the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Meat eating

Post by Mr Man »

daverupa wrote:
Since the sentence conveys an obvious thing, I had wondered why it needed to be said. It seemed likely there was a subtext.
A subtext? How bizarre. No, there is no subtext.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Post by Cittasanto »

Mr Man wrote:Cittasanto, so do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life"?
you interlinked eating and killing in an inextricable way, so that is what it is saying.
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
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Meat eating

Post by Mr Man »

Cittasanto wrote:
Mr Man wrote:Cittasanto, so do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life"?
you interlinked eating and killing in an inextricable way, so that is what it is saying.


Because they are inextricably interlinked. As daverupa said "the sentence conveys an obvious thing".

If animals were not killed there would not be meat to eat. If people did not eat meat, animals would not be killed for that purpose. Eating meat and the killing of animals are interlinked they are not the same thing.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Post by Cittasanto »

Animals die, but death can happen by a number of means.
you interlinked the eating with the killing and this is putting the blame upon the eater rather than the killer.

Mr Man wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
Mr Man wrote:Cittasanto, so do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life"?
you interlinked eating and killing in an inextricable way, so that is what it is saying.


Because they are inextricably interlinked. As daverupa said "the sentence conveys an obvious thing".

If animals were not killed there would not be meat to eat. If people did not eat meat, animals would not be killed for that purpose. Eating meat and the killing of animals are interlinked they are not the same thing.
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
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Meat eating

Post by Mr Man »

Cittasanto wrote:Animals die, but death can happen by a number of means.
Of course but the meat that we eat is killed specifically for human consumption
you interlinked the eating with the killing and this is putting the blame upon the eater rather than the killer.
I'm not putting the blame on anybody.
Last edited by Mr Man on Thu Nov 22, 2012 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Alex123 »

Hanzze wrote:Such things as cannibalism are told to exist even today (there are many stories from Thailand for example), the sacrify of human decay just about 150 years in south east asia as I read in a scholar history book.

Did you know that Christians have Holy Communion (Eucharist) when they eat bread which signifies Jesus's flesh and drink wine which symbolizes Jesus's blood?
This is symbolic cannibalism! And there are about 2.1 Billion Christians...

There is this belief in some tribes that if one eats the heart of brave warrior, one will become brave.
  • In some societies, especially tribal societies, cannibalism is a cultural norm. Consumption of a person from within the same community is called endocannibalism; ritual cannibalism of the recently deceased can be part of the grieving process,[26] or a way of guiding the souls of the dead into the bodies of living descendants.[27] Exocannibalism is the consumption of a person from outside the community, usually as a celebration of victory against a rival tribe.[27] Both types of cannibalism can also be fueled by the belief that eating a person's flesh or internal organs will endow the cannibal with some of the characteristics of the deceased.[28] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism#Reasons" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that ideal food for building the body, is another body because it has all the right proportions of all amino-acids. But of course this shouldn't be done for obvious reasons.


Of course I am against cannibalism.
User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by DAWN »

Alex123 wrote: This is symbolic cannibalism!
Now i understand why peoples have animal behavour :pig:
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Post by Cittasanto »

Mr Man wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:Animals die, but death can happen by a number of means.
Of course but the meat that we eat is killed specifically for human consumption
yet this isn't the only source of meat people can have access to.meat from a natural death is quite prized is Cambodia and other places. I have eaten meat that the animal wasn't killed before without travelling.
Mr Man wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:you interlinked the eating with the killing and this is putting the blame upon the eater rather than the killer.
I'm not putting the blame on anybody.
OK, although that is a consequence of not seperating the process to where things happen and linking things too closely.
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
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Mr Man »

I think the act of trying to seperate may be a "rationialization".
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 »

Mr Man wrote:I think the act of trying to seperate may be a "rationialization".
If the two are not separate you did in fact accuse people of murdering animals, and tilts previous assertion would still be valid because the eater and acts of the producer(s) are not separate. Although, it is not a rationalisation in anyway it is just a fact of the intentions and motivations most people who eat meat in the west will have. But if you can show it is one and the same I would be interested in seeing the logic.

There is the death and then at a later point (after some carving up and preparation) there is eating. these are two separate parts, which, in most cases (particularly in the west) these will not be related with one persons intentions or motivations.
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
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Mr Man »

Cittasanto wrote:
Mr Man wrote:I think the act of trying to seperate may be a "rationialization".
If the two are not separate you did in fact accuse people of murdering animals, and tilts previous assertion would still be valid because the eater and acts of the producer(s) are not separate. Although, it is not a rationalisation in anyway it is just a fact of the intentions and motivations most people who eat meat in the west will have. But if you can show it is one and the same I would be interested in seeing the logic.

There is the death and then at a later point (after some carving up and preparation) there is eating. these are two separate parts, which, in most cases (particularly in the west) these will not be related with one persons intentions or motivations.
It is interlinked. Something topical in the UK news: If I want to take Rhino horn medicine I have to accept that medicine comes from a Rhino and that the Rhino was killed for the reason of making that medicine. I have become part of that process. I haven't killed the Rhino but I am linked to its death. To disassociate the Killing of Rhinos from the medicine would be a rationalization (which we all do all the time). The same analogy could be used with porn. View porn and you are becoming part of that industry. When we view porn our intention is not to degrade but the reality of the porn industry is that it degrades.

With regard to Tilts assertion I acknowledge that animals are killed in the process of providing me with food and I know to some extent this cannot be avoided (I rationalize) or more often than not I don't even think about it. I'm prepared to live with the fact that animals die in the production of food for me. I take responsibility.

My understanding is that the Buddha didn't teach lay people to be vegetarian or to eat meat - maybe he didn't see it as being important?. If we eat meat so be it but I don't think we should say "I eat meat because Buddha didn't say be vegetarian" or because of "General Siha" or because the eating of meat is not connected with the killing of animals (not that anyone in particular is doing that).

-

Upajjhatthana Sutta: Subjects for Contemplation http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

:anjali:
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 »

Mr Man wrote:It is interlinked. Something topical in the UK news: If I want to take Rhino horn medicine I have to accept that medicine comes from a Rhino and that the Rhino was killed for the reason of making that medicine. I have become part of that process. I haven't killed the Rhino but I am linked to its death. To disassociate the Killing of Rhinos from the medicine would be a rationalization (which we all do all the time). The same analogy could be used with porn. View porn and you are becoming part of that industry. When we view porn our intention is not to degrade but the reality of the porn industry is that it degrades.
The interlinking is not a volitional interlinking (although in some cases it maybe). there is a relation between between A, B, & C, but none of them are any of the other ones.
With regard to Tilts assertion I acknowledge that animals are killed in the process of providing me with food and I know to some extent this cannot be avoided (I rationalize) or more often than not I don't even think about it. I'm prepared to live with the fact that animals die in the production of food for me. I take responsibility.
That explains why you regarded it as facetious, even though it still is valid, and there is a relationship. However that for me does not make a vegetarian or Vegan... a Killer, it makes the person who volitionally killed the killer, which is the same for meat eaters (except those who order a specific animal to be killed as in the lobster example).
My understanding is that the Buddha didn't teach lay people to be vegetarian or to eat meat - maybe he didn't see it as being important?. If we eat meat so be it but I don't think we should say "I eat meat because Buddha didn't say be vegetarian" or because of "General Siha" or because the eating of meat is not connected with the killing of animals (not that anyone in particular is doing that).
Who eats meat because of General Siha? this goes to the difference between intention and motivation, there is a difference between explaining something and using as an excuse. I believe the only use has been to show as an example the difference between killing an animal and eating/buying meat.
And no one is saying there is not a relationship between eating and an animal dying, only that your proximity is too close to the extent everyone without the volition is a killer.
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
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Mr Man »

Cittasanto wrote:
Mr Man wrote:It is interlinked. Something topical in the UK news: If I want to take Rhino horn medicine I have to accept that medicine comes from a Rhino and that the Rhino was killed for the reason of making that medicine. I have become part of that process. I haven't killed the Rhino but I am linked to its death. To disassociate the Killing of Rhinos from the medicine would be a rationalization (which we all do all the time). The same analogy could be used with porn. View porn and you are becoming part of that industry. When we view porn our intention is not to degrade but the reality of the porn industry is that it degrades.
The interlinking is not a volitional interlinking (although in some cases it maybe). there is a relation between between A, B, & C, but none of them are any of the other ones.
With regard to Tilts assertion I acknowledge that animals are killed in the process of providing me with food and I know to some extent this cannot be avoided (I rationalize) or more often than not I don't even think about it. I'm prepared to live with the fact that animals die in the production of food for me. I take responsibility.
That explains why you regarded it as facetious, even though it still is valid, and there is a relationship. However that for me does not make a vegetarian or Vegan... a Killer, it makes the person who volitionally killed the killer, which is the same for meat eaters (except those who order a specific animal to be killed as in the lobster example).
My understanding is that the Buddha didn't teach lay people to be vegetarian or to eat meat - maybe he didn't see it as being important?. If we eat meat so be it but I don't think we should say "I eat meat because Buddha didn't say be vegetarian" or because of "General Siha" or because the eating of meat is not connected with the killing of animals (not that anyone in particular is doing that).
Who eats meat because of General Siha? this goes to the difference between intention and motivation, there is a difference between explaining something and using as an excuse. I believe the only use has been to show as an example the difference between killing an animal and eating/buying meat.
And no one is saying there is not a relationship between eating and an animal dying, only that your proximity is too close to the extent everyone without the volition is a killer.
Well I really think that I need to finish on this thread now but a couple of final comments: With regard to "A, B, & C, but none of them are any of the other ones." you will notice that I said "I haven't killed the Rhino but I am linked to its death". With regard to "Who eats meat because of General Siha? " in my opinion it it not unusual for people to try and use third party authority to justify their position. With regard to "proximity is too close". How close we wish to be to a particular enterprise is a personal decision, I personally think the link between eating meat and the killing of animals is pretty close. I don't think they are the same though. I think to say that eating meat is okay because there is no volition to kill is a "rationalization" and a cop out (even though I don't think eating meat is the same as killing).
:)
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 »

Mr Man wrote:It is interlinked. Something topical in the UK news: If I want to take Rhino horn medicine I have to accept that medicine comes from a Rhino and that the Rhino was killed for the reason of making that medicine. I have become part of that process. I haven't killed the Rhino but I am linked to its death. To disassociate the Killing of Rhinos from the medicine would be a rationalization (which we all do all the time). The same analogy could be used with porn. View porn and you are becoming part of that industry. When we view porn our intention is not to degrade but the reality of the porn industry is that it degrades.
The interlinking is not a volitional interlinking (although in some cases it maybe). there is a relation between between A, B, & C, but none of them are any of the other ones.
With regard to Tilts assertion I acknowledge that animals are killed in the process of providing me with food and I know to some extent this cannot be avoided (I rationalize) or more often than not I don't even think about it. I'm prepared to live with the fact that animals die in the production of food for me. I take responsibility.
That explains why you regarded it as facetious, even though it still is valid, and there is a relationship. However that for me does not make a vegetarian or Vegan... a Killer, it makes the person who volitionally killed the killer, which is the same for meat eaters (except those who order a specific animal to be killed as in the lobster example).
My understanding is that the Buddha didn't teach lay people to be vegetarian or to eat meat - maybe he didn't see it as being important?. If we eat meat so be it but I don't think we should say "I eat meat because Buddha didn't say be vegetarian" or because of "General Siha" or because the eating of meat is not connected with the killing of animals (not that anyone in particular is doing that).
Who eats meat because of General Siha? this goes to the difference between intention and motivation, there is a difference between explaining something and using as an excuse. I believe the only use has been to show as an example the difference between killing an animal and eating/buying meat.
And no one is saying there is not a relationship between eating and an animal dying, only that your proximity is too close to the extent everyone without the volition is a killer.
Well I really think that I need to finish on this thread now but a couple of final comments: With regard to "A, B, & C, but none of them are any of the other ones." you will notice that I said "I haven't killed the Rhino but I am linked to its death".
you also said this "To disassociate the Killing of Rhinos from the medicine would be a rationalization (which we all do all the time)" which BTW isn't happening. saying there is a disassociation and saying there is a separation are two different things.
With regard to "Who eats meat because of General Siha? " in my opinion it it not unusual for people to try and use third party authority to justify their position.
yet this isn't happening here as explained.
With regard to "proximity is too close". How close we wish to be to a particular enterprise is a personal decision, I personally think the link between eating meat and the killing of animals is pretty close. I don't think they are the same though. I think to say that eating meat is okay because there is no volition to kill is a "rationalization" and a cop out (even though I don't think eating meat is the same as killing).
:)
If someone doesn't have the intention they do not have the intention, all is not one. we are not responsible for the intentional acts of another.

(edited the quote problem out)
Last edited by Cittasanto on Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:06 pm, edited 4 times in total.
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
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by beeblebrox »

Cittasanto wrote: we are not responsible for the intentional acts of another.
Did the Buddha ever said such a thing? "Bhikkhus, we are not responsible for the actions of others." Your constant usage of that as an argument just keeps on reminding me of this:
Ud 6.6

People are intent on the idea of
'made by me'
and attached to the idea of
'made by another.'
Some do not realize this,
nor do they see it as a thorn.
But to one who sees,
having extracted this thorn,
(the thought) 'I am doing,' doesn't occur;
'Another is doing,' doesn't occur.
This human race is possessed by conceit,
bound by conceit,
tied down by conceit.
Speaking [with antagonism] because of their views
they do not go beyond wandering-on.
Everyone who participated in this recent thread has been agreeing with you... that eating of meat is not linked with personal act of killing. Even after Mr Man clarified what his statement meant (which afterwards you seemed to agree with), you kept on arguing with something that just wasn't there.

Much like Nigantha's behavior with General Siha... where they would just keep on accusing him of the killing... you just keep on accusing Mr Man of making a suggestion that the eating of meat was same as the killing. He's already clarified many times that this wasn't what he meant.

It seems like there's something wrong going on in here, and I'm not sure if there's even any cognizance of that at all... which can't be good for practice. Hope that you take care...
Post Reply