the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:32 am 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.
This is exactly the point I am making in the precept thread.
No, you don’t want to be wrestling an animal to the ground and taking its life then settling in to jhana. Not going to happen.
Most will have a difficult time making oatmeal and then settling into jhana. The mind must be still.
But you can do these things as a layman not on retreat but working in the world. Is it right/wrong :juggling: :shrug: meh, depends on the individuals thought processes.
Similarly the woman aborting the child it’s not a right or wrong situation, it’s independent to the mind the mother carries(hiring the killer) , the Drs mind(the kilker) and the fetus(the killed). It’s a complex no easy answer but I feel pretty good that each individual is in this situation to get exactly the experience (wisdom) they require to revolve towards arahant.
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 »

NotMe wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:05 am I prefer not to support wrong employment. Why pay someone to create bad karma for themselves?
Spiny Norman wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:21 am 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:
Good points, in my opinion. Business in meat is listed as one of the wrong livelihoods. Business in weapons and poisons is also wrong livelihood. I notice many buddhists prefer not to support the weapons and poisons industries, so why not continue with that logic and not support the meat industry.

As some others have noted in some of the many previous posts (in this long thread), what if everyone were buddhist? Who would do the killing? Perhaps at the least, we could see vegetarianism as an ideal, because there would be no meat available if everyone were buddhist (and following the 5 precepts).

The 3-fold rule is one of the most quoted Suttas of omnivores, which was for monks who accept food placed in the dana bowls. If everyone were buddhist, there would be no slaughterhouses and the monks would also be vegetarian, as they have to accept what is offered to them.
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 »

Sam Vara wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:32 am
Spiny Norman wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:21 am
NotMe wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:05 am

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.
Ironically, part of my objection here is to a legalistic interpretation of the precepts, going by the letter but ignoring the spirit.
I think the spirit of the precepts is to minimise the harm one does, both to self and others. That's why I keep refering to developing harmlessness as an aspect of Right Intention, a point some people are studiously avoiding in this discussion.

Because of this, I don't find your second argument all that convincing. Like we entitled Buddhists shouldn't be involved in the unpleasant realities of life, in case it effects our meditation? Hmmm.
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: Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:05 pm
NotMe wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:05 am I prefer not to support wrong employment. Why pay someone to create bad karma for themselves?
Spiny Norman wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:21 am 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:
Good points, in my opinion. Business in meat is listed as one of the wrong livelihoods. Business in weapons and poisons is also wrong livelihood. I notice many buddhists prefer not to support the weapons and poisons industries, so why not continue with that logic and not support the meat industry.

As some others have noted in some of the many previous posts (in this long thread), what if everyone were buddhist? Who would do the killing? Perhaps at the least, we could see vegetarianism as an ideal, because there would be no meat available if everyone were buddhist (and following the 5 precepts).

The 3-fold rule is one of the most quoted Suttas of omnivores, which was for monks who accept food placed in the dana bowls. If everyone were buddhist, there would be no slaughterhouses and the monks would also be vegetarian, as they have to accept what is offered to them.
I'm not sure how relevant the 3-fold rule is for us as lay-Buddhists.
In any case, I couldn't kill an animal myself, and I wouldn't expect somebody else to do it on my behalf, just so I can have some meat on my plate. It would feel like hypocrisy, expecting somebody else to do my "dirty work".
And for most of us non-meat alternatives are available, so choosing to buy meat is a choice.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by thepea »

DNS wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:05 pm
NotMe wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:05 am I prefer not to support wrong employment. Why pay someone to create bad karma for themselves?
Spiny Norman wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:21 am 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:
Good points, in my opinion. Business in meat is listed as one of the wrong livelihoods. Business in weapons and poisons is also wrong livelihood. I notice many buddhists prefer not to support the weapons and poisons industries, so why not continue with that logic and not support the meat industry.

As some others have noted in some of the many previous posts (in this long thread), what if everyone were buddhist? Who would do the killing? Perhaps at the least, we could see vegetarianism as an ideal, because there would be no meat available if everyone were buddhist (and following the 5 precepts).

The 3-fold rule is one of the most quoted Suttas of omnivores, which was for monks who accept food placed in the dana bowls. If everyone were buddhist, there would be no slaughterhouses and the monks would also be vegetarian, as they have to accept what is offered to them.
This is ridiculous, you reside in a dry desert.
Also meat is food. You mean animal flesh.
Everybody eats meat.
As long as we continue to cultivate resources and not extinct them we are in balance and can absolutely thrive globally.
What are people to eat in cold climates when crops cannot grow?
Animals have this amazing ability to eat grass which we cannot and turn this into flesh which we can use to sustain the body.
What if hydro went out in Vegas and the water stopped flowing, that place would be basically inhospitable other than those who can trap the local wildlife.
Similarly those in Siberia utilize the seasons and that which each season provides, trapping in winter, fishing in summer and fall, growing crops in summer, hunting game as opportunistic and around breeding times to preserve life and the species. It’s harmonious life living with the land. Then for periods of time those who are willing can retreat from the layman ways and jhana.
You seem to be trying to be as close to monastic but without the dedication and sacrifice of going forth. That’s fine but it’s extremist and only recently available due to global shipping.
I mean good for you(good karma) but please see the extreme nature of this and that it’s not available to all or necessary to progress. I think it’s extreme to vilify animal consumption and the precess of turning life into food.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8149
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Coëmgenu »

thepea wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:36 pmmeat is food. You mean animal flesh.
Everybody eats meat
This is an etymological fallacy that privileges a sense of "meat" that was common in the 1500s. The English language has changed since the 1500s.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
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: Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:36 pm This is ridiculous, you reside in a dry desert. What are people to eat in cold climates when crops cannot grow? What if hydro went out in Vegas and the water stopped flowing, that place would be basically inhospitable other than those who can trap the local wildlife.
If Las Vegas ran out of water (which is actually possible, it never rains here), it wouldn't change anything about the agriculture, as we have little to no agriculture. There are planes, trains, automobiles, trucks, and ships now. Everything is shipped in. If we run out of water, I'll become a climate refugee and move elsewhere, but that's because the city can't exist without water, not because of any agriculture issue.

Very few places in the world are completely isolated, it's a global economy and goods and services, including food is traded all over.
Everybody eats meat.
Not true, currently about 5% of the population of the U.S. is vegetarian.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/267074/per ... arian.aspx

It's 22% for the world's population that is vegetarian.
https://dealsonhealth.net/vegetarian-st ... 0necessity.
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 2:23 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:32 am
Spiny Norman wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:21 am

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.
Ironically, part of my objection here is to a legalistic interpretation of the precepts, going by the letter but ignoring the spirit.
I think the spirit of the precepts is to minimise the harm one does, both to self and others. That's why I keep refering to developing harmlessness as an aspect of Right Intention, a point some people are studiously avoiding in this discussion.

Because of this, I don't find your second argument all that convincing. Like we entitled Buddhists shouldn't be involved in the unpleasant realities of life, in case it effects our meditation? Hmmm.
Not at all. We are involved in the unpleasant realities of life whether we want to be or not, according to our kamma. The point is that there is no requirement upon us to act in such a way that we sort out the problems of other sentient beings. That's the Western mindset, a set of pervasive assumptions heavily influenced by Judeo-Christianity and those ethical systems which superseded religious sensibility. If we ask "What is the purpose of morality?", what would most Westerners say?

The Buddha (in this case via Sariputta) is clear that the Holy Life does not contain virtue as an end in itself, with an independent value:

"My friend, is the holy life lived under the Blessed One?"

"Yes, my friend."

"And is the holy life lived under the Blessed One for the sake of purity in terms of virtue?"

"No, my friend."

So what is the place of virtue, which is undoubtedly important, in the Holy Life?
purity in terms of virtue is simply for the sake of purity in terms of mind. Purity in terms of mind is simply for the sake of purity in terms of view. Purity in terms of view is simply for the sake of purity in terms of the overcoming of perplexity. Purity in terms of the overcoming of perplexity is simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision of what is & is not the path. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision of what is & is not the path is simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision of the way. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision of the way is simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision is simply for the sake of total Unbinding through lack of clinging. And it's for the sake of total Unbinding through lack of clinging that the holy life is lived under the Blessed One.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

How, in a cyclical universe of universal suffering (in its broadest sense) would the alleviation of one being's hardship, or the prolongation of one life by a few months or years, be at all significant? Thinking that it is so is the echo of the injunction that I am my brother's keeper. Kamma is purely subjective and psychological: cetana. There is no tally in which our good actions are externally measured against some objective criterion of "goodness". That's the Western mindset. It's not as crude as saying that avoiding nasty situations allows us to meditate more deeply, although that's certainly part of it. In more general terms, it's that if our intentional actions are peaceful and wholesome, then our minds become progressively more peaceful and clear. Reckless unthinking killing - just like stealing, unbridled sexual expression, blurting out untrue and hurtful stuff, and intoxicating ourselves - are incompatible with what the Buddha called adhicitta, or the heightened mind.
User avatar
NotMe
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:41 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by NotMe »

Sam Vara wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:35 pm ...
Reckless unthinking killing - just like stealing, unbridled sexual expression, blurting out untrue and hurtful stuff, and intoxicating ourselves - are incompatible with what the Buddha called adhicitta, or the heightened mind.
Even reckless thinking rather than unthinking has the same result.

Ajaan Thanissaro Bikkhu tells of good will as wide as the river Ganges that allows dumping of a sizable quantity of bad karma with virtually no effect on the water quality. So to speak. Get my/his drift?.

Who knows?

Metta

:anjali:

edit to add: Can't speak of those I ignore - but some *really* awesome posts from ya'll. Yippy-ti-yo-ti-Yay! (Native American talk for Saddhu!)
User avatar
NotMe
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:41 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by NotMe »

DNS wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:05 pm If everyone were buddhist, there would be no slaughterhouses and the monks would also be vegetarian, as they have to accept what is offered to them.
"you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" rip JL - Imagine. Just imagine. Goosebumps. Then a laff as I slap my knee - ain't gonna happen! dad gum it all.

Metta

:anjali:

edit to add: Now you've gone and done it again. Earworms! Get Together by Youngbloods AND John. Sheesh, how can I ever get into 1st base sitting here?
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 »

There are lots of issues where I'm conflicted, or uncertain.
But not this one.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by thepea »

Coëmgenu wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:50 pm
thepea wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:36 pmmeat is food. You mean animal flesh.
Everybody eats meat
This is an etymological fallacy that privileges a sense of "meat" that was common in the 1500s. The English language has changed since the 1500s.
Yes, I’m very well language changes. I speak to this in almost every post. You just don’t like the sound of this. But... meat is food, this is also in the bible(and yes I’m aware this is a dhamma site).
Language has formality and common tongue(slang).
I assume Buddha was formal with his words.
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: Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:12 pm
Coëmgenu wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:50 pm
thepea wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:36 pmmeat is food. You mean animal flesh.
Everybody eats meat
This is an etymological fallacy that privileges a sense of "meat" that was common in the 1500s. The English language has changed since the 1500s.
Yes, I’m very well language changes. I speak to this in almost every post. You just don’t like the sound of this. But... meat is food, this is also in the bible(and yes I’m aware this is a dhamma site).
Language has formality and common tongue(slang).
I assume Buddha was formal with his words.
This sounds like a variation of "If God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat".
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by thepea »

DNS wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:05 pm
thepea wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:36 pm This is ridiculous, you reside in a dry desert. What are people to eat in cold climates when crops cannot grow? What if hydro went out in Vegas and the water stopped flowing, that place would be basically inhospitable other than those who can trap the local wildlife.
If Las Vegas ran out of water (which is actually possible, it never rains here), it wouldn't change anything about the agriculture, as we have little to no agriculture. There are planes, trains, automobiles, trucks, and ships now. Everything is shipped in. If we run out of water, I'll become a climate refugee and move elsewhere, but that's because the city can't exist without water, not because of any agriculture issue.

Very few places in the world are completely isolated, it's a global economy and goods and services, including food is traded all over.
Everybody eats meat.
Not true, currently about 5% of the population of the U.S. is vegetarian.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/267074/per ... arian.aspx

It's 22% for the world's population that is vegetarian.
https://dealsonhealth.net/vegetarian-st ... 0necessity.
Vegetables are meat(food).
Yes... that’s my point we are discussing an ancient practice well before automation and global shipping.
You would be forced to move or eat what’s available which might include animals depending on climate.
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: Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:46 pm Vegetables are meat(food).
Yes... that’s my point we are discussing an ancient practice well before automation and global shipping.
You would be forced to move or eat what’s available which might include animals depending on climate.
As has been already noted by others, you are using a very archaic use of the term "meat." We don't live in the 1500s, we live in the 21st century and meat refers to animal flesh. This is not making any value judgment, just a statement of fact, that meat refers to animal flesh; beef, pork, etc.

Global trade is not going to end, the entire world engages in trade. One country or village might make product A, another country or village makes product B; there are few if any civilizations that are completely isolated and get all their needs without leaving their village, city, or doing trade with other nations.
Post Reply