious. Ledi Sayadaw preferred vegetarian offerings and praised vegetarianism.waterchan wrote:Abstinence from beef is very common in Burma and the rationale provided by a lot of people is in line with what Ledi Sayadaw says in his rather romanticized essay.Ben wrote: Ledi Sayadaw's Cow Dhamma.
However, I do and always have taken issue with this kind of selective and self-centered compassion being presented as part of the Dhamma, let alone from an advanced authority in Buddhism such as Ledi Sayadaw. "We won't eat cows because we owe them a debt of gratitude for helping develop our lands and producing rice, but we'll keep eating our fried chicken, roast duck, pork curry and grilled fish, since we owe nothing to THOSE animals!" This attitude also displays an ignorance of basic ecology, which tells us that we owe these other animals just as much as we owe cows for maintaining the natural balance of life.
This kind of selective, egoistic compassion is neither rooted in the selfless compassion of the Buddha nor in basic scientific understanding.
If one wants to avoid beef because they pity cows, fine, that's your personal choice, but don't try and pass it off as Dhamma. I am not a vegetarian, but I have much respect for those who can maintain a vegetarian diet out of compassion for all animals, not just the ones they perceive with their limited narrow vision as their sole benefactors.
All things given, I suppose partial and selective compassion is better for your kamma than a lack of compassion. But Ajahn Sujato's article on why Buddhists should be vegetarian is a much more relevant and all-encompassing argument for vegetarianism, in my opinion.
Perhaps it would be wise for you not to jump to conclusions about "egotistic compassion", as you see it.
Kind regards,
Ben
I'm not sure why you bring up Ledi Sayadaw's dietary and dana preferences because that's entirely irrelevant. I'm criticizing the message in his essay. Either be a vegetarian or don't. Making a special appeal for cows and abstaining from beef while eating all other meats, because you see cows as your benefactor, is selective and egoistic compassion.
quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur
(Anything in Latin sounds profound.)
(Anything in Latin sounds profound.)
Re: the great vegetarian debate
Hmmm, well that certainly isn't my reading of the Sayadaw's work.waterchan wrote:
No need to jump. It's clear in the essay you linked that Ledi Sayadaw places cows and buffalos above and beyond other animals, to the point of comparing them to one's parents. As if none of the other livestock played a role in the ecology. We owe just as much to cows as we do to chickens, ducks, fish, and even animals we wouldn't eat such as spiders and frogs.
I'm not sure why you bring up Ledi Sayadaw's dietary and dana preferences because that's entirely irrelevant. I'm criticizing the message in his essay. Either be a vegetarian or don't. Making a special appeal for cows and abstaining from beef while eating all other meats, because you see cows as your benefactor, is selective and egoistic compassion.
Thank you for your input, water chan.
“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 Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
- 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 Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
Re: the great vegetarian debate
Sorry if you're offended by my criticisms related to a highly regarded teacher that you admire. Of course, I have nothing against the Sayadaw as a person and I'm sure his heart was in the right place.Ben wrote: Hmmm, well that certainly isn't my reading of the Sayadaw's work.
Thank you for your input, water chan.
Hate to pick apart sentences out of context, but in the very last paragraph of that essay:
Why single out beef? Avoiding beef for the reasons provided feels like a rather conditional form of compassion ("It grows my rice, therefore I should be compassionate towards it.") and I don't see how that is related to samma-ditthi or even the unconditioned compassion of metta.Ledi Sayadaw wrote: Based on right understanding and compassion, man should avoid eating beef.
quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur
(Anything in Latin sounds profound.)
(Anything in Latin sounds profound.)
Re: the great vegetarian debate
I am not offended, water chan.
Perhaps you should read Wric Braun's excellent work: The Birth of Insight: http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Insight-Med ... of+insight
Perhaps you should read Wric Braun's excellent work: The Birth of Insight: http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Insight-Med ... of+insight
“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 Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
- 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 Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
Re: the great vegetarian debate
From what I have seen, he never condoned eating any other kind of meats either.waterchan wrote:Making a special appeal for cows and abstaining from beef while eating all other meats, because you see cows as your benefactor, is selective and egoistic compassion.
"Sayædaw stresses that ingratitude is the really harmful factor in eating meat. Beef-eating is especially blameworthy because cattle provide both labour and milk for mankind."
He spoke about cattle much because they were "especially blameworthy" (and perhaps because it was the most common form of meat) but he never said it was ok to eat other kinds of meat.
He says "Everyone should try to avoid eating the flesh of animals, especially that of cows and buffalos."
-
- Posts: 10184
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: the great vegetarian debate
If you mean that it's better to buy organic meat, free-range eggs and so on, then yes, I agree - it can be a way of reducing harm. On the other hand the cows and pigs still end up in the abattoir.chownah wrote:For example, the humane treatment of hamburger.Spiny Norman wrote:Relevance?chownah wrote:If people who think that animals should be raised humanely would raise animals then animals would be raised humanely....but people who think animals should be raised humanely don't raise animals so it is the people who don't care about raising animals humanely that end up doing it.
chownah
chownah
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: the great vegetarian debate
It seems pretty clear that I am talking about the humane treatment of animals and how it is that so many animals do not receive humane treatment......does this seems clear to you?
chownah
chownah
Re: the great vegetarian debate
Now I think you were acting out your "trollnah" persona when you said that.chownah wrote:For example, the humane treatment of hamburger.
chownah
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
-
- Posts: 10184
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: the great vegetarian debate
What I'm still not clear about is how this relates directly to the debate - like I said, the pigs and cows still end up in the abattoir on the receiving end of a bolt gun.chownah wrote:It seems pretty clear that I am talking about the humane treatment of animals and how it is that so many animals do not receive humane treatment......does this seems clear to you?
chownah
If you're saying it's better to buy meat from a source where you know the animals have been well treated, well yes, of course.
But then if we look at the principle behind the 3-fold rule, is it really relevant whether the animal was well-treated before it was killed?
Buddha save me from new-agers!