the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
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 »

beeblebrox wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: Do note that things can move on yet the appearance is not different.
I seriously do not see the relevance of what you have said as they point predominantly to the person rather than what has been said, and miss or ignore allot of what has been said.

Whether or not the you see an agreement is of little relevance to the proximity being associated and discussed.
Cittasanto, I think that's quite a feat to find an argument to the acknowledgement of your post, and an anjali... if this is not dukkha, then what is? Who cares about vegetarianism, or the eating of meat, when that happens?
You prove my point with even more personal remarks ignoring the amount you use, and what is actually said in conversation. Whether this is Dukkha or not is irrelevant to what was said, although it is quite a feat to use this fallacy so often.

Stay with the argument not the person!
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
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Mr Man »

beeblebrox wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: we are not responsible for the intentional acts of another.
Did the Buddha ever said such a thing? "Bhikkhus, we are not responsible for the actions of others." Your constant usage of that as an argument just keeps on reminding me of this:
Ud 6.6

People are intent on the idea of
'made by me'
and attached to the idea of
'made by another.'
Some do not realize this,
nor do they see it as a thorn.
But to one who sees,
having extracted this thorn,
(the thought) 'I am doing,' doesn't occur;
'Another is doing,' doesn't occur.
This human race is possessed by conceit,
bound by conceit,
tied down by conceit.
Speaking [with antagonism] because of their views
they do not go beyond wandering-on.
Everyone who participated in this recent thread has been agreeing with you... that eating of meat is not linked with personal act of killing. Even after Mr Man clarified what his statement meant (which afterwards you seemed to agree with), you kept on arguing with something that just wasn't there.

Much like Nigantha's behavior with General Siha... where they would just keep on accusing him of the killing... you just keep on accusing Mr Man of making a suggestion that the eating of meat was same as the killing. He's already clarified many times that this wasn't what he meant.

It seems like there's something wrong going on in here, and I'm not sure if there's even any cognizance of that at all... which can't be good for practice. Hope that you take care...

beeblebrox thank you for this post, in my opinion it was timely.
User avatar
GraemeR
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:20 am
Location: Thailand

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by GraemeR »

Mr Man wrote:
beeblebrox thank you for this post, in my opinion it was timely.
I got bored with this whole debate, I think trying to convince others of your ideas can be a form of clinging ... I my view and if people don't accept it I move on.

Graham
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ben »

GraemeR wrote:
Mr Man wrote:
beeblebrox thank you for this post, in my opinion it was timely.
I got bored with this whole debate, I think trying to convince others of your ideas can be a form of clinging ... I my view and if people don't accept it I move on.

Graham
Well said, Graham!
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by DAWN »

polarbuddha101 wrote:Who thinks that less animals get killed because they're vegetarians? How do you know that? Got any stats?

:anjali:
Once i read some stats about it, and it was said that one veg-man save about 20 or + lives per year.
I have no link. :thinking:
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
GraemeR
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:20 am
Location: Thailand

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by GraemeR »

DAWN wrote: Once i read some stats about it, and it was said that one veg-man save about 20 or + lives per year.
I have no link. :thinking:
http://www.chooseveg.com/vegetarians-save-lives.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/ ... nvironment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.peta.org/living/vegetarian-l ... n-101.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

20 sounds very conservative.

Graham
User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by DAWN »

50 lifes per year per veg

11 000 lifes per lifetime

Every year in the U.S., more than 27 billion animals are slaughtered for food (just USA)
I call it - genocide.

I'am not sure that someone can assume 11 000 taken lifes

Thanks you a lot GraemeR :namaste:
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by beeblebrox »

Cittasanto wrote:
beeblebrox wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: Do note that things can move on yet the appearance is not different.
I seriously do not see the relevance of what you have said as they point predominantly to the person rather than what has been said, and miss or ignore allot of what has been said.

Whether or not the you see an agreement is of little relevance to the proximity being associated and discussed.
Cittasanto, I think that's quite a feat to find an argument to the acknowledgement of your post, and an anjali... if this is not dukkha, then what is? Who cares about vegetarianism, or the eating of meat, when that happens?
You prove my point with even more personal remarks ignoring the amount you use, and what is actually said in conversation. Whether this is Dukkha or not is irrelevant to what was said, although it is quite a feat to use this fallacy so often.

Stay with the argument not the person!
Cittasanto, sorry I've been gone a couple days. I think this could go both ways. Focus on the messages in my posts, not on the person who you think they're trying to point at.

I have no qualms about using a conventional language. I don't even try to be careful anymore in trying not to single out a person... because I know that to do such a thing would be impossible. Such is the illusion of a "person".

The only thing that I care about is noticing when a dukkha is manifesting. Along with its cessation. Paying attention to what kind of conditions might've brought them around. These are the only things that are relevant to the Dhammic practice, I think... and I will continue to share that, regardless of the topic.

It has nothing to do with vegetarianism, nor the eating of meat. It never did. Granted, I didn't notice that fact till much later... when I started to see that the arguments would still continue to come, even when there's an obvious agreement. Hope you take care with this.

: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 »

beeblebrox wrote:
Cittasanto, sorry I've been gone a couple days. I think this could go both ways. Focus on the messages in my posts, not on the person who you think they're trying to point at.

I have no qualms about using a conventional language. I don't even try to be careful anymore in trying not to single out a person... because I know that to do such a thing would be impossible. Such is the illusion of a "person".

The only thing that I care about is noticing when a dukkha is manifesting. Along with its cessation. Paying attention to what kind of conditions might've brought them around. These are the only things that are relevant to the Dhammic practice, I think... and I will continue to share that, regardless of the topic.

It has nothing to do with vegetarianism, nor the eating of meat. It never did. Granted, I didn't notice that fact till much later... when I started to see that the arguments would still continue to come, even when there's an obvious agreement. Hope you take care with this.

:anjali:
As others manage it, it is not impossible! There is a big difference between conventional language and personal assumptions based solely on nothing other than a projected theory of mind.
Conventional language isn't perfect and can appear to be making something personal, although, if it is actually related and dealing with the topic and points without obviously falling into an "ad hom" fallacy then I would argue the benefit of the doubt should be given. However, when it is not related to the topic or points directly and only assuming things about the person or linking the person, it is nothing but making personal remarks.

Although, I think this meta discussion is over I do feel this is worth exploring further in another place.
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
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by beeblebrox »

Cittasanto wrote:As others manage it, it is not impossible! There is a big difference between conventional language and personal assumptions based solely on nothing other than a projected theory of mind.
Conventional language isn't perfect and can appear to be making something personal, although, if it is actually related and dealing with the topic and points without obviously falling into an "ad hom" fallacy then I would argue the benefit of the doubt should be given. However, when it is not related to the topic or points directly and only assuming things about the person or linking the person, it is nothing but making personal remarks.
Ok, no problem.

:anjali:
User avatar
Rahula
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 10:34 am

Killing! Did you ever think it this way?

Post by Rahula »

Is killing an animal really accumulate you akusala (bad) karma?
Or is it just the thought process, not really the physical activity which accumulate you akusala karma.

If you accidentally kill an animal, it does not count as a killing by you and you do not accumulate akusala karma(1). If causing death to any living being is universally akusala karma, then killing an animal unknowingly should also accumulate you akusala karma. But it is not because causing death to any living being is not akusala karma unless you think about it. That's the reason eating animal meat was not prohibited by Buddha, if the animal was killed without our knowledge. So physical killing action is not the cause of akusala karma, but the thought process involved.

Eating animal meat is just eating a food. You don't have to think about how those animals get killed. Birth and death is a cycle. All animals must die, otherwise there will be no more space for new beings. So causing death to animals because you eat meat is not sinful. That's the truth Buddha taught us. That's why Buddha allowed eating meat. But if you think about how those animal get killed and repent after eating meat, you may accumulate some akusala karma. (Mano Pubbangama Dhamma, Mano Setta Manomaya).

If it is the thought which cause your karma, how much you think about the action should accumulate more karma, kusala or akusala. Even if you think to kill a living being, but did not take the action, you still get akusala karma. But if you proceed and take the action also, you will accumulate more akusala karma. Why, not because the animal is dead, but because you had put more thought on it. After killing if you repent or enjoy it, your akusala karma will be more as you are still thinking about it.

Now what about killing a mosquito by reaction? When you feel the pain you just slap there without thinking much. You didn't know that it was a mosquito, you didn't think to kill it. But now you find a dead mosquito. You don't accumulate any akusala karma by that kind of reactions. But what happen if you keep thinking about what just happened? Then your mind goes through the process of killing the mosquito, accumulating you some akusala karma. Where if you can just forget it, you will not get any akusala karma. Mind is the master of all things. If you control the mind you can control your karma.

This is open for discussion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) In order to your action become a killing, five factors should be completed.
A living being. Perception that the being is a living being. Thought of killing. Effort or action. Death of the living being as a result.
May you be happy, healthy & successful in everything you do! :anjali:
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: Killing! Did you ever think it this way?

Post by LonesomeYogurt »

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

— AN 6.63
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
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 »

Rahula wrote:But it is not because causing death to any living being is not akusala karma unless you think about it.
It may not be akusala kamma (for other reasons), but not simply because one is not "thinking about it." Using that logic, one could also kill a human and then "not think about it." The Buddha clearly advised against such thinking. One monk performed immoral acts and stated that "I feel neither ease nor discomfort, thus there will be no offense for me." The Buddha responded, "whether this foolish man felt or did not feel, there is an offense." (Vinaya, Suttavibhanga 3.36)
User avatar
Rahula
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 10:34 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Rahula »

David N. Snyder wrote:
Rahula wrote:But it is not because causing death to any living being is not akusala karma unless you think about it.
It may not be akusala kamma (for other reasons), but not simply because one is not "thinking about it." Using that logic, one could also kill a human and then "not think about it." The Buddha clearly advised against such thinking. One monk performed immoral acts and stated that "I feel neither ease nor discomfort, thus there will be no offense for me." The Buddha responded, "whether this foolish man felt or did not feel, there is an offense." (Vinaya, Suttavibhanga 3.36)
You did not understand what I mean.
David N. Snyder wrote:Using that logic, one could also kill a human and then "not think about it."
How can anybody kill a human without thinking? The only way possible is, by accident. Other than that your mind goes through thoughts of killing, accumulating you akusala karma of the killing.

But in the case of an accident, for example, if you met with a car accident and someone died as your car went over that person, you do not accumulate akusala karma of killing a human. But if you can't forget that incident and if you keep thinking about it over and over again, your mind goes through those negative guilty feelings. What is the vipaka of this kind of chitta/ thoughts?
David N. Snyder wrote:One monk performed immoral acts and stated that "I feel neither ease nor discomfort, thus there will be no offense for me." The Buddha responded, "whether this foolish man felt or did not feel, there is an offense." (Vinaya, Suttavibhanga 3.36)
This is very true.
When you perform some act you obviously think about it. If it is bad or good. It is not possible to do anything without thinking about it. So if someone performed immoral acts, he had gone through immoral thoughts. So he had already accumulated akusala karma. What he think about after that is a different story.

What I want to height is that, if you keep thinking about some action, it is possible to accumulate more karma, kusala or akusala. If you perform any immoral acts, you had already accumulated akusala karma. And if you keep thinking about it, what would happen? As "Mind is the forerunner of all things" -"Mano Pubbangama Dhamma".

And if you eat meat as any other food, it's just a food. But if you think about how those animals get killed in order to come as your meal, then repent, you are accumulating karma. Because all your thoughts has vipaka. Can it be kusala or akusala? Of-cause you are not accumulating akusala karma of killing that animal, but akusala karma of akusala citta.

.
May you be happy, healthy & successful in everything you do! :anjali:
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Mr Man »

Rahula unskillfull acts can also be commited through a lack of thought.
Post Reply