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 »

Aloka wrote: Tue Jul 19, 2022 1:37 pm Eating meat was forbidden in Tibetan Buddhist Kagyu monasteries in 2007.

https://dakinitranslations.com/buddhist ... nasteries.

More here: http://www.shabkar.org/vegetarianism/index.htm


:anjali:
Why are you vegetarian?
Or are you vegan?
If so, why vegan?
The numbers of vegetarians/vegans are on the rise but still definitely a minority. Personally I don’t really care what others put in their bodies I consider this a personal freedom. I know this view is not commonly shared by any of the dietary categories. Those who eat vegetables are often ridiculed by the carnivores and vice versa. The biggest issue I see is the minority issue, and the defensive nature that can arise through ones values not being accepted. It’s daunting for a vegan to visit a carnies house for a backyard bbq. Even if the host has two bbqs one with veggies grilling and the other with steaks, burgers, and chicken wings. All dietary needs are being met but I’ve heard vegans say they don’t even want to ingest the smell of cooking flesh, it absolutely immoral to them and I e had friends leave a party as a result of this. This begins the tribal effect and segregation. Vegans find like minded to associate with and seperate themselves from the pack. Similarly carnivores don’t like their meat being pointed out as cruel, disgusting, and immoral. Do they too form tribes and segregate.
Now we take dhamma snd the Buddha. He was a beggar, one day it’s rice and fish the next it vegetables and noodles, the next it’s chicken leg soup. A beggar can only choose from that which has been placed in the bowl.

Now we take dhamma centres and global Vipassana centres, they serve and teach strictly vegetarian diets?
Many see this and think I must be vegetarian or better vegan this is closer to dhamma.
It’s simply to be less offensive to the students attending. Specifically the vegetarians and vegans attending. Most Carnivores can make due, some feel they must consume or only consume flesh for health but these needs are not met.
It’s basically to cater to the easily offended vegetarians snd vegans. I think they would suffer immensely on courses that served fish, chicken etc....
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

thepea wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 3:58 pm
Aloka wrote: Tue Jul 19, 2022 1:37 pm Eating meat was forbidden in Tibetan Buddhist Kagyu monasteries in 2007.

https://dakinitranslations.com/buddhist ... nasteries.

More here: http://www.shabkar.org/vegetarianism/index.htm


:anjali:
Why are you vegetarian?
Or are you vegan?
If so, why vegan?
The numbers of vegetarians/vegans are on the rise but still definitely a minority. Personally I don’t really care what others put in their bodies I consider this a personal freedom. I know this view is not commonly shared by any of the dietary categories. Those who eat vegetables are often ridiculed by the carnivores and vice versa. The biggest issue I see is the minority issue, and the defensive nature that can arise through ones values not being accepted. It’s daunting for a vegan to visit a carnies house for a backyard bbq. Even if the host has two bbqs one with veggies grilling and the other with steaks, burgers, and chicken wings. All dietary needs are being met but I’ve heard vegans say they don’t even want to ingest the smell of cooking flesh, it absolutely immoral to them and I e had friends leave a party as a result of this. This begins the tribal effect and segregation. Vegans find like minded to associate with and seperate themselves from the pack. Similarly carnivores don’t like their meat being pointed out as cruel, disgusting, and immoral. Do they too form tribes and segregate.
Now we take dhamma snd the Buddha. He was a beggar, one day it’s rice and fish the next it vegetables and noodles, the next it’s chicken leg soup. A beggar can only choose from that which has been placed in the bowl.

Now we take dhamma centres and global Vipassana centres, they serve and teach strictly vegetarian diets?
Many see this and think I must be vegetarian or better vegan this is closer to dhamma.
It’s simply to be less offensive to the students attending. Specifically the vegetarians and vegans attending. Most Carnivores can make due, some feel they must consume or only consume flesh for health but these needs are not met.
It’s basically to cater to the easily offended vegetarians snd vegans. I think they would suffer immensely on courses that served fish, chicken etc....
Humans aren’t carnivores.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by thepea »

Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 6:52 pm
thepea wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 3:58 pm
Aloka wrote: Tue Jul 19, 2022 1:37 pm Eating meat was forbidden in Tibetan Buddhist Kagyu monasteries in 2007.

https://dakinitranslations.com/buddhist ... nasteries.

More here: http://www.shabkar.org/vegetarianism/index.htm


:anjali:
Why are you vegetarian?
Or are you vegan?
If so, why vegan?
The numbers of vegetarians/vegans are on the rise but still definitely a minority. Personally I don’t really care what others put in their bodies I consider this a personal freedom. I know this view is not commonly shared by any of the dietary categories. Those who eat vegetables are often ridiculed by the carnivores and vice versa. The biggest issue I see is the minority issue, and the defensive nature that can arise through ones values not being accepted. It’s daunting for a vegan to visit a carnies house for a backyard bbq. Even if the host has two bbqs one with veggies grilling and the other with steaks, burgers, and chicken wings. All dietary needs are being met but I’ve heard vegans say they don’t even want to ingest the smell of cooking flesh, it absolutely immoral to them and I e had friends leave a party as a result of this. This begins the tribal effect and segregation. Vegans find like minded to associate with and seperate themselves from the pack. Similarly carnivores don’t like their meat being pointed out as cruel, disgusting, and immoral. Do they too form tribes and segregate.
Now we take dhamma snd the Buddha. He was a beggar, one day it’s rice and fish the next it vegetables and noodles, the next it’s chicken leg soup. A beggar can only choose from that which has been placed in the bowl.

Now we take dhamma centres and global Vipassana centres, they serve and teach strictly vegetarian diets?
Many see this and think I must be vegetarian or better vegan this is closer to dhamma.
It’s simply to be less offensive to the students attending. Specifically the vegetarians and vegans attending. Most Carnivores can make due, some feel they must consume or only consume flesh for health but these needs are not met.
It’s basically to cater to the easily offended vegetarians snd vegans. I think they would suffer immensely on courses that served fish, chicken etc....
Humans aren’t carnivores.
Carnivore:
an animal that feeds on flesh.

Humans are animals and the ones who feed on flesh are carnivores.
User avatar
Mahabrahma
Posts: 2232
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:02 am
Location: Krishnaloka :).
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Mahabrahma »

My personal preference is complete non-violence in all forms. However circumstances have dictated that such things haven't always allowed for the causes and conditions for such to always arise in every situation, but I believe I am doing my best. In my own struggles I find it easier to forgive others.
That sage who has perfect insight,
at the summit of spiritual perfection:
that’s who I call a brahmin.

-Dhammapada.
SecretSage
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2023 3:47 pm
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by SecretSage »

I oppose killing animals but I don't support vegetarianism similar to the Theravada view.

What if the meat was lab-grown instead and involved no killing of any animals?
Or what if an animal naturally died and people were hungry needing food?

It's not the mere act of eating of meat but act of killing of animals that generates bad kamma.

If a vegetarian directly kills animals for purposes unrelated to eating food it would also generate bad kamma.

Theravada is against directly killing animals through fishing, hunting, butchering, killing insects, pests, and other means.
"That being used to be a cattle butcher...bird hunter...sheep butcher... pig butcher... deer hunter right here in Rājagaha. As a result of that deed he burned in hell for many years, many hundreds, many thousands, many hundreds of thousands of years. Now he experiences the residual result of that deed in such an incarnation." - SN 19.1-19.6
It's mentioned in AN 5.177 that business in meat isn't allowed for lay followers. I'm guessing this more refers to business directly killing animals like animal farming, animal husbandry, hunting, fishing.
“Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

“These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in.” (AN 5.177)
So I suppose if everyone was a lay follower or monk vegetarianism would make more sense.

Until someone figures out an efficient way of producing meat without killing animals vegetarianism in very high percentages would work to reduce animal killings from animal husbandry, butchers, fisherman, and hunters. But agriculture kills animals too. In small percentages vegetarianism wouldn't work to reduce animal killings.

It's estimated that billions of land animals and trillions of aquatic animals are killed every year in farms.

The context of allowing meat eating in early Buddhism is for food given to monks and nuns who had nothing to do with the killing.

The direct killing of animals generates terribly bad kamma.
“Jīvaka, anyone who slaughters a living creature specially for the Realized One or the Realized One’s disciple makes much bad karma for five reasons.

When they say: ‘Go, fetch that living creature,’ this is the first reason.

When that living creature experiences pain and sadness as it’s led along by a collar, this is the second reason.

When they say: ‘Go, slaughter that living creature,’ this is the third reason.

When that living creature experiences pain and sadness as it’s being slaughtered, this is the fourth reason.

When they provide the Realized One or the Realized One’s disciple with unallowable food, this is the fifth reason.

Anyone who slaughters a living creature specially for the Realized One or the Realized One’s disciple makes much bad karma for five reasons.” (MN 55)
"You yourselves must strive; the Buddhas only point the way"
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17186
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 »

SecretSage wrote: Tue Mar 07, 2023 5:33 pm What if the meat was lab-grown instead and involved no killing of any animals?
Or what if an animal naturally died and people were hungry needing food?
Ethical vegetarians/vegans don't have a complaint about that. There was no being killed in those cases. Some vegetarians (like me) would still not eat it, but that's due to other issues like taste and nutrition, not ethics. I've been a vegetarian for almost 40 years so I have no desire or taste for meat.
knotting
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2022 12:49 pm
Location: USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by knotting »

Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 6:52 pmHumans aren’t carnivores.
Human biology is most suited for meat consumption, though not strictly carnivorous. Humans have an extremely high stomach pH (similar to a vulture), long small intestines and short large intestines (relative to other primates), the lack of a rumen or cecum, and an inability to efficiently synthesize many compounds which are derived from animal sources (B12, DHA/EPA, Retinol, Heme Iron, etc).

There are some adaptations for plant consumption (such as amylase in the saliva), but those likely evolved for times of scarcity. Digging out tubers and such, when hunting wasn't an option.
DNS wrote: Tue Mar 07, 2023 6:00 pmEthical vegetarians/vegans don't have a complaint about that. There was no being killed in those cases. Some vegetarians (like me) would still not eat it, but that's due to other issues like taste and nutrition, not ethics. I've been a vegetarian for almost 40 years so I have no desire or taste for meat.
I recently switched from a lactovegetarian diet to a meat-heavy ketogenic diet, and the difference has been remarkable. Much more physical strength, grounded cognition, and my OCD symptoms disappeared.

There is also the issue of the vegetarian identity. As you stated, 'I've been a vegetarian'. For myself, I latched onto that identity, and used it to subtly judge everyone who ate meat. This became rather absurd when I started to research the facts about modern agriculture, for instance:

1) According to the FAO, 82% of food given to livestock is inedible to humans (such as corn stalks and soybean oilcakes). It's not like people can just eat the plants instead.

2) Plant agriculture is incredibly violent, particularly due to pesticides and rodenticides. The latter generally bleed out rodents internally over the course of two or three days, and then further poison the birds of prey or larger mammals which eat the carcass. There is also the regular use of 'crop protection', which involves massacring wild hogs, deer, etc. which are encroaching on crop fields.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17186
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 »

knotting wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 4:51 am There is also the issue of the vegetarian identity. As you stated, 'I've been a vegetarian'. For myself, I latched onto that identity, and used it to subtly judge everyone who ate meat.
Using words like "I" in everyday conversation is just conventional speech. It does not necessarily mean that one is attached to identity views. In everyday conversations we say things like "I am an American" or "I am an Aussie" or "I am a man" etc, etc. Meat eaters do it too, of course.

It is true there are some vegetarians and vegans who are judgmental, but the same could be said of some meat eaters too. Words like "I am a meat eater because it's the best suited diet for humans." Or "I don't judge like those pesky vegetarians" (implying being superior due to that).
knotting
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2022 12:49 pm
Location: USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by knotting »

DNS wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 2:29 pmUsing words like "I" in everyday conversation is just conventional speech. It does not necessarily mean that one is attached to identity views. In everyday conversations we say things like "I am an American" or "I am an Aussie" or "I am a man" etc, etc. Meat eaters do it too, of course.

It is true there are some vegetarians and vegans who are judgmental, but the same could be said of some meat eaters too. Words like "I am a meat eater because it's the best suited diet for humans." Or "I don't judge like those pesky vegetarians" (implying being superior due to that).
When it comes to specific aspects of identity, I am a bit skeptical that this is only a matter of 'conventional speech'. That would only be true for someone who has eradicated sakkaya-ditthi.

When I was vegetarian, I tried to be non-judgmental and avoid identity-views on the matter, but it was still happening on subtle/subconscious levels. This only became apparent when I reintroduced meat, and noticed all of the subtle conditioning coming to the fore.

I am certainly not beyond judgment, but I am glad to be relieved of the pointless burden of the vegetarian ideology that I was carrying around.
auto
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by auto »

knotting wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2023 4:51 am I recently switched from a lactovegetarian diet to a meat-heavy ketogenic diet, and the difference has been remarkable. Much more physical strength, grounded cognition, and my OCD symptoms disappeared.
In sum,
meat is for weak.
edit,
sorry i tried to be funny.
knotting
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2022 12:49 pm
Location: USA

Does eating meat generate bad karma?

Post by knotting »

I was under the impression that it did not, but I just came across this curious excerpt from a Q&A with Thanissaro Bhikkhu:
"...the [first] precept is phrased in such a way that eating meat does not go against the precept, but you still have the kamma of eating the flesh of the animal that had to die for that.

This is one of the reasons why monks have a reflection every day on the food they eat, which is that they’re incurring a debt and only through the practice can they get beyond that debt. You take the time to reflect on the fact that simply having a body requires that you place a burden on many other beings, which gives you a good motivation for trying to find a happiness that doesn’t need to feed. One of Ajaan Lee’s reflections is that when you’re about to die, the spirits of all the animals whose bodies you ate are going to come thronging around, asking for some merit. If you don’t have any merit to give them, they’ll take you with them. But if you have lots of merit to dedicate to them, they’ll be happy to take your merit instead."

"Good Heart, Good Mind: The Practice of the Ten Perfections"
I have never seen this view from a Theravada monk before. If eating meat produced a 'debt' of bad karma which we had to repay, then why did the Buddha not recommend vegetarianism in the suttas? In addition, I thought it was impossible to 'give' merit to other beings, in the way described?
Meggo
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 2:42 pm

Re: Does eating meat generate bad karma?

Post by Meggo »

Wasn't the Buddha like 96% vegetarian, when you look at all the meals being eaten in the suttas? Is it reasonable to expect that the Buddha could have addressed every problem humanity could face in the next thousands of years? Of course not, so you also have to think for yourself. A possible examination could sound like that:
1) Intention is important when it comes to karmic considerations. If you are sadistically eating meat, being happy about feeling beings being tortured and killed for your pleasure, then that's bad karma.
- If this is not the case, then your intention is only to feed yourself, then no bad karma will result out of that
2) but Samadhi is important in Buddhism too, so everything that will disturb your mind is detrimental to your achieving that
- If you struggle with bad feelings because of empathy and are unable to cope with them then this will disturb your mind, which will lead to less favourable outcomes when it comes to stilling your mind.
- If vegetarianism or veganism is able to still your mind because you don't struggle anymore then this is good for the purpose of achieving enlightenment.
3) If you are unable to correctly feed yourself while being vegetarian or vegan, this could lead to lack of nutritions being ingested which could lead to health / brain problems, which will influence your ability to achieve samadhi again. So this is bad too.

Choose the option that leads to the best outcome.
The main point is to be able the cycle of rebirths. Being born again means needing more food again which will lead to more suffering and death. Maybe you will be a butcher next life or a predatory animal thus accumulating the bad karma of killing by yourself. You don't know.
knotting
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2022 12:49 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does eating meat generate bad karma?

Post by knotting »

Meggo wrote: Thu Apr 06, 2023 4:46 amIs it reasonable to expect that the Buddha could have addressed every problem humanity could face in the next thousands of years?
This isn't just a 'future problem' - animals were being violently butchered in his time, as he was well aware, but he still did not lay down a vegetarian mandate. If the eating of meat (within the bounds discussed in MN 55) was of moral/kammic significance, then why did the Buddha not simply say, 'the Sangha should abstain from meat'?
Last edited by knotting on Thu Apr 06, 2023 11:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: Does eating meat generate bad karma?

Post by Ontheway »

Jivaka Sutta explained this topic very well.
In three cases I say that meat may be eaten: it’s not seen, heard, or suspected. These are three cases in which meat may be eaten.
- Buddha, in Jivaka Sutta
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Does eating meat generate bad karma?

Post by asahi »

What is bad karma according to you ? What would be eating meats bad karma ? Does eating meats brings bad outcome like having sicknesses , short span of life , ugly appearance , becomes destitute or becomes stupid ?
No bashing No gossiping
Post Reply