the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by lyndon taylor »

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/
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

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
Relevance?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

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......
Yes, we can be quite selective about our ethical concerns at times.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah »

Spiny Norman wrote:
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
Relevance?
For example, the humane treatment of hamburger.
chownah
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Mkoll »

chownah wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:
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
Relevance?
For example, the humane treatment of hamburger.
chownah
Pardon me?

:shrug:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Aloka »

Mkoll wrote:
chownah wrote:For example, the humane treatment of hamburger.
chownah
Pardon me?

:shrug:
Image

Kindness to hamburgers ?


.
User avatar
waterchan
Posts: 699
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 7:17 pm
Location: Kamaloka

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by waterchan »

Ben wrote:
waterchan wrote:
Ben wrote: Ledi Sayadaw's Cow Dhamma.
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.

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.
Water chan, I think your post is rather curious. Ledi Sayadaw preferred vegetarian offerings and praised vegetarianism.
Perhaps it would be wise for you not to jump to conclusions about "egotistic compassion", as you see it.
Kind regards,
Ben
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.
quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur
(Anything in Latin sounds profound.)
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ben »

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.
Hmmm, well that certainly isn't my reading of the Sayadaw's work.
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 ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
waterchan
Posts: 699
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 7:17 pm
Location: Kamaloka

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by waterchan »

Ben wrote: Hmmm, well that certainly isn't my reading of the Sayadaw's work.
Thank you for your input, water chan.
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.

Hate to pick apart sentences out of context, but in the very last paragraph of that essay:
Ledi Sayadaw wrote: Based on right understanding and compassion, man should avoid eating beef.
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.
quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur
(Anything in Latin sounds profound.)
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ben »

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
“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 ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by seeker242 »

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.
From what I have seen, he never condoned eating any other kind of meats either.

"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."

:anjali:
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

chownah wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:
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
Relevance?
For example, the humane treatment of hamburger.
chownah
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.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah »

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
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Mkoll »

chownah wrote:For example, the humane treatment of hamburger.
chownah
Now I think you were acting out your "trollnah" persona when you said that.

:jumping:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

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
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.
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!
Post Reply