the great vegetarian debate

[seeker242]

An interesting read What If You Ate Only One Type of Food?

Many thanks - that is informative. I sometimes think about the types of food required if I had to massively simplify my diet. What if I had to choose only, say, ten foodstuffs to eat from here on?

It's informative but also contains some inaccurate information. Specifically the part about protein where it says "No single vegetable or legume has all nine essential amino acids". That's simply wrong. The reason why Quinoa, Buckwheat and Soy are called "complete protein" is precisely because they do have all 9 amino acids in sufficient quantities. Many other plant foods have all 9 as well. Potatoes for example, also has all 9 essential amino acids. It just has low levels of leucine so it is not considered "complete". However, if you were to eat 2,000 calories of potatoes and nothing but potatoes, you would be eating so much potatoes that you would still get enough of all 9 amino acids.

[rightviewftw]

An interesting read What If You Ate Only One Type of Food?

Many thanks - that is informative. I sometimes think about the types of food required if I had to massively simplify my diet. What if I had to choose only, say, ten foodstuffs to eat from here on?

Perhaps split the thread if people are interested.

I would like to explore this and i have adjusted my diet to at least include some vitamin C. I have been avoiding eating meat because it takes long time to digest and i imagine it takes quite a lot of energy to produce the acid and therefore i assume it is not very efficient, there is a difference in meat tho and i eat some tuna (skipjack) and it seems ok altough it is the food i can "feel" the most after having eaten it so i will look for alternatives. If i bothered to cook id eat potatoes etc but i like to just mix everything in a bowl, pour on some olive oil and eating, peeling a banana and opening cans is enough cooking for me:P

if someone bothers to check the accuracy of the data go ahead, i take it as an aproximation based on incomplete data so fwiw

[Sam Vara]

It's informative but also contains some inaccurate information. Specifically the part about protein where it says "No single vegetable or legume has all nine essential amino acids". That's simply wrong. The reason why Quinoa, Buckwheat and Soy are called "complete protein" is precisely because they do have all 9 amino acids in sufficient quantities. Many other plant foods have all 9 as well. Potatoes for example, also has all 9 essential amino acids. It just has low levels of leucine so it is not considered "complete". However, if you were to eat 2,000 calories of potatoes and nothing but potatoes, you would be eating so much potatoes that you would still get enough of all 9 amino acids.

Thanks. One thing I have noticed over nearly fifty years of vegetarianism and nearly forty years of veganism is that the "official" view of this has changed. There used to be no "complete" veg. proteins, but now apparently there are!

[Dhammarakkhito]

hi, i was wondering if anyone could let me know where this portion comes from. i assume its not a fake text but it is either not sourced or confusingly sourced http://learning.pariyatti.org/mod/page/view.php?id=755

[user99]

Its forbidden to order Meat and eat it so i Wonder this

[TRobinson465]

Its forbidden to order Meat and eat it so i Wonder this

As long as the meat comes from an animal that is already dead its fine in Theravada Buddhism. You cant order like a live fish or lobster that will die after you order it.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

As long as the meat comes from an animal that is already dead its fine in Theravada Buddhism. You cant order like a live fish or lobster that will die after you order it.

That may be true for monastics... can you cite anything that says this is also true for lay people?

Metta,
Paul.

[robertk]

Greetings,

As long as the meat comes from an animal that is already dead its fine in Theravada Buddhism. You cant order like a live fish or lobster that will die after you order it.

That may be true for monastics... can you cite anything that says this is also true for lay people?

Metta,
Paul.

Absolutely true for Buddhist laypeople. However the naked asecetics and others of wrong view thought differently.
http://www.aimwell.org/siha.html
here is the intro by ven. Pesala
Introduction

This discourse to General Sīha shows why many Buddhists are neither vegetarians nor vegans. General Sīha was a follower of the Nigaṇṭhā (the Jains). The discourse makes it clear that:–

The Buddha ate meat when it was offered.
A Stream-winner (General Sīha) can buy meat or order it to be bought, although a Stream-winner is incapable of intentionally killing any living-being even to save his/her own life.
Those who hold wrong-views will blame Buddhists for eating meat.
The Buddha teaches the not-doing of any unwholesome deeds, and the cutting off of lust, ill-will, and delusion, leading to the relief of suffering.

[TRobinson465]

Greetings,

As long as the meat comes from an animal that is already dead its fine in Theravada Buddhism. You cant order like a live fish or lobster that will die after you order it.

That may be true for monastics... can you cite anything that says this is also true for lay people?

Metta,
Paul.

I dont know of anything in the Pali canon that specifically says lay people can or cannot eat/buy meat. As you know it is explicitly stated for monastics.
In the Āmagandha Sutta, the Buddha recalls a story from the previous Buddha, Kassapa Buddha, which seems to imply that eating meat does not count as one of the five precepts for laypeople or as an "unskillful" action per se.

Taking life, beating, wounding, binding, stealing, lying, deceiving,
worthless knowledge, adultery; this is stench. Not the eating of meat.
5. In this world those individuals who are unrestrained in sensual pleasures, who are greedy
for sweet things, who are associated with impure actions, who are of nihilistic views,
[which are] crooked and difficult to follow, this is stench. Not the eating of meat.
6. In this world those who are rude, arrogant, backbiting, treacherous, unkind, excessively
egoistic, miserly, and do not give anything to anybody; this is stench. Not the eating of
meat.
7. Anger, pride, obstinacy, antagonism, deceit, envy, boasting, excessive egoism, association
with the immoral; this is stench. Not the eating of meat.
8. Those who are of bad morals, refuse to pay their debts, slanderous, deceitful in their
dealings, pretentious, those who in this world, being the vilest of men, commit such
wrong things; this is stench. Not the eating of meat.
9. Those person who, in this world, are uncontrolled towards living beings, who are bent
on injuring others, having taken their belongings; immoral, cruel, harsh, disrespectful;
this is stench. Not the eating of meat.
10. Those who attack these living beings either out of greed or of hostility and are always
bent upon evil, go to darkness after death, and fall headlong into woeful states; this is
stench. Not the eating of meat.
11. 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.

http://www.aimwell.org/Amagandha%20Sutta.pdf

[TRobinson465]

Greetings,

As long as the meat comes from an animal that is already dead its fine in Theravada Buddhism. You cant order like a live fish or lobster that will die after you order it.

That may be true for monastics... can you cite anything that says this is also true for lay people?

Metta,
Paul.

Absolutely true for Buddhist laypeople. However the naked asecetics and others of wrong view thought differently.
http://www.aimwell.org/siha.html

this is probably an even better example than mine lol.

[Dinsdale]

Its forbidden to order Meat and eat it so i Wonder this

Not explicitly, though I think it's worth considering:

1. The first precept, not to take life;
2. Dealing in butchery as an example of wrong livelihood;
3. The path factor of Right Intention, which includes developing harmlessness.

Note that if you choose to buy meat, then you are expecting somebody else to break the first precept and deal in butchery. Also you are causing harm indirectly. I think most people here will have access to non-meat products, so there is a choice for most.

[Dinsdale]

That may be true for monastics... can you cite anything that says this is also true for lay people?

The five precepts are based on the principle of harmlessness, which is an aspect of Right Intention. As is the 3-fold rule.

It's important to consider the spirit of such teachings, and not just the letter.

[pitakele]

It's important to consider the spirit of such teachings, and not just the letter.

Even though Buddha didn't teach his followers to be vegetarian, I think it important to be thoughtful about one's consumer habits. In modern times, most of us are very removed from the mass means of producing food, esp. the production of a huge variety of flesh foods. In a way, it is similar to removing the aged, dying and mentally ill to institutions - out of sight, out of mind. We don't confront reality and this can be a condition to grow ignorance. Flesh foods are bought in supermarkets etc. which promotes a false sense of distance from the fact that beings have lost their lives due to (largely) the demand of consumers. Not only has a being lost its life to become someone's meal, but also that meal has been provided by an unfortunate individual with wrong livelihood who is making bad kamma by intentionally killing living beings. Even though some justify eating flesh saying they haven't seen, heard or suspect it being killed for them (tikoti is a ruling for Sangha, not laity), that food has arrived as as a result of another's bad kamma. Are we really happy to have someone make bad kamma on our behalf (despite the seeming degrees of separation)? As samsāra is fraught with many pitfalls and dangers, it is wise to train as much as possible in thoughtfulness.

[Dinsdale]

In modern times, most of us are very removed from the mass means of producing food, esp. the production of a huge variety of flesh foods.

I suspect there would be more vegetarians if everybody had to slaughter and prepare their own meat.

[pitakele]

I suspect there would be more vegetarians if everybody had to slaughter and prepare their own meat.

Yes, everything is extremely sanitized these days in the West with most meat purchases pre-wrapped in the supermarket, minus the sights and smells of a butcher's shop.