the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: What is the Buddhist view of abortion?

Post by Spiny Norman »

thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:11 pm So a Buddhist cant buy the live lobsters the guy is selling directly from his boat. But he can buy them cooked in the store an hour later.
Correct?
It doesn't make much sense to me either. Though of course a lobster isn't the same as a human foetus.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: What is the Buddhist view of abortion?

Post by Sam Vara »

thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:20 pm
DNS wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:11 pm
thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:58 pm What sutta is this?
See the link, from the Vinaya and Commentaries.
I see it says the Buddha allowed monks to eat fish meat and eggs provided they had not heard it was killed for them.
Condone seem the question today with this.
So these monastics in buddhas time were travelling with the beggars bowl perhaps unannounced and hold out a bowl and you get what you get, eat yum, burp, go jhana.

But now we have villagers bringing the food directly to the monks and nuns, and they bring these items specifically prepared for them.

Is this not condoning the killing?
No. To condone the killing, one would have to know that the creature had been killed for oneself, and consent to that by accepting it. If the monk is given meat, and does not know or suspect that the killing was done for them, then they are just given meat.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

the great vegetarian debate

Post by DNS »

thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:11 pm So a Buddhist cant buy the live lobsters the guy is selling directly from his boat. But he can buy them cooked in the store an hour later.
Correct?
Yes, correct, because the lobster will be killed right there or by your own hand if you take it home and throw him in boiling water on the stove top.

Vegetarian diets are not prohibited for buddhists, it's just that meat eating is allowed if the animal is not killed specifically for the monks. Some buddhists like to remove themselves completely from the meat-supply-demand-slaughter direct causal chain and become vegetarian or vegan. It's not required in buddhism, but some (like myself) have chosen that diet and see it as a way to go further with the spirit of the First Precept (beyond direct killing).
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by thepea »

DNS wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:46 pm
thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:11 pm So a Buddhist cant buy the live lobsters the guy is selling directly from his boat. But he can buy them cooked in the store an hour later.
Correct?
Yes, correct, because the lobster will be killed right there or by your own hand if you take it home and throw him in boiling water on the stove top.

Vegetarian diets are not prohibited for buddhists, it's just that meat eating is allowed if the animal is not killed specifically for the monks. Some buddhists like to remove themselves completely from the meat-supply-demand-slaughter direct causal chain and become vegetarian or vegan. It's not required in buddhism, but some (like myself) have chosen that diet and see it as a way to go further with the spirit of the First Precept (beyond direct killing).
But.... to eat ones only son on a desert journey is acceptable? :rules: :rolleye:
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 »

thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:12 pm But.... to eat ones only son on a desert journey is acceptable? :rules: :rolleye:
Re-read that sutta, it's not saying it's acceptable to eat your only son. It's about eating with equanimity, just for nourishment to sustain the body, not being attached to taste. It's not saying what the couple is doing (eating their son) is good, just saying that eating should be for sustaining the body and not getting attached to the tastes.

There are actually rules against eating human flesh, even if it is offered in the dana bowl.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by thepea »

DNS wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:16 pm
thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:12 pm But.... to eat ones only son on a desert journey is acceptable? :rules: :rolleye:
Re-read that sutta, it's not saying it's acceptable to eat your only son. It's about eating with equanimity, just for nourishment to sustain the body, not being attached to taste. It's not saying what the couple is doing (eating their son) is good, just saying that eating should be for sustaining the body and not getting attached to the tastes.

There are actually rules against eating human flesh, even if it is offered in the dana bowl.
I’d say not only being attached to taste but also what you are eating. Seems he’s trying to get the point across that it’s utmost importance to finish the journey, even if you must nourish yourself with your only flesh and blood offspring.
So regardless of circumstance feeding off some living breathing thing is required. Something is sacrificed for you to complete this journey. In this case it would be at the parents hands.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: What is the Buddhist view of abortion?

Post by Sam Vara »

thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 6:36 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:39 pm
thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:20 pm

I see it says the Buddha allowed monks to eat fish meat and eggs provided they had not heard it was killed for them.
Condone seem the question today with this.
So these monastics in buddhas time were travelling with the beggars bowl perhaps unannounced and hold out a bowl and you get what you get, eat yum, burp, go jhana.

But now we have villagers bringing the food directly to the monks and nuns, and they bring these items specifically prepared for them.

Is this not condoning the killing?
No. To condone the killing, one would have to know that the creature had been killed for oneself, and consent to that by accepting it. If the monk is given meat, and does not know or suspect that the killing was done for them, then they are just given meat.
Seems a bit hippy dippy if you ask me, like a legal technicality.
Are dippy hippies famed for their legal acumen? Who knew?

It's only the vinaya. You probably know better.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: What is the Buddhist view of abortion?

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:25 pm
thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 6:36 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:39 pm

No. To condone the killing, one would have to know that the creature had been killed for oneself, and consent to that by accepting it. If the monk is given meat, and does not know or suspect that the killing was done for them, then they are just given meat.
Seems a bit hippy dippy if you ask me, like a legal technicality.
Are dippy hippies famed for their legal acumen? Who knew?

It's only the vinaya. You probably know better.
Well times are different now aren’t they than 2500 yrs ago
How many monks go on alms round in Britain(I assume this is where you reside)?
If it’s like North America it’s zero. So all foods prepared for monastics are planned for most part. I was working on the temple and was invited to eat after monks were finished and it was an animal flesh fest, fish, beef, eggs, rice dishes with chicken and stocks mixed in. All prepare by laity family and brought in specific for monastics.
Every week a family volunteered to bring the daily meals and they rotated family to family.

Now if this is not a breach then it’s hippy dippy boo boo nonsense. Same as hiring a dr to kill your fetus.
User avatar
NotMe
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:41 pm

Re: What is the Buddhist view of abortion?

Post by NotMe »

Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:25 pm Are dippy hippies famed for their legal acumen? Who knew?
You just know good counsel having been busted enough times. You know, we vocally choose our next life assignment. Glad I didn't muck up like this poor soul ...
hippopotamus-funny-animals.jpg
hippopotamus-funny-animals.jpg (31.38 KiB) Viewed 1092 times
edit to add:
:offtopic: :oops: :focus:
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Sam Vara »

thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:44 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:25 pm
thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 6:36 pm
Seems a bit hippy dippy if you ask me, like a legal technicality.
Are dippy hippies famed for their legal acumen? Who knew?

It's only the vinaya. You probably know better.
Well times are different now aren’t they than 2500 yrs ago
How many monks go on alms round in Britain(I assume this is where you reside)?
Loads, I often offer them food myself.
So all foods prepared for monastics are planned for most part. I was working on the temple and was invited to eat after monks were finished and it was an animal flesh fest, fish, beef, eggs, rice dishes with chicken and stocks mixed in. All prepare by laity family and brought in specific for monastics.
Every week a family volunteered to bring the daily meals and they rotated family to family.
Yes, that happens here too. There would in that situation be no breach of the vinaya by the monks, providing of course they didn't suspect that the animal had been killed specifically for them. Nor would there be a breach of lay precept by the donors.
Now if this is not a breach then it’s hippy dippy boo boo nonsense
Well, don't blame me. You need to take that up with the Blessed One himself.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: What is the Buddhist view of abortion?

Post by Spiny Norman »

thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:44 pm
Seems a bit hippy dippy if you ask me, like a legal technicality. I was working on the temple and was invited to eat after monks were finished and it was an animal flesh fest, fish, beef, eggs, rice dishes with chicken and stocks mixed in. All prepare by laity family and brought in specific for monastics.
Every week a family volunteered to bring the daily meals and they rotated family to family.

Now if this is not a breach then it’s hippy dippy boo boo nonsense. Same as hiring a dr to kill your fetus.
I agree. It's set up so that monks can eat meat while side-stepping any responsibility for the animals death, meanwhile conveniently forgetting that they are supposed to be developing harmlessness as part of Right Intention.
Last edited by Spiny Norman on Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
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 »

DNS wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:46 pm
thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:11 pm So a Buddhist cant buy the live lobsters the guy is selling directly from his boat. But he can buy them cooked in the store an hour later.
Correct?
Yes, correct, because the lobster will be killed right there or by your own hand if you take it home and throw him in boiling water on the stove top.
But it's apparently OK if you wait for the guy in the lobster shop to do it, then buy the dead lobster. :rolleye:
The effect is the same - the lobster has died horribly so that you can eat it.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
NotMe
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:41 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by NotMe »

Spiny Norman wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:05 am
DNS wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:46 pm
thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:11 pm So a Buddhist cant buy the live lobsters the guy is selling directly from his boat. But he can buy them cooked in the store an hour later.
Correct?
Yes, correct, because the lobster will be killed right there or by your own hand if you take it home and throw him in boiling water on the stove top.
But it's apparently OK if you wait for the guy in the lobster shop to do it, then buy the dead lobster. :rolleye:
The effect is the same - the lobster has died horribly so that you can eat it.
The Buddha teaches intent as the important ingredient. One person killed. With the intent to kill. One person buys meat With the intent to eat.

Seems like a pretty thin line to me, but it seemed to work for the monks that became Arahants. I think the intended way for this to work was the families in the village would prepare food for the family. A small portion would be set aside for the monks. If meat was involved, it wasn’t slaughtered for the monks, it was slaughtered for the family. That’s just the best I can do to be at peace with it.

The Buddha was very keen that the monks not be a burden to lay people. As much as possible he wanted the monks to be able fit in with the norms of their society- their culture - It makes for a peaceful coexistence. What would be put in the arms bowl if the villagers had to prepare a separate vegetarian meal for the monks?

Monks had the special ordination vows and the lay people had their laws to follow. In the space between these two rulessets, the Buddha wanted all to be able to share common grounds.

I prefer not to support wrong employment. Why pay someone to create bad karma for themselves?

Don’t know if this helps but it’s really not as crazy as it seems.

Metta

:anjali:
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 »

NotMe wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:05 am
Spiny Norman wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:05 am
DNS wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:46 pm

Yes, correct, because the lobster will be killed right there or by your own hand if you take it home and throw him in boiling water on the stove top.
But it's apparently OK if you wait for the guy in the lobster shop to do it, then buy the dead lobster. :rolleye:
The effect is the same - the lobster has died horribly so that you can eat it.
The Buddha teaches intent as the important ingredient. One person killed. With the intent to kill. One person buys meat With the intent to eat.

Seems like a pretty thin line to me...
A very thin line, more like a legal technicality, IMO.
Particularly because Buddhists are supposed to follow the 8-fold path, which includes developing harmlessness as part of Right Intention.
I've heard all the arguments, but I don't find them convincing.

Anyway, the lobster example is really about lay-Buddhists buying meat. Like apparently it's OK for somebody else to break the first precept and do wrong livelihood so a Buddhist can have some meat on their plate. Really? :shrug:
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Sam Vara »

Spiny Norman wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:21 am
NotMe wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:05 am
Spiny Norman wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:05 am

But it's apparently OK if you wait for the guy in the lobster shop to do it, then buy the dead lobster. :rolleye:
The effect is the same - the lobster has died horribly so that you can eat it.
The Buddha teaches intent as the important ingredient. One person killed. With the intent to kill. One person buys meat With the intent to eat.

Seems like a pretty thin line to me...
A very thin line, more like a legal technicality, IMO.
Particularly because Buddhists are supposed to follow the 8-fold path, which includes developing harmlessness as part of Right Intention.
I've heard all the arguments, but I don't find them convincing.

Anyway, the lobster example is really about lay-Buddhists buying meat. Like apparently it's OK for somebody else to break the first precept and do wrong livelihood so a Buddhist can have some meat on their plate. Really? :shrug:
You seem to be approaching this from a Western mindset, which is legalistic, consequentialist and informed by the Kantian maxim that whoever wills the end, wills the means.

I think Buddhist ethics are more about the consequences within the individual's mind. Buying or accepting meat killed by someone else is not disturbing. On retreat, I often see people tucking into meat, and then peacefully settling down to meditate. I don't think anyone could do that after wrestling a squealing animal into submission, and then slicing its carotid artery. It's just the way most humans are wired.
Post Reply