Page 126 of 380

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:22 pm
by Cittasanto
i shall assume you are talking to me ron!
but we are not in total agreement, and I shall ask you to take your head out of the sand long enough to actually read what I have said, as I am by far not saying vegetarianism is the only way, or anything in the canon which suggests eating meat is ok is a corruption!
the very nature of avija is not seeing clearly i.e., you don't know you are holding the viper wrongly until it is too late!
so dogmatically stating only one form of food is correct or better and this is what the Buddha taught, instead of having a flexible approach which considers and allows for varying circumstances, as is demonstrated by the Buddhas refusal to ban meat as a source of sustenance, is not plausible. "All Buddhists should be vegetarian" and "eating meat under any circumstance is wrong" is one such case (and what I have been saying if you bothered to read); as is ignoring what is said because you personally disagree without considering the numerous nuances, as you claimed I ignore in not so many words "The "support" you continue to ignore is the fact that a samma sam Buddha is all knowing and understands that samsara is a place of contradictions." so by your own admittance a place where fixed views on anything can not be afforded

just to point out,
Ghosa Suttas AN2.126-127 my translation wrote:126. “(The Buddha Said) Mendicants, there are two conditions for the coming into existence of dissident perspectives!
(The Meditators Asked) What are these two?
(The Buddha Responded) The words of another & inappropriate consideration, mendicants, these two things are conditions for the coming into existence of dissident perspectives!”

127. “(The Buddha Said) Mendicants, there are these two conditions for the coming into existence of upright perspectives!
(The Meditators Asked) What are these two?
(The Buddha Responded) The words of another & inappropriate consideration, mendicants, these two things are conditions for the coming into existence of upright perspectives!”
Ron-The-Elder wrote:Fine! Then we are in total agreement. Not that agreement is ever necessary. You are welcome to your attachments as is everyone else. Question is, "Do our attachments bring us to unbinding and release, or do they reserve a seat on the samsaric express? " Buddha taught that one will quickly know if he has grasped a viper wrongly for, if wrongly grasped, he will be bitten by it:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:29 pm
by Cittasanto
gavesako wrote:Monks suffer from health problems : study
Interesting Bhante!
I remember A Sri Lankan Monk saying Diabetes was common for Monks in Sri Lanka due to the diet.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:32 pm
by Ron-The-Elder
Cittasanto wrote:i shall assume you are talking to me ron!
but we are not in total agreement, and I shall ask you to take your head out of the sand long enough to actually read what I have said, as I am by far not saying vegetarianism is the only way, or anything in the canon which suggests eating meat is ok is a corruption!
the very nature of avija is not seeing clearly i.e., you don't know you are holding the viper wrongly until it is too late!
so dogmatically stating only one form of food is correct or better and this is what the Buddha taught, instead of having a flexible approach which considers and allows for varying circumstances, as is demonstrated by the Buddhas refusal to ban meat as a source of sustenance, is not plausible. "All Buddhists should be vegetarian" and "eating meat under any circumstance is wrong" is one such case (and what I have been saying if you bothered to read); as is ignoring what is said because you personally disagree without considering the numerous nuances, as you claimed I ignore in not so many words "The "support" you continue to ignore is the fact that a samma sam Buddha is all knowing and understands that samsara is a place of contradictions." so by your own admittance a place where fixed views on anything can not be afforded

just to point out,
Ghosa Suttas AN2.126-127 my translation wrote:126. “(The Buddha Said) Mendicants, there are two conditions for the coming into existence of dissident perspectives!
(The Meditators Asked) What are these two?
(The Buddha Responded) The words of another & inappropriate consideration, mendicants, these two things are conditions for the coming into existence of dissident perspectives!”

127. “(The Buddha Said) Mendicants, there are these two conditions for the coming into existence of upright perspectives!
(The Meditators Asked) What are these two?
(The Buddha Responded) The words of another & inappropriate consideration, mendicants, these two things are conditions for the coming into existence of upright perspectives!”
Ron-The-Elder wrote:Fine! Then we are in total agreement. Not that agreement is ever necessary. You are welcome to your attachments as is everyone else. Question is, "Do our attachments bring us to unbinding and release, or do they reserve a seat on the samsaric express? " Buddha taught that one will quickly know if he has grasped a viper wrongly for, if wrongly grasped, he will be bitten by it:
Sorry, but it is not my head that is in the sand, you must be thinking of some form of worm, or perhaps an ostrich. :shrug: Where I agree with you is that you are stuck with your perspective with regard to diet and cannot learn from the perspective of others: namely that it is inconsistent for a Buddha to take a position regarding "anything", which would increase suffering, when given a less harmful alternative. For example, if a Buddha were offered two plates, one made of fresh vegetables, the other made made of animal flesh, which one is it reasonable for him to accept?Relating to your head in sand comment: To assume that a Buddha would select the plate of animal flesh would be like believing that a human could breathe sand. "Ridiculous!" As your lungs would get all full of silicates very quickly and you could choke! Selecting flesh over vegetables is just as ridiculous given a choice........... Time to take my nap. Sorry. :zzz:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:04 pm
by daverupa
Ron-The-Elder wrote: For example, if a Buddha were offered two plates, one made of fresh vegetables, the other made made of animal flesh, which one is it reasonable for him to accept?
If he has neither seen, heard, nor suspected that the meat was produced specifically for him, they are completely equivalent.

"I have slaughtered the fatted calf for you, Blessed One" = no good
"Here is a meat and cheese platter left over from our early brunch, please partake of it Blessed One" = just fine

This does shed light on your view, but please refrain from making your own preferences those of the Buddha.

(Additionally, if I were to offer a veggie plate that was originally put together as a brahminical sacrifice and you were to offer a meat plate that you were originally just carrying to the waste bin for someone, the meat plate is acceptable and the veggie plate is not.)

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:56 pm
by Cittasanto
Ron-The-Elder wrote: Sorry, but it is not my head that is in the sand, you must be thinking of some form of worm, or perhaps an ostrich. :shrug: Where I agree with you is that you are stuck with your perspective with regard to diet and cannot learn from the perspective of others: namely that it is inconsistent for a Buddha to take a position regarding "anything", which would increase suffering, when given a less harmful alternative. For example, if a Buddha were offered two plates, one made of fresh vegetables, the other made made of animal flesh, which one is it reasonable for him to accept?Relating to your head in sand comment: To assume that a Buddha would select the plate of animal flesh would be like believing that a human could breathe sand. "Ridiculous!" As your lungs would get all full of silicates very quickly and you could choke! Selecting flesh over vegetables is just as ridiculous given a choice........... Time to take my nap. Sorry. :zzz:
You do not know my personal choice on this matter, and you ignored that question earlier also! but I am expressing what the texts are saying on the matter in their entirety and with logical reasoning as to why they are appropriate which also takes into account things you have actually said such as "all knowing"! you are literally giving a nigantha argument trying to say it is a Buddhist one.
Daverupa gives the exact answer I would here regarding your scenario, although David (theDhamma) has a websiteand researched the references within the canon where food is specified (36in total)and the Buddha accepted meat on one of these infrequent references at AN5.44
Venerable sir, I heard this from the Blessed One himself and it was acknowledged Those who give pleasure in return gain pleasure I like pork cooked in jujube fruit juice. I offer it to the Blessed One. May the Blessed One accept it out of compassion. The Blessed One accepted out of compassion.
and if you read the bottom of his page where he does a scientific sample, it is 97% vegetarian, this taking the Buddhas last meal as vegetarian and refering to fungi & not pork which is another interpretation of the passage.
but you do realise that was a metaphor for your ignoring comments and dismissing any evidence as a corruption with no support or reason for doing so!

But one last thing
Just because you find yourself in a situation where being 100% vegetarian or vegan is possible, convenient, easy, and health to do, does not mean everyone in the world is in that situation & the Dhamma is as open to them as it is for anyone else!

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:25 am
by Ron-The-Elder
Cittasanto et al: Seems like we are not listening/understanding each other. Let me try one more analogy: If a story appeared in a well read newspaper, or on the evening news that a mouse had eaten a cow, would you find the story credible? No! Such a story would be incredible, unbelievable, beyond the realm of reasonableness! Now if I told you that the author of The Four Noble Truths, the doctrine, which explains how to end dukkha in all of its various forms advised to behave in a manner which produced horrific suffering, stress and dissatisfaction, would your believe me, would you find such a story credible, believable?

If your answer is yes, then in that way you and I are different. :anjali: Ron

Unlike you, then I do not believe everything that is written in the newspapers, nor in the suttas.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 2:51 pm
by Cittasanto
Ron-The-Elder wrote:Cittasanto et al: Seems like we are not listening/understanding each other.
you are not listening and are deliberately ignoring things, I understand what you have said well enough to argue against it, and see a close concordance with Nigantha theories and not hide my head in the sand with what you have said!
Ron-The-Elder wrote:Let me try one more analogy: If a story appeared in a well read newspaper, or on the evening news that a mouse had eaten a cow, would you find the story credible? No! Such a story would be incredible, unbelievable, beyond the realm of reasonableness! Now if I told you that the author of The Four Noble Truths, the doctrine, which explains how to end dukkha in all of its various forms advised to behave in a manner which produced horrific suffering, stress and dissatisfaction, would your believe me, would you find such a story credible, believable?
well you would have to show it is false, I do not believe something just because it is said, but because there is evidence, and a logical reason for it (as already shown and explained in a couple of different ways regarding eating meat). actually cuts allot of people off from the Dhamma so you believe those who eat meat are cut off from the Dhamma?
but you have to explain how someone say in Tibet or a Inuit could survive on a vegetarian or vegan diet considering farming there is hard or impossible to do for a number of reasons; or how the Buddha who is all knowing would ignore that fact if he had compassion. this is something I have pointed out a number of times, yet you have failed to address, if you can not address this then don't reply to this post at all!
Ron-The-Elder wrote:If your answer is yes, then in that way you and I are different. :anjali: Ron

Unlike you, then I do not believe everything that is written in the newspapers, nor in the suttas.
are you asking or telling me what I believe here?
I understand the difference between literal and metaphor, mental qualities and actions unlike what you have shown several times with quotes & what has been said!

and again
Just because you find yourself in a situation where being 100% vegetarian or vegan is possible, convenient, easy, and health to do, does not mean everyone in the world is in that situation & the Dhamma is as open to them as it is for anyone else!

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 4:07 pm
by Ron-The-Elder
Fine, cittasano, we will never agree, so let us agree to disagree. Just to clear up one point: Those who you say have no choice as to what to eat, do in fact have a choice as to where to live. As now deceased comedian Sam Kennison used to say in his comedy routine regarding starving Africans: "The reason you are starving is because you live in a desert! Move!" So, your argument that these people don't have a choice does not hold water. :toilet: In a Dhammapada story Buddha demonstrated the lengths to which he would go to " cause no harm" to sentients. He was born a Prince and knew that if he became a king that he would be responsible not only for punishing his people for crimes, including the death penalty, but he knew that he would have to command armies, which involved killing his kingdom's enemies. He knew that such actions would cause him to end up in the hell realms, so he pretended to be retarded and appeared to be incapable of being crowned.

My interpretation of this story is that Buddha would do anything to avoid doing harm. So, why would I ever believe that he would eat or support eating the flesh of sentient beings. :coffee:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 4:25 pm
by Cittasanto
Ron-The-Elder wrote:So, your argument that these people don't have a choice does not hold water. :toilet:
that actually wasn't my argument, and there was more than just that one part!
There are reasons due to certain conditions beyond our control (such as weather/climate, location, social situation, health, famine to name a few) which can effect.
In a Dhammapada story Buddha demonstrated the lengths to which he would go to " cause no harm" to sentients. He was born a Prince and knew that if he became a king that he would be responsible not only for punishing his people for crimes, including the death penalty, but he knew that he would have to command armies, which involved killing his kingdom's enemies. He knew that such actions would cause him to end up in the hell realms, so he pretended to be retarded and appeared to be incapable of being crowned.

My interpretation of this story is that Buddha would do anything to avoid doing harm. So, why would I ever believe that he would eat or support eating the flesh of sentient beings. :coffee:
and again this is for things one is responsible for, not for things one is not responsible for, the latter being part of your argument!
although can you cite the verse?

p.s. there was another question in my last post! also

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 5:14 pm
by daverupa
Ron-The-Elder wrote:would you find such a story credible, believable?
This is the appeal to incredulity fallacy, so does not warrant a response.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 5:45 pm
by ancientbuddhism
Ron-The-Elder wrote:Cittasanto et al: Seems like we are not listening/understanding each other. Let me try one more analogy: If a story appeared in a well read newspaper, or on the evening news that a mouse had eaten a cow, would you find the story credible? No! Such a story would be incredible, unbelievable, beyond the realm of reasonableness! Now if I told you that the author of The Four Noble Truths, the doctrine, which explains how to end dukkha in all of its various forms advised to behave in a manner which produced horrific suffering, stress and dissatisfaction, would your believe me, would you find such a story credible, believable?

If your answer is yes, then in that way you and I are different. :anjali: Ron

Unlike you, then I do not believe everything that is written in the newspapers, nor in the suttas.
I cannot engage in your specious, straw-man arguments. But for what it is worth ...

Not accepting (or just leaving alone) some statements of the Buddha as incongruent or lacking relevance is your mahāpadesa privilege, I suppose. But I would suggest just leaving these alone, as you may be perceived as rather silly when making claims on what was or was not said by another so far removed from corroborative evidence.

With reference to the allowances given in the vinaya for bhikkhus and bhikkhunis as to what foods may be consumed (not all foods offered and received on piṇḍapāta may be consumed due to the ignorance of the doner), the reasons were – and still are – culturally evident.

With reference to meat as representing the violence which delivered it, it still does not transfer the intention of such to me. This is where the clause about hearing the killing or rumor of it intended for the recipient comes in.

And as far as meat representing a sentient being, it does so no more or less than my leather sandals.

A suggestion I’m sure I have posted before in this thread is this:
  • Perhaps it is the laity that could lead the way. If they followed these precepts of right livelihood, bhikkhus would be vegetarian by default.

    Pañcimā bhikkhave, vaṇijjā upāsakena akaraṇīyā. Katamā pañca:
    Satthavaṇijjā, sattavaṇijjā, maṃsavaṇijjā, majjavaṇijjā, visavaṇijjā.
    Imā kho bhikkhave, pañca vaṇijjā upāsakena akaraṇīyāti.

    “Bhikkhus, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five?

    Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

    "These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in.”

    – Vaṇijja Sutta AN.5.177

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 6:48 pm
by DNS
ancientbuddhism wrote: And as far as meat representing a sentient being, it does so no more or less than my leather sandals.
Actually, most vegans don't use, purchase or wear leather products. However, it is pretty much impossible to avoid some animal products -- they are everywhere. I think there may have been a picture of a cow here in this thread or over at our Mahayana sister site which showed just how many animal products are in so many everyday things that we use.
ancientbuddhism wrote: Perhaps it is the laity that could lead the way. If they followed these precepts of right livelihood, bhikkhus would be vegetarian by default.
There is no arguing (or at least there shouldn't be, imo) that if the whole world were Buddhist there wouldn't and couldn't be any slaughter houses (no one to do the killing or to be the butchers). So it is at least an ideal state and perhaps a goal, but the Buddha was interested in including as many as possible on the Path from suffering, so used skillful means in my opinion and also knowing that the majority of the people in Buddhism's infancy were practicing Brahmanism (precursor to Hinduism) and still ate meat. Therefore, there is no requirement to be vegetarian, but from one perspective it can be seen as a 'goal' of practice to eventually eliminate flesh foods from purchase and then as you say, the bhikkhus would become de facto vegetarians (by default).

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 7:15 pm
by Cittasanto
David N. Snyder wrote: There is no arguing (or at least there shouldn't be, imo) that if the whole world were Buddhist there wouldn't and couldn't be any slaughter houses (no one to do the killing or to be the butchers). So it is at least an ideal state and perhaps a goal, but the Buddha was interested in including as many as possible on the Path from suffering, so used skillful means in my opinion and also knowing that the majority of the people in Buddhism's infancy were practicing Brahmanism (precursor to Hinduism) and still ate meat. Therefore, there is no requirement to be vegetarian, but from one perspective it can be seen as a 'goal' of practice to eventually eliminate flesh foods from purchase and then as you say, the bhikkhus would become de facto vegetarians (by default).
Certainly in an ideal world all would be practicing Buddhists, but then how many Buddhists do actually work in wrong livelihood establishments in Buddhist countries (fishing, slagughter...)? (and yes I know that is a fallacy argument as I do not know of any statistics)
it is one of those things which can not be forced on people, they will kill if they do not have a good enough reason not to, just look at so called Christian countries and Christian who keep the precept not to murder, the Catholic Church is a fine example of that sentencing people to death then getting the state to do the dirty work so on the surface their hands are clean.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 7:17 pm
by Ron-The-Elder
ancientbuddhism :Pañcimā bhikkhave, vaṇijjā upāsakena akaraṇīyā. Katamā pañca:
Satthavaṇijjā, sattavaṇijjā, maṃsavaṇijjā, majjavaṇijjā, visavaṇijjā.
Imā kho bhikkhave, pañca vaṇijjā upāsakena akaraṇīyāti.

“Bhikkhus, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five?

Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in.”

– Vaṇijja Sutta AN.5.177
Yes. We covered this point some time ago. There would be no need to slaughter if there were no demand. Just as there would be no business for drug pushers if there were no drug addicts.

Cittasanto: I misquoted. The story I cited came from The Jataka Tales not from The Dhammapada. Sorry. And, off hand I don't have a citation. I will have to look it up. :jawdrop:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 7:25 pm
by Cittasanto
Ron-The-Elder wrote: Cittasanto: I misquoted. The story I cited came from The Jataka Tales not from The Dhammapada. Sorry. And, off hand I don't have a citation. I will have to look it up. :jawdrop:
if you know of a link it would be appreciated also.