the great vegetarian debate

[BubbaBuddhist]

My concern with most vegetarians who worry too much about it (not me of course LOL) is while we're so focused on trying to save the animals from this particular form of suffering (and by the way, it doesn't work--think about it) we may tend to lose sight of all the other gruesome forms of suffering in Samsara. I hardly ever hear of these being discussed.

Personally, I just don't find meat appetizing. This is someone's flesh after all--how freakin barbaric. What are we--cavemen?

J

[Clueless Git]

My concern with most vegetarians who worry too much about it (not me of course LOL) is while we're so focused on trying to save the animals from this particular form of suffering (and by the way, it doesn't work--think about it) we may tend to lose sight of all the other gruesome forms of suffering in Samsara. I hardly ever hear of these being discussed.

Personally, I just don't find meat appetizing. This is someone's flesh after all--how freakin barbaric. What are we--cavemen?

J

'Lo Bubbha

By "it doesn't work" do you mean that vegetarianism does not spare those who have already been born from the suffering of life and the inevitablitity that, one way or t'other, they will die anyway?

If so I agree with you totaly!

Thing is this tho', and this requires the simplicity of thinking that only the truly dense of head seem to be able to master ...

The ultimate effect of vegetarianism is NOT to stop those who have already been born into the unnatural flocks and herds from dying. The ultimate effect of vegetarianism is to stop the unnatural herds and flocks from being born in the first place.

That which is not unnaturally born will not unnaturally suffer.

[PeterB]

Dukkha is neither natural nor unnatural. It is Dukkha. The Vinnana-sotam of a herd animal undergoing purnabhava will be in accord with the arising conditions that pertain at that moment. This is neither to advocate or reject a particular dietary choice. It is saying that a dietary choice will not affect the reality of any given existence in any realm. Its processes and characteristics will be the same. The alternative would be that if we did not breed baa lambs, those un- baa lambs would be free to gambol in the Purelands eternally.

[BubbaBuddhist]

What I'm saying is vegetarianism will not stop Samsara--it's a much bigger picture. Any consciousness born into Samsara is in for suffering, be it at the butcher's knife or any of a number of unpleasant ways, according to its kamma.

The cure for suffering was taught by the Buddha: striking at the roots of greed, delusion, and aversion.
The Buddha also taught animal rebirth is a subsequent consequence of the results of relentless cause-and effect conditions. So we reduce the number of animals eaten. Those consciousnesses destined for unfortunate rebirth pop up under different unfortunate conditions. We saved nobody. If we want to save somebody, we can't do it our own ignorant way-- we have to do it the way Buddha taught us: by spreading the Dhamma.

Still I won't eat anyone. It's impolite.

J

[DNS]

What I'm saying is vegetarianism will not stop Samsara--it's a much bigger picture.

I don't know of any vegetarians Buddhists who say that vegetarianism will stop samsara.

We saved nobody.

We saved nobody from samsara, but we can save them from being killed.

The Buddha didn't advocate non-killing for the sake of saving them from samsara. He advocated non-killing out of compassion and in his words:

"All beings tremble before danger, all fear death. When a man considers this, he does not kill or cause to kill. All beings fear before danger, life is dear to all. When a man considers this, he does not kill or cause to kill." Dhammapada, 129-130

"Monks, one possessed of three qualities is put into Purgatory according to his actions. What three? One is himself a taker of life, encourages another to do the same and approves thereof. Monks, one possessed of three qualities is put into heaven according to his actions. What three? He himself abstains from taking life, encourages another to so abstain, and approves of such abstention."
Anguttara Nikaya, 3.16

[Cittasanto]

That comment was addressing another comment about speciesists, and assigning worth to one more than another so on about assigning worth to something because we can relate to it more than another living being.

So why should we assign more worth to a Manapa or a Buddha's Dancer than to a carrot. Living matter is living matter!

That is my point regarding food, nutrition is nutrition.

eating isn't wrong, eating because of greed, hatred, or delusion is!

[Clueless Git]

That is my point regarding food, nutrition is nutrition.

eating isn't wrong, eating because of greed, hatred, or delusion is!

'Lo Manapa

I have 'bumped' one of my own postings for you :-

Carrot is a nonsentient thing.

Best not to rule out plant sentience ...

The possibility of plant sentience is one of the strongest possible arguments, for those flying the flags of 'less harm' philosophies, in favour of an entirely vegetarian diet, or higher.

It is a demonstrable fact that one harms far less plant life by eating plant life alone than one does by including plant eating animals in their diet.

Reason being that, due to the way the food chain works, to get a pound of flesh off of an animal one first has to shovel that animal full of many many pounds of 'carrots'.

Basicaly that is no more than a simplistic foray into how the food chain works.

IF all living things, and thus all food types, are equaly sentient then an animal inclusive diet harms more living things and an animal exclusive diet harms less.

IF that is understood then on what basis, other than intentional self delusion, can the 'belief' that an animal inclusive diet cause no more harm to life than an animal exclusive diet causes be maintained?

What can the motivation be, either consciously or subconsciously, for that particular intentional self delusion other than greed?

[PeterB]

That comment was addressing another comment about speciesists, and assigning worth to one more than another so on about assigning worth to something because we can relate to it more than another living being.

So why should we assign more worth to a Manapa or a Buddha's Dancer than to a carrot. Living matter is living matter!

That is my point regarding food, nutrition is nutrition.

eating isn't wrong, eating because of greed, hatred, or delusion is!

Or because of aversion to the dietary choices of others..

[PeterB]

So basically Clueless Git you are saying that you know why Ajahn Sumedho, Ajahn Brahm, and Ajahn Munindo include meat in their diet, as did Ajahn Chah, and you have deduced that they do so out of greed ? Do I understand you correctly ? Or are you saying that you have thought more deeply about the subject than they have and that therefore you are able to judge the behaviour of others ? Including Buddhist teachers who show evidence of great accomplishments in Buddhist terms ?

[Clueless Git]

Or because of aversion to the dietary choices of others..

I have to agree with you on that one Peter.

It's a long time ago now but once I was highly adverse to the 'less harm' dietary choices of others too.

Somewhat amusingly I have found that you can produce 'dietary choice aversion' in nearly anyone just by politely introducing yourself with the words "Hello, would you mind very much if what I choose for lunch today is you?"

Most people react equaly adversely to 'dietary choices' that include their children and their pets ...

I guess how far our 'aversion' to the dietary choices of others goes depends on how far away from self our circle of compassion spreads?

[Clueless Git]

So basically Clueless Git you are saying that you know why Ajahn Sumedho, Ajahn Brahm, and Ajahn Munindo include meat in their diet, as did Ajahn Chah, and you have deduced that they do so out of greed ? Do I understand you correctly ? Or are you saying that you have thought more deeply about the subject than they have and that therefore you are able to judge the behaviour of others ? Including Buddhist teachers who show evidence of great accomplishments in Buddhist terms ?

Sorry Peter, posting and replies crossing over there ..

The answer to the question is simply this:

Anyone who is 'happier' eating another than they would be happy about being eating themself has more compassion for self than other.

I know not if any of the Ajahn's you listed would be as happy to be eaten themself as they would be happy to eat another.

That is a question that they, we, I, you, anyone, can only answer themself.

I am DEFINITELY adverse to the idea of being eaten myself, btw.

May I safely assume that your own 'non aversion' to the dietary choices of others excludes the dietary choices of those who's choice of lunch is you?

[appicchato]

It is a demonstrable fact that one harms far less plant life by eating plant life alone than one does by including plant eating animals in their diet.

Bottom line folks...

[PeterB]

That is your serious and considered reply Clueless Git ? That Ajahn Sumedho has more compassion to himself than to others and your evidence for stating that is because he would not want to be eaten ?

Frankly if that is the level of debate that you bring to this issue then I will bid you good day and find something more useful to do.

Before I go I will tell you a recent experience. A man was referred to me because he was suffering panic attacks, these were suffiently frequent and severe to have a real impact on his life. To cut a very very long story short I was struck immediately by his enormous anger, particularly toward women. He had been married three times and each marriage had eneded in considerable acrimony. If further emerged that he had an aversion amounting to a phobia about blood. After some time in therapy it became clear that this was the result of a traumatic incident involving menses.
It became clear to me that his veganism was driven only in part by being pro-animal. It was largely anti Homo Sapiens. In particular it was anti women. Subsequently he wanted a kind of Platonic Ideal world where food was pure and free from messy stuff.
Now, I draw no general conclusions from this. I do not claim to know that all vegans have similar aversions.
Just as I do not know why apart from the voluntary contraints of the Vinaya Ajahn Sumedho eats meat. I do know that I trust him and see him as a role model in terms of Buddhism.

[PeterB]

It is a demonstrable fact that one harms far less plant life by eating plant life alone than one does by including plant eating animals in their diet.

Bottom line folks...

I wont argue with that Bhante. i do however feel that after the discussion has taken place, it is a matter of individual choice for those practising the Dhamma. There is not a two tier system of superior Buddhists who eat a vegetarian diet and second class ones who are omnivores. It is simply not of the essence, as it is in Jainadharma.

[Clueless Git]

That is your serious and considered reply Clueless Git ? That Ajahn Sumedho has more compassion to himself than to others and your evidence for stating that is because he would not want to be eaten ?

I am sorry Peter but if a person cares more about harm to himself than he cares about harm to others then it cannot be said that he cares equaly about other and self.

Ajahn Sumedho may,for all I know, care no more that he be lunch than he cares that another be lunch.

That is something only Ajahn Sumedho could answer.

Again I am sorry. I am just not clever enough to navigate around self evident facts. Genuinely. That is why I always home in on real 'eejyutt' stuff like how the food chain works, that more and less cannot be the same, and other self evident things that cleverer people seem to find so hard to see.

I know that offends sometimes and I can only ask of people, when it does, that they show kindness to my limitations and forgive me.