the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
harveysmith27
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:47 am

Re: Which diet are you?

Post by harveysmith27 » Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:00 am

According to your list my diet is Lacto-ovo vegetarianism that is a vegetarian diet that permits consumption of animal products such eggs, milk, and honey.

User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1887
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ron-The-Elder » Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:34 am

Cittasanto wrote: what is a mirror for? you don't like your own words do you http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 00#p198868" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; but I am the one apparently expounding false teachings, even when I and others can walk the walk of what I believe to be the case.

I am definately not saying I am 100% correct on things. But my argument is based on an ability to put the texts into practice in different situations - which also take into account the ethical and philosophic underpinnings - so it ceases to be pure speculation when there is a demonstrable practicability.

I may not be able to prove an enlightened being is X, Y, or Z, however, I can show through a testable example and records of such behavior - which can either in part or full be applied to multiple situations - whether or not something is likely, no cop-out, and what is less likely to be the case can be seen through this application and be discarded due to that.

you may say non-harmonious, I disagree, it is harsh, but there is a reason, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... gment.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
when you have several times ignored what has been said - either by myself or within the texts - due to a rational they are false teachings without evidence, and thus said dispraise on the teachings, and as a result of this dispraised the Tathagata I am to the extent we are Brothers in the Dhamma obliged!
some may not have the inclination to deal with straw-man or other fallacy arguments of non-practical opinion or popularity, but these are some of the least of my concerns when talking to others here.
I have a guideline with regard to false teachings, which I will share with you just one more time, because you don't seem to be able to understand, and as a result, not only reject it, but it seems to frustrate and anger you to the point that you are willing to malign others, who do not agree with you. Here is the guideline one more time:

Buddha's have certain characteristics that are described by the preponderance of their followers. The prime characteristic is compliance with The Noble Eight Fold Path, which is the foundation for all precepts, the foremost being "Cause no harm." Therefore, any teaching, which any reasonable (wise) person upon reflection as if in a mirror would, or could cause harm, would not be taught by a Buddha. Therefore, any such teaching no matter where it is reported is to be "suspect". A person who believes everything without personally verifying and validating ( as you say that you do) is therefore potentially acting under the influence of Mara's many guises to defile and distort The Dhamma.

My suggestion to you is to review and study :reading: The Ten Perfections (Parami's), wherein you will find what ( I believe)all Buddha's must practice to reach attainment:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/stud ... tions.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nowhere in these will you find that a Buddha, or any being on the path to perfection supports slaughter to support their culinary needs. :anjali: Ron
Cittasanto: you may say non-harmonious, I disagree, it is harsh, but there is a reason...,
This "debate" has gotten to the point of being non-harmonious, because I can see the formation of "egos" arising to the defense of specious views, which result is always non-harmonious. For example you imply that you are capable of "judging others" elevating your(delusional) self above others, by citing this in your last comment:
Regard him as one who
points out
treasure,
the wise one who
seeing your faults
rebukes you.

Stay with this sort of sage.

For the one who stays
with a sage of this sort,
things get better,
not worse.
— Dhp 76
To judge others calling yourself "sage", while (in your sage judgement) the other is in your opinion a "fool" and to offer them uninvited criticism in your judgement is invasive, and definitely non-harmonious, and therefore, I will no longer participate in what has become a diatribe between us in this thread.

So, let's agree to end with a summary ( final )comment from you, which explains your conclusions regarding this topic, (please) without the ad-hominum attacks to which you are now resorting. This means that you will get the very last word between you and I re. this topic, which should thereby satisfy your frustrations. Please stick to the topic, and cease attacking others out of your personal frustrations, which results in causing harm., which is what I meant by "non-harmonious speech" Be at peace Dear Friend, Cittasanto.:console:

As always, I look forward to reading and learning from your posts both now and in the future. :anjali:
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Cittasanto » Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:00 pm

Ron
Please read what I said again and try to respond to what has been said instead of distorting and changing the subject!
I understood your guidelines originally and they do not make me angry. However, I have noted to you that this does not take into account other factors which I have shown you, the Buddha took into consideration when formulating the rules and by which you rationalize eating flesh.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1887
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ron-The-Elder » Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:58 am

Cittasanto wrote:Ron
Please read what I said again and try to respond to what has been said instead of distorting and changing the subject!
I understood your guidelines originally and they do not make me angry. However, I have noted to you that this does not take into account other factors which I have shown you, the Buddha took into consideration when formulating the rules and by which you rationalize eating flesh.
Sorry! No time for pointless pursuits. I have kazoo lessons tonight! :coffee:
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Cittasanto » Sat Aug 11, 2012 5:16 am

Ron-The-Elder wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:Ron
Please read what I said again and try to respond to what has been said instead of distorting and changing the subject!
I understood your guidelines originally and they do not make me angry. However, I have noted to you that this does not take into account other factors which I have shown you, the Buddha took into consideration when formulating the rules and by which you rationalize eating flesh.
Sorry! No time for pointless pursuits. I have kazoo lessons tonight! :coffee:
OK,
as you have repetedly refused to answer what actually has been said and used fallacious arguments several times, I shall agree with an earlier post on page 87
ancientbuddhism wrote: I cannot engage in your specious, straw-man arguments.
Hypocritical arguments are not worth the Bandwidth!
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1887
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ron-The-Elder » Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:23 am

Cittasanto wrote:
Hypocritical arguments are not worth the Bandwidth!
Great! So, follow your own advice. :tongue:

Please, stop with the adhominums resulting from your frustrations asBuddha advized Angulimalla:
"While walking, contemplative,
you say, 'I have stopped.'
But when I have stopped
you say I haven't.
I ask you the meaning of this:
How have you stopped?
How haven't I?"

[The Buddha:]
"I have stopped, Angulimala,
once & for all,
having cast off violence
toward all living beings.
You, though,
are unrestrained toward beings.
That's how I've stopped
and you haven't."

[Angulimala:] :reading:
"At long last a greatly revered great seer
for my sake
has come to the great forest.
Having heard your verse
in line with the Dhamma,
I will go about
having abandoned evil."

So saying, the bandit
hurled his sword & weapons
over a cliff
into a chasm,
a pit.
:hug:

source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ironic ending of our conversation, and yet another believable quote of a Buddha advising : "Cause no harm or violence to living beings."....supporting the notion that a Buddha would never support slaughter as a means to sate any of one's appetites. :hug:
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1887
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ron-The-Elder » Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:30 am

Main article: Vegetarianism in Buddhism
A basic precept in Buddhism is that of non-harm. Actions which result in the taking of life, directly or indirectly, contradict this basic Buddhist precept.
Many Buddhists in many countries, including monks, are not vegetarians. However in recent years some people's attitudes are changing. In January 2007, the 17th Karmapa, Ogyen Trinley Dorje (The identification of the 17th Karmapa is disputed, see Karmapa controversy), instructed all his monasteries and centres to become vegetarian.
There has been some contention about interpretations of the sūtras. One interpretation is that eating of meat is not explicitly prohibited in the suttas and Vinaya of the Pāli canon which encourage monks to accept whatever food they are given. However, monks are forbidden from accepting animal flesh if they know, believe or suspect that the animal in question was killed especially for them, i.e., if the visits of begging monks have become an occasion for the slaughter of animals.
In the Laṅkāvatāra & Aṅgulimāla sutra the Buddha explicitly prohibits the eating of meat, fish and any animal products which are the result of harming and killing of any sentient being. The Buddha states the only time it is acceptable for a monastic to accept and eat the flesh of sentient beings is for medicinal purposes only if the animal died in accordance with the Dharma, meaning the animal died of natural causes.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animals_in_Buddhism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Cittasanto » Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:53 pm

Ron
you have absolutely no evidence for you accusations, although your claims I am not at peace are annoying, they are untrue.
I am not the one who can not walk my talk or need to twist and manipulate what others say. you have repetitively refused to directly address points and have opted to use straw-man, red-herring & ad hominums not me.

The Dhamma is fully practicable here and now, for the wise to see for themselves!

Good Bye :focus:

EDIT - regarding the ad Hominum accusation, The conclusion that the hard line possition is impractical and health needs would be considered by the Buddha I have suggestied, was already made before his admittance of diet so isn't a fallacy argument, he is simply a first hand example.
however it can be seen as abusive, although it was not intended to be that way rather applying his own methology as seen here to refute his own argument which is in a manner a tu quoquo, tit for tat reaction, and for that I apologise to the group.
Last edited by Cittasanto on Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1887
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ron-The-Elder » Sun Aug 12, 2012 3:45 am

What do Olympians eat?

Found this during this mornings readings:

http://www.delish.com/food-fun/olympic- ... et#slide-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 11916
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 » Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:16 am

Endurance sports work well with a vegetarian or especially a vegan diet. The fruits, veggies, legumes, and grains are the perfect fuel for the long distances.

Ironically, the strength athletes of Carl Lewis and Mike Tyson are both vegans. Although, both became vegans after their sports career was over.

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Cittasanto » Sun Aug 12, 2012 8:34 am

David N. Snyder wrote:Endurance sports work well with a vegetarian or especially a vegan diet. The fruits, veggies, legumes, and grains are the perfect fuel for the long distances.

Ironically, the strength athletes of Carl Lewis and Mike Tyson are both vegans. Although, both became vegans after their sports career was over.
This site seams to sugest that even strength sports do not need to have very high protein intake, http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0309.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The common folklore in strength sports is that a high-protein diet is required. The consensus of most sports scientists is that, although the protein needs of strength athletes are slightly higher than the general population, high levels of protein intake are not necessary. In fact, in the quest for protein, many strength athletes end up eating unhealthy high-fat diets. The key issue for bulking up is adequate energy intake alongside a training programme. A high-energy intake from nutritious food will also be high in protein, carbohydrate, vitamins and minerals.
so as earlier links show vegan body builders... it would be a personal consideration.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1887
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ron-The-Elder » Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:16 pm

From this morning's readings:

Fifteen Reasons you may want to reconsider eating meat!

http://evolvingwellness.com/posts/663/1 ... ting-meat/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fifteen reasons to go vegetarian or vegan!

http://evolvingwellness.com/posts/740/1 ... he-planet/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1887
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ron-The-Elder » Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:16 pm

From The Vinaya II:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... o/bmc2.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyone familiar with why Mangoes are excluded from a Bhikkhu's Diet? :shrug:
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Cittasanto » Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:45 pm

Edited
Ron-The-Elder wrote:From The Vinaya II:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... o/bmc2.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyone familiar with why Mangoes are excluded from a Bhikkhu's Diet? :shrug:
if you continue to read the rules there you will see it was over turned in the next two legislation set out. the third of which was already put in place earlier in the vinaya also.
it was originally put in place because some Bhikkhus ate all the mangoes, and later when King Bimbisara wanted some there was none left and he commented that they were used well, but the Bhikkhus should know moderation that the Buddha taught. later to be over turned because it was not practical for every day living. and in the Mahavagga Mango Juice is allowable

BTW The Buddhist monastic code is a manual not the Vinaya.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8504
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by cooran » Thu Aug 16, 2012 9:21 am

Interesting:

Good Question, Good Answer Bhikkhu Shravasti Dhammika
Vegetarianism
-ooOoo-
Buddhists should be vegetarians, shouldn't they?

Not necessarily. The Buddha was not a vegetarian. He did not teach his disciples to be vegetarians and even today, there are many good Buddhists who are not vegetarians.

If you eat meat you are indirectly responsible the death of a creature. Isn't that breaking the first precept?

It is true that when you eat meat, you are indirectly and partially responsible for killing a creature but the same is true when you eat vegetables. The farmer has to spray his crop with insecticides and poisons so that the vegetables arrive on your dinner plates without holes in them. And once again, animals have been used to provide the leather for your belt or handbag, oil for the soap you use and a thousand other products as well. It is impossible to live without, in some way, being indirectly responsible for the death of some other beings. This is just another example of the First Noble Truth, ordinary existence is suffering and unsatisfactory. When you take the First Precept, you try to avoid being directly responsible for killing beings.

Mahayana Buddhists don't eat meat ...

That is not correct. Mahayana Buddhism in China laid great stress on being vegetarian but both the monks, laymen and women of the Mahayana tradition in Japan and Tibet usually eat meat.

But I still think that a Buddhist should be vegetarian.

If there was a man who was a very strict vegetarian but who was selfish, dishonest and mean, and another man who was not a vegetarian but who was thoughtful of others, honest, generous and kind, which of these two people would be the better Buddhist?
The person who was honest and kind.

Why?
Because such a person obviously has a good heart.

Exactly. One who eats meat can have a pure heart just as one who does not eat meat can have an impure heart. In the Buddha's teachings, the important thing is the quality of your heart, not the contents of your diet. Many Buddhists take great care never to eat meat buy they are not concerned about being selfish, dishonest, cruel or jealous. They change their diet which is easy to do, while neglecting to change their hearts, which is a difficult thing to do. So whether you are a vegetarian or not, remember that the purification of the mind is the most important thing in Buddhism.
http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/go ... dqa-08.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
=======================================================
---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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 63 guests