the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17188
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Meat problem, conflict between Theravada and Mahayana

Post by DNS »

A fool from HK wrote: 2. Is my attitude towords the Mahayana monks and nuns inappropiate?
Yes. Anger is not appropriate. Even in Theravada you will find a diversity of views, so no need to be angry at someone for their views. Actually, the only thing that should be killed according to the Buddha -- is anger.

"What is the one thing, O Gotama, whose killing you approve? Having slain anger, one sleeps soundly; having slain anger, one does not sorrow; the killing of anger, with its poisoned root and honeyed tip: This is the killing the nobles ones praise, for having slain that, one does not sorrow."
Samyutta Nikaya 2
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4646
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Meat problem, conflict between Theravada and Mahayana

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

Don't wait for a big vehicle (a bus), or a small vehicle (a car), just start walking on the Noble Eightfold Path.

Walk slowly, but mindfully, without concerning yourself about how far you have gone, or how much further you need to go.

Saṃsāra is too long to reach the end, even with a rocket, so focus on developing mindfulness in the present moment.
Walking.gif
Walking.gif (5.48 KiB) Viewed 3092 times
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
santa100
Posts: 6814
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Meat problem, conflict between Theravada and Mahayana

Post by santa100 »

A fool from HK wrote:I have the following questions:
1. Can someone please share some reference of the buddha words on the meat issue?
2. Is my attitude towords the Mahayana monks and nuns inappropiate? In my mind I even excluded them from the Sangha.
For 1., MN 55 says:
Jīvaka, I say that there are three instances in which meat should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected [that the living being has been slaughtered for oneself]. I say that meat should not be eaten in these three instances. I say that there are three instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is not seen, not heard, and not suspected [that the living being has been slaughtered for oneself]. I say that meat may be eaten in these three instances
and Ven. Bodhi's note:
This passage states clearly and explicitly the regulations on meat-eating laid down by the Buddha for the Sangha. It will be noted that the Buddha does not require the bhikkhus to observe a vegetarian diet, but permits them to consume meat when they are confident that the animal has not been slaughtered especially to provide them with food. Such meat is called tikoṭiparisuddha, “pure in three aspects,” because it is not seen, heard, or suspected to come from an animal killed specifically for the bhikkhu. The lay Buddhist’s precept of abstaining from the taking of life would prohibit him from killing for his food, but does not proscribe purchasing meat prepared from animals already dead. For more on this issue see Vin Mv Kh 6/i.237–38, and I.B. Horner, Early Buddhism and the Taking of Life, pp. 20–26.
For 2., AN 8.53 says:
As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.
User avatar
dhammacoustic
Posts: 954
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:30 am

Re: Meat problem, conflict between Theravada and Mahayana

Post by dhammacoustic »

The lay Buddhist’s precept of abstaining from the taking of life would prohibit him from killing for his food, but does not proscribe purchasing meat prepared from animals already dead
Those animals are dead because someone killed them, it's not like they die out of the blue. As long as you keep purchasing meat, other people will keep killing. This is straight up kamma, as you are indirectly paying for murder.
A fool from HK
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2014 8:07 am

Re: Meat problem, conflict between Theravada and Mahayana

Post by A fool from HK »

Thanks for everyone!
:anjali:
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Meat problem, conflict between Theravada and Mahayana

Post by chownah »

Those animals are dead because someone killed them, it's not like they die out of the blue. As long as you keep purchasing meat, other people will keep killing.
Rather: Those animals are dead because they were born and all things born are subject to death regardless of whether you keep purchasing meat or not, animals will keep dieing whether people kill them or not.
chownah
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Meat problem, conflict between Theravada and Mahayana

Post by cooran »

Hello all,

Ven. Sujato has written a good article:

Why Buddhists should be Vegetarian
http://sujato.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/ ... xtra-cute/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

With metta,
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: Meat problem, conflict between Theravada and Mahayana

Post by lyndon taylor »

chownah wrote:
Those animals are dead because someone killed them, it's not like they die out of the blue. As long as you keep purchasing meat, other people will keep killing.
Rather: Those animals are dead because they were born and all things born are subject to death regardless of whether you keep purchasing meat or not, animals will keep dieing whether people kill them or not.
chownah
With this kind of illogic, you could kill humans with impunity as well!!
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: Meat problem, conflict between Theravada and Mahayana

Post by chownah »

lyndon taylor wrote:
chownah wrote:
Those animals are dead because someone killed them, it's not like they die out of the blue. As long as you keep purchasing meat, other people will keep killing.
Rather: Those animals are dead because they were born and all things born are subject to death regardless of whether you keep purchasing meat or not, animals will keep dieing whether people kill them or not.
chownah
With this kind of illogic, you could kill humans with impunity as well!!
Are you disputing that all things that are born are subject to death?
Are you suggesting that by not eating meat that something which is born will no longer be subject to death?
Are you suggesting that if people stop killing animals that the animals will not continue to die?
I think you do not dispute or suggest these things....so where does the "illogic" come in?
chownah
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Meat problem, conflict between Theravada and Mahayana

Post by Dhammanando »

silver surfer wrote:This is straight up kamma, as you are indirectly paying for murder.
Only if you subscribe to the Jain conception of karma.

In the Buddhist conception kamma, is identified with volition (cetanā) and does not occur in the absence of volition.

A housewife, for example, doesn't go to the supermarket to buy a tin of sardines in the hope that her purchase will persuade the owners of fishing trawlers to go out and catch some more sardines. She might be vaguely aware that her purchase will contribute towards such an outcome, but her knowledge of this fact is not constitutive of the volition with which she purchases the sardines.

To give an analogy: in Vinaya monks are required to sweep certain parts of their monastery on certain days of the month. In a forest monastery they know that in doing so their sweeping will almost certainly bring about the deaths of a few ants and other small bugs that are hiding. Yet even though the monks know this to be inevitable, provided they don’t do their sweeping with the aim of killing these bugs and take care not to kill any bug that’s visible to them, the Vinaya is explicit that their killing is without cetanā and therefore non-culpable.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Meat problem, conflict between Theravada and Mahayana

Post by Mkoll »

:goodpost:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
dhammacoustic
Posts: 954
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:30 am

Re: Meat problem, conflict between Theravada and Mahayana

Post by dhammacoustic »

Dhammanando wrote:
silver surfer wrote:This is straight up kamma, as you are indirectly paying for murder.
Only if you subscribe to the Jain conception of karma.

In the Buddhist conception kamma, is identified with volition (cetanā) and does not occur in the absence of volition.

A housewife, for example, doesn't go to the supermarket to buy a tin of sardines in the hope that her purchase will persuade the owners of fishing trawlers to go out and catch some more sardines. She might be vaguely aware that her purchase will contribute towards such an outcome, but her knowledge of this fact is not constitutive of the volition with which she purchases the sardines.

To give an analogy: in Vinaya monks are required to sweep certain parts of their monastery on certain days of the month. In a forest monastery they know that in doing so their sweeping will almost certainly bring about the deaths of a few ants and other small bugs that are hiding. Yet even though the monks know this to be inevitable, provided they don’t do their sweeping with the aim of killing these bugs and take care not to kill any bug that’s visible to them, the Vinaya is explicit that their killing is without cetanā and therefore non-culpable.
Bhante, someone goes to the grocery store and pays for body parts. How is cetanā absent here? Isn't this both an intellectual and a conscious act?

As you said, a person who pays for meat has the awareness that he/she's supporting the meat suppliers. And these people, thanks to these consumers who pay them, are able to continue their murderous deeds. Logically, if nobody paid for meat, the killing would eventually stop or at least lessen. But the moment you pay them, is the moment one more living being joins the line headed toward the grinder.

I don't understand how this is not kamma? Any which way I look at it, my conscience rejects it.
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Meat problem, conflict between Theravada and Mahayana

Post by Dhammanando »

silver surfer wrote:Bhante, someone goes to the grocery store and pays for body parts. How is cetanā absent here?
For the kamma of killing there has to be a perception of a living being and a volition to kill it. These conditions are not fulfilled by the perception of six dead sardines in a tin and the volition to purchase them.
Isn't this both an intellectual and a conscious act?
As you said, a person who pays for meat has the awareness that he/she's supporting the meat suppliers.
It might cross her mind or it might not. But I've already addressed the case of where it does: to know that such-and-such is a probable outcome of one's action is not the same as willing that outcome. A sweeping monk knows that ants will probably be killed by his sweeping, but he doesn't will their deaths; he wills that the path be free of leaves.
Any which way I look at it, my conscience rejects it.
If you want the consciences of other Buddhists to reject it and to embrace vegetarianism, there are plenty of good arguments at your disposal. Invoking kamma is not one of them, for it will be persuasive only to those Buddhists who misunderstand the doctrine of kamma, and will be rejected as nonsense by those Buddhists who understand it correctly.

For more on this, see the Sujāto article that Cooran linked to above:
  • "There is a wider problem, and I think the discussions of the issue among Buddhists generally avoid this. And the wider issue is this: meat eating is clearly harmful. That harm is a direct but unintended consequence of eating meat. Since there is no intention to cause harm, eating meat is not bad kamma.

    There are therefore two logical possibilities: eating meat is ethical; or kamma is not a complete account of ethics." (my emphasis)
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
Anagarika
Posts: 915
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:25 pm

Re: Meat problem, conflict between Theravada and Mahayana

Post by Anagarika »

A truly interesting discussion. Perhaps kamma takes into consideration the mental formations of the individual considering an act, any act. If we are keenly aware of the precepts and instructions related to the eating of meat, and we do not participate in any proscribed act, we can be said to be acting with neutral or bright kamma. If however, we have a deep understanding of supply chain economics, and further consider the conditions under which meat is delivered to the market ( ie in the US with cruelty intense factory farming and assembly line slaughter of animals), it may be that the kamma we cultivate is brighter by having this knowledge and knowingly avoiding animal meat consumption. Having said that, this kamma is unique to that individual and not to be required of or evangelized to any other person. My sense of kamma is that it is complex, sometimes indiscernible, and is not a process that applies as a blanket rule or ordinance to all people. I suppose what I am trying to say is that kamma may be a complete process of personal ethics.

I do all I can to not violate the First Precept. I am aware that the fish that I eat on occasion for my health has been killed and brought to market for sale. I endeavor to eat less meat, and to participate as little as possible in the factory farm chain of suffering in my home country. When I was a samanera, I can confess to eating some Thai chicken dishes that were exquisite. These were given as dana, and made for a healthy midday meal. With this in mind, what kind of kamma am I creating? I have no idea, and like most matters, I endeavor to cultivate kamma as bright as possible given my reasoning, my training, and the circumstances. I may be reborn as a bait fish..... :o
User avatar
DhammaOS
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 3:18 am
Location: United States

Re: Meat problem, conflict between Theravada and Mahayana

Post by DhammaOS »

Anagarika wrote:...I may be reborn as a bait fish..... :o
Better attain Stream Entry soon than my friend :jumping:.

But really your response in this discussion frames things perfectly for how I see them. We are only able to respond based on what wisdom we have attained thus far. We can sit here and worry about the pieces of bad kamma we may or may not be generating, but it seems to me focusing on generating brighter kamma is ultimately the better approach, and the tendency to generate bad kamma problem will fall off on its own. There is being mindful, and being obsessed.
"There are, O monks, these four lights. What four? The light of the moon, the light of the sun, the light of fire, and the light of wisdom. Of these four lights, the light of wisdom is supreme."-AN 4:143

Buddham saranam gacchami, Dhammam saranam gacchami, Sangham saranam gacchami
Post Reply