the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
adeh
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:42 pm
Location: Mexico City

the great vegetarian debate

Post by adeh »

I eat chicken or fish/seafood about once a month.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

the great vegetarian debate

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings venerable Appicchato,

Thanks... that was an interesting overview.

(P.S. Yes, feeling better now... have been back to 100% over the last couple of days :thumbsup: )

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

the great vegetarian debate

Post by Lazy_eye »

Guess I'd call myself semi-vegetarian, as I (currently) eat seafood.

Also, as the rest of my immediate family are meat-eaters, and include small children who sometimes don't finish their food, I'm occasionally put in the position of either consuming something with meat in it, or throwing it out. I'm not happy with either choice, but it seems to me if an animal has been killed for food, it's just that much worse to dump it in the trash. So if I'm out somewhere with the kids, and they don't finish their chicken strips or whatever, I will.

If somebody invited me to their house and served me a meat dish, and I felt that it would cause offense and hurt to refuse, I'd probably accept it. Hasn't happened yet but I'm sure it will.
User avatar
puthujjana
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:13 am
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Contact:

the great vegetarian debate

Post by puthujjana »

I were vegan for about 2 years till I got some "energy-problems". If I didn't eat every few hours, I felt dizzy and my legs began to shake...
But these problems were caused by me and not by being vegan. I simply didn't eat enough and didn't care about all the nutrients my body needed.

Since a few months I'm eating milk products and eggs again and now I'm feeling much better. :twothumbsup:

with metta
:anjali:
"Once you understand anatta, then the burden of life is gone. You’ll be at peace with the world. When we see beyond self, we no longer cling to happiness and we can truly be happy."
- Ajahn Chah
User avatar
phil
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:08 am
Location: Tokyo

the great vegetarian debate

Post by phil »

Yes, although only in the last 6 months. I think there are far more options than there were in the Buddha's day, and as householders we have the freedom to make responsible choices. Just another aspect of non-harmfulness. And good practice in renunciation. But obviously eating meat is not against the precepts as taught by the Buddha, and not akusala kamma.

Metta,

Phil
Kammalakkhano , bhikkhave, bālo, kammalakkhano pandito, apadānasobhanī paññāti
(The fool is characterized by his/her actions/the wise one is characterized by his/her actions/Wisdom shines forth in behaviour.)
(AN 3.2 Lakkhana Sutta)
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

the great vegetarian debate

Post by Individual »

Tex wrote:DISCLAIMER: Voting intended for Theravadins only please; discussion is of course welcomed from all traditions.

Abstaining from meat consumption is not required in Theravada, but I'm curious to see how many of our Theravada practitioners choose to abstain from eating animal products anyway.
I'm not, but I'd like to be and strongly recommend it. I don't think eating meat is intrinsically or absolutely wrong, but in a modern context, the Buddha's reasoning for allowing it in the past no longer applies here.

In the past, food may have been more scarce, where a nutritious vegetarian diet may have been impractical. It's been demonstrated, for instance, how a diet high in soy actually isn't very healthy, compared with the standard diet of balancing the five food groups. Vegetarianism only developed in places like India, after all, because they had a certain climate which was advantageous to farming, and a certain economy, which made cows more valuable alive for their milk, cheese, dung, and as pack animals, rather than as meat. Also, by opposing meat, you would be harming farmers' livelihood for the sake of the animals. While in abstract economic terms, supply is (probably) driven by demand, so "one unit of demand supports one further unit of supply", practically, one person's consumption or abstinence has a negligible impact on the overall market.

Now, in modern times, it is certainly possible to have a healthy vegetarian diet, and it is certainly noble to do so. Most farming nowadays is done by large companies, not individual farmers. Aside from the cruelty of things like factory farming... more importantly, meat drives up the cost of fuel (uses more gas to produce meat than veggies) and contributes to global warming. It's been estimated that eating meat contributes more to global warming than driving a car.

So, with all of this in mind, it seems very reasonable to me to promote vegetarianism -- not in a militant or evangelical way, though, like PETA.

I am not a vegetarian myself, however, because I am an America, where meat is a staple of my diet, I have a certain palette where I don't like vegetarian foods very much, I'm too lazy to go through the type of preparation required, and I just haven't really gotten into it. But I do think it's a good thing.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4644
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Poll: Are you vegetarian/vegan?

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

In my opinion a Buddhist shouldn't be a strict vegetarian or vegan. To take such a stance would just be attachment to views. The Āmagandha Sutta makes it clear. To be a vegetarian for reasons of health or frugality makes more sense than for reasons of ethics.

If you lived near a farm where the farmer grew cabbages, and you knew that the farmer shot rabbits. Then at the farm shop, would you buy cabbages, or rabbit meat, both, or neither? On what basis would you make that decision?

All modern farming methods involve the intentional destruction of living beings — even for growing vegetables. If you have time, you can grow your own organic veggies and take reasonable care to ensure that no living beings are killed in the process, but growing wheat and making your own bread is not easy. So, why not just be mindful of your intention and save a whole lot of grief that arises from attachment to views?

In four ways one can break the precept of killing living beings:
  1. One kills living beings by one's own hand
  2. One urges another to do it
  3. One grants permission to another to do it
  4. One speaks in praise of killing
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
User avatar
Avery
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Poll: Are you vegetarian/vegan?

Post by Avery »

I have gone vegan before, and I try to avoid eating too much meat because I know it comes from factory farms. But I have been eating meat all my life, so my body needs it. It's not good to deny yourself part of the healthy diet you grew up with.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Poll: Are you vegetarian/vegan?

Post by DNS »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:In my opinion a Buddhist shouldn't be a strict vegetarian or vegan. To take such a stance would just be attachment to views. The Āmagandha Sutta makes it clear. To be a vegetarian for reasons of health or frugality makes more sense than for reasons of ethics.
Hi Bhante Pesala,

I was wondering when you were going to post with your views on this subject. :anjali: No disrespect in this statement, I welcome the opposing views for this debate. The debates on vegetarianism (like the rebirth threads) go on and on, at least over at e-sangha and other forums, so I imagine it will happen here too.

Speaking of views, attachment to views is true and I would add that attachment to views can happen no matter which way you stand on an issue, including vegetarianism. Like you and others, I have seen vegetarians who are attached to their views, but I have equally (probably more so) seen non-vegetarians attached to their views too. Some (not all) get almost irate and violently upset at vegetarians. Attachment can occur either way.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Poll: Are you vegetarian/vegan?

Post by DNS »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:In my opinion a Buddhist shouldn't be a strict vegetarian or vegan. To take such a stance would just be attachment to views. The Āmagandha Sutta makes it clear.
Abstaining from fish and meat, nakedness, shaving of the head, matted hair, smearing with ashes, wearing rough deerskins, attending the sacrificial fire; none of the various penances in the world performed for unhealthy ends, neither incantations, oblations, sacrifices nor seasonal observances, purify a person who has not overcome his doubts.
In my opinion, the Amagandha Sutta is referring to those who believe you can ritually become pure by eating certain foods, doing some ascetic practices, etc., not as a rejection of vegetarianism, per se. In ancient India it was not uncommon for some to believe that certain foods (vegetarian and non-vegetarian) had certain purifying effects, much like baptism, and also beliefs in water immersion too for becoming pure.

A vegetarian can be morally impure in so many ways. His diet will not make him pure. That is what I get out of that Sutta. But a Buddhist may want to lessen the violence done to sentient beings by being vegetarian and the Sutta does not reject that, in my opinion.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Poll: Are you vegetarian/vegan?

Post by DNS »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote: In four ways one can break the precept of killing living beings:
  1. One kills living beings by one's own hand
  2. One urges another to do it
  3. One grants permission to another to do it
  4. One speaks in praise of killing
For me, numbers 2 through 4 sound very similar to ordering, requesting meat. This would not be the case for a monastic who lives by the Threefold Rule, but for lay people who choose what to buy, what to order, that is a different matter.

In my opinion, if I go to a butcher and request some meat and for the purposes of this hypothetical example it is his last piece of flesh in the store, then the butcher will order another carcass from the slaughterhouse. It is a direct line from my order.

Yes, there are some unintentional killings of insects and possibly some rabbits in the fields, but there is a difference in my opinion. I have lived on a farm and I have not seen any farmer intentionally kill any rabbits or other animals in the fields. Maybe that happens, but I have not seen it. There is organic farming which lessens the number of unintentional killings of insects and other beings.

Even if we still say that there is much killing of insects and other beings from the harvesting of vegetarian foods, there will still always be less killing, less violence, with a vegetarian diet, because a meat eater is eating the animal that was slaughtered, PLUS all of the above, because the slaughterhouse animals are fed grain and vegetarian foods (processed just like the above paragraph mentions) for years while they are being raised for their meat.
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: Poll: Are you vegetarian/vegan?

Post by kc2dpt »

TheDhamma, was it your intention to turn this thread from a poll into a debate?
TheDhamma wrote:
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote: In four ways one can break the precept of killing living beings:
  1. One kills living beings by one's own hand
  2. One urges another to do it
  3. One grants permission to another to do it
  4. One speaks in praise of killing
For me, numbers 2 through 4 sound very similar to ordering, requesting meat.
a] "Please sell me that piece of meat, which came from an animal killed without any knowledge that I personally, here and now, would wish to purchase it."
b] "Please kill an animal and then sell me it's meat."

I think we can all agree there is a difference between these two scenarios. The question is therefore a] what is the nature of this difference? and b] is this difference significant in terms of the Buddha's teachings?
In my opinion, if I go to a butcher and request some meat and for the purposes of this hypothetical example it is his last piece of flesh in the store, then the butcher will order another carcass from the slaughterhouse. It is a direct line from my order.
It seems to me not a direct line but rather an indirect line. The Butcher could decide to order another carcass or he could decide to get out of the meat business, having sold all his existing stock. Similarly, the workers at the slaughterhouse make the decision every day to continue in that line of work. And what about the delivery truck driver? Is he part of this so-called "direct" line? He neither places order nor makes decisions to kill. He is neither part of supply nor demand.

This seems to me the crux of the disagreement: whether buying and animal killed in the past constitutes urging another to kill in the future.
Yes, there are some unintentional killings of insects and possibly some rabbits in the fields, but there is a difference in my opinion. I have lived on a farm and I have not seen any farmer intentionally kill any rabbits or other animals in the fields. Maybe that happens, but I have not seen it.
The farm you lived on did not employ pesticides against crop-destroying insects? it did not trap or poison crop-eating rodents? I can assure you these are in fact common-place practices. One need only to look through any farm-supply catalog to see the myriad tools employed for pest elimination.
Even if we still say that there is much killing of insects and other beings from the harvesting of vegetarian foods, there will still always be less killing, less violence, with a vegetarian diet
The problem with this argument is it suggests the Buddha taught one to engage in less killing. The teachings as I am familiar with them say to abstain from all killing. Since it is physically impossible to not be a part of any indirect chain of events that might lead to killing, I can conclude that indirect chains are not what the Buddha was referring to.
Last edited by kc2dpt on Thu Mar 05, 2009 8:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: Poll: Are you vegetarian/vegan?

Post by kc2dpt »

Perhaps interestingly, I am reminded of medical cadavers.
a] "Please let us use this dead body for medical study, which was killed without any knowledge that I here and now would wish to use it."
b] "Please kill someone and bring us the body so we may use it for medical study."

Of course the obvious difference between this case and buying meat is the animal is killed for the express purpose that someone would buy it's meat. No one kills people for the express purpose of creating medical cadavers. On the other hand, killing people for any reason is illegal. Similarly, killing an animal for any reason is taught by the Buddha to be unwholesome. It seems to me unnecessary to extend the Buddha's teachings on this matter to include anyone who is in any way even remotely connected to the person doing the actual killing. If no one was willing to kill directly then the entire discussion of vegetarianism becomes moot.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Poll: Are you vegetarian/vegan?

Post by DNS »

Peter wrote:TheDhamma, was it your intention to turn this thread from a poll into a debate?
I thought that was what was going on already?
Peter wrote: The Butcher could decide to order another carcass or he could decide to get out of the meat business, having sold all his existing stock. Similarly, the workers at the slaughterhouse make the decision every day to continue in that line of work. And what about the delivery truck driver? Is he part of this so-called "direct" line? He neither places order nor makes decisions to kill. He is neither part of supply nor demand.
I am only referring to those who do the killing and those who request the killing, not anyone else.
Peter wrote: The farm you lived on did not employ pesticides against crop-destroying insects? it did not trap or poison crop-eating rodents?
No and many farms do not use those instruments, especially organic.
Peter wrote: The problem with this argument is it suggests the Buddha taught one to engage in less killing. The teachings as I am familiar with them say to abstain from all killing. Since it is physically impossible to not be a part of any indirect chain of events that might lead to killing, I can conclude that indirect chains are not what the Buddha was referring to.
You don't think that less killing is better than more killing? For example, if it is decided to bomb a headquarters of a terrorist group and since killing is already allowed, is it then okay to use a nuke and destroy the headquarters and another 250 mile radius including all of the civilians around that area? The Buddha went to the battlefield to stop a war. As far as I can see the Buddha did want less killing because no killing means less killing, as much as possible, at least.
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

some very specific vegetarian questions

Post by kc2dpt »

The Buddha taught it is unwholesome to urge another to kill, that it is a violation of the fifth precept.

Does purchasing meat at a meat store constitute urging another to kill?

What if the man selling you the meat does his own animal slaughtering? That means he himself gets the money from the sale and he himself makes the decision to kill.

What if the man selling you the meat places orders from a slaughterhouse? That means he gets the money and then he urges another to kill.

What if the man selling is an employee of the store and not in charge of placing new orders? That means he takes your money but he doesn't get it. Rather he gets a set salary regardless of which items he sells you. It also means another person you never see looks at the total sales for the week and decides how much to order the next week in the hopes that the same number of sales will be made.

What if local sales numbers aren't looked at by anyone. Rather national averages are used to determine how much new meat is ordered?

What about buying vegetables in a store that also sells meat? That means economically supporting that store.

What about buying non-organic vegetables rather than organic vegetables? That means rewarding those who use pesticides to grow their food.

What about you, a doctor, treating the illness of someone who works in a slaughterhouse? By treating them you allow them to return to work.

At what point in the chain of relations and interdependencies is our behavior deemed wholesome or unwholesome?

What about giving money to a homeless person? They are likely going to spend that money on alcohol, a violation of the fifth precept. Is that act of giving unwholesome?
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
Post Reply