the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Meat eating

Post by tiltbillings » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:11 am

LonesomeYogurt wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Yes. Well, there are mountains of data that illustrate that the production of food in general involves the mass destruction of living beings.
From a purely utilitarian standpoint, it is hard to argue that a strict vegetarian diet is even close to as destructive as one based on meat; moreover, from a philosophical standpoint, it's far more reasonable to advocate a system that unintentionally results in collateral damage over one that is designed specifically to kill.
Naw. Once you know that what you eat entails death and a lot of it, you know. Trying to say that this death is of lesser importance than that death is self-serving.
>> 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
Ben
Posts: 18442
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Meat eating

Post by Ben » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:51 am

How about eating the deceased (humans)?
e92c44d2ca970b524a49ae4a2e0da1bf (1).jpg
e92c44d2ca970b524a49ae4a2e0da1bf (1).jpg (391.93 KiB) Viewed 1871 times
“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: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com..

User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: Meat eating

Post by LonesomeYogurt » Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:28 am

tiltbillings wrote:Naw. Once you know that what you eat entails death and a lot of it, you know. Trying to say that this death is of lesser importance than that death is self-serving.
You honestly don't see a difference between harvesting non-living things, incapable of suffering, in ways that result in the death of lesser beings, and killing living beings directly to eat their dead bodies? There isn't even the slightest bit of difference between those two?

It hardly matters anyway, considering that the meat industry is not an alternative but an addition to industrial agriculture; after all, what do you think we feed to cows to make them nice and fat?
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
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Meat eating

Post by tiltbillings » Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:19 am

LonesomeYogurt wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Naw. Once you know that what you eat entails death and a lot of it, you know. Trying to say that this death is of lesser importance than that death is self-serving.
You honestly don't see a difference between harvesting non-living things, incapable of suffering, in ways that result in the death of lesser beings, and killing living beings directly to eat their dead bodies? There isn't even the slightest bit of difference between those two?
I am not talking about harvesting non-living things. The act of planting and maintaining and harvesting grains, for example, is highly destructive of "lesser beings" and has a detrimental, deadly, impact, on the environment. And you are going to distinguish between "lesser beings," such as insects, rodents, birds, and other such mammals and such that are directly impacted by farming and "higher beings" such as cattle and sheep? Life is predicated upon death.
>> 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
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Meat eating

Post by DAWN » Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:40 am

It's impossible to delete all harm, it's possible to minimize it as it possible. Termodinamic law dont allow us to exist without any distruction.

A cow eat 25 pounds of corn per day (11.36kg), one meal per day is about 100g (0.22 Lbs).
By simple calcul we see that for feed one cow, we can feed 100 monks.

http://www.youaskandy.com/questions-ans ... -eat-.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english

User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18442
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Meat eating

Post by Ben » Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:53 am

DAWN wrote:It's impossible to delete all harm, it's possible to minimize it as it possible. Termodinamic law dont allow us to exist without any distruction.

A cow eat 25 pounds of corn per day (11.36kg), one meal per day is about 100g (0.22 Lbs).
By simple calcul we see that for feed one cow, we can feed 100 monks.

http://www.youaskandy.com/questions-ans ... -eat-.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And how many people will one cow feed?
“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: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com..

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

Re: Meat eating

Post by DAWN » Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:57 am

Ben wrote:
DAWN wrote:It's impossible to delete all harm, it's possible to minimize it as it possible. Termodinamic law dont allow us to exist without any distruction.

A cow eat 25 pounds of corn per day (11.36kg), one meal per day is about 100g (0.22 Lbs).
By simple calcul we see that for feed one cow, we can feed 100 monks.

http://www.youaskandy.com/questions-ans ... -eat-.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And how many people will one cow feed?
If i understand rightly your queestion,
One cow can eat 2 humans per day :)
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Post by Cittasanto » Sat Nov 17, 2012 9:24 am

Mr Man wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: hopefully this will clear up the relevance.
Thanks Cittasanto, I knew what was being refered to but I do not see it's relevance to my comment. Is it meant as a rebuttal?
I can not speak for RobertK.
But in my opinion section 13 does show we are not responsible for future actions, after the fact, for our intent to buy food. It is our intention that matters not another's possible actions.
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
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Meat eating

Post by DAWN » Sat Nov 17, 2012 10:07 am

We have to stop to be so egocentric...

My intention, my kamma, my ass bla bla bla... and the fact that some living beings die, we have no metter.

Very good, very good. The Lord Buddha would be pride of us.
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3362
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Meat eating

Post by Mr Man » Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:00 am

Cittasanto wrote:
Mr Man wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: hopefully this will clear up the relevance.
Thanks Cittasanto, I knew what was being refered to but I do not see it's relevance to my comment. Is it meant as a rebuttal?
I can not speak for RobertK.
But in my opinion section 13 does show we are not responsible for future actions, after the fact, for our intent to buy food. It is our intention that matters not another's possible actions.
So can you not see a connection between the eating of meat and the killing of animals?

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Post by Cittasanto » Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:28 am

Mr Man wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
Mr Man wrote:
Thanks Cittasanto, I knew what was being refered to but I do not see it's relevance to my comment. Is it meant as a rebuttal?
I can not speak for RobertK.
But in my opinion section 13 does show we are not responsible for future actions, after the fact, for our intent to buy food. It is our intention that matters not another's possible actions.
So can you not see a connection between the eating of meat and the killing of animals?
on a business plan level, but can you not see the difference in ones own and another's actions?
but what I can or can not see has no relation on what the Buddha taught on the matter of responsibility for ones own actions.
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
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Post by Cittasanto » Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:32 am

DAWN wrote:We have to stop to be so egocentric...

My intention, my kamma, my ass bla bla bla... and the fact that some living beings die, we have no metter.

Very good, very good. The Lord Buddha would be pride of us.
the world is ourselves in the Buddhas teaching and it is ourselves that we correct instead of pointing the finger at others.
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: 3362
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Meat eating

Post by Mr Man » Sat Nov 17, 2012 12:09 pm

Cittasanto wrote:
Mr Man wrote:

So can you not see a connection between the eating of meat and the killing of animals?
on a business plan level, but can you not see the difference in ones own and another's actions?
but what I can or can not see has no relation on what the Buddha taught on the matter of responsibility for ones own actions.
Cittasanto, you don't seem to have answed my question.

To answer your question; of couse I can see the difference between my own actions and those of another but I also know there is relationship.

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

Re: Meat eating

Post by DAWN » Sat Nov 17, 2012 12:26 pm

:|
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Post by Cittasanto » Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:46 pm

Mr Man wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
Mr Man wrote:

So can you not see a connection between the eating of meat and the killing of animals?
on a business plan level, but can you not see the difference in ones own and another's actions?
but what I can or can not see has no relation on what the Buddha taught on the matter of responsibility for ones own actions.
Cittasanto, you don't seem to have answed my question.

To answer your question; of couse I can see the difference between my own actions and those of another but I also know there is relationship.
from previous expressions of others this "relationship" is placed to close together by equating buying food with oneself directly killing when this is not happening.
but to clarify my short response earlier (sorry for delay I had to run out)
There is a connection on a Business plan level, i.e. the level in which we have no say or control. there are several factors that are accounted for here, from sales period to year on year analysis and projections based on current sales trends in previous weeks and months and current stock levels. this is wrong livelihood and it is here that the connection is.
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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot] and 50 guests