the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: Is fishing breaking the precept?

Post by seeker242 »

Dhammanando wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:07 pm
“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)
And extending that to also include "not cause any unnecessary harm" whether or not that harm is direct or indirect, is certainly not something that the Buddha would disapprove of, certainly not improper or wrong in a Buddhist context. Seeing things and speaking from the animal's perspective isn't wrong or improper either.
No Theravāda text extends its scope to include the kind
That much is obvious. It's quite clear the Buddha did not require vegetarianism. Everyone already knows this. However, to claim that it's somehow improper or wrong to extend non-harming beyond what is officially required, doesn't make any sense.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Is fishing breaking the precept?

Post by Sam Vara »

seeker242 wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 3:29 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 3:17 pm
seeker242 wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:46 pm

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.
Ven. Dhammanando may have pre-empted this entirely with his intervening post, but if what you say is right - that it is "not out of order to take the animal's perspective"; and if you allow that there are indications that the Buddha did condone the eating of meat; then the sensible question for any proselytiser is to look for criteria as to how we decide which is the better guide for our own actions. Would you agree?
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Is fishing breaking the precept?

Post by Sam Vara »

seeker242 wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:24 pm
Dhammanando wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:07 pm
“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)
And extending that to also include "not cause any unnecessary harm" whether or not that harm is direct or indirect, is certainly not something that the Buddha would disapprove of, certainly not improper or wrong in a Buddhist context. Seeing things and speaking from the animal's perspective isn't wrong or improper either.
No Theravāda text extends its scope to include the kind
That much is obvious. It's quite clear the Buddha did not require vegetarianism. Everyone already knows this. However, to claim that it's somehow improper or wrong to extend non-harming beyond what is officially required, doesn't make any sense.
Is anyone actually claiming this? Why can't you simply do as I do, and indeed some monks do: follow a vegan lifestyle and leave everyone else to get on with it, secure in the knowledge that they are not doing something disapproved of by the Buddha?
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: Is fishing breaking the precept?

Post by seeker242 »

Sam Vara wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:27 pm
seeker242 wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 3:29 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 3:17 pm

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.
Ven. Dhammanando may have pre-empted this entirely with his intervening post, but if what you say is right - that it is "not out of order to take the animal's perspective"; and if you allow that there are indications that the Buddha did condone the eating of meat; then the sensible question for any proselytiser is to look for criteria as to how we decide which is the better guide for our own actions. Would you agree?
Yes, I would agree. Would you agree that the appropriate criteria for a course of action is the one that causes the least amount of harm? I cannot understand how anyone can disagree with that criteria. I cannot understand how anyone could consider that criteria to be inappropriate. :shrug:
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: Is fishing breaking the precept?

Post by seeker242 »

Sam Vara wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:33 pm Why can't you simply do as I do, and indeed some monks do: follow a vegan lifestyle and leave everyone else to get on with it,
Because that would not be taking the animal's perspective or point of view. Vegetarians take the animal's perspective and speak on behalf of the animal's perspective.
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6490
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Is fishing breaking the precept?

Post by Dhammanando »

seeker242 wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:24 pmAnd extending that to also include "not cause any unnecessary harm" whether or not that harm is direct or indirect, is certainly not something that the Buddha would disapprove of, certainly not improper or wrong in a Buddhist context.
By eating meat one would not be causing harm in any sense of "cause" that is deemed morally relevant in the Buddha's teaching.

You may well be right that a person who is persuaded to embrace vegetarianism by extra-dhammic (e.g., consequentialist or Mahayanist) arguments would not incur the Buddha's disapproval. But his undertaking would be an entirely supererogatory one. Being supererogatory, if he were to go peddling it as a requirement of Buddhist sīla then he would be misrepresenting the Buddha. It seems likely that this would incur exactly the sort of disapproval that fell upon Devadatta.
seeker242 wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:24 pmIt's quite clear the Buddha did not require vegetarianism. Everyone already knows this. However, to claim that it's somehow improper or wrong to extend non-harming beyond what is officially required, doesn't make any sense.
But who has claimed this? All I'm claiming is that the advocated extension is not an obligatory one and should not be proposed as such.
Rūpehi bhikkhave arūpā santatarā.
Arūpehi nirodho santataro ti.


“Bhikkhus, the formless is more peaceful than the form realms.
Cessation is more peaceful than the formless realms.”
(Santatarasutta, Iti 73)
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Is fishing breaking the precept?

Post by Sam Vara »

seeker242 wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:48 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:33 pm Why can't you simply do as I do, and indeed some monks do: follow a vegan lifestyle and leave everyone else to get on with it,
Because that would not be taking the animal's perspective or point of view. Vegetarians take the animal's perspective and speak on behalf of the animal's perspective.
So you grant the validity of both positions, but continue to proselytise for people to subscribe to your view? If so, I guess that's a defensible position.
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: Is fishing breaking the precept?

Post by seeker242 »

Dhammanando wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 5:18 pm
seeker242 wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:24 pmAnd extending that to also include "not cause any unnecessary harm" whether or not that harm is direct or indirect, is certainly not something that the Buddha would disapprove of, certainly not improper or wrong in a Buddhist context.
By eating meat one would not be causing harm in any sense of "cause" that is deemed morally relevant in the Buddha's teaching.
What is "morally relevant in the Buddha's teaching" is not the determining factor, when one is taking the animal's perspective. It is relevant when one is taking one's own perspective but that is not what vegetarianism is about. It's all about the animal's perspective.
You may well be right that a person who is persuaded to embrace vegetarianism by extra-dhammic (e.g., consequentialist or Mahayanist) arguments would not incur the Buddha's disapproval. But his undertaking would be an entirely supererogatory one. Being supererogatory, if he were to go peddling it as a requirement of Buddhist sīla then he would be misrepresenting the Buddha. It seems likely that this would incur exactly the sort of disapproval that fell upon Devadatta.
Yes exactly, which is why I have initially said what the Buddha taught or didn't teach, has nothing to do with the topic to begin with. It's not about kamma or one's practice, etc, etc.
All I'm claiming is that the advocated extension is not an obligatory one and should not be proposed as such.
Ok, no problem. However, the vegetarian argues that it should be obligatory, because that's what the animals in question would argue, if they could speak.
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: Is fishing breaking the precept?

Post by seeker242 »

Sam Vara wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 5:31 pm
seeker242 wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:48 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:33 pm Why can't you simply do as I do, and indeed some monks do: follow a vegan lifestyle and leave everyone else to get on with it,
Because that would not be taking the animal's perspective or point of view. Vegetarians take the animal's perspective and speak on behalf of the animal's perspective.
So you grant the validity of both positions, but continue to proselytise for people to subscribe to your view? If so, I guess that's a defensible position.
You are essentially asking "Why can't vegetarians just live and let live?" Yea? People often say that. I can tell you exactly why if you really want an honest answer to the question. The problem with that questions is that is the exact same thing that vegetarians are saying to omnivores. "Why can't you just live and let live, with regards to the animals"? Of course, when omnivores say that, they are only wanting to include human beings in that picture. When vegetarians say that, they are including animals too and not limiting it to just human beings.

So when an omnivore says "Why can't vegetarians live and let live" and includes only human in that picture, what the vegetarian hears is actually "Why can you just let people live and let the animals die?" The reason why that can't be, is because vegetarians take the animals perspective and from the animals perspective "just letting the animals die" is unacceptable. To a vegetarian, the idea of "live and let live" coming from an omnivore, is unadulterated pure hypocrisy because the exact opposite stance is being taken by the omnivore, with regard to animals. So the vegetation poses the question "Why can't you just let the animals live?" And thus, the debate continues on and on and on and will never end.

Why won't vegetarians leave people alone? Because people won't leave the animals alone. That's essentially what it boils down to.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Is fishing breaking the precept?

Post by Sam Vara »

seeker242 wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 6:23 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 5:31 pm
seeker242 wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:48 pm

Because that would not be taking the animal's perspective or point of view. Vegetarians take the animal's perspective and speak on behalf of the animal's perspective.
So you grant the validity of both positions, but continue to proselytise for people to subscribe to your view? If so, I guess that's a defensible position.
You are essentially asking "Why can't vegetarians just live and let live?" Yea? People often say that. I can tell you exactly why if you really want an honest answer to the question. The problem with that questions is that is the exact same thing that vegetarians are saying to omnivores. "Why can't you just live and let live, with regards to the animals"? Of course, when omnivores say that, they are only wanting to include human beings in that picture. When vegetarians say that, they are including animals too and not limiting it to just human beings.

So when an omnivore says "Why can't vegetarians live and let live" and includes only human in that picture, what the vegetarian hears is actually "Why can you just let people live and let the animals die?" The reason why that can't be, is because vegetarians take the animals perspective and from the animals perspective "just letting the animals die" is unacceptable. To a vegetarian, the idea of "live and let live" coming from an omnivore, is unadulterated pure hypocrisy because the exact opposite stance is being taken by the omnivore, with regard to animals. So the vegetation poses the question "Why can't you just let the animals live?" And thus, the debate continues on and on and on and will never end.

Why won't vegetarians leave people alone? Because people won't leave the animals alone. That's essentially what it boils down to.
Sure. As I say, as an ethical position it is tenable. It's not one I would subscribe to myself, on the grounds I don't think I speak for animals.

It is certainly the case that one might have good grounds for being Buddhist and vegetarian, though it is not the case that those grounds are dictated by, or are an inescapable part of, one's Buddhist beliefs.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

I'm stocking up on fava beans and chianti. One needs a reliable source of nutrition, and you meat eaters will be the first to go. Human bacon, yum yum! :jumping:
Buddha save me from new-agers!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by binocular »

Pondera wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 2:56 amFrom beans and whatnot - but why? Our teeth are designed to rip meat from bone?
Gee, and we have genitals. Does that mean that we must use them for sex? And we have no choice or freedom in the matter?
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Is fishing breaking the precept?

Post by binocular »

seeker242 wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:48 pmVegetarians take the animal's perspective and speak on behalf of the animal's perspective.
That's not true. Some people are vegetarians/vegan for aesthetic reasons, some because of particular beliefs they have about nutrition.

seeker242 wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 6:23 pmWhy won't vegetarians leave people alone? Because people won't leave the animals alone.
But animals are only people who held wrong views in the previous lives ...
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Is fishing breaking the precept?

Post by binocular »

Dhammanando wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 5:18 pmBut who has claimed this? All I'm claiming is that the advocated extension is not an obligatory one and should not be proposed as such.
I think that where the Buddhist defenders of vegetarianism/veganism go wrong is that they fail to empasize the proper use of food:
"And how does a monk know moderation in eating? There is the case where a monk, considering it appropriately, takes his food not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification, but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, thinking, 'I will destroy old feelings [of hunger] & not create new feelings [from overeating]. Thus I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.' This is how a monk knows moderation in eating.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
The Buddhist defenders of meat eating would also do better to focus on the proper use of food, rather than looking for pharisaic loopholes.



Dhammanando wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:07 pmAnd 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.
The context is one of playing dumb.
Playing dumb about the proper use of food; about the effect that one's actions have on others; about what is the foremost type of practice; ...
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
[james]
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:07 pm

Re: Is fishing breaking the precept?

Post by [james] »

Sam Vara wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 7:00 pm
Sure. As I say, as an ethical position it is tenable. It's not one I would subscribe to myself, on the grounds I don't think I speak for animals.

It is certainly the case that one might have good grounds for being Buddhist and vegetarian, though it is not the case that those grounds are dictated by, or are an inescapable part of, one's Buddhist beliefs.
It seems reasonable that, as an animal capable of speaking for yourself, you would have something to say against the possibility of your own body or those of others close to you being killed and eaten. It is plain to see that all animals try to avoid a similar fate. So although you don’t think that you speak for animals the fact is that you can speak for them should you choose to do so. Given that the first of the five principal precepts guiding the ethical behavior of lay Buddhists is to avoid causing harm to others, why would a self described Buddhist choose not to speak out against the harm to animals that underlies the consumption of meat?
Post Reply