the great vegetarian debate

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Cittasanto » Fri Nov 23, 2012 9:05 pm

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.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5861
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Mr Man » Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:08 pm

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/an/an05/an05.057.than.html

:anjali:
User avatar
Mr Man
 
Posts: 1345
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Cittasanto » Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:56 pm

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.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5861
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Mr Man » Sat Nov 24, 2012 12:07 am

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
Mr Man
 
Posts: 1345
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Cittasanto » Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:03 pm

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.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5861
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby beeblebrox » Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:54 pm

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...
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Cittasanto » Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:12 pm

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5861
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby polarbuddha101 » Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:46 pm

Who thinks that less animals get killed because they're vegetarians? How do you know that? Got any stats? Or are you just assuming? It may be the case that less animals get killed if someone is a vegetarian and it seems like it would be a logical consequence but I don't think it is necessarily true which is why I would like to know if anyone can provide some solid data on whether being a vegetarian actually saves animals.

:anjali:
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
User avatar
polarbuddha101
 
Posts: 815
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Location: California

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby beeblebrox » Sat Nov 24, 2012 9:43 pm



Ok. :anjali:

polarbuddha101 wrote:Who thinks that less animals get killed because they're vegetarians? How do you know that? Got any stats? Or are you just assuming? It may be the case that less animals get killed if someone is a vegetarian and it seems like it would be a logical consequence but I don't think it is necessarily true which is why I would like to know if anyone can provide some solid data on whether being a vegetarian actually saves animals.


Speaking for myself, that is not the way I see it... I see that animals are being raised and then killed for meat. I'm not going to support that sort of activity, by buying meat.

I don't try to see it any further beyond that. I think that to do so would have to be based on some kind of conceit... I don't say to myself, "I'm going to save animals," or, "I'm going to convert a slaughterer to do something that is more wholesome," or, "I'm doing this to make a point," or, "I don't like carnivores," or, "I'm going to research on data to support my position," or some nonsense like that.

I just see that there is an industry which is based around the killing for our consumption. I'm not going to be a part of that activity, especially not by contributing money to it... that is all. I'm not trying to make any kind of judgment on anyone. If it seems that way sometimes... be assured that it's something that I recognize, and I apologize.

:anjali:
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Cittasanto » Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:21 pm

beeblebrox wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:please see here!
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=9229&start=1980#p216686


Ok. :anjali:

Do note that things can move on yet the appearance is not different.
I seriously do not see the relevance of what you have said as they point predominantly to the person rather than what has been said, and miss or ignore allot of what has been said.

Whether or not the you see an agreement is of little relevance to the proximity being associated and discussed.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5861
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby beeblebrox » Sat Nov 24, 2012 11:08 pm

Cittasanto wrote:
beeblebrox wrote:


Ok. :anjali:

Do note that things can move on yet the appearance is not different.
I seriously do not see the relevance of what you have said as they point predominantly to the person rather than what has been said, and miss or ignore allot of what has been said.

Whether or not the you see an agreement is of little relevance to the proximity being associated and discussed.


Cittasanto, I think that's quite a feat to find an argument to the acknowledgement of your post, and an anjali... if this is not dukkha, then what is? Who cares about vegetarianism, or the eating of meat, when that happens?
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Cittasanto » Sun Nov 25, 2012 3:07 am

beeblebrox wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:Do note that things can move on yet the appearance is not different.
I seriously do not see the relevance of what you have said as they point predominantly to the person rather than what has been said, and miss or ignore allot of what has been said.

Whether or not the you see an agreement is of little relevance to the proximity being associated and discussed.


Cittasanto, I think that's quite a feat to find an argument to the acknowledgement of your post, and an anjali... if this is not dukkha, then what is? Who cares about vegetarianism, or the eating of meat, when that happens?

You prove my point with even more personal remarks ignoring the amount you use, and what is actually said in conversation. Whether this is Dukkha or not is irrelevant to what was said, although it is quite a feat to use this fallacy so often.

Stay with the argument not the person!
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5861
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Mr Man » Sun Nov 25, 2012 12:23 pm

beeblebrox wrote:
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...



beeblebrox thank you for this post, in my opinion it was timely.
User avatar
Mr Man
 
Posts: 1345
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby GraemeR » Sun Nov 25, 2012 12:50 pm

Mr Man wrote:
beeblebrox thank you for this post, in my opinion it was timely.


I got bored with this whole debate, I think trying to convince others of your ideas can be a form of clinging ... I my view and if people don't accept it I move on.

Graham
User avatar
GraemeR
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:20 am
Location: Thailand

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Ben » Sun Nov 25, 2012 1:05 pm

GraemeR wrote:
Mr Man wrote:
beeblebrox thank you for this post, in my opinion it was timely.


I got bored with this whole debate, I think trying to convince others of your ideas can be a form of clinging ... I my view and if people don't accept it I move on.

Graham


Well said, Graham!
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.

Taṃ nadīhi vijānātha:
sobbhesu padaresu ca,
saṇantā yanti kusobbhā,
tuṇhīyanti mahodadhī.

Sutta Nipata 3.725


Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR
Buddhist Life Stories of Australia

e: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com
User avatar
Ben
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16311
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Land of the sleeping gods

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby DAWN » Sun Nov 25, 2012 1:15 pm

polarbuddha101 wrote:Who thinks that less animals get killed because they're vegetarians? How do you know that? Got any stats?

:anjali:


Once i read some stats about it, and it was said that one veg-man save about 20 or + lives per year.
I have no link. :thinking:
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
DAWN
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby GraemeR » Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:44 pm

DAWN wrote:Once i read some stats about it, and it was said that one veg-man save about 20 or + lives per year.
I have no link. :thinking:


http://www.chooseveg.com/vegetarians-save-lives.asp
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/ ... nvironment
http://www.peta.org/living/vegetarian-l ... n-101.aspx

20 sounds very conservative.

Graham
User avatar
GraemeR
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:20 am
Location: Thailand

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby DAWN » Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:26 pm

50 lifes per year per veg

11 000 lifes per lifetime

Every year in the U.S., more than 27 billion animals are slaughtered for food (just USA)
I call it - genocide.

I'am not sure that someone can assume 11 000 taken lifes

Thanks you a lot GraemeR :namaste:
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
DAWN
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby beeblebrox » Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:12 pm

Cittasanto wrote:
beeblebrox wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:Do note that things can move on yet the appearance is not different.
I seriously do not see the relevance of what you have said as they point predominantly to the person rather than what has been said, and miss or ignore allot of what has been said.

Whether or not the you see an agreement is of little relevance to the proximity being associated and discussed.


Cittasanto, I think that's quite a feat to find an argument to the acknowledgement of your post, and an anjali... if this is not dukkha, then what is? Who cares about vegetarianism, or the eating of meat, when that happens?

You prove my point with even more personal remarks ignoring the amount you use, and what is actually said in conversation. Whether this is Dukkha or not is irrelevant to what was said, although it is quite a feat to use this fallacy so often.

Stay with the argument not the person!


Cittasanto, sorry I've been gone a couple days. I think this could go both ways. Focus on the messages in my posts, not on the person who you think they're trying to point at.

I have no qualms about using a conventional language. I don't even try to be careful anymore in trying not to single out a person... because I know that to do such a thing would be impossible. Such is the illusion of a "person".

The only thing that I care about is noticing when a dukkha is manifesting. Along with its cessation. Paying attention to what kind of conditions might've brought them around. These are the only things that are relevant to the Dhammic practice, I think... and I will continue to share that, regardless of the topic.

It has nothing to do with vegetarianism, nor the eating of meat. It never did. Granted, I didn't notice that fact till much later... when I started to see that the arguments would still continue to come, even when there's an obvious agreement. Hope you take care with this.

:anjali:
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Cittasanto » Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:40 pm

beeblebrox wrote:
Cittasanto, sorry I've been gone a couple days. I think this could go both ways. Focus on the messages in my posts, not on the person who you think they're trying to point at.

I have no qualms about using a conventional language. I don't even try to be careful anymore in trying not to single out a person... because I know that to do such a thing would be impossible. Such is the illusion of a "person".

The only thing that I care about is noticing when a dukkha is manifesting. Along with its cessation. Paying attention to what kind of conditions might've brought them around. These are the only things that are relevant to the Dhammic practice, I think... and I will continue to share that, regardless of the topic.

It has nothing to do with vegetarianism, nor the eating of meat. It never did. Granted, I didn't notice that fact till much later... when I started to see that the arguments would still continue to come, even when there's an obvious agreement. Hope you take care with this.

:anjali:

As others manage it, it is not impossible! There is a big difference between conventional language and personal assumptions based solely on nothing other than a projected theory of mind.
Conventional language isn't perfect and can appear to be making something personal, although, if it is actually related and dealing with the topic and points without obviously falling into an "ad hom" fallacy then I would argue the benefit of the doubt should be given. However, when it is not related to the topic or points directly and only assuming things about the person or linking the person, it is nothing but making personal remarks.

Although, I think this meta discussion is over I do feel this is worth exploring further in another place.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5861
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], MisterRunon, Modus.Ponens and 10 guests