the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

lyndon taylor wrote:That would seem to be the logical conclusion, but if there's one thing I've learned from the vehement meat eating buddhists, traditional logic doesn't enter into it!!
Some people just want to eat meat, and they don't really give a damn who has to die in the process.......

Cant you see how that's a subjective evaluation formed of someone else, via an internet forum, that might not be an accurate description of them or their position?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by lyndon taylor »

no killing means no killing, you can twist it around all you like, all you're basically doing is making excuses for killing.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Alex123 »

lyndon taylor wrote:no killing means no killing, you can twist it around all you like, all you're basically doing is making excuses for killing.


Buying meat is not technically "killing". Killing is what someone else does and your action does NOT force someone to kill.
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by lyndon taylor »

thats the kind of twisted bs logic I'm talking about! killing is killing whether you do it yourself or pay someone else to do it, that's logic, your position is just rationalization.

And yes obviously buying meat forces someone to kill the animal your eating otherwise the animal wouldn't be dead and you wouldn't have any meat.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Alex123 »

lyndon taylor wrote:And yes obviously buying meat forces someone to kill the animal your eating otherwise the animal wouldn't be dead and you wouldn't have any meat.
It does not force the butcher to do it. Butcher does it to make money, not because you came to him and forced him at gunpoint to slaughter the animal. If you did the latter, then yes, you are at fault.
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by lyndon taylor »

Yes the butcher is payed to do the killing, and you're the one that's paying him to kill....

If no one buys the meat, the butcher doesn't get payed, and he stops killing the animals, plain and simple.
Last edited by retrofuturist on Thu Jan 09, 2014 1:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Needless comments insulting the intelligence of others have been removed
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Alex123 »

lyndon taylor wrote:Yes the butcher is payed to do the killing, and you're the one that's paying him to kill....
But you are not FORCING him to kill. Your buying meat is not sufficient cause for killing of the animal. It is his desire for money that is a necessary condition for him to kill. Furthermore, if you don't buy the meat - someone else will. If that animal was free, chances are that that animal could have become food for some other animal. The world is not black and white.


You can't really prove that just because you bought this specific piece of meat, that (who?) butcher will slaughter that (which one exactly?) animal.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10163
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

Alex123 wrote:
lyndon taylor wrote:Yes the butcher is payed to do the killing, and you're the one that's paying him to kill....
But you are not FORCING him to kill.
But you are expecting him to kill. You're expecting somebody else to break the first precept and do wrong livelihood, things which as a Buddhist you would presumably not do yourself. It seems hypocritical to me.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Alex123 »

Spiny Norman wrote:But you are expecting him to kill. You're expecting somebody else to break the first precept and do wrong livelihood, things which as a Buddhist you would presumably not do yourself. It seems hypocritical to me.
As a Buddhists we should not expect to be able to control everyone else.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10163
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

Alex123 wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:But you are expecting him to kill. You're expecting somebody else to break the first precept and do wrong livelihood, things which as a Buddhist you would presumably not do yourself. It seems hypocritical to me.
As a Buddhists we should not expect to be able to control everyone else.
Of course not. But many of us have some choice about the kind of food we buy, and whether or not we buy meat.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 595
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:09 am
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Jason »

I'm sure I've probably already posted this here at some point, but I thought I'd share (or reshare) some of my thoughts on this topic for whomever may be interested.

In Theravada, vegetarianism isn't a requirement. The Buddha himself rejected Devadatta's demand to institute vegetarianism as a requirement. Moreover, he never said that simply eating meat in and of itself is unwholesome (akusala). However, the underlying question that I think is being so hotly being debated here is, Does that mean that purchasing meat is the same as purchasing produce? My answer is no.

Essentially, the meat that one purchases from the grocery store must come from an animal that's been deliberately killed by someone. whereas the same cannot be said about the fruits and vegetables that one purchases from the grocery store. Fruits and vegetables aren't sentient beings, and harvesting them doesn't automatically entail the intentional killing of any sentient beings. If any sentient beings are killed in the harvesting of a fruit or vegetable, it's conceivable that it was accidental rather than deliberate.

In the case of meat, that's not the case. The animal must almost always be deliberately killed by someone. It's true that purchasing meat from the grocery store does n't ential the kamma of killing for the purchaser; however, a well-informed practitioner should be aware that an animal has to be deliberately killed at some point for that meat to be available. Abstaining from eating meat doesn't free one from the web of killing and death, but it's hard to argue against the fact that doing so would at least help by not directly contributing to the meat industry that's built around the raising and killing of animals specifically for their flesh.

The way I see it, no source of food is 100% free from harming sentient beings, but the consumer does have the power to limit the amount of harm done. This can be achieved in many ways, e.g., not buying meat or at least buying meat from farmers and companies who treat their animals more humanely, buying eggs from farmers and companies who allow their hens to roam freely, buying produce from farmers and companies who don't use any pesticides, etc. So the consumer isn't entirely powerless. They can have an effect on how many animals are killed, the manner of their deaths, and/or how they're treated in general, as well as the amount of pesticide-free produce that are sold, etc.

When going to the super market, for example, that particular store most likely keeps a record of all purchases and uses that information towards influencing store policy. Theoretically, if the the majority of consumers cease buying meat, the demand for meat will go down and less animals will need to be killed in order to meet the demand. In addition, if the majority of consumers who do purchase meat and dairy products purchase them from farmers and companies who treat and kill the animals in a more humane fashion, other companies will naturally follow suit due to the potential profit of such business practices. The same holds true for the kind of produce we buy. In a capitalist society, money is the greatest impetus for change pure and simple.

All of this ties into to the idea of personal responsibility and how far we, as individuals, wish to be socially active in regard to our Buddhist beliefs and practices. It's a personal choice that we each must make. For some, purchasing meat is perfectly acceptable to them since they know that the animal has been killed by another person. But for others, the purchasing of meat might not seem so acceptable when they consider things such as what meat is and how it gets to the store.

Therefore, while I completely agree that in regard to the first precept the Buddha taught about personal responsibility in the form of regulating our own actions of body, speech, and mind, that doesn't mean that we should simply turn a blind eye to where our food comes from. Doesn't that also fall within the realm of personal responsibility? Hence, while I agree that vegetarianism isn't a requirement, I do think that it's at least a compassionate option for Buddhists to adopt. That's why even though there's nothing in Theravada that states this lifestyle choice is necessary or even preferred, I generally try to avoid buying meat or anything with meat in it when I go to the grocery store, out to eat at a restaurant, etc.

Just to be clear, however, I am not trying to demonize meat eating or the meat industry because that's a pointless crusade. As I said, abstaining from eating meat doesn't free one from the web of killing and death. Killing and death are awful facts of samsara that have the potential to arise because there are sentient beings whose minds are defiled by greed, hatred, and delusion. Besides removing oneself from the cycle of birth and death altogether, there are worldly solutions to these problems, but these solutions can merely limit the potential harm to other sentient beings at best.

In essence, besides escaping samsara, there are no perfect solutions. On top of that, condemning or demonizing another for their complicity means that we should also condemn and demonize ourselves as well. If we want to, we can find reasons to demonize internet usage. I doubt that most people are aware of how many birds are killed each year by microwave towers, but one could reason that every person who surfs the web or sends out an e-mail contributes to those deaths. Shall we cease to use the internet then?

My point is that choosing to be more socially active in our respective practices is an admirable thing to do. Nevertheless, we should never forget the very nature of samsara. In his introduction to The Four Nutriments of Life: An Anthology of Buddhist Texts, Nyanaponika Thera echoes:
  • If we wish to eat and live, we have to kill or tacitly accept that others do the killing for us. When speaking of the latter, we do not refer merely to the butcher or the fisherman. Also for the strict vegetarian's sake, living beings have to die under the farmer's plowshare, and his lettuce and other vegetables have to be kept free of snails and other "pests," at the expense of these living beings who, like ourselves, are in search of food. A growing population's need for more arable land deprives animals of their living space and, in the course of history, has eliminated many a species. It is a world of killing in which we live and have a part. We should face this horrible fact and remain aware of it in our Reflection on Edible Food. It will stir us to effort for getting out of this murderous world by the ending of craving for the four nutriments.
As for myself, I've ran the gamut. I used to just eat whatever. Then I became a strict vegetarian for ethical/personal reasons. Afterwards I practiced eating meat only when offered by others for much the same reasons as given in the story offered by Phra Dhammanando. Nowadays, I'm back to being a vegetarian due to ethical reasons and a promise I made to myself after my mom became ill.

I don't think my vegetarianism makes me a better Buddhist than others, but I do find that it lightens my mind whenever I reflect on the fact that I strive to practice ahimsa (harmelessness) as broadly as possible.
"Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya" (AN 7.58).

leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by binocular »

I still think that if one's intentions for eating are wholesome, then this will gradually take care of all the other aspects related to eating.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 595
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:09 am
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Jason »

binocular wrote:I still think that if one's intentions for eating are wholesome, then this will gradually take care of all the other aspects related to eating.
I agree. More important than what you eat is how you eat. Not all Buddhists are vegetarian. Some are, but some aren't. The goal of the holy life is to free ourselves from greed, hatred, and delusion; it's not meant for us to cling to one particular practice over another. Our choices, no matter what they are, should be carefully guiding us towards liberation. But in my experience, that's often easier said than done.

There have been times, for example, where I'd eat whatever, thinking I was being dispassionate about food, but realizing later that I really enjoyed eating meat and I wasn't truly being dispassionate about what I was eating but simply being less strict with my vegetarianism so I could eat a steak or some sushi every now and then. At the time, of course, I thought my intentions were purely wholesome; but later I noticed my wholesome intentions were being overshadowed by my craving. It was a good lesson about how easily it is for me to deceive myself about my intentions, though, which is why I think the Buddha stressed honesty so much.

I still struggle with that kind of honesty in all aspects of my life, but I've found that it's at least gotten easier for me to notice when I'm trying to fool myself. I'm not saying everyone who eats meat or whatever is fooling themselves, only that I found my desire for meat to be a good teacher about how my own mind works.
Last edited by Jason on Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya" (AN 7.58).

leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10163
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

binocular wrote:I still think that if one's intentions for eating are wholesome, then this will gradually take care of all the other aspects related to eating.
Doesn't Right Intention involve some concern for the harm done to animals which results from buying meat?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by binocular »

Spiny Norman wrote:Doesn't Right Intention involve some concern for the harm done to animals which results from buying meat?
Obviously. But how much of such concern is there depends on the individual person, at any particular time.
For example, if someone feels overwhelmed with job problems, it will be difficult to have much concern for other beings. Not that this justifies cruelty, but it points to the cruel reality that resources, including goodwill and compassion, are scarce, and thus must be protected and tended to if one is to have them ready for use regardless of circumstances.

Jason wrote:I'm not saying everyone who eats meat or whatever is fooling themselves, only that I found my desire for meat to be a good teacher about how my own mind works.
Yes ...
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Post Reply