the great vegetarian debate

[Spiny Norman]

The Buddha said it is okay to eat meat provided three conditions are fulfilled, read Jivaka Sutta.

Problem solved.

Though meat-lovers will argue that the 3-fold rule only applied to monks, and not to the laity.
Actually I think that the path factor of Right Intention is more relevant to the question of dietary choices, since it includes the development of harmlessness.

I think you meant to say vegetarians (not meat-lovers) will argue that the 3-fold rule only applied to monks, and not to the laity?

Lay people have the luxury to choose what to eat, what to buy and prepare. Monks accept lunch dana from lay people.

No, I meant what I said. Meat-lovers will argue that 3-fold rule doesn't apply to them, so it's fine to order meat from a butchers shop.
They will argue that there is only a problem if you kill the animal yourself, and that getting somebody else to do it absolves you from responsibility for the first precept breach. They will argue that developing harmlessness (Right Intention) only applies to avoiding direct harm, and not the intention to avoid indirect harm. And so on.
It's like listening to a dodgy lawyer coming up with legal loopholes.

[Ceisiwr]

No, I meant what I said. Meat-lovers will argue that 3-fold rule doesn't apply to them, so it's fine to order meat from a butchers shop.
They will argue that there is only a problem if you kill the animal yourself, and that getting somebody else to do it absolves you from responsibility for the first precept breach. They will argue that developing harmlessness (Right Intention) only applies to avoiding direct harm, and not the intention to avoid indirect harm. And so on.
It's like listening to a dodgy lawyer coming up with legal loopholes.

Or your understanding of Buddhist morality is flawed.

[Spiny Norman]

No, I meant what I said. Meat-lovers will argue that 3-fold rule doesn't apply to them, so it's fine to order meat from a butchers shop.
They will argue that there is only a problem if you kill the animal yourself, and that getting somebody else to do it absolves you from responsibility for the first precept breach. They will argue that developing harmlessness (Right Intention) only applies to avoiding direct harm, and not the intention to avoid indirect harm. And so on.
It's like listening to a dodgy lawyer coming up with legal loopholes.

Or your understanding of Buddhist morality is flawed.

Or perhaps your understanding is flawed? It's probably a matter of interpretation, particularly on what it means to develop harmlessness in the context of Right Intention.

[Ceisiwr]

No, I meant what I said. Meat-lovers will argue that 3-fold rule doesn't apply to them, so it's fine to order meat from a butchers shop.
They will argue that there is only a problem if you kill the animal yourself, and that getting somebody else to do it absolves you from responsibility for the first precept breach. They will argue that developing harmlessness (Right Intention) only applies to avoiding direct harm, and not the intention to avoid indirect harm. And so on.
It's like listening to a dodgy lawyer coming up with legal loopholes.

Or your understanding of Buddhist morality is flawed.

Or perhaps your understanding is flawed? It's probably a matter of interpretation, particularly on what it means to develop harmlessness in the context of Right Intention.

Of course, but that doesn’t mean I’m being “dodgy”

Getting back to Right Intention, if it included not causing any indirect harm how is that different to acting like a Jain?

[DNS]

No, I meant what I said. Meat-lovers will argue that 3-fold rule doesn't apply to them, so it's fine to order meat from a butchers shop.
They will argue that there is only a problem if you kill the animal yourself, and that getting somebody else to do it absolves you from responsibility for the first precept breach. They will argue that developing harmlessness (Right Intention) only applies to avoiding direct harm, and not the intention to avoid indirect harm. And so on.
It's like listening to a dodgy lawyer coming up with legal loopholes.

Okay, that's an interesting take. I usually hear it the other way. Vegetarian buddhists will say that the 3-fold rule only applies to monks, that lay people must choose at the grocery store what to buy, prepare and eat and omnivore buddhists who claim they are just "accepting what they are given" at the dinner table (by the person who cooked it) are incorrectly applying the 3-fold rule to lay people. Lay people have a choice so could easily choose the less lethal option, from the vegetarian view. Monks don't have the option of going to the grocery store and choosing for themselves.

All diets have some harm to them, with vegetarian diets from the insects and possibly small animals due to the harvest. A meat based diet has the large animal plus the harvest as the farm animals are fed grains their entire lives until slaughter. A vegetarian and especially a vegan diet has less harm, but apparently the Buddha did not praise seeking the lesser harm diet and focused more on the act of killing.

Just my opinion, but we don't have to be limited to Buddhist ethics and ideas regarding all matters. We can look to logic and ahimsa and the spirit of the teachings and see that lesser harm is better than more harm.

[seeker242]

There is no harm in killing animals to get meat if done appropriately. There may be harm through intensive livestock farming however.

Pray tell, how does one accomplish such a feat?

Tell, how do you define "harm"? What is harmed if an animal gets instantly killed?

The person who is killing it is certainly harmed simply due to the fact that they are killing living beings.

[NotMe]

[seeker242]

Getting back to Right Intention, if it included not causing any indirect harm how is that different to acting like a Jain?

Where is there a "direct" harm in not avoiding meat that is suspected of being killed specifically for oneself? After all, the animal is already dead anyway and now it's just a chunk of insentient meat. How can you cause direct harm to a chunk of meat?

[NotMe]

Getting back to Right Intention, if it included not causing any indirect harm how is that different to acting like a Jain?

Where is there a "direct" harm in not avoiding meat that is suspected of being killed specifically for oneself? After all, the animal is already dead anyway and now it's just a chunk of insentient meat. How can you cause direct harm to a chunk of meat?

Suspecting and knowing are two different things. If I ask a butcher to slaughter a cow for me that one over there, there is a direct link. If the butcher says hey I killed this one just for you. Hmmm….

Why support wrong livelihood?

[SteRo]

Pray tell, how does one accomplish such a feat?

Tell, how do you define "harm"? What is harmed if an animal gets instantly killed?

The person who is killing it is certainly harmed simply due to the fact that they are killing living beings.

If one takes the doctrine as authoritative then that thought may appear to oneself because the mere act of killing, independent of accompanying intentions/passions/emotions (or their absence) is considered to be kammically negative by doctrine.

[thepea]

At the suggestion of cooran, here is a poll on which specific diet you mostly follow. Here are some definitions:

1. Carnivore - meat only, no other food, no fruit, veggies, grains, or bread, etc.
2. Omnivore - (almost) anything goes, red meat, poultry, fish, veggies, etc.
3. Flexitarianism - A diet that consists primarily of vegetarian food, but includes occasional exceptions for some kinds of meat.
4. Pescetarianism - A diet that is mainly vegetarian but also includes fish and sometimes other seafood.
5. Pollotarianism - A diet that is mainly vegetarian but also includes poultry.
6. Lacto-ovo vegetarianism is a vegetarian diet that permits consumption of animal products such eggs, milk, and honey.
7. Veganism abstains from all animal flesh and animal products, including milk, honey, and eggs.
8. Organic veganism - only organic vegan foods.
9. Raw veganism is a diet of fresh and uncooked fruit, nuts, seeds, and vegetables.
10. Fruitarianism is a diet of only fruit, nuts, seeds, and other plant matter that can be gathered without harming the plant (many Jains follow this diet).

I had to re-do the poll since the previous version left out 'omnivore' so please vote again if you voted before.

See also: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=3645" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Could I raise a fact.
Meat is food.
This is literally the definition of meat.
All vegans eat meat, they simply choose not to eat animals or use animal products.
Which is an impossible expectation given the production process of mest and goods we consume.

[DNS]

Could I raise a fact.
Meat is food.
This is literally the definition of meat.
All vegans eat meat, they simply choose not to eat animals or use animal products.
Which is an impossible expectation given the production process of mest and goods we consume.

?

Vegans don't eat meat; they don't even eat animal products.

[thepea]

I’m on the waughter diet, waughtever my wife and daughter make for me. It’s very close to a monastic on alms except I get yelled at more than them.

[thepea]

Could I raise a fact.
Meat is food.
This is literally the definition of meat.
All vegans eat meat, they simply choose not to eat animals or use animal products.
Which is an impossible expectation given the production process of mest and goods we consume.

?

Vegans don't eat meat; they don't even eat animal products.

This is incorrect.
The definition of meat is food used to sustain life.
But correct vegans do not eat animals.

[DNS]

Could I raise a fact.
Meat is food.
This is literally the definition of meat.
All vegans eat meat, they simply choose not to eat animals or use animal products.
Which is an impossible expectation given the production process of mest and goods we consume.

?

Vegans don't eat meat; they don't even eat animal products.

This is incorrect.
The definition of meat is food used to sustain life.
But correct vegans do not eat animals.

I moved our last few posts to the great veg debate, as this is getting back into the age-old debate more than the poll in the other thread.