the great vegetarian debate

[seeker242]

Did I say that?....I think not.
Slander?
chownah

I didn't say you said that. I said that's the implication of what you said.

[chownah]

Did I say that?....I think not.
Slander?
chownah

I didn't say you said that. I said that's the implication of what you said.

I did not intend to imply that....and I don't think the implication is explicitly in what I said. What I said was:

chownah said: Any attachment to any dietary choice is harmful behavior.

and then to clarify the meaning I said:

to clarify his point chownah said: Any attachment of any kind is harmful behavior.

Then I asked, and I am asking again: Do you agree with the statement "Any attachment of any kind is harmful behaviour."?
chownah

[Stephen18]

Must-read article by Bhante Sujato:

Why Buddhists Should be Vegetarian

[ieee23]

Since it's already there & not for you in particular.

The Buddha stated there are 5 kinds of wrong liveliehood, with one of them being "business in meat". There is no such thing as a business without customers. If you buy meat, you encourage more meat to be produced. Anyone who knows anything about economics will tell you that a supply will be created to meet demand. If you buy meat, then the meat is for you.

[Dhammarakkhito]

buddha kassapa already said meat eating isnt a problem. not sure why this debate exists. should have like 2 posts

[chownah]

Since it's already there & not for you in particular.

The Buddha stated there are 5 kinds of wrong liveliehood, with one of them being "business in meat". There is no such thing as a business without customers. If you buy meat, you encourage more meat to be produced. Anyone who knows anything about economics will tell you that a supply will be created to meet demand. If you buy meat, then the meat is for you.

If this is your view on it then you should certainly be eating no meat.....also....the same logic applies to the multitudes of animals destroyed with the typical commercial and chemical dependent agriculture. If you buy their products then you are creating the demand for them.....if you buy their products then those animals were killed for you.
Grow your own and buy organic.
If you buy organic then be sure to stay away from farmers who use manure. The manure comes from the production of animals for meat. If you buy produce from farmers who use manure then you are creating a demand for animals to be grown which are killed for meat...if you eat their products then the animals were killed for you.
chownah

[lyndon taylor]

yeah right, meat eaters want to tell us we can't eat plants, and yet they eat everything, plants and animals, and have no problem with it, sounds like hypocrisy to me.

[Spiny Norman]

The issue (in this thread) is whether eating meat violates the First Precept and in general, the consensus is that it does not.

Perhaps not, but if we choose to buy meat then we are expecting somebody else to violate the First Precept and do wrong livelihood. That seems like hypocrisy to me.

[chownah]

The issue (in this thread) is whether eating meat violates the First Precept and in general, the consensus is that it does not.

Perhaps not, but if we choose to buy meat then we are expecting somebody else to violate the First Precept and do wrong livelihood. That seems like hypocrisy to me.

I think that most people buying meat do not have that expectation....I think it dosn't enter their mind at all.
chownah

[lyndon taylor]

The issue (in this thread) is whether eating meat violates the First Precept and in general, the consensus is that it does not.

Perhaps not, but if we choose to buy meat then we are expecting somebody else to violate the First Precept and do wrong livelihood. That seems like hypocrisy to me.

I think that most people buying meat do not have that expectation....I think it dosn't enter their mind at all.
chownah

Well if it doesn't, it should!!

[binocular]

I didn't say you said that. I said that's the implication of what you said.

You inferred it.
That's the difference between an implication and an inference.

[Spiny Norman]

Perhaps not, but if we choose to buy meat then we are expecting somebody else to violate the First Precept and do wrong livelihood. That seems like hypocrisy to me.

I think that most people buying meat do not have that expectation....I think it dosn't enter their mind at all.
chownah

Well if it doesn't, it should!!

I think it probably should for a Buddhist who is serious about the practice of Right Intention and harmlessness.

"While you are performing a bodily act, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily act I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily act, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to affliction of others, or both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not... you may continue with it."

— MN 61

[chownah]

"While you are performing a bodily act, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily act I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily act, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to affliction of others, or both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not... you may continue with it."

— MN 61

I think this sutta makes it very clear that if one sees eating meat as leading to affliction then one should give it up and if one sees that eating meat does not lead to affliction then one may continue with it.
chownah

[lyndon taylor]

"While you are performing a bodily act, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily act I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily act, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to affliction of others, or both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not... you may continue with it."

— MN 61

I think this sutta makes it very clear that if one sees eating meat as leading to affliction then one should give it up and if one sees that eating meat does not lead to affliction then one may continue with it.
chownah

Yeah, when you see eating meat is not leading to affliction, as in the killing of animals, you can go ahead and eat it. Unfortunately for you Chownah, eating meat always leads to the killing of animals, I don't know why I have to point this out, it should be quite obvious!!

[chownah]

"While you are performing a bodily act, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily act I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily act, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to affliction of others, or both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not... you may continue with it."

— MN 61

I think this sutta makes it very clear that if one sees eating meat as leading to affliction then one should give it up and if one sees that eating meat does not lead to affliction then one may continue with it.
chownah

Yeah, when you see eating meat is not leading to affliction, as in the killing of animals, you can go ahead and eat it. Unfortunately for you Chownah, eating meat always leads to the killing of animals, I don't know why I have to point this out, it should be quite obvious!!

Eating of meat leads to the meat providing nutrients for sustaining the body. Killing animals leads to the killing of animals. I don't know why I have to point this out, it should be quite obvious!!
chownah