the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by cooran »

13 Greatest things about being Vegetarian :tongue:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/0 ... l?ir=Taste
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

Isnt it a jainist argument that Buddhists are too laxed, and Buddha not fully wise, because he didnt mandate vegetarianism?
“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.”
Babadhari
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:23 pm
Location: lalita ghat

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Babadhari »

has anyone discussed how much easier it is to achieve better levels of concentration and tranquility in meditation when the body is freed of expending energy to digest meat?

i believe this is also one reason why vegetarianism is promoted amonst many Dhamma followers.
Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire of aversion, the fire of delusion.
Aflame, with birth, aging & death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs ......

Seeing thus, the disciple of the Noble One grows disenchanted. SN 35.28
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

kitztack wrote:has anyone discussed how much easier it is to achieve better levels of concentration and tranquility in meditation when the body is freed of expending energy to digest meat?

i believe this is also one reason why vegetarianism is promoted amonst many Dhamma followers.

You may have a point, arent carbohydrates processed more efficiently by the body than protein (from meat)



However you could be a vegertarian and over do it on the margarita pizza's and get sluggish from that



At the end of the day humans are omnivores, hence why we have canines and molars, as well as forward facing eyes (the usual standard of a predator)

So we can survive with or without meat, as long as we get the right nutrients etc from what ever food source we choose


However as I said before, I think lab grown meat is the solution to this whole debate

No animals killed directly, all the nutrients our predator/herbivore hybrid body needs to function
“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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

I would also say that it is our predatory/hunter carnivorous side that helped make us what we are now.

Predators always tend to be more intelligent as they need to plan a hunt and co-ordinate etc, herbivorous just run

Without this aspect its much more unlikely that we would have evolved to develop science, art, literature and the self reflection that helped us to discover Dhamma
“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.”
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by daverupa »

clw_uk wrote:
kitztack wrote:has anyone discussed how much easier it is to achieve better levels of concentration and tranquility in meditation when the body is freed of expending energy to digest meat?

i believe this is also one reason why vegetarianism is promoted amonst many Dhamma followers.

You may have a point, arent carbohydrates processed more efficiently by the body than protein (from meat)
The thermic effect from food is differently calculated. The body doesn't care where the amino acid polymer came from: a protein is a protein, so long as it's a complete protein (what matters is if the protein was surrounded in Omega-6 fats or in trans-fats, for example). In this, plant protein is incomplete for human dietary needs and requires more cellular processing to craft into useable chains, while animal protein is ready to go from the start.

So plant protein takes a bit more work than animal protein to make fit for use; and, as it happens, it takes less energy to process carbs and fats than it does proteins. In fact, I just read a fascinating piece of research on this:
Research has found that the thermic effect of food contributes to the fact that calories may not all be equal in terms of weight gain. In one study, seventeen subjects ate, on two different days, two bread-and-cheese sandwiches that were the same in terms of calories (the subjects were free to choose either 600 or 800 kcal meals), but one was ″whole food″ (a multi-grain bread, containing whole sunflower seeds and whole-grain kernels, with cheddar cheese), while the other was ″processed food″ (white bread and a processed cheese product).

For each subject, the researchers measured the extra energy, beyond that due to the basal metabolic rate, that the subject expended in the six hours following the consumption of the meal; that energy divided by the energy content of the meal was (after multiplying by 100) reported as the percent DIT coefficient. The average percent DIT coefficient for the ″whole food″ sandwiches was (19.9±2.5)%, while for the ″processed food″ sandwiches, it was (10.7 ±1.7)%—a difference of a factor of 2. When the DIT values are subtracted from the total meal energy, it follows that the subjects obtained 9.7% more net energy from the ″processed-food″ meal than from the ″whole-food″ one.
So crummy, processed food is easier to eat than non-crummy, earth-based food. "Easier to eat"/"less energy to digest" are not benefits.

:heart:
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17186
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by DNS »

clw_uk wrote:Isnt it a jainist argument that Buddhists are too laxed, and Buddha not fully wise, because he didnt mandate vegetarianism?
It depends upon how far one goes with vegetarianism. The pure Jain diet (which I heard few of them even do) is to only eat fruits and the 'tops' of the greens, thereby not killing the source plant / tree. A lacto-ovo vegetarian diet looks pretty monstrous to some hard-core vegans who eat close to the Jain diet.
clw_uk wrote: At the end of the day humans are omnivores, hence why we have canines and molars, as well as forward facing eyes (the usual standard of a predator)
In an evolutionary biology class I had at university, the professor said that primates, including chimpanzees, gorillas and humans have large canines due to a social adaptation. Males are the dominant gender among all primates and the larger teeth and canines adapted as a result of that, not diet. Even among modern humans, the males have significantly larger canines and teeth in general than females.

Mountain gorillas eat an almost exclusively fruitarian, vegan diet and have large canines, teeth and are very strong too.
However as I said before, I think lab grown meat is the solution to this whole debate
:thumbsup:

In terms of health and nutrition, I like to look at the diets of super centenarians. Their diets are all over the place, including omnivore, lacto-ovo vegetarians, whiskey drinking, etc. So it does appear that one can get good nutrition on almost any type of diet as long as there is not too much fat or junk. So my main motivation for a mostly vegan diet is more on ethical grounds.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

In an evolutionary biology class I had at university, the professor said that primates, including chimpanzees, gorillas and humans have large canines due to a social adaptation. Males are the dominant gender among all primates and the larger teeth and canines adapted as a result of that, not diet. Even among modern humans, the males have significantly larger canines and teeth in general than females.

Mountain gorillas eat an almost exclusively fruitarian, vegan diet and have large canines, teeth and are very strong too.

Thats interesting :)


I am a bit sceptical though because even if we ignore the teeth, we still have forward facing eyes and a digestive system that absorbs both plant and animal matter. When its all combined I think it does point to Humans being mostly predators, with a herbivore slant (omnivore)

I dont know much about the Gorrila's diet or behaviour, however I do know that Chimpanzees do kill and eat monkey (albeit on odd occasion's). It's also interesting to note that they are, with this behaviour, our closes relatives.


OF course this is all biology and not Dhamma as such. However I think Buddha, if he was alive today, would want us to take into account the biological facts as well as the circumstance of the individual.

Ideally we would not kill other beings and all be vegetarian, or grow meat in labs. However there are circumstances where a mother, for and extreme example, would have to kill a rabbit to feed her toddlers.

Sadly our planet went down the path of life feeding off life, and if there was a choice between killing a rabbit or letting a toddler starve, I would say killing the rabbit was the more ethical ... although maybe not wholesome

Maybe there are occasions where what is ethical to do is separate from what is wholesome?


Interesting though :reading:
“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.”
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by daverupa »

Some work on early human diets.
The first major evolutionary change in the human diet was the incorporation of meat and marrow from large animals, which occurred by at least 2.6 million years ago.
The carnivory of hominins is unique among primates in three ways: (1) use of flaked stone tools to access animal resources; (2) acquisition of resources from animals much larger than the hominins themselves (Figure 3); and (3) procurement of animal resources by scavenging. Chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, routinely hunt, capture by hand, and eat meat from colobus or other smaller monkeys (e.g. Mitani and Watts 2001), but meat is a small proportion of their diet and they rarely scavenge (Watts 2008), most likely because they cannot efficiently digest carrion (Ragir et al. 2000). How this novel source of food was first recognized by hominins remains unknown.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Mkoll »

daverupa wrote:Some work on early human diets.
The first major evolutionary change in the human diet was the incorporation of meat and marrow from large animals, which occurred by at least 2.6 million years ago.
The carnivory of hominins is unique among primates in three ways: (1) use of flaked stone tools to access animal resources; (2) acquisition of resources from animals much larger than the hominins themselves (Figure 3); and (3) procurement of animal resources by scavenging. Chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, routinely hunt, capture by hand, and eat meat from colobus or other smaller monkeys (e.g. Mitani and Watts 2001), but meat is a small proportion of their diet and they rarely scavenge (Watts 2008), most likely because they cannot efficiently digest carrion (Ragir et al. 2000). How this novel source of food was first recognized by hominins remains unknown.
I can imagine a band of hominins coming out of their caves during the last ice age with their flaked stone tools, finding a dead wooly mammoth or rhino or something and using those tools to quickly cut into the meat to take away as much as possible before more dangerous scavengers arrive such as sabertooth tigers!
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Alex123 »

kitztack wrote:has anyone discussed how much easier it is to achieve better levels of concentration and tranquility in meditation when the body is freed of expending energy to digest meat?
And some people have difficulty to digest carbohydrates...
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by culaavuso »

kitztack wrote:has anyone discussed how much easier it is to achieve better levels of concentration and tranquility in meditation when the body is freed of expending energy to digest meat?

i believe this is also one reason why vegetarianism is promoted amonst many Dhamma followers.
From Gifts He Left Behind: The Dhamma Legacy of Ajaan Dune Atulo
Ajaan Dune Atulo wrote: That's very good. The fact that you can be vegetarians is very good, and I'd like to express my admiration. As for those who still eat meat, if that meat is pure in three ways — in that they haven't seen or heard or suspected that an animal was killed to provide the food specifically for them — and they obtained it in a pure way, then eating the meat is in no way against the Dhamma and Vinaya. But when you say that your mind becomes peaceful and cool, that's the result of the strength that comes from being intent on practicing correctly in line with the Dhamma and Vinaya. It has nothing to do with the new food or old in your stomach at all.
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Aloka »

From Ajahn Jagaro:
I respect people who are vegetarian. They are acting very nobly; it is a gesture of renunciation. It is a small thing but noble, and very much in keeping with the Buddha's teaching of compassion and understanding.

But don't stop there. Even if you are not vegetarian don't think there is nothing else you can do. There's a lot to be done in every area of life, in the way we speak, in the way we act, in everything. Be one who treads lightly, be one who doesn't add unnecessarily to the suffering of humanity and all other sentient beings on this planet.

Once we have the intention to at least try, to move in the right direction, we are good disciples of the Buddha. Each person has to walk at his or her own pace.

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha151.htm
Essay in support of vegetarianism "Taking a Stand" By Ven. Abhinaya

http://www.shabkar.org/download/pdf/Taking_a_stand.pdf

vegetarianism in Buddhism

http://www.shabkar.org/vegetarianism/index.htm


:anjali:
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Mkoll »

Aloka wrote:From Ajahn Jagaro:
I respect people who are vegetarian. They are acting very nobly; it is a gesture of renunciation. It is a small thing but noble, and very much in keeping with the Buddha's teaching of compassion and understanding.

But don't stop there. Even if you are not vegetarian don't think there is nothing else you can do. There's a lot to be done in every area of life, in the way we speak, in the way we act, in everything. Be one who treads lightly, be one who doesn't add unnecessarily to the suffering of humanity and all other sentient beings on this planet.

Once we have the intention to at least try, to move in the right direction, we are good disciples of the Buddha. Each person has to walk at his or her own pace.

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha151.htm
Essay in support of vegetarianism "Taking a Stand" By Ven. Abhinaya

http://www.shabkar.org/download/pdf/Taking_a_stand.pdf

vegetarianism in Buddhism

http://www.shabkar.org/vegetarianism/index.htm


:anjali:
Thanks Aloka.

I think he sums it up nicely with the phrase: "it is a gesture of renunciation".

:anjali:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by cooran »

culaavuso wrote:
kitztack wrote:has anyone discussed how much easier it is to achieve better levels of concentration and tranquility in meditation when the body is freed of expending energy to digest meat?

i believe this is also one reason why vegetarianism is promoted amonst many Dhamma followers.
From Gifts He Left Behind: The Dhamma Legacy of Ajaan Dune Atulo
Ajaan Dune Atulo wrote: That's very good. The fact that you can be vegetarians is very good, and I'd like to express my admiration. As for those who still eat meat, if that meat is pure in three ways — in that they haven't seen or heard or suspected that an animal was killed to provide the food specifically for them — and they obtained it in a pure way, then eating the meat is in no way against the Dhamma and Vinaya. But when you say that your mind becomes peaceful and cool, that's the result of the strength that comes from being intent on practicing correctly in line with the Dhamma and Vinaya. It has nothing to do with the new food or old in your stomach at all.
As the quoted Ajahn Dune Atulo lived in Surin for about the last 50 years of his life, I don't think he would have been familiar with the factory-farming methods of the modern world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mun_River_Mouth.jpg

With metta,
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
Post Reply