the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah »

D1W1 wrote: It's said that when one eats meat, this debt has to be repaid i.e. to have his meat consumed in future lives or subsequent future lives.
Thank you for acknowledging in another post that the source of this is non theravada. You did not, however, say where this has been said. Where did you find this being said?
chownah
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 »

chownah wrote:
D1W1 wrote: It's said that when one eats meat, this debt has to be repaid i.e. to have his meat consumed in future lives or subsequent future lives.
Thank you for acknowledging in another post that the source of this is non theravada. You did not, however, say where this has been said. Where did you find this being said?
chownah
It is in the Mahayana Lankavatara Sutra (and possibly other Mahayana sutras):
Mahamati, I see that living beings are in the transmigration of the six paths, being together in births and deaths, they give birth to and foster each others, and cyclically become fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters of each others; They may be men or women, may be the direct line of descent, may be cousins, affinities, uncles, aunts, sons, daughters, grandsons, and other various relatives of each others; They may also be born in other paths(of animal, ghost, god, and so on.), whether virtuous or evil, they frequently become the relatives of each others. Because of these relationships, I see that all meats eaten by living beings are of their own relatives. Due to the greed for flavors of meats, the living beings circularly eat each others
http://www.fodian.net/world/671_16.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah »

David N. Snyder wrote:
chownah wrote:
D1W1 wrote: It's said that when one eats meat, this debt has to be repaid i.e. to have his meat consumed in future lives or subsequent future lives.
Thank you for acknowledging in another post that the source of this is non theravada. You did not, however, say where this has been said. Where did you find this being said?
chownah
It is in the Mahayana Lankavatara Sutra (and possibly other Mahayana sutras):
Mahamati, I see that living beings are in the transmigration of the six paths, being together in births and deaths, they give birth to and foster each others, and cyclically become fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters of each others; They may be men or women, may be the direct line of descent, may be cousins, affinities, uncles, aunts, sons, daughters, grandsons, and other various relatives of each others; They may also be born in other paths(of animal, ghost, god, and so on.), whether virtuous or evil, they frequently become the relatives of each others. Because of these relationships, I see that all meats eaten by living beings are of their own relatives. Due to the greed for flavors of meats, the living beings circularly eat each others
http://www.fodian.net/world/671_16.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Actually this doe not say what D1W1 has given. On the contrary it seems to contradict what he has given i.e. it says nothing about a debt that must be repaid.
chownah
D1W1
Posts: 619
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 5:52 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by D1W1 »

Well, as I said it was said by a Mahayana practitioner. The notion is that slaughtered animals are not giving their body voluntarily, they die with pain and grudge, who knows? It's cause and effect.

I would like to share my thoughts. After I think and discuss this issue with all of you and other Buddhist practitioner, I think eating meat is not prohibited from a Theravada Buddhism point of view. It's greed, hatred and delusion that we want to overcome. When someone buys a piece of meat, he or she doesn't have the intention to kill the animal nor does she fulfill the requirement of karmically potent of killing. The intention is to buy meat.

However, adopting a vegetarian diet is good but this shouldn't be confused with liberation. Someone can become too attached with his views, even with attachment and aversion, liberation is not getting any closer. It's also important to be very honest with ourselves, ask ourselves, do we eat meat for the sake of fulfilling the craving? Or with a thought "I eat meat because the body needs nutriment".

Hope this helps.
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah »

D1W1 wrote:Well, as I said it was said by a Mahayana practitioner. The notion is that slaughtered animals are not giving their body voluntarily, they die with pain and grudge, who knows? It's cause and effect.
So it was just something that one person at some time and somewhere said to some person. So this is mostly just a random thought that someone had...I guess....don't know for sure.....
chownah
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 »

David N. Snyder wrote: It is in the Mahayana Lankavatara Sutra (and possibly other Mahayana sutras):
Mahamati, I see that living beings are in the transmigration of the six paths, being together in births and deaths, they give birth to and foster each others, and cyclically become fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters of each others; They may be men or women, may be the direct line of descent, may be cousins, affinities, uncles, aunts, sons, daughters, grandsons, and other various relatives of each others; They may also be born in other paths(of animal, ghost, god, and so on.), whether virtuous or evil, they frequently become the relatives of each others. Because of these relationships, I see that all meats eaten by living beings are of their own relatives. Due to the greed for flavors of meats, the living beings circularly eat each others
chownah wrote: Actually this doe not say what D1W1 has given. On the contrary it seems to contradict what he has given i.e. it says nothing about a debt that must be repaid.
chownah
So what is your interpretation of this quote from the Lankavatara:
"Because of these relationships, I see that all meats eaten by living beings are of their own relatives. Due to the greed for flavors of meats, the living beings circularly eat each others"
I am not saying I necessarily agree with the Lankavata quote, but notice where it talks of beings eating each other and it going "circularly" throughout samsara and it is due to the greed, craving for meat. That sounds a lot like what D1W1 said he heard quoted.
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 »

Sri Lankan monk set himself on fire, dies, in protest of cattle slaughter:

http://www.thebuddhism.net/2013/05/27/e ... es-away-2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Aloka »

David N. Snyder wrote:Sri Lankan monk set himself on fire, dies, in protest of cattle slaughter:..........

:candle: :candle: :candle:


:anjali:
Last edited by Aloka on Fri Apr 22, 2016 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah »

David N. Snyder wrote:
David N. Snyder wrote: It is in the Mahayana Lankavatara Sutra (and possibly other Mahayana sutras):
Mahamati, I see that living beings are in the transmigration of the six paths, being together in births and deaths, they give birth to and foster each others, and cyclically become fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters of each others; They may be men or women, may be the direct line of descent, may be cousins, affinities, uncles, aunts, sons, daughters, grandsons, and other various relatives of each others; They may also be born in other paths(of animal, ghost, god, and so on.), whether virtuous or evil, they frequently become the relatives of each others. Because of these relationships, I see that all meats eaten by living beings are of their own relatives. Due to the greed for flavors of meats, the living beings circularly eat each others
chownah wrote: Actually this doe not say what D1W1 has given. On the contrary it seems to contradict what he has given i.e. it says nothing about a debt that must be repaid.
chownah
So what is your interpretation of this quote from the Lankavatara:
"Because of these relationships, I see that all meats eaten by living beings are of their own relatives. Due to the greed for flavors of meats, the living beings circularly eat each others"
I am not saying I necessarily agree with the Lankavata quote, but notice where it talks of beings eating each other and it going "circularly" throughout samsara and it is due to the greed, craving for meat. That sounds a lot like what D1W1 said he heard quoted.
I think the interpretation is straight forward...really if you just read what it says it is pretty much clear. It says 1. It asserts that all sentient beings are related through rebirths and so all meats eaten are meat of ones own relatives.....D1W1 makes no mention of this. and 2. It asserts that it is the flavor of meat which is the operative principle for this circular eating of meat....while D1W1 asserts that he has heard that the operative principle is that when an individual eats meat then that individual has incurred a sort of kammic debt which must be repaid by having ones flesh eaten at some future rebirth.

Clearly these are two different things.
chownah
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah »

David N. Snyder wrote:Sri Lankan monk set himself on fire, dies, in protest of cattle slaughter:

http://www.thebuddhism.net/2013/05/27/e ... es-away-2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Did the slaughtering of cattle stop in Sri Lanka as a result of this?
chownah
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 »

chownah wrote: Did the slaughtering of cattle stop in Sri Lanka as a result of this?
chownah
I don't know, but I highly doubt it. I don't think it is skillful to do such a thing to oneself. There are better ways and more skillful ways to protest something.
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 »

chownah wrote: Clearly these are two different things.
chownah
According to Buddhism, people are born in various ways throughout samsara based on their kamma formations and fruitions. If beings are going circularly, eating each other, this suggests some sort of kamma fruition that caused that. Why do they have to eat each other? Yes, samsara's beginning is not discernible, but why not be reborn as a deva, rather than as the food for some predator? It implies a kammic debt, at least in one possible interpretation.
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah »

David N. Snyder wrote:
chownah wrote: Clearly these are two different things.
chownah
According to Buddhism, people are born in various ways throughout samsara based on their kamma formations and fruitions. If beings are going circularly, eating each other, this suggests some sort of kamma fruition that caused that. Why do they have to eat each other? Yes, samsara's beginning is not discernible, but why not be reborn as a deva, rather than as the food for some predator? It implies a kammic debt, at least in one possible interpretation.
You may have the view that the sutra implies a kammic debt and other people might not be of that view. The point I am stressing is that this principle which you see implied in the sutra is NOT explicitly stated in the sutra and is something you have added to it. I would describe this addition as being an over-arching concept which provide a link between what the sutra says a1d what D1W1 presented....but....this over-arching view is NOT presented in the sutra itself. An example to illustrate this: Statement 1. "A car has a fuel tank which functions as an energy reservoir. Statement 2. "A car has a battery which functions as an energy reservoir. Surely they are two different things. Someone could be of the view that both of these statements are true and one can do this by assuming an over-arching concept of a car having both a fuel tank and a battery each to provide one kind of energy. But do notice that the statements are two entirely different things and neither of them contain the over-arching concept. That person assuming this thinks that they understand the meaning of the two statements. But....wait......Some other person can be of the view that both statements are true and develops the over-arching concept that there are cars which burn fossil fuels to derive their energy and they have a fuel tank while there are also cars which are purely electric and rely solely on a better as its energy source. But do notice that the statements are two entirely different things and neither of them contain the over-arching concept. This other person thinks that they understand the meaning of the statements and that their over-arching concept is the right view.

Summary: The sutra and what D1W1 reported are two different things...they do not support each other. One may create a mental fabrication to over-arch these two things but that mental fabrication is not presented in either of the concepts......

Also, I think that the concept of "kammic debt" is contrary to pretty much all forms of buddhism. I don't think that you will find suttas or sutras which support this concept but I will admit that I know very very little about the sutras and I am not thoroughly versed in the suttas.
chownah
chownah
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 »

I guess you don't have a hybrid. :tongue: The hybrid car I have derives power from the hybrid batteries and from the gas motor. When the hybrid electric system is low on charge, the gas motor kicks in and while it propels the vehicle, it recharges the batteries for the electric hybrid system. There is propulsion from both gas and electric and it is constantly going back and forth and sometimes both work together.

Anyway, cars don't have kamma, even according to the Lankavatara Sutra.
User avatar
Katarzyna
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 11:29 am
Location: Hadera, Israel

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Katarzyna »

chownah wrote:Also, I think that the concept of "kammic debt" is contrary to pretty much all forms of buddhism. I don't think that you will find suttas or sutras which support this concept but I will admit that I know very very little about the sutras and I am not thoroughly versed in the suttas.
As far as I know it isn't an idea found in the Suttas, but in later legendary material there are a number of stories whose theme is that of two beings who are so much at odds with each other that they keep meeting up life after life to avenge what the one did to the other in the life before. Like this one from the Dhammapada stories:

http://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/E ... /01-04.htm
Post Reply