the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
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 »

[james] wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 9:12 pm
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?
The first of the five ethical precepts is against killing, not causing harm.

Speaking out against killing animals is praised by the Buddha in the canon, and Buddhists who choose to do so are doing something beneficial. My point is that there is no canonical reason for considering this to be compulsory.
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: Is fishing breaking the precept?

Post by seeker242 »

binocular wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:05 pm But animals are only people who held wrong views in the previous lives ...
Does that make it ok for human beings to subject them to additional unnecessary suffering? Does that mean their suffering doesn’t matter?
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3060
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Pondera »

binocular wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:05 pm
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?
The only people telling you not to use your genitals for sex are religious people.

The evolutionary purpose of a penis or a vagina in human is sex.

If you fail to procreate, then you are not the fittest survivor.

As a human, you are unlike animals in that you can chose to restrain your self from using your genitals as they were designed.

The same goes for eating meat with your meat eating teeth.

But your genitals were designed for sex and your teeth were designed to rip meat off bone.

If you want to restrain your self for “moral” reasons, then go ahead.

I will use my body the way it was designed and for its intended use.

It has no effect on my spiritual development to use my body for its intended use.
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
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 »

Pondera wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 11:00 pm
binocular wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:05 pm
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?
:tongue:

The only people telling you not to use your genitals for sex are religious people.

The evolutionary purpose of a penis or a vagina in human is sex.

If you fail to procreate, then you are not the fittest survivor.

As a human, you are unlike animals in that you can chose to restrain your self from using your genitals as they were designed.

The same goes for eating meat with your meat eating teeth.

But your genitals were designed for sex and your teeth were designed to rip meat off bone.

If you want to restrain your self for “moral” reasons, then go ahead.

I will use my body the way it was designed and for its intended use.

It has no effect on my spiritual development to use my body for its intended use.
So can I eat you then? I bet you taste like chicken. Kentucky Fried Pondera, yum, yum. With fava beans and chianti.
I'd avoid the west coast of Ireland if I were you, there are rumours they ate the Spanish sailors who were shipwrecked from the Armada. . :tongue:
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3060
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Pondera »

Dinsdale wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 11:05 pm
Pondera wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 11:00 pm
binocular wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:05 pm
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?
:tongue:

The only people telling you not to use your genitals for sex are religious people.

The evolutionary purpose of a penis or a vagina in human is sex.

If you fail to procreate, then you are not the fittest survivor.

As a human, you are unlike animals in that you can chose to restrain your self from using your genitals as they were designed.

The same goes for eating meat with your meat eating teeth.

But your genitals were designed for sex and your teeth were designed to rip meat off bone.

If you want to restrain your self for “moral” reasons, then go ahead.

I will use my body the way it was designed and for its intended use.

It has no effect on my spiritual development to use my body for its intended use.
So can I eat you then? I bet you taste like chicken. Kentucky Fried Pondera, yum, yum. With fava beans and chianti.
I'd avoid the west coast of Ireland if I were you, there are rumours they ate the Spanish sailors who were shipwrecked from the Armada. . :tongue:
You’re welcome to try :) Keep in mind that I have canines and I haven’t cut my nails recently - so if you’re really intent on eating me you could lose an eye. (On another note: there are evolutionary mechanisms in place to prevent cannibalism. Ie. your desire to eat me is a type of perversion)!

My desire to eat pork, beef, chicken, deer, fish, etcetera is hardwired into my genetics.

My desire to use my penis for sex is also a manifestation of my evolution.

Ie. these are not “taboo” or “perverse” (as is “cannibalism”)
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
[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 10:28 pm The first of the five ethical precepts is against killing, not causing harm.
Ok, thanks.
Seems to be a matter of degree.
Why the distinction, do you think?
Speaking out against killing animals is praised by the Buddha in the canon, and Buddhists who choose to do so are doing something beneficial. My point is that there is no canonical reason for considering this to be compulsory.
Never mind compulsory. Isn’t doing what is beneficial, in this context, reason enough?
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 6:23 pm So the vegetation poses the question "Why can't you just let the animals live?"
Does it?

If I was the dandelion in this picture I expect I'd be making petitionary prayers to Ceres, Flora, Freyja and Sif for cow 56 to be slaughtered as quickly as possible.

:jumping:

.
Cow 56.jpg
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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Is fishing breaking the precept?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Dhammanando wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 2:15 am
seeker242 wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 6:23 pm So the vegetation poses the question "Why can't you just let the animals live?"
Does it?

If I was the dandelion in this picture I expect I'd be making petitionary prayers to Ceres, Flora, Freyja and Sif for cow 56 to be slaughtered as quickly as possible.

:jumping:

.
Cow 56.jpg
:jumping:
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Is fishing breaking the precept?

Post by chownah »

Sam Vara wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:28 pm Speaking out against killing animals is praised by the Buddha in the canon, and Buddhists who choose to do so are doing something beneficial. My point is that there is no canonical reason for considering this to be compulsory.
I know that you are busy but if it is convenient could you bring a reference to a sutta where the buddha praises the speaking out against killing animals?.....or at least describe the context? I really don't remember having read this......maybe I remember the buddha describing the good qualities of some venerable person and putting not killing things on the list?
chownah
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 »

[james] wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 11:47 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:28 pm The first of the five ethical precepts is against killing, not causing harm.
Ok, thanks.
Seems to be a matter of degree.
Why the distinction, do you think?
I would have thought it a matter of qualitative distinction, not one of degree.
Never mind compulsory. Isn’t doing what is beneficial, in this context, reason enough?
Well, it's reason enough to do it, but not reason enough for it to be a precept. It's a bit like donating to your favourite charity: it might be informed or motivated by Buddhist ethics, but is not required by them.
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 »

chownah wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:38 am
Sam Vara wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:28 pm Speaking out against killing animals is praised by the Buddha in the canon, and Buddhists who choose to do so are doing something beneficial. My point is that there is no canonical reason for considering this to be compulsory.
I know that you are busy but if it is convenient could you bring a reference to a sutta where the buddha praises the speaking out against killing animals?.....or at least describe the context? I really don't remember having read this......maybe I remember the buddha describing the good qualities of some venerable person and putting not killing things on the list?
chownah
I was thinking of this one, AN 4.264:
Someone with four qualities is raised up to heaven. What four? They don’t themselves kill living creatures; they encourage others to not kill living creatures; they approve of not killing living creatures; and they praise not killing living creatures. Someone with these four qualities is raised up to heaven.
https://suttacentral.net/an4.264/en/sujato

If anything, I unintentionally over-egged it in favour of vegetarian activism.
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: Is fishing breaking the precept?

Post by seeker242 »

Dhammanando wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 2:15 am
seeker242 wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 6:23 pm So the vegetation poses the question "Why can't you just let the animals live?"
Does it?

If I was the dandelion in this picture I expect I'd be making petitionary prayers to Ceres, Flora, Freyja and Sif for cow 56 to be slaughtered as quickly as possible.

:jumping:
Which Theravāda text extends its scope to include dandelions in the classification of “sentient beings”?

:jumping:
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 10:35 pmDoes that make it ok for human beings to subject them to additional unnecessary suffering? Does that mean their suffering doesn’t matter?
I find that the Jain line of reasoning only leads to either heightened neuroticism, or new heights of hypocrisy.
Heightened neuroticism because it is impossible to entirely avoid killing and harming beings. New heights of hypocrisy because one has to draw the line somewhere and put one's own life above the lives of others.

- - -
[james] wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 9:12 pmGiven 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?
Because neither their compassion nor their goodwill are limitless, probably.
Which, however, doesn't automatically mean that a vegan's compassion and goodwill are unlimited. A vegan may have more compassion and goodwill for animals than a meat eater, but then "balance it out" by being meaner to people.
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: Sat Apr 25, 2020 2:15 amIf I was the dandelion in this picture I expect I'd be making petitionary prayers to Ceres, Flora, Freyja and Sif for cow 56 to be slaughtered as quickly as possible.
Or get reborn as meadow saffron and do it yourself.

:thinking:
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by DNS »

Bill Maher had a good take on the virus and wet markets and vegetarianism last night on Real Time:

Post Reply