the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by seeker242 »

Cittasanto wrote: Can you reference where and what the negative effects are?

to my memory, the restrictions of the threefold rule are are nothing to do with Kammavipakka but rather todo with being hard to look after as beggars can not be choosers.

Kind Rgards
Cittasanto.
I'm not sure what you mean by "being hard to look after". Do you mean harder for the monks? Harder for the laypeople giving alms? It seems to me the reference and negative effects would be the same as being a "cause to kill". There is Kammavipakka involved when one becomes a cause to kill.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Cittasanto »

seeker242 wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: Can you reference where and what the negative effects are?

to my memory, the restrictions of the threefold rule are are nothing to do with Kammavipakka but rather todo with being hard to look after as beggars can not be choosers.

Kind Rgards
Cittasanto.
I'm not sure what you mean by "being hard to look after". Do you mean harder for the monks? Harder for the laypeople giving alms?
Both.
It seems to me the reference and negative effects would be the same as being a "cause to kill". There is Kammavipakka involved when one becomes a cause to kill.
OK, so you weren't referring to some explanation, but to the (obviously) implied result of being a cause to kill.
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
seeker242
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by seeker242 »

Cittasanto wrote:
seeker242 wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: Can you reference where and what the negative effects are?

to my memory, the restrictions of the threefold rule are are nothing to do with Kammavipakka but rather todo with being hard to look after as beggars can not be choosers.

Kind Rgards
Cittasanto.
I'm not sure what you mean by "being hard to look after". Do you mean harder for the monks? Harder for the laypeople giving alms?
Both.
It seems to me the reference and negative effects would be the same as being a "cause to kill". There is Kammavipakka involved when one becomes a cause to kill.
OK, so you weren't referring to some explanation, but to the (obviously) implied result of being a cause to kill.
What explanation were you referring to? Do you remember where you read that is has nothing to do with Kammavipakka?

:anjali:
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Cittasanto »

seeker242 wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: OK, so you weren't referring to some explanation, but to the (obviously) implied result of being a cause to kill.
What explanation were you referring to? Do you remember where you read that is has nothing to do with Kammavipakka?

:anjali:
Hi
It is how the rule came about/the meat being received being blameless. The origin being a false accusation from the Jains of the time, who had been the sole receivers of General Siha's alms previously. The Kammavipakka, although an aspect to consider when understanding the rule, it is not the instigating factor of the Jains spreading rumors.

Kind Regards
Cittasanto
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
seeker242
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by seeker242 »

Cittasanto wrote:
seeker242 wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: OK, so you weren't referring to some explanation, but to the (obviously) implied result of being a cause to kill.
What explanation were you referring to? Do you remember where you read that is has nothing to do with Kammavipakka?

:anjali:
Hi
It is how the rule came about/the meat being received being blameless. The origin being a false accusation from the Jains of the time, who had been the sole receivers of General Siha's alms previously. The Kammavipakka, although an aspect to consider when understanding the rule, it is not the instigating factor of the Jains spreading rumors.

Kind Regards
Cittasanto
You mean to say the Buddha instituted the rule to appease the Jains? Or, to dissuade Jains from spreading rumors? And the eating of meat, when it is seen, heard or suspected by a bhikkhu, that an animal was specifically killed for that bhikkhu, is actually blameless too?
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Cittasanto »

seeker242 wrote: You mean to say the Buddha instituted the rule to appease the Jains? Or, to dissuade Jains from spreading rumors?
Both could have been factors, there were ten possible reasons rules could have been put in place. two of which are to "inspire faith in the faithless", and "protect the sanghas reputation". As this rule came about due to a rumour mill and involved the Buddha directly I find these the most likely.
And the eating of meat, when it is seen, heard or suspected by a bhikkhu, that an animal was specifically killed for that bhikkhu, is actually blameless too?
As that never happened in the Origin Story and is opposed to the rule, no.

Kind Regards
Cittasanto
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
D1W1
Posts: 619
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 5:52 am

Jivaka Sutta

Post by D1W1 »

Hi guys,

In this Sutta Buddha says there are three conditions meat can be eaten:

1. When the animals are not seen to have been killed for oneself
2. When someone is not told by other people that an animal has been killed for himself
3. When one does not suspect an animal has been killed for oneself

What if someone heard an animal was screaming when that particular meat is prepared, is this included in three conditions above or not?
Thanks.
paul
Posts: 1512
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 11:27 pm
Location: Cambodia

Re: Jivaka Sutta

Post by paul »

You have misunderstood "has been killed for oneself"; it means the case where if the animal has been killed specifically for a person, then he cannot eat the meat.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Jivaka Sutta

Post by tiltbillings »

Also, keep in mind to whom these three point were directed.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
D1W1
Posts: 619
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 5:52 am

Re: Jivaka Sutta

Post by D1W1 »

paul wrote:it means the case where if the animal has been killed specifically for a person, then he cannot eat the meat.
Yes hence the question.
Does heard here mean heard the scream of animal or heard because someone is told by other people that animal is slaughtered for him?
tiltbillings wrote:Also, keep in mind to whom these three point were directed.
For monks, but I think eat "pure meat" is good too if adopted by lay people. Meat, I think can only be eaten if they're pure.
dhammarelax
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 7:59 pm

Re: Jivaka Sutta

Post by dhammarelax »

tiltbillings wrote:Also, keep in mind to whom these three point were directed.
Did the Buddha specified anywhere in the Suttas that is better to be a vegetarian?
Even if the flesh & blood in my body dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, I will use all my human firmness, human persistence and human striving. There will be no relaxing my persistence until I am the first of my generation to attain full awakening in this lifetime. ed. AN 2.5
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Jivaka Sutta

Post by tiltbillings »

D1W1 wrote:
For monks, but I think eat "pure meat" is good too if adopted by lay people. Meat, I think can only be eaten if they're pure.
Probably, but I think we must be careful not to try to bhikkhu-fy lay-practice.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Jivaka Sutta

Post by tiltbillings »

dhammarelax wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Also, keep in mind to whom these three point were directed.
Did the Buddha specified anywhere in the Suttas that is better to be a vegetarian?
Not that I know.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Jivaka Sutta

Post by cooran »

Hello all,

This is interesting:

Why Buddhists should be vegetarian. By Sujato Bhikkhu
https://sujato.wordpress.com/2012/01/28 ... xtra-cute/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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 ---
dhammarelax
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 7:59 pm

Re: Jivaka Sutta

Post by dhammarelax »

cooran wrote:Hello all,

This is interesting:

Why Buddhists should be vegetarian. By Sujato Bhikkhu
https://sujato.wordpress.com/2012/01/28 ... xtra-cute/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

With metta,
Chris
Question: is it true or not that adopting a vegetarian diet requires a suplement of B12 vitamin?
Even if the flesh & blood in my body dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, I will use all my human firmness, human persistence and human striving. There will be no relaxing my persistence until I am the first of my generation to attain full awakening in this lifetime. ed. AN 2.5
Post Reply