the great vegetarian debate

[Dhammanando]

Since the argument in favor of vegetarianism is based entirely on only the animal's perspective, what anyone else has said about it, including the Buddha, doesn't matter to it.

That might be the case if one were making a purely secular case for vegetarianism. But as this is a Buddhist forum it seems a bit out of order to tell posters who look to the Buddha for guidance in matters of sīla:

The topic has nothing to do with what the Buddha intended or not intended to begin with so none of that is relevant.

[seeker242]

The animals perspective is always going to be "I want everyone to be vegetarian".

Except, of course, for the carnivorous animals....

Not really an exception. Carnivorous animals don't want to be killed and eaten either, which also includes great white sharks.

That might be the case if one were making a purely secular case for vegetarianism.

The topic is inherently secular to begin with as the animals in question don't follow any particular religion.

But as this is a Buddhist forum it seems a bit out of order to tell posters who look to the Buddha for guidance in matters of sīla:

I would not say it's out of order because the Buddha himself taught that it's quite appropriate to be "putting oneself in the place of another". In this situation, one is simply putting oneself in the place of the animals. That is what empathy is after all and empathy for suffering beings is certainly not out of order in a Buddhist context. If one is unwilling or unable to "put oneself in the place of another", that is not exactly a good thing.

Greetings seeker242,

Strange to discuss a moral dilemma on a Buddhist forum and not recourse to the Buddha’s teachings. If this is all about secular arguments and “animal rights” then I guess I can just step out. Those things are of a secondary importance, if important at all imo.

Metta

Like I said above, taking the place of another should not be considered strange, especially so when the Buddha himself said it's quite appropriate to do and should be done.

[Ceisiwr]

Greetings seeker242,

Like I said above, taking the place of another should not be considered strange, especially so when the Buddha himself said it's quite appropriate to do and should be done.

So now we are bringing in what he said?

[seeker242]

Greetings seeker242,

Like I said above, taking the place of another should not be considered strange, especially so when the Buddha himself said it's quite appropriate to do and should be done.

So now we are bringing in what he said?

In response to people claiming that taking the place of another is somehow out of order, yes. What he said directly contradicts the idea that it's somehow out of order.

[Sam Vara]

The animals perspective is always going to be "I want everyone to be vegetarian".

Except, of course, for the carnivorous animals....

Not really an exception. Carnivorous animals don't want to be killed and eaten either, which also includes great white sharks.

They don't want to starve, either, which is why they don't want everyone to be vegetarian.

[Spiny Norman]

Except, of course, for the carnivorous animals....

Not really an exception. Carnivorous animals don't want to be killed and eaten either, which also includes great white sharks.

They don't want to starve, either, which is why they don't want everyone to be vegetarian.

I dont think great whites have access to a vegetarian option. There's a marked absence of tofu seals.

[Ceisiwr]

Not really an exception. Carnivorous animals don't want to be killed and eaten either, which also includes great white sharks.

They don't want to starve, either, which is why they don't want everyone to be vegetarian.

I dont think great whites have access to a vegetarian option. There's a marked absence of tofu seals.

Clearly they just aren’t woke enough

[Dhammanando]

In response to people claiming that taking the place of another is somehow out of order, yes.

Hey, stop equivocating, you slippery eel. What was stated to be out of order was your attempt to quash discussion of what the Buddha said, and what he meant, on the subjects of vegetarianism and meat-eating.

[Sam Vara]

Greetings seeker242,

Like I said above, taking the place of another should not be considered strange, especially so when the Buddha himself said it's quite appropriate to do and should be done.

So now we are bringing in what he said?

In response to people claiming that taking the place of another is somehow out of order, yes. What he said directly contradicts the idea that it's somehow out of order.

So is your position that you want to cite and emphasise the Buddha's ideas where they seem to support vegetarianism, but downplay or ignore those which condone meat eating?

[seeker242]

Except, of course, for the carnivorous animals....

Not really an exception. Carnivorous animals don't want to be killed and eaten either, which also includes great white sharks.

They don't want to starve, either, which is why they don't want everyone to be vegetarian.

If human beings were breeding, killing and eating millions of great white sharks, like they do now with cows, pigs and chickens, yes they would want everyone to be vegetarian... It should be obvious that "everyone" here is referring to human beings... Common sense dictates that this should not need to be stipulated...

[Sam Vara]

Not really an exception. Carnivorous animals don't want to be killed and eaten either, which also includes great white sharks.

They don't want to starve, either, which is why they don't want everyone to be vegetarian.

I dont think great whites have access to a vegetarian option. There's a marked absence of tofu seals.

(Sorry, I'll give this one another outing....)

That's such a red herring!

[Spiny Norman]

They don't want to starve, either, which is why they don't want everyone to be vegetarian.

I dont think great whites have access to a vegetarian option. There's a marked absence of tofu seals.

(Sorry, I'll give this one another outing....)

That's such a red herring!

If other people can be fishy, then so can I. Though it makes me feel eel, and a bit crabby.

[seeker242]

In response to people claiming that taking the place of another is somehow out of order, yes.

Hey, stop equivocating, you slippery eel. What was stated to be out of order was your attempt to quash discussion of what the Buddha said, and what he meant, on the subjects of vegetarianism and meat-eating.

There is no equivocation. It was stated that taking the animal's perspective was the reason for vegetarianism to begin with and the fact that doing so is not dependent on what the Buddha taught or didn't teach. The animal's perspective does not change depending on what the Buddha taught or didn't teach. From the animal's perspective, what the Buddha taught is irrelevant. This was claimed to be out of order. It's not because all it's doing is taking the animal's perspective, which the Buddha approves of doing.

[seeker242]

Greetings seeker242,



So now we are bringing in what he said?

In response to people claiming that taking the place of another is somehow out of order, yes. What he said directly contradicts the idea that it's somehow out of order.

So is your position that you want to cite and emphasise the Buddha's ideas where they seem to support vegetarianism, but downplay or ignore those which condone meat eating?

The Buddha words say that it is not out of order to take the animal's perspective.

[Dhammanando]

It's not because all it's doing is taking the animal's perspective, which the Buddha approves of doing.

yathā ahaṃ tathā ete,
yathā ete tathā ahaṃ,
attānaṃ upamaṃ katvā,
na haneyya na ghātaye.

“Reflecting: ‘As I am, so are they;
As they are, so am I,’
Having taken oneself as the criterion,
One should not kill or cause others to kill.”
(Nālakasutta, Sn 705; cf. Dhp. 130)

The expression na ghātaye is defined as giving someone an order to kill. No Theravāda text extends its scope to include the kind of imagined causal relationships on which secular arguments (or those in the Lankavatara and other spurious Mahayana sūtras) are based.

And so what you call the Buddha's approval of taking the animal's perspective was taught in connection with killing by one's own hand or giving another an order to kill. The context is not one of grocery shopping.