the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
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 » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:31 am

This is the quote I am refering to; And actually David misread my question, his answer should read. No, as far as I know......(as there Are other references to lay people purchasing meat in the scriptures)
David N. Snyder wrote:
lyndon taylor wrote: And this is the only reference to animals killed for market being purchased in the scriptures???
Yes, as far as I know, this is the only example of where a lay person purchases meat and the Buddha does not scold nor stop him.
In other words there is this one case where the Buddha did not scold the General for buying meat at the market, but in other cases he does scold or stop lay members from buying meat at the market, or do I have this wrong David????
Last edited by lyndon taylor on Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
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
cooran
Posts: 8504
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by cooran » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:34 am

Can you post a link to the post you are referring to where David Snyder brought this up please? I can't locate it.

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 ---

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 » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:44 am

David first posted about the General buying meat at the market on page 125 near the bottom of the page, then my quote above is David posting near the top of page 126 of this thread, I don't know how to do a link to an individual post.
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
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by clw_uk » Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:38 pm

Unfortunately what you believe about kamma and what kamma actually is are two completely different things, kamma happens, your belief about it isn't going to change how kamma actually works.

I agree with the Buddhas teaching of Kamma, that kamma is intention. What you are putting forward is a Jain theory of Kamma, one that looks at the actions themselves and not the intent.


As I said your posts are good Jainism but not good Buddhism
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

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 » Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:51 pm

The buddha always taught that intention was closely linked to action, in fact when he mentions intention, it is often assumed that intention results in an action, the idea that intention without any action equals kamma is a stretch at best.

Kamma is also cause and effect, the intention might be a cause, and the effect can be an action.
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/

chownah
Posts: 7583
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah » Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:13 pm

The Buddha taught quite clearly that intention is kamma.....how clearly did he say this?......he is reported to have said, "kamma is intention."......or was it, "intention is kamma."?......I forget which......
chownah

User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 749
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by seeker242 » Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:03 pm

clw_uk wrote:
I don't think that is really the argument coming from most vegetarians. It's more like "intentionally choosing the most harmful option is unwholesome kamma, when you have a choice to choose lesser harm".


Wouldn't that depend on the intention behind it?
Perhaps, but even if there is no intention to cause harm, what if the action is simply a product of ignorance or a product of denial? Perhaps one can say that if a person is completely oblivious to the harm being caused, then one can say it's not unwholesome because they are oblivious to the whole situation. However, if a person becomes fully aware of the harm being caused, actually does have a choice in the matter, but chooses to ignore the fact that this harm is being caused and just does whatever, I don't think it can be called completely blameless anymore because the person is now fully aware of the fact that their choice equates with causing more harm.

If you are fully aware that one choice causes more harm than another, but choose the more harmful one because of some other reason, you could say the intent is not to cause harm but rather simply to enjoy whatever the more harmful choice brings. However, full knowledge and awareness of one choice being more harmful than the other, and choosing the more harmful one for some unrelated reason, still seems to me to bring an element of blamefulness into the picture. Because in order to do that, you have to essentially ignore the fact that you are choosing a more harmful option when you could be choosing a less harmful option. Now if choosing the more harmful option is a matter of real necessity, AKA you actually don't have a choice in the matter, then all of that would not apply.

:anjali:

User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 5799
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Aloka » Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:11 pm

chownah wrote:The Buddha taught quite clearly that intention is kamma.....how clearly did he say this?......he is reported to have said, "kamma is intention."......or was it, "intention is kamma."?......I forget which......
chownah
The Buddha said :

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."

— AN 6.63
Vipaka = the result of kamma


:anjali:

chownah
Posts: 7583
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah » Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:51 pm

Thanks Aloka!
Seems like a pretty clear statement.......and I might add that the Buddha does not backpedal from this statement in other parts of the Sutta if I remember correctly.....for those who think he might have backed off from this statement I suggest going to the Sutta and reading it in full.....if this is news to someone it is probably good to read the entire Sutta anyway.
chownah

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 11893
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 » Wed Feb 26, 2014 7:03 pm

lyndon taylor wrote: In other words there is this one case where the Buddha did not scold the General for buying meat at the market, but in other cases he does scold or stop lay members from buying meat at the market, or do I have this wrong David????
Yes, you have this wrong. Here is what I posted after that:

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 00#p281512

No, that is the only incident that I know of either way (scolding or not scolding) where it comes up where a lay person purchases meat. And in that one instance, the Buddha did not stop him, as I mentioned.

The only other incident that comes close is a Brahmin who was planning a large sacrifice which consisted of 3,500 animals of cattle and goats. Typically the meat of sacrificed animals are ate by the participants of the festival. The Buddha explains to him that a bloodless sacrifice is much better, such as giving gifts of generosity and practicing the precepts. He explains about a king who practices sacrifices of generosity for his people and how "in this sacrifice, Brahmin, no bulls were slain, no goats, or sheep, no cocks and pigs, nor were various living beings subject to slaughter."
(Digha Nikaya 5.18)

Babadhari
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:23 pm
Location: lalita ghat

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Babadhari » Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:34 pm

was the Buddha instrumental in India becoming predominantly vegetarian???
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
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 3753
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala » Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:52 pm

kitztack wrote:was the Buddha instrumental in India becoming predominantly vegetarian???
Though India has one of the highest rates of vegetarianism, and those who do eat meat, do so irregularly, only about 30-40% of Indians are vegetarians.

Jainism and Hinduism probably had more to do with it than Buddhism, which is now a minority religion. In countries that are predominantly Buddhist, vegetarianism is quite low. From my experience, Sri Lankan Buddhists eat less meat than Thais or Burmese, though they still usually eat fish. Western or Indian Buddhists are the most likely to be vegetarian.
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by clw_uk » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:30 pm

lyndon taylor wrote:The buddha always taught that intention was closely linked to action, in fact when he mentions intention, it is often assumed that intention results in an action, the idea that intention without any action equals kamma is a stretch at best.

Kamma is also cause and effect, the intention might be a cause, and the effect can be an action.

The ethical content of an action is defined by the intent

Thats a world away from your argument that buying meat in a supermarket = negative kamma because it results in animals being killed


If something results in the killing of animals that doesnt mean its unwholesome, its the intent that defines it
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by clw_uk » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:42 pm

Perhaps, but even if there is no intention to cause harm, what if the action is simply a product of ignorance or a product of denial? Perhaps one can say that if a person is completely oblivious to the harm being caused, then one can say it's not unwholesome because they are oblivious to the whole situation. However, if a person becomes fully aware of the harm being caused, actually does have a choice in the matter, but chooses to ignore the fact that this harm is being caused and just does whatever, I don't think it can be called completely blameless anymore because the person is now fully aware of the fact that their choice equates with causing more harm.

If you are fully aware that one choice causes more harm than another, but choose the more harmful one because of some other reason, you could say the intent is not to cause harm but rather simply to enjoy whatever the more harmful choice brings. However, full knowledge and awareness of one choice being more harmful than the other, and choosing the more harmful one for some unrelated reason, still seems to me to bring an element of blamefulness into the picture. Because in order to do that, you have to essentially ignore the fact that you are choosing a more harmful option when you could be choosing a less harmful option. Now if choosing the more harmful option is a matter of real necessity, AKA you actually don't have a choice in the matter, then all of that would not apply.


I agree however there could be a situation where someone is aware, yet still buys the meat because its all they can afford to feed their family. In that case is that unwholesome or wholesome intent (Kamma)?
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by clw_uk » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:52 pm

Maybe buying meat from a supermarket could be seen as "mixed" Kamma?

"And what is kamma that is dark & bright with dark & bright result? There is the case where a certain person fabricates a bodily fabrication that is injurious & non-injurious ... a verbal fabrication that is injurious & non-injurious ... a mental fabrication that is injurious & non-injurious ... He rearises in an injurious & non-injurious world ... There he is touched by injurious & non-injurious contacts ... He experiences injurious & non-injurious feelings, pleasure mingled with pain, like those of human beings, some devas, and some beings in the lower realms. This is called kamma that is dark & bright with dark & bright result.


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 65 guests