the great vegetarian debate

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Aloka » Wed Sep 04, 2013 4:58 pm

lyndon taylor wrote: .... you're just too much claw!!!


Wut ?

:coffee:
Last edited by Aloka on Wed Sep 04, 2013 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Aloka
 
Posts: 3657
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby clw_uk » Wed Sep 04, 2013 5:07 pm

So now you're speaking for all Buddhists, and telling us what Buddhist morality is, AND it involves the killing of animals, you're just too much claw!!!



I didn't say I was speaking for all Buddhists. I didn't say that killing animals was consistent with Buddhist morality, but eating meat is. A very important distinction.
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Jhana4 » Wed Sep 04, 2013 6:10 pm

clw_uk wrote:
Interesting that the Buddha classed meat production with such fine endeavors as arms dealing, the slave traide, the drug trade and making poison.



Yet he ate meat and didn't enforce a rule for vegetarianism. In fact the only time he is asked to do so, he refuses.


The demand for meat won't go away, and a lot of meat will end up in the bin, so there is no harm in buying it


The Buddha allegedly ate meat. There are disputes whether or not MN 55 and a similar passage in the commentaries have been translated correctly.
In the two version of the suttas I have found the part where the Buddha states he will eat meat is in parenthesis. I need to research what the parenthesis mean and I am following up on the source of the claim of the translation error. According to the monk who told me this MN 55 should have been translated as "I will eat almsfood if I can't tell if there is meat in it".

As to your second point I think your reasoning is at fault. Current cultural culinary tastes are not laws of physics, they can change. The second part of your second point seems to be saying we have to keep eating meet because if large amounts of people stopped all at once some meat would be wasted by being thrown away ( probably can be used for fertilizer ). That would mean you would have to keep perpetuating an unethical act to keep the results of previous unethical acts from being wasteful.

As far as ethics go, forget about Buddhism and forget about the suffering to livestock animals, many of whom are as intelligent as dogs or young human children. Meat production contributes more to the greenhouse effect of global climate change than the transportation industry. Do you have kids? Do you want them, their friends or your grandchildren to live in the future resulting from global climate change?

If you are interested in the future you should read this essay by an environmental journalist who states flatly he could care less about vegetarianism, but he gave up meat because he is aware of how it is contributing to global climate change and he doesn't want that future for him or his children:

http://www.audubonmagazine.org/articles ... arbon-diet
In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
Jhana4
 
Posts: 1309
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:20 pm
Location: U.S.A., Northeast

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Jhana4 » Wed Sep 04, 2013 6:12 pm

Forget about Buddhism or that many livestock animals are as intelligent as dogs ( or toddlers ).

Here is an essay by an environmental journalist who states flatly he could care less about vegetarianism, but he gave up meat because he is aware of how it is contributing to global climate change and he doesn't want that future for him or his children.

Reframe the question about the ethics of your food choice in regards to the world your choices will put your kids into to live out their lives
http://www.audubonmagazine.org/articles ... arbon-diet
In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
Jhana4
 
Posts: 1309
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:20 pm
Location: U.S.A., Northeast

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby beeblebrox » Wed Sep 04, 2013 6:16 pm


From
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in."


The demand for meat won't go away, and a lot of meat will end up in the bin, so there is no harm in buying it


Hi all,

This might be due to the translation issue, but I think to buy meat is still to engage "in the business of meat," just like to sell it.

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

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby clw_uk » Wed Sep 04, 2013 6:30 pm

The Buddha allegedly ate meat. There are disputes whether or not MN 55 and a similar passage in the commentaries have been translated correctly.


How convenient

There is no getting around the fact that the Buddha is recorded as having eaten meat, that he refused to make it a rule for monks when pressured to and that he never made vegetarianism a rule

Think about it. It would have been easy to say "Dont eat meat", just like the jains ... but he didnt

In the two version of the suttas I have found the part where the Buddha states he will eat meat is in parenthesis. I need to research what the parenthesis mean and I am following up on the source of the claim of the translation error. According to the monk who told me this MN 55 should have been translated as "I will eat almsfood if I can't tell if there is meat in it"
.


"Taking life, beating, wounding, binding, stealing, lying, deceiving, worthless knowledge, adultery; this is stench. Not the eating of meat." Amagandha Sutta


And when Devadatta tried to get the Buddha to enforce vegetarianism, he refused

As to your second point I think your reasoning is at fault. Current cultural culinary tastes are not laws of physics, they can change.


That wasnt my reasoning, they can change of course but the likelihood of everyone becoming vegetarian is slim

The second part of your second point seems to be saying we have to keep eating meet because if large amounts of people stopped all at once some meat would be wasted by being thrown away ( probably can be used for fertilizer ). That would mean you would have to keep perpetuating an unethical act to keep the results of previous unethical acts from being wasteful.


No I am saying that the majority of humans eat meat, that most of the meat in the supermarket will be thrown out regardless of it I buy it or not

Personally I do eat meat when its offered to me (family meals etc) or when I need to buy it due to finances, apart from those circumstances I eat vegetarian food.

As far as ethics go, forget about Buddhism and forget about the suffering to livestock animals, many of whom are as intelligent as dogs or young human children. Meat production contributes more to the greenhouse effect of global climate change than the transportation industry.


I have seen arguments that vegetarian diets leads to pollution etc. There are arguments on both sides.

Do you have kids? Do you want them, their friends or your grandchildren to live in the future resulting from global climate change?


No I dont have kids and I dont want them.
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby clw_uk » Wed Sep 04, 2013 6:31 pm

meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka!



I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has not been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta, MN 55
Last edited by clw_uk on Wed Sep 04, 2013 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby clw_uk » Wed Sep 04, 2013 6:32 pm

noun (plural parentheses /-siːz/)
1a word or phrase inserted as an explanation or afterthought into a passage which is grammatically complete without it, in writing usually marked off by brackets, dashes, or commas:
in a challenging parenthesis, Wordsworth comments on the evil effects of contemporary developments
(parentheses) a pair of round brackets ( ) used to mark off a parenthetical word or phrase:
the stage number is added in parentheses to the name or formula
2an interlude or interval:
the three months of coalition government were a lamentable political parenthesis
Phrases

in parenthesis
as a digression or afterthought:
in parenthesis I should say that I am passing quickly over the significance of these matters



"Jamie Buxton, who fainted in church during his wedding, apologized to his wife by booking two tickets to New York."

(The parentheses chosen by the writer were commas. However, brackets or
dashes could equally have been used.)
Read more at http://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/ ... pSpt6dk.99


:focus:
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby clw_uk » Wed Sep 04, 2013 6:38 pm

This might be due to the translation issue, but I think to buy meat is still to engage "in the business of meat," just like to sell it.


Maybe, maybe not

I could go to the supermarket and buy meat that would just end up in the bin regardless
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby beeblebrox » Wed Sep 04, 2013 6:43 pm

Think about it. It would have been easy to say "Dont eat meat", just like the jains ... but he didnt


He did say that the business of meat wasn't something that one should engage in... (at least, according to Ven. Thanissaro's translation) I interpret that to mean both buying and selling.

"Taking life, beating, wounding, binding, stealing, lying, deceiving, worthless knowledge, adultery; this is stench. Not the eating of meat." Amagandha Sutta


If someone was offered meat to eat, why fault him for eating it?

No I am saying that the majority of humans eat meat, that most of the meat in the supermarket will be thrown out regardless of it I buy it or not


If it's going to be thrown out, why not get those for free?

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

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby clw_uk » Wed Sep 04, 2013 6:52 pm

He did say that the business of meat wasn't something that one should engage in... (at least, according to Ven. Thanissaro's translation) I interpret that to mean both buying and selling.



At a small scale market, such as they were in his time, this would be true. However the massive global food market is a different kettle of fish and requires different reasoning.

"Taking life, beating, wounding, binding, stealing, lying, deceiving, worthless knowledge, adultery; this is stench. Not the eating of meat." Amagandha Sutta


If someone was offered meat to eat, why fault him for eating it?


I agree




If it's going to be thrown out, why not get those for free?



They wont give it for free for health and safety reasons, here in the UK anyway. I used to work for KFC when I was in high school and at the end of the shift there were buckets and buckets of chicken being thrown out, which we could take home if we wanted. They stopped this though because people were suing afterwards if they get ill etc


However this raises an important point. In the time that I took the chicken home and ate it (and so was not eating a vegetarian diet) was this against Buddhist morality?

I would say no as if fulfils the requirements in the above sutta post, and so shows how someone can not be a vegetarian and yet be a moral Buddhist and validates my argument.

Now a strict vegetarian would not have taken it home just because they are a vegetarian, which (depending on their reasons for being vegetarian) can be more egotistical.
:soap:
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby beeblebrox » Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:18 pm

clw_uk wrote:
He did say that the business of meat wasn't something that one should engage in... (at least, according to Ven. Thanissaro's translation) I interpret that to mean both buying and selling.


At a small scale market, such as they were in his time, this would be true. However the massive global food market is a different kettle of fish and requires different reasoning.


Hi Clw_UK,

This probably won't resolve the argument, but did the Buddha use the same reasoning when he said that the samsara didn't have any discernible beginning (nor end, I think), but still taught liberation from it?

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

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby clw_uk » Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:25 pm

beeblebrox wrote:
clw_uk wrote:
He did say that the business of meat wasn't something that one should engage in... (at least, according to Ven. Thanissaro's translation) I interpret that to mean both buying and selling.


At a small scale market, such as they were in his time, this would be true. However the massive global food market is a different kettle of fish and requires different reasoning.


Hi Clw_UK,

This probably won't resolve the argument, but did the Buddha use the same reasoning when he said that the samsara didn't have any discernible beginning (nor end, I think), but still taught liberation from it?

:anjali:




Whats that got to do with anything?
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby beeblebrox » Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:27 pm

clw_uk wrote:Whats that got to do with anything?


Hi Clw_UK,

Indeed... that was why I said it probably won't resolve the argument.

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

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby clw_uk » Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:39 pm

beeblebrox wrote:
clw_uk wrote:Whats that got to do with anything?


Hi Clw_UK,

Indeed... that was why I said it probably won't resolve the argument.

:anjali:



Well its still open if it resolves the argument or not. I asked what your statement has to do with anything i.e. please clarify it, then we can see if it resolves the argument or not. :reading:
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby beeblebrox » Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:56 pm

clw_uk wrote:Well its still open if it resolves the argument or not. I asked what your statement has to do with anything i.e. please clarify it, then we can see if it resolves the argument or not. :reading:


The samsara has no beginning nor end, yet the Buddha still taught liberation from it. Even when the Buddha stopped contributing to the samsara, it still goes on.

Do you think that this kind of reasoning can be seen as valid when we try to apply it to the market, where the killing is occurring to make the meat available? Especially if this killing still will always go on, regardless of whether we buy the meat or not?

Or maybe even more relevant... this argument about eating vs. not eating meat still will always go on. Do you think we need to be a part of it? Is it obligatory?

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

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby clw_uk » Wed Sep 04, 2013 8:04 pm

The samsara has no beginning nor end, yet the Buddha still taught liberation from it. Even when the Buddha stopped contributing to the samsara, it still goes on.


Samsara is the spinning of the mind. Its a mistake to compare it with market forces.

Do you think that this kind of reasoning will be valid when we apply it to the market, where the killing is occurring to make the meat available? Especially when this killing still always will go on, regardless of whether we buy the meat or not?



As I said, in a small market it would have an effect. In a global market it doesnt.

Or maybe even more relevant... the argument about eating vs. not eating meat still will always go on. Do you think we need to be a part of it? Is it obligatory?


No of course not, but I would be interested to hear a response to you from my above post relating to my experience at KFC?
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby beeblebrox » Wed Sep 04, 2013 8:30 pm

clw_uk wrote:
The samsara has no beginning nor end, yet the Buddha still taught liberation from it. Even when the Buddha stopped contributing to the samsara, it still goes on.


Samsara is the spinning of the mind. Its a mistake to compare it with market forces.


What are these "market forces"? Is that something like the "celestial forces" which make everything run?

Do you think that this kind of reasoning will be valid when we apply it to the market, where the killing is occurring to make the meat available? Especially when this killing still always will go on, regardless of whether we buy the meat or not?


As I said, in a small market it would have an effect. In a global market it doesnt.


I wonder if the Buddha or an arahant had any effect on the samsara?

What are "small market" and "global market" anyway? Is that like the difference in between the human world and the celestial heaven?

Or maybe even more relevant... the argument about eating vs. not eating meat still will always go on. Do you think we need to be a part of it? Is it obligatory?


No of course not, but I would be interested to hear a response to you from my above post relating to my experience at KFC?


It's your experience at the KFC. Nothing came to my mind to say anything about it... I didn't think there had to be. :)

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

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby beeblebrox » Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:01 pm

I want to clarify that while I think these concepts of "buyer" and "seller," market forces, small and global markets still can be useful to discuss things... we should also take care that we're not carried away with these, as if they were something real. We should take care that they (the concepts) don't end up determining our own behaviors... especially in those situations where it's clearly unbeneficial.

I think this was one of the gists of the Buddha's teachings, more or less... the brahmins and ascetics got carried away with their different systems of viewing their own worlds. Over the time they allowed these systems to determine their own behaviors... to their detriments, and despite all the different kinds of dukkha that they ended up creating for themselves, and others.

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

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Spiny Norman » Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:45 am

clw_uk wrote:But yet he ate meat and never enforced it...


But wasn't the purpose of the 3-fold rule to reduce suffering and harm to other living beings? Isn't this an extension of metta?
Mrs. Bun: Have you got anything without spam in it?
Waitress: Well, there's spam, egg, sausage and spam. That's not got MUCH spam in it.
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2690
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests