the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah »

There are no animal sources for msg.
chownah
User avatar
CedarTree
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:37 pm

Re: Eating meat vs doing the killing

Post by CedarTree »

ieee23 wrote:Garrib,

My own opinion is that the Early Buddhist/Theravada/Historical Buddha's view about meat eating hasn't arrived to us in 2017 as complete. As it is, I don't think it is ethically workable and consistent.

For example, there is this sutta on Wrong Livliehood
Vanijja Sutta: Wrong Livelihood

AN 5.177 PTS: A iii 208

"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five?

1. Business in weapons
2. Business in human beings
3.Business in meat
4.Business in intoxicants
5.Business in poison.

"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in."
Obviously, you can't have a business without customers. This is what I mean by there being a suspicious incompleteness/consistency on an ethical level. It can't work as it is incomplete, so my opinion is that there is something missing.

The advice against going into a business of intoxicants is consistent and workable as the 5th precept advises against consuming such intoxicants. Again, no customers, no wrong business.
You may be onto something.


Practice, Practice, Practice

User avatar
ryanM
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 10:13 pm

Re: Eating meat vs doing the killing

Post by ryanM »

Something that struck me recently was related to how the Buddha allowed monks to eat meat if it is pure in three aspects. It's peculiar, for me at least, that the Buddha would encourage lay followers to commit negative acts of kamma (cooking/preparing meat) in order to give dana to the monks/nuns. Wouldn't he understand that lay followers are eating, more or less, the same food they offer to monastics?

Surely he would have told lay people not to prepare meat (prepare in the sense of buying and cooking, not killing) if he believed that it would have been unmeritorious for them. Or are we supposed to think that the benefits of giving to monastics is meant to outweigh the negative kamma from preparing meat? That doesn't make sense to me. I think the Buddha was concerned enough with the purity of the laity to inform them on these matters. Bhikkhu Pesala has addressed the topic of "business in X" thoroughly in other occasions.
sabbe dhammā nālaṃ abhinivesāya

"nothing whatsoever should be clung to"
ieee23
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 12:40 am

Re: Eating meat vs doing the killing

Post by ieee23 »

CedarTree wrote:
ieee23 wrote:Garrib,

My own opinion is that the Early Buddhist/Theravada/Historical Buddha's view about meat eating hasn't arrived to us in 2017 as complete. As it is, I don't think it is ethically workable and consistent.

For example, there is this sutta on Wrong Livliehood
Vanijja Sutta: Wrong Livelihood

AN 5.177 PTS: A iii 208

"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five?

1. Business in weapons
2. Business in human beings
3.Business in meat
4.Business in intoxicants
5.Business in poison.

"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in."
Obviously, you can't have a business without customers. This is what I mean by there being a suspicious incompleteness/consistency on an ethical level. It can't work as it is incomplete, so my opinion is that there is something missing.

The advice against going into a business of intoxicants is consistent and workable as the 5th precept advises against consuming such intoxicants. Again, no customers, no wrong business.
You may be onto something.

CedarTree,

I should write this date down. Someone on DW actually agreeing with something I posted instead of locking down to argue until the bitter end, mocking what I wrote, using what I wrote to go off on a tangent, or using what I wrote to split hairs over things that do not matter.

Thank you for the refreshingly different experience :-)
Whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders upon, that will become the inclination of his mind. - MN 19
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by binocular »

Santi253 wrote:Your insistence on saying the opposite of everything I say, just because you can, is childish.
You do realize he's not saying the opposite of what you're saying?
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
CedarTree
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:37 pm

Re: Eating meat vs doing the killing

Post by CedarTree »

[/quote]
You may be onto something. - CedarTree

CedarTree,

I should write this date down. Someone on DW actually agreeing with something I posted instead of locking down to argue until the bitter end, mocking what I wrote, using what I wrote to go off on a tangent, or using what I wrote to split hairs over things that do not matter.

Thank you for the refreshingly different experience :-)[/quote]

Lol it's all part of my master plan to get you to switch to Zen and practicing in the Gyobutsuji Zen Monastery and Antaiji Tradition ;)

Hah jk I think we all need to support each other a bit and you have touched upon something that I think confuses a lot of people that are both new and practiced in the tradition.

I think sometimes in the west we can't get across that the Suttas are not "Written by God and Inerrant" since we have been raised with a cultural backdrop of that perspective with religious texts.

Instead they are guides to spiritual development.

Sometimes when that is brought up people go off the deep end with the other far thing of thinking "Well then there is no truth, it's all post-modern, no point in even practicing"

Haha it's all pendulum stuff of going way to far in either direction. The Suttas in the Pali Canon are absolutely excellent for training and developing on the path. They also provided a very systematic and defined way of approaching many things but in issues like this there may be some elements missing and or not developed as thoroughly as main points.

Simple stuff :namaste:


Practice, Practice, Practice

User avatar
CedarTree
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:37 pm

Re: Eating meat vs doing the killing

Post by CedarTree »

Lol well I screwed up trying to edit that quote down a bit in size.... Sorry folks obviously I am a noob.


Practice, Practice, Practice

Spiny Norman
Posts: 10179
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Eating meat vs doing the killing

Post by Spiny Norman »

ieee23 wrote:Garrib,

My own opinion is that the Early Buddhist/Theravada/Historical Buddha's view about meat eating hasn't arrived to us in 2017 as complete. As it is, I don't think it is ethically workable and consistent.

For example, there is this sutta on Wrong Livliehood
Vanijja Sutta: Wrong Livelihood

AN 5.177 PTS: A iii 208

"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five?

1. Business in weapons
2. Business in human beings
3.Business in meat
4.Business in intoxicants
5.Business in poison.

"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in."
Obviously, you can't have a business without customers. This is what I mean by there being a suspicious incompleteness/consistency on an ethical level. It can't work as it is incomplete, so my opinion is that there is something missing.

The advice against going into a business of intoxicants is consistent and workable as the 5th precept advises against consuming such intoxicants. Again, no customers, no wrong business.
Indeed. And as a lay Buddhist I would feel like a hypocrite choosing to buy meat, because I would be expecting somebody else to break the first precept and engage in wrong livelihood.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Eating meat vs doing the killing

Post by binocular »

Spiny Norman wrote:Indeed. And as a lay Buddhist I would feel like a hypocrite choosing to buy meat, because I would be expecting somebody else to break the first precept and engage in wrong livelihood.
Agreed. But there is a formbidable number of those Buddhists who don't think so. I'd like to understand their stance better, simply because it is relatively prominent.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: Eating meat vs doing the killing

Post by lyndon taylor »

I think its easier to throw ethical logic out the window if you really like to eat 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/
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Eating meat vs doing the killing

Post by binocular »

lyndon taylor wrote:if you really like to eat meat.
That can certainly be a powerful factor that is difficult to account for rationally.

This also reminds me of another interest in eating meat: It can help a human feel superior to other species and in control of them. For such a person, refraining from eating meat can seem like evolutionary defeat. Killing animals (for food or otherwise) can seem like a way to keep the "natural order of things" intact, with humans on top.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Santi253
Posts: 982
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 4:37 am
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Santi253 »

retrofuturist wrote: This is a topic focused on the subject of Vegetarianism.
Something I forgot to mention is that the Okinawans have one of the highest life expediencies of any population in the world, and they live on mostly a vegan diet:
The traditional diet of the islanders contains 30% green and yellow vegetables. Although the traditional Japanese diet usually includes large quantities of rice, the traditional Okinawa diet consists of smaller quantities of rice; instead the staple is the purple-fleshed Okinawan sweet potato. The Okinawan diet has only 30% of the sugar and 15% of the grains of the average Japanese dietary intake.[4]
The traditional diet also includes a tiny amount of fish (less than half a serving per day) and more in the way of soy and other legumes (6% of total caloric intake). Pork is highly valued, yet eaten very rarely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_diet
Contrary to the Atkins and paleo diets, the healthiest populations on the planet live on diets consisting of mostly complex carbohydrates.
Non-violence is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice. - Mahatma Gandhi

http://www.matthewsatori.tumblr.com
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Eating meat vs doing the killing

Post by Aloka »

Spiny Norman wrote:
ieee23 wrote:Garrib,

My own opinion is that the Early Buddhist/Theravada/Historical Buddha's view about meat eating hasn't arrived to us in 2017 as complete. As it is, I don't think it is ethically workable and consistent.

For example, there is this sutta on Wrong Livliehood
Vanijja Sutta: Wrong Livelihood

AN 5.177 PTS: A iii 208

"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five?

1. Business in weapons
2. Business in human beings
3.Business in meat
4.Business in intoxicants
5.Business in poison.

"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in."
Obviously, you can't have a business without customers. This is what I mean by there being a suspicious incompleteness/consistency on an ethical level. It can't work as it is incomplete, so my opinion is that there is something missing.

The advice against going into a business of intoxicants is consistent and workable as the 5th precept advises against consuming such intoxicants. Again, no customers, no wrong business.
Indeed. And as a lay Buddhist I would feel like a hypocrite choosing to buy meat, because I would be expecting somebody else to break the first precept and engage in wrong livelihood.


:goodpost:
Santi253
Posts: 982
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 4:37 am
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Santi253 »

The Okinawans eat a mostly whole food plant-based diet, with fish and meat as either a rare delicacy to be eaten occasionally, or as a small garnish for a mostly plant-based meal. This is a far cry from the typical American diet, which is based almost entirely on meats and processed foods.

For those who aren’t able to control their meat consumption as well as the Okinawans do, studies have shown that it would be healthier for the prevention and reversal of disease to live on a strictly vegan or vegetarian diet than on the typical American diet.
The traditional Okinawan diet was about 80 percent carbohydrates. Before 1940 Okinawans also consumed fish at least three times per week together with seven servings of vegetables and maybe one or two servings of grain per day. They also ate two servings of flavonoid-rich soy, usually in the form of tofu. They didn’t eat much fruit; they enjoyed a few eggs a week. Dairy and meat represented only about 3 percent of their calories. On special occasions, usually during the Lunar New Year, people butchered the family pig and feasted on pork…
Following the war, western influences — and economic prosperity — crept into traditional life and food habits changed. Okinawans doubled their rice consumption, and bread, virtually unknown before, also crept in. Milk consumption increased; meat, eggs, and poultry consumption increased more than seven-fold. Between 1949 and 1972 Okinawans’ daily intake increased by 400 calories. They were consuming more than 200 calories per day more than they needed — like Americans. Cancers of the lung, breast, and colon almost doubled.
Yet older Okinawans, whose diets had solidified before that time period, are the world’s longest-lived people.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-buett ... 12042.html
Studies have also shown that Adventists, whose religion recommends a vegetarian diet, live longer, with fewer diet-related diseases, than the general American population:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventist_Health_Studies
https://www.livescience.com/37102-veget ... onger.html
Non-violence is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice. - Mahatma Gandhi

http://www.matthewsatori.tumblr.com
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah »

This article puts okinawa behind
•Andorra—the mountainous region between France and Spain
•Vilcamba Valley—the Andes mountains in Ecuador
•Himalayas—the Hunzas in Pakistan are the 3rd longest-living group of people
•Abkhasians and Georgians live in a mountainous region near the Black Sea in Russia
•Macau in Southern China

https://draxe.com/the-worlds-longest-living-cultures/

Interesting article. I don't now how well researched it is though.
chownah
Post Reply