the great vegetarian debate

[rowboat]

lyndon taylor: Cittasanto your link has some kind of bug and my computer is telling me it is not safe to open, might want to look into that...

I had the same warnings,
Hi rowboat.
I see it is the same as in the picture on Venerable pesala's link. I have had no problem, or warnings opening it.

Yes, thank-you Cittasanto. Ven. Pesala has already cleared up the misunderstanding.

[Spiny Norman]

People do not go shopping with that intent, rather the intent is to have nourishment available.

That's true, but I think that most of have the option of buying non-meat products for nourishment. We all make choices.

[Cittasanto]

Yes, thank-you Cittasanto. Ven. Pesala has already cleared up the misunderstanding.

That was mainly about the warnings more than anything. I hadn't realised that links on facebook redirected through facebook when I posted that (not paying much attention to the URL.

[Cittasanto]

People do not go shopping with that intent, rather the intent is to have nourishment available.

That's true, but I think that most of have the option of buying non-meat products for nourishment. We all make choices.

most shoppers have the option, Yes. But that does not mean that they take that option; or those that do are kammically responsible for the animals death.

Edited for better clarity

[Spiny Norman]

People do not go shopping with that intent, rather the intent is to have nourishment available.

That's true, but I think that most of have the option of buying non-meat products for nourishment. We all make choices.

most shoppers have the option, Yes. But that does not mean that they take that option; or those that do are kammically responsible for the animals death.

I think it depends on the circumstances. For example if I go to a turkey farm and pick one out for Christmas lunch, then aren't I kammically responsible for that turkeys death?

[lyndon taylor]

Now we're talking turkey! I think if your desire for meat is stronger than your compassion for animals, that's going to cause kammic consequences; unhealthy desire+lack of compassion=someone that could do better with their life.

In other words quit thinking about yourself and your importance, and start thinking about the animals and their importance, the buddha actually taught that the animal you are eating could quite possibly be your wife, child or parent from another life.

[Cittasanto]

I think it depends on the circumstances. For example if I go to a turkey farm and pick one out for Christmas lunch, then aren't I kammically responsible for that turkeys death?

As I have noted before that would be an act of speech which is described in the suttas as not allowable. Not the same as food shopping and getting already slaughtered and not intended for anyone specifocally.

[lyndon taylor]

So killing is alright if it is not intended for anyone specifically, even if you pay for the killing, do you really believe that, because honestly it doesn't make a lot of sense. It means basically that your pro killing unless you have to get blood on your hands, and then you're totally against it. And don't tell me that's what the Buddha said, because honestly we don't know exactly what the Buddha said or even what he intended, our scriptures were written down 500 years after the Buddha's death and we don't know beyond any doubt how much is original and what if anything was changed, that's where you need to use your own mind and judgement; Do you support the torture, incarceration, murder and eating of animals, or are you against it. What is the more compassionate thing to do, did the Buddha teach compassion for all beings, or do we not even agree on that???

[seeker242]

Do you know how a slaughter was done the way it was done in the Buddhas day?

No.

how do you think the animals were stunned then?

Don't know.

you seem to assume slaughter is majorly different from them other than being more mechanical.

I think that is where the misunderstanding is. I wasn't talking about the slaughter. I was talking about the quality of the animals life before they went to slaughter. I believe it's safe to assume that the animals back then were raised grazing in a pasture. I think it's safe to assume that industrialized factory farms did not exist back then, so it would be impossible for the Buddha to comment on such a situation. There was no such thing as "industrial". Focusing only on the slaughter misses the main point I was making. Which is how the animals are treated during their lifetime. The horrible conditions that they have to endure and the abuse they are subjected to, before they are sent to slaughter. "Battery cages" and "gestation crates" did not exist during the Buddhas time. To assume he would have said nothing about "battery cages", because he didn't say anything about animals grazing in a pasture, is not very logical because it compares apples to oranges.

I doubt the Buddha would of spoken about lay people's spending habits as it is inappropriate for a mendicant to speak of such worldly matters,

When an activity causes massive harm to billions of living beings, I think it goes far beyond "worldly matters"

I also doubt the Buddha would be direct with any criticism, and probably would only say what has already been recorded.

Ok, but "probably" is still an assumption that cause the argument to become less logical.

I won't assume the Buddha would do anything he isn't recorded as already doing.

Technically, the most logical stance is to not make any assumptions either way, if you don't have some amount of factual evidence to back the assumption. From a strictly logical standpoint, backing the assumption with opinion does not make it more valid or credible. I'm not trying to assert that he would say something, but only saying that to assume he would not, is not exactly logically sound.

[Spiny Norman]

I think it depends on the circumstances. For example if I go to a turkey farm and pick one out for Christmas lunch, then aren't I kammically responsible for that turkeys death?

As I have noted before that would be an act of speech which is described in the suttas as not allowable. Not the same as food shopping and getting already slaughtered and not intended for anyone specifocally.

You're probably correct from a technical point of view, so if chose instead to chose to buy a frozen turkey from a supermarket then there wouldn't be the same kammic consequence. What bothers me though is that in both cases another turkey would get the chop! The difference seems rather semantic to me.

PS Obviously I wouldn't pick out a turkey from a turkey farm, except to adopt it as a pet.
PPS Though it would be a rather noisy pet!

[Spiny Norman]

... did the Buddha teach compassion for all beings.....

Yes, he did, though it seems somewhat understated in Theravada. See here for example: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .amar.html

[Spiny Norman]

I think that is where the misunderstanding is. I wasn't talking about the slaughter. I was talking about the quality of the animals life before they went to slaughter. I believe it's safe to assume that the animals back then were raised grazing in a pasture. I think it's safe to assume that industrialized factory farms did not exist back then, so it would be impossible for the Buddha to comment on such a situation. There was no such thing as "industrial". Focusing only on the slaughter misses the main point I was making. Which is how the animals are treated during their lifetime. The horrible conditions that they have to endure and the abuse they are subjected to, before they are sent to slaughter. "Battery cages" and "gestation crates" did not exist during the Buddhas time.

[lyndon taylor]

... did the Buddha teach compassion for all beings.....

Yes, he did, though it seems somewhat understated in Theravada. See here for example: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .amar.html

Thank you Spiny, great sutta, you should understand that my Buddhist training was split 50/50 between Tibetan and Therevada South East Asian teachers, and learning Buddhism mostly from memory, I sometimes fail to realize whether a teaching I clearly remember being taught came from Therevada or Vajrayana/Mahayana sources, in this case it seems so obvious to me that the Buddha taught compassion for all beings, but I must admit I don't hear that teaching as much in Therevada circles, and sometimes it is linked to the Bodhisattvic ideal, which is not taught in Therevada. I know the Buddha spoke a lot about respect for animals, even insects and plants, so I think Seeker is right, the Buddha couldn't possibly be envisioning the barbaric, tortuous factory farming process of today, and that's a big, big factor to take into account WWBD What would buddha do??

PS I should add I started in Tibetan Buddhism, then "converted' to Therevada buddhism largely because of the proximity of Therevada temples to my location, and also my heart felt desire to study at an Asian, not western oriented temple. So yes I now consider myself a Therevada Buddhist, but still have some place for some Tibetan teachings and a strong distaste for tantra and randy lamas!!!

[Cittasanto]

Hi Seaker,
Just so you know I wont be able to respond again until sunday evening at the earliest.

Do you know how a slaughter was done the way it was done in the Buddhas day?

No.

how do you think the animals were stunned then?

Don't know.

you seem to assume slaughter is majorly different from them other than being more mechanical.

I think that is where the misunderstanding is. I wasn't talking about the slaughter. I was talking about the quality of the animals life before they went to slaughter. I believe it's safe to assume that the animals back then were raised grazing in a pasture.

The reason I used slaughterhouse is because you mention them in regard to the Buddha speaking out.

What would the Buddha say if he were to see one of those PETA videos of a modern day slaughterhouse?

I think it is safe to assume that industrialized factory farms did not exist back then, so it would be impossible for the Buddha to comment on such a situation.

I would agree with the lack of existence. However it can be inferred.

There was no such thing as "industrial". Focusing only on the slaughter misses the main point I was making. Which is how the animals are treated during their lifetime. The horrible conditions that they have to endure and the abuse they are subjected to, before they are sent to slaughter. "Battery cages" and "gestation crates" did not exist during the Buddhas time. To assume he would have said nothing about "battery cages", because he didn't say anything about animals grazing in a pasture, is not very logical because it compares apples to oranges.

Are you sure I am assuming what the Buddha would say based on what wasn't said? or am I using inference based on what has been said in comparable situations.
I am basing my opinion on what is known the Buddha done and advised. i.e. his advice on proper conversation, his unwillingness to directly attack someone's profession (actors & warriors was after several refusals to comment directly upon) The Buddha is only ever general, not specific, in matters which could be seen as attacking. And when it is other groups, The Buddha only ever deals with specific views, not the group itself.

I doubt the Buddha would have spoken about lay people's spending habits as it is inappropriate for a mendicant to speak of such worldly matters,

When an activity causes massive harm to billions of living beings, I think it goes far beyond "worldly matters"

how?
The Buddha kept out of wars... unless he was directly there.

I also doubt the Buddha would be direct with any criticism, and probably would only say what has already been recorded.

Ok, but "probably" is still an assumption that cause the argument to become less logical.

inference based on the texts. I am not presupposing the Buddha would have acted in a way not already shown.

I won't assume the Buddha would do anything he isn't recorded as already doing.

Technically, the most logical stance is to not make any assumptions either way, if you don't have some amount of factual evidence to back the assumption. From a strictly logical standpoint, backing the assumption with opinion does not make it more valid or credible. I'm not trying to assert that he would say something, but only saying that to assume he would not, is not exactly logically sound.

When there is evidence of how the Buddha acted in other situations it is inductive or deductive reasoning, not assumption. Can you show your evidence for the Buddha being direct in this matter, and not simply keeping with what has already been said?

[Aloka]

....Well I found an excellent, more open minded than me, discourse on Vegetarianism and Buddhism from a Bhikkhu Sujato, who I don't know anything about but my friend assures me is a forest tradition Therevada monk.It covers a wide range of issues, excellent comments on Devadattu, that the controversy was not Devadattus reforms were wrong but that he wished to make them obligatory for everyone, It sticks to the intention is kamma, so meat eating is not bad kamma (which I disagree with) but brings up the notion I was touching on, that Truth (Dhamma) is much larger than what was covered in the scriptures which is only a partial revelation of Truth. It also deals at length with how different and much worse the animal raising practices are today than in the Buddha's time, As Seeker242 brought up above.

What you might find inspiring is that the discourse supports a vegetarian outlook without the fingerpointing and name calling I have been prone to, so as for now, as I agree with 95% of this link I'll let Bhikkhu Sujato speak instead of me!!

http://sujato.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/ ... xtra-cute/

I already posted about Ajahn Sujato's blog post on vegetarianism in page 122 of this thread on Feb.19th, Lyndon.