the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Santi253
Posts: 982
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 4:37 am
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Santi253 »

Dhammanando wrote: Which rather undermines your stated reason for not being a vegan:
Changing diet has to be personal, rather than one-size-fits-all, based on what a person is most likely to stick to over the long-term. Unlike vegans, I don't have a philosophical objection to eggs and dairy. I am changing my diet for my own personal health.

Egg whites and non-fat dairy products are a main source of protein in my mostly plant-based diet. I am basing this diet on the recommendations of Dr. Dean Ornish for those at risk for heart disease.
Non-violence is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice. - Mahatma Gandhi

http://www.matthewsatori.tumblr.com
Santi253
Posts: 982
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 4:37 am
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Santi253 »

​There was a widely watched vegan Youtuber who recently quit veganism and now instead makes videos of himself binge eating on pizza and burgers and other junk food. He's been gaining substantial weight because of it. I want to avoid a similar fate. I am going vegetarian instead of vegan, because I know I am more likely to follow such a diet.
Non-violence is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice. - Mahatma Gandhi

http://www.matthewsatori.tumblr.com
Santi253
Posts: 982
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 4:37 am
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Santi253 »

I just realized that, for the last week, I've been eating yogurt with gelatin in it. What the heck? Is there such thing as vegetarian yogurt??? There's gelatin in sour cream too????

I've decided that I am not going to freak out over inadvertently purchasing items with trace amounts of gelatin in it. I became vegetarian for personal health first, and animal rights a distant second.
Non-violence is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice. - Mahatma Gandhi

http://www.matthewsatori.tumblr.com
Santi253
Posts: 982
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 4:37 am
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Santi253 »

I read that tuna fish can be helpful to weight loss, so I put a half a can of tuna in my salad just to try it. I hadn't eaten any sort of animal flesh for two weeks, and tuna used to be one of my favorite foods.

Instead of enjoying it, though, it made me feel disgusted, because I couldn't stop thinking about how this was a rotting, dead animal. It upset my stomach. I also felt bad about eating it, because even if the label says "dolphin-safe," that doesn't mean dolphins aren't killed in the process:
U.S. “dolphin-safe” tuna endangers the entire marine ecosystem. By narrowly focusing on fishing methods rather than results, today’s “dolphin-safe” labels permit and encourage fishing methods oblivious to the bycatch of sharks, turtles, juvenile tunas, sea birds and other sea life...

The truth is that under current U.S. labeling standards, bycatch, including that of dolphins, does in fact occur and is unknown in most cases.

In 2012, the World Trade Organization ruled, after a full review of all of the scientific and empirical evidence, that “dolphin-safe” tuna standards established by Congress in 1990, while effective in motivating change at the time, are now outdated and, in fact, deceptive to U.S. consumers. The reality is that the U.S. law and "dolphin-safe" policy ONLY certifies that no harm occurred to dolphins if the tuna were caught in the ETP fishery. It found that even when thousands of dolphins are killed in the course of fishing for tuna outside of the ETP, the canned tuna bears the “dolphin-safe” label under the current labeling standards. More than 98% of the tuna in the U.S. market today is sourced from these and other unmonitored and untracked fisheries where thousands of dolphins are killed every year.
http://www.ecosafetuna.org/case-for-eco ... -isnt.html
The average person doesn't know that the World Trade Organization ruled against dolphin-safe labeling as a deceptive practice.
Non-violence is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice. - Mahatma Gandhi

http://www.matthewsatori.tumblr.com
Santi253
Posts: 982
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 4:37 am
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Santi253 »

One thing I know for sure is that the Buddha was not a vegan. In the Pali scriptures, the Buddha eats rice mixed with milk, along with rice cakes and honey. The Buddha did teach, however, that it's misconduct to kill animals for meat or to profit from the killing of animals for meat.
Non-violence is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice. - Mahatma Gandhi

http://www.matthewsatori.tumblr.com
Garrib
Posts: 605
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:35 pm

Eating meat vs doing the killing

Post by Garrib »

I am aware that killing is an unwholesome action. And I understand that eating meat is not forbidden by the Buddha (for monastics) - so long as one does not kill the being, or request that food, or eat it knowing that the being was killed specifically for the purposes of feeding them. Personally speaking, I have settled on not seeking out meat, not purchasing it, and generally trying to keep away from it. But sometimes, my father will buy some seafood dish and I will partake. This evening, he has acquired two living lobsters and is preparing to cook them (to death) - I will not partake in this meal...

And I could be imagining this, but it seems that he is in a somewhat rude mood this evening - kind of amping up for the act. And it occurs to me: It is impossible to kill unless you have an unwholesome mind state. And so on for all other violations of precepts. Is this the basic reason why these precepts have been given by the Blessed One?
santa100
Posts: 6799
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Eating meat vs doing the killing

Post by santa100 »

Garrib wrote:Is this the basic reason why these precepts have been given by the Blessed One?
AN 11.1 puts moral precepts as the very first condition in the chains of factors that lead to Nibbana.
User avatar
Dhammarakkhito
Posts: 1115
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Dhammarakkhito »

is this the only place we can post about ontological veganism
well, it's against the 1st precept to kill and also, if i recall correctly, to encourage someone to kill. when you pay for an animal product -- meat, leather, anything (animal products are in many, many things), you're promoting the murder of animals for profit. if you're conscious about this process, you face a moral crisis. monks are of course exempt given they don't use money (unless seen, heard or suspected...)
buddhism leading to uncomfortable conclusions isn't an excuse to go easy on the rules
"Just as the ocean has a single taste — that of salt — in the same way, this Dhamma-Vinaya has a single taste: that of release."
— Ud 5.5

https://www.facebook.com/noblebuddhadha ... 34/?type=3

http://seeingthroughthenet.net/
https://sites.google.com/site/santipada ... allytaught
Garrib
Posts: 605
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:35 pm

Re: Eating meat vs doing the killing

Post by Garrib »

santa100 wrote:
Garrib wrote:Is this the basic reason why these precepts have been given by the Blessed One?
AN 11.1 puts moral precepts as the very first condition in the chains of factors that lead to Nibbana.
Thank you, Santa. Virtue is the foundation for the path...
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Eating meat vs doing the killing

Post by Spiny Norman »

Garrib wrote:And it occurs to me: It is impossible to kill unless you have an unwholesome mind state. And so on for all other violations of precepts. Is this the basic reason why these precepts have been given by the Blessed One?
Yes, and I think this relates to the development of Right Intention.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... index.html
Buddha save me from new-agers!
ieee23
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 12:40 am

Re: Eating meat vs doing the killing

Post by ieee23 »

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.
Whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders upon, that will become the inclination of his mind. - MN 19
Garrib
Posts: 605
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:35 pm

Re: Eating meat vs doing the killing

Post by Garrib »

Thanks for the response ieee,

It does seem plausible that some (a considerable amount?) of the Buddha's advice, especially for lay people, has been lost to us. That being said, we do have a lot to work with. I know that monks and nuns were allowed to consume meat given to them by lay people, provided certain conditions were met- Devadatta was the one who proclaimed that the Sangha should be fully vegetarian, though the Buddha did not agree. Devadatta caused a schism in the Sangha, one of the 5 heinous crimes. Apparently , Hitler was a vegetarian - of course that doesn't make vegetarianism wrong, but it does at least suggest that it is not an ethically sufficient stance. More important than not eating meat is that one doesn't kill or cause to kill.

Perhaps the Buddha had a different code (more strict) for lay followers regarding the consumption of meat? The first precept conducive to freedom from remorse is non-killing. However, it is possible to eat meat (even to purchase it) without killing any living beings. Although it may seem inconsistent/illogical to us (eating meat though being against killing), in my opinion, there is a clear cut distinction between the two. Killing is an unwholesome act and requires an unwholesome intention, it is damaging to the mind and brings painful results. Merely eating meat does not fall into that same category of action.

That being said, i tend to veer towards vegetarianism nowadays (I don't purchase or request meat). I think a lot of Buddhists are vegetarian, and some meditation centers serve only vegetarian meals.

Metta,

Brad'
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Eating meat vs doing the killing

Post by binocular »

ieee23 wrote: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.
The two cases are not the same.
Consuming intoxicants is avoidable.
Harming and killing are inavoidable; simply by breathing, we kill millions of tiny organisms. The only question is whether there was an intention to harm or kill or not.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
ieee23
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 12:40 am

Re: Eating meat vs doing the killing

Post by ieee23 »

binocular wrote:
ieee23 wrote: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.
The two cases are not the same.
Consuming intoxicants is avoidable.
So is buying meat or killing animals on your own.

The only question is whether there was an intention to harm or kill or not.
There is an intention to ignore harm and killing to satisfy a desire for a sense pleasure.

I remember reading a sutta on kamma explaining the general karmic effects of particular habits. Caring for people gives you a longer next life, not asking questions promotes being dull in the next life, etc.

Given my experiences in this life so far , I don't think I would want to know what the kamma is of a habit of intentionally ignoring consequences for the sake of an indulgence. I don't think it is anything anyone would want.
Whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders upon, that will become the inclination of his mind. - MN 19
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 »

How does one make the step from "I kill insects when I drive my car" to "I pay people to kill a cow so I can eat its flesh" Anyone that thinks the former justifies the latter is not applying logic IMHO.
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/
Post Reply