the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by lyndon taylor »

Yes, just one part, but a very important part, partly because its just so easy to make a difference, simply don't support the meat industry, its easier than being kind to everyone you know, trust me!!!
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah »

I think people are not understanding my post. Here is what I am saying.....for people who think that eating meat implicates one in the business of meat doesn't it make sense that they would also think that eating foods raised using poisons implicates one in the business of poisons?
chownah
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by lyndon taylor »

As pesticides as we know them didn't exist in the Buddha's time its impossible to determine where he would have stood on the issue, but I can guarantee you he would not be telling you not to eat vegtables!!!
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah »

Business in poisons is wrong livelihood. Pesticides are poisons. The Buddha never qualified the term poison in any way. The concept is that if eating meat you are implicated in the wrong livelihood of business in meat then the same logic applies to buying vegetables raised using poisons doesn't it?.....seems like a no brainer too me.

Additionally, the poisons are sprayed on the crops specifically for the purpose of killing sentient beings.....so aren't you implicated in the killing of all those sentient beings if you buy the produce?

The concept is guilt by implication....I guess.......
chownah
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by lyndon taylor »

Well I hope you don't brush your teeth or heaven forbid take antibiotics because that kills sentient bacteria beings!!
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah »

Bacteria are not sentient.
chownah
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by lyndon taylor »

And insects are sentient on par with a cow, a pig or a chicken??
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
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 »

chownah wrote:Business in poisons is wrong livelihood. Pesticides are poisons. The Buddha never qualified the term poison in any way. The concept is that if eating meat you are implicated in the wrong livelihood of business in meat then the same logic applies to buying vegetables raised using poisons doesn't it?.....seems like a no brainer too me.
In context of wrong livelihood, poison in the Buddha's time would have been stuff that poisons people or animals, not bacteria - I'm pretty sure they didn't have pesticides in the Buddha's time!
See here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

But yes, if we wanted to further reduce the harm we do to other living things, then buying organic vegetables would be a logical step.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah »

Spiny Norman wrote:
chownah wrote:Business in poisons is wrong livelihood. Pesticides are poisons. The Buddha never qualified the term poison in any way. The concept is that if eating meat you are implicated in the wrong livelihood of business in meat then the same logic applies to buying vegetables raised using poisons doesn't it?.....seems like a no brainer too me.
In context of wrong livelihood, poison in the Buddha's time would have been stuff that poisons people or animals, not bacteria - I'm pretty sure they didn't have pesticides in the Buddha's time!
See here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

But yes, if we wanted to further reduce the harm we do to other living things, then buying organic vegetables would be a logical step.
Indeed people or animals....pesticides are often used to kill animals.....note that the term pesticide includes many kinds of poisons such as herbasides, insecticides, rodentacides, etc. I did not mention bacteria...that is lyndon tayler's fantasy addition, not mine.
In relation to eating meat you posted, "I think the wrong livelihood argument is significant, not least because if we buy meat we're effectively condoning it." Are you hear admitting that the same argument is significant in relation to buying vegetables raised using poisons?....in other words, buying poison raised vegetables implicates one in the wrong livelihood of dealing in poisons in the same way that buying meats implicates one in the wrong livelihood of business in meat?
chownah
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by lyndon taylor »

Basically, chownah, you're making a straw man argument as we know you eat food grown with pesticides, and you obviously support eating meat. Isn't introducing spurious arguments you don't believe yourself just to cause dissension the definition of trolling???
Last edited by lyndon taylor on Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

lyndon taylor wrote:And insects are sentient on par with a cow, a pig or a chicken??

So it's ok to kill insects?
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah »

lyndon taylor,
I think you should read up on what a straw man argument is as I don't think it applies to what I have posted. I am an organic farmer. It is true that I do eat some produce which is raised with chemicals, I organize my life so as to maximize the amount of organic produce I eat and to maximize the amount of organic produce that is available for the community I live in.
The idea that if someone eats meat they are implicated in the business of meat is not my idea.....it is other people's idea with you being one of the other people. I am simply pointing out that an identical situation exists for people who buy vegetables raised with poisons with regard to business in poison. You are doing your best to wriggle your way out of this....you raise the straw man argument of bacteria and imply sarcasm in talking about brushing teeth.

Agricultural chemicals kill countless sentient beings every crop cycle....this is fact.
Agricultural chemicals are poisons......this is fact.
The Buddha teaches to not engage in business in poison.
You claim that if one eats meat that one is implicated in business in meat.
I'm saying that buying produce raised using poisons should be considered as business in poison if one wants to accept the dogma that one can be associated with a kind of business by the sort of implication you use.
chownah
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by lyndon taylor »

Sorry but all these arguments didn't come from me!! I never claimed buying meat was being part of wrong livelyhood business in meat, I claimed it was hired killing, payed for by you for meat killed to order for consumers, not the same argument, sorry.

As to sentient beings there has to be some gradation of sentience, that's why I brought up Bacteria, obviously bacteria and insects are not as sentient as cows, pigs and chickens. Not to mention humans.......
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by mikenz66 »

lyndon taylor wrote:Sorry but all these arguments didn't come from me!! I never claimed buying meat was being part of wrong livelyhood business in meat, I claimed it was hired killing, payed for by you for meat killed to order for consumers, not the same argument, sorry.
Are you saying that eating plants raised by using insecticides, rodent traps, and so on (and collateral damage from harvesting) is not hired killing, paid for by the consumers?

I do understand the point that less beings would be killed if animals were not being raised for their meat and other products (such as eggs, etc). However, the key point is that it is almost impossible to live without having an adverse effect on the lives of other living beings. The production of many goods, not just food, have death as a side effect, including the occasional death of the people producing the goods.

It's certainly a good thing to reduce your impact on the rest of the world. But please don't imagine that you can have no impact.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Cittasanto »

Hi Seeker,
We are actually talking about the first point I quoted from Buddhanet. Which is
(1) If the Buddha had felt that a meatless diet was in accordance with the Precepts he would have said so and in the Pali Tipitaka at least, he did not.[Devadatta's rule not being taken up at the first schism being an example]
As I am sticking to this point for our discussion, and (as we had moved on) whether the Buddha would speak out or not. I was trying to point out other examples which makes me believe The Buddha would not say more than is recorded. So if you wish to talk about the meat industry, and the problems of certain practices specifically you need to have a point that is used against the vegetarian proponents by those who say being vegetarian is not necessary within Buddhism, and not an unrelated point to that.

The vague references are actually easily found, and some of which are all over the Sutta & Vinaya.
seeker242 wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:Hi Seaker,
Just so you know I wont be able to respond again until sunday evening at the earliest.
Ditto as I am attending a retreat this weekend. :)
I would agree with the lack of existence. However it can be inferred.
One can claim it can be inferred but still one has to explain precisely how, if the conclusion is going to have some logical support. You really can't just say it can be inferred and leave it at that, if you are speaking strictly in logical terms.
There was no such thing as "industrial". Focusing only on the slaughter misses the main point I was making. Which is how the animals are treated during their lifetime. The horrible conditions that they have to endure and the abuse they are subjected to, before they are sent to slaughter. "Battery cages" and "gestation crates" did not exist during the Buddhas time. To assume he would have said nothing about "battery cages", because he didn't say anything about animals grazing in a pasture, is not very logical because it compares apples to oranges.


Are you sure I am assuming what the Buddha would say based on what wasn't said? or am I using inference based on what has been said in comparable situations.

I am basing my opinion on what is known the Buddha done and advised. i.e. his advice on proper conversation, his unwillingness to directly attack someone's profession (actors & warriors was after several refusals to comment directly upon) The Buddha is only ever general, not specific, in matters which could be seen as attacking. And when it is other groups, The Buddha only ever deals with specific views, not the group itself.
He attacked "business in meat", the very thing we are talking about, and call it wrong livelihood. He called the entire group of people engaged in the business of meat as being engaged in wrong livelihood. There is plenty of evidence that the Buddha taught that one should not cause harm, nor be a cause for harm, to other living beings. You speak as if animals being beaten and abused doesn't really matter. I don't see how this can match up with what the Buddha taught.
inference based on the texts. I am not presupposing the Buddha would have acted in a way not already shown.
Again, one really can't just say inference and leave it at that.
When there is evidence of how the Buddha acted in other situations it is inductive or deductive reasoning, not assumption. Can you show your evidence for the Buddha being direct in this matter, and not simply keeping with what has already been said?
Technically, It's not on me to show any evidence because I am the one challenging the logic of the claim, not making the claim. According to a "logical analysis", etc. the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. However, I could just say "inference based on the texts" and give a couple vague examples, but that just would not be good enough for logic. I would have to provide a logical explanation of the inference and how the inference is being made, why it's being made, which particular texts it's being made from with specific examples, sutta references, etc, so that the inference itself can be examined also, logically speaking. Saying inference and leaving it at that, does not provide any more support to the conclusion. Technically, doing that is called "circular reasoning" and is, by definition, not logical. There were some vague examples of how the Buddha did not get involved in wars, etc. but it has to be much more detailed and much more in depth than that in order to prove the validity of the inference. However, if one is just expressing one's opinions on the matter, and not the logical structure of the argument, then all that really isn't necessary.

:anjali:
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Post Reply