the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
dagon
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:45 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by dagon » Sat Sep 07, 2013 1:25 pm

chownah wrote:
David N. Snyder wrote:A bhikkhu can refuse certain foods, for example those from the kinds of meat not allowable or for example, a bottle of liquor. The threefold rule does not require the monk to accept everything. Also, if food is offered at the wrong time, i.e., in the afternoon, it must also be refused.
mikenz66 wrote: Of courses, in some circumstances (such as those described by Ajahn Brahm in Isaan in the early 1970's) there is little choice, so eating frogs or whatever might be the only way to get enough food. However, that sort of situation is probably uncommon today.
I have often wondered about this one. AB mentions this event when the subject of eating or vegetarianism comes up. He reports that the whole frog was there in his bowl. Another monk stuck his fork into the frog and hit the bladder and urine spilled out. The other monk got disgusted and didn't eat. AB knew where the bladder was and was able to eat the frog in his bowl.

Since the whole frog was there in the bowl (not parts), couldn't or shouldn't he have "suspected" that the animal was killed specifically for him and the other monks? After all, it is the whole animal there in the bowl. I suppose it is possible the frog died of natural causes, but knowing that meat-eating and production is common in that area, it would seem that it is likely the frogs were killed specifically for lunch dana for the bhikkhus.
In Isaan and in Thailand in general, eating frogs is not unusual. I have eaten it many many times prepared in different manners.......my wife cooks it herself sometimes.......there are at least two different kinds eaten where I live which can be differentiated by seeing that one kind is big and one kind is small. The small ones are typically fried whole after a rudimentary cleaning of only a small amount of internal organs most of which are left intact. They are crispy and each one is a single bite or maybe two. The big frogs are about the size of what most people consider to be a regular or large sized frog....a medium to small sized one would cover a child's palm and a big one would cover an adult's hand. They are prepared on different ways one of which is to roast it whole after a rudimentary cleaning which seems to be more thorough than what is give to the previously mentioned small frogs. So, these large frogs that are roasted are usually served whole. I have eaten them this way along with my wife and the issue of the bladder being present or not has never come up. If the bladder is intact after cleaning (maybe it is removed, I don't know) then it is likely that it's contents have been realeased although I don't know.....and then it would be washed away in the final rinse before cooking. If the urine is cooked then it probably just adds to the flavor.......you can be sure that if urine left in could squirt out and give a bad flavor then the Thai people would remove it.....Thai cooks know a lot about which internal organs are edible or not since internal organs are usually eaten if they are good......organs you have probably not thought of.......a chickens internal organs are pretty much all edible......and taste good.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that unless someone is an expert in frog anatomy it is unlikely that they would know if they had punctured a bladder or not and if they did it probably would not give a bad flavor to the food as if it would do this it would likely have been removed when the frog was cleaned because Thai cooks are knowledgeable in these matters and they pride themselves on their food.

And the real bottom line is that there would be no reason to think that the frogs were killed specifically for the monks in that if the season is right you go collect frogs.......then you usually cook all of the ones you have caught after giving some to family and friends if there are a lot.........and then eat them whenever it is time to eat if you are so inclined. The frogs the monks ate might have been caught and roasted the night before and the next morning there were a bunch still left so someone decided to give it to the monks at bindabat...........but I don't know for sure how it transpired......but no reason to think the frogs were killed for the monks specifically.

chownah
I respect anyone who can face this on their plate with equanimity
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/ ... 9296_n.jpg

metta
paul

dagon
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:45 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by dagon » Sat Sep 07, 2013 1:51 pm

Hi all
Do athletes require more protein?

In the last 20 years, detailed research has enabled scientists to measure protein metabolism during exercise and recovery, and to monitor protein balance in athletes. Endurance athletes in heavy training require extra protein to cover a small proportion of the energy costs of their training and to assist in the repair and recovery process after exercise. Strength athletes, who are interested in gaining muscle size and function, require more protein in the early stages of very intensive resistance exercise. However, strength athlete’s muscles seem to adapt to the stress of resistance exercise, so that the protein requirements to maintain protein balance in very well-trained athletes are only marginally greater than those of generally active people. Athletes, who are growing, such as adolescents, have additional protein requirements. The table below summarises protein requirements for different types of athletes or exercise activities. Since athletes come in various shapes and sizes, it is easier to keep track of these requirements by relating them to the size (body mass or BM) of the athlete.

Table 1: Estimated protein requirements for athletes

Group
Protein intake (g/kg/day)
Sedentary men and women 0.8-1.0
Elite male endurance athletes 1.6
Moderate-intensity endurance athletes (a) 1.2
Recreational endurance athletes (b) 0.8-1.0
Football, power sports 1.4-1.7
Resistance athletes (early training) 1.5-1.7
Resistance athletes (steady state) 1.0-1.2
Female athletes ~15% lower than male athletes
(a) Exercising approximately four to five times per week for 45-60 min
(b) Exercising four to five times per week for 30 min at <55% VO2peak

Source: Burke and Deakin, Clinical Sports Nutrition, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Ltd, 2006

Table 2: Protein rich foods for athletes. Each of the following foods provides approximately 10 g of protein. These foods have moderate to low fat contents and are rich in other nutrients.
Animal Foods
  • 2 small eggs
    30 g (1.5 slices) reduced fat cheese
    70 g cottage cheese
    1 cup (250 ml) low-fat milk
    35 g lean beef, lamb or pork (cooked weight)
    40 g lean chicken (cooked weight)
    50 g grilled fish
    50 g canned tuna or salmon
    200 g reduced fat yoghurt
    150 g light fromage frais
Plant Foods
  • 4 slices (120 g) wholemeal bread
    3 cups (90 g) wholegrain cereal
    2 cups (330 g) cooked pasta
    3 cups (400 g) cooked rice
    3/4 cup (150 g) lentils or kidney beans
    200 g baked beans
    120 g tofu
    60 g nuts or seeds
    300 ml soy milk
    100 g soy meat
http://www.ausport.gov.au/ais/nutrition ... -_how_much

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by daverupa » Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:47 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:
daverupa wrote: But now it's a choice between someone who doesn't care, and someone who not only likes meat but doesn't want to give it up. Neither one was denoted at first, so how can either one be the specific group I meant?
So which specific group did you mean? I'm still not clear. On the face of it there seems to be 3 possibilities:
1. People who don't like eating meat;
2. People who don't care /mind what they eat;
3. People who like eating meat.
I meant those people who just like eating meat. Probably, in thinking about Venn diagrams here, this category is broad enough to encompass both those people who don't mind what they eat but think meat has a positive flavor, as well as people who enjoy meat and seek it out as part of their diet (above, that's #3 and some of #2). The first group will not make special efforts about meat at the grocery store, while the second group will. Both groups are held in the group "just like eating meat", as I understand it. Those who don't like it, obviously, are not included, as well as those who don't care what they eat but think meat has a negative flavor.

The example of someone eating a well-done steak who is yet revolted at seeing a rare steak being eaten is an example of someone who both does and does not just like eating meat, depending on the situation, but I decided not to be pedantic about the term 'just' and include these people in the group 'just like eating meat' as well.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

chownah
Posts: 7597
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah » Sat Sep 07, 2013 3:41 pm

daverupa wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:
daverupa wrote: But now it's a choice between someone who doesn't care, and someone who not only likes meat but doesn't want to give it up. Neither one was denoted at first, so how can either one be the specific group I meant?
So which specific group did you mean? I'm still not clear. On the face of it there seems to be 3 possibilities:
1. People who don't like eating meat;
2. People who don't care /mind what they eat;
3. People who like eating meat.
I meant those people who just like eating meat. Probably, in thinking about Venn diagrams here, this category is broad enough to encompass both those people who don't mind what they eat but think meat has a positive flavor, as well as people who enjoy meat and seek it out as part of their diet (above, that's #3 and some of #2). The first group will not make special efforts about meat at the grocery store, while the second group will. Both groups are held in the group "just like eating meat", as I understand it. Those who don't like it, obviously, are not included, as well as those who don't care what they eat but think meat has a negative flavor.

The example of someone eating a well-done steak who is yet revolted at seeing a rare steak being eaten is an example of someone who both does and does not just like eating meat, depending on the situation, but I decided not to be pedantic about the term 'just' and include these people in the group 'just like eating meat' as well.
In Venn terms don't 2 and 3 overlap in that some people who don't care what they eat also like meat? And similar to your rare steak position aren't there some people who don't like eating meat (category 1) but who can enjoy the company of other people eating meat so they would also qualify as "does and does not" enjoy eating meat......I really like this "does and does not" option. It reminds me somehow of my most recent musings on rebirth. If you can expand on this option maybe you could start a thread about it......I would attend such a thread regularly......
chownah

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by daverupa » Sat Sep 07, 2013 3:59 pm

chownah wrote:In Venn terms don't 2 and 3 overlap in that some people who don't care what they eat also like meat?
The way it's phrased, 2 overlaps with both 1 and 3 in various ways. I broke this apart in the text but left them apart at the end, so I apologize for this lack of clarity. Probably I should have added a diagram.
And similar to your rare steak position aren't there some people who don't like eating meat (category 1) but who can enjoy the company of other people eating meat so they would also qualify as "does and does not" enjoy eating meat
This is the goal of equanimity in this case; I think the ability to enjoy the company of this or that culinary companion will be informed by equanimity in personally difficult cases, good-will in personally easeful cases. The Vinaya rule to keep your eyes on your own bowl is instructive here. A discussion of the ethics of eating can happen with ones eyes on one's own bowl.
......I really like this "does and does not" option. It reminds me somehow of my most recent musings on rebirth. If you can expand on this option maybe you could start a thread about it......I would attend such a thread regularly......
chownah
I'm not sure how it can be expanded, exactly. For any disposition, there is a way to chart other dispositions such that some are held favorably and some are held disfavorably. No one person is wholly praised or wholly blamed, you know? I find that it's important to remember the contextual nature of our personal views; the Buddha's encompassing wisdom suggested, in the Brahmajala Sutta, that making hard and fast claims on the basis of limited access to information was a rather huge problem...
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

Dinsdale
Posts: 6135
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Dinsdale » Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:17 am

daverupa wrote:
chownah wrote:In Venn terms don't 2 and 3 overlap in that some people who don't care what they eat also like meat?
The way it's phrased, 2 overlaps with both 1 and 3 in various ways. I broke this apart in the text but left them apart at the end, so I apologize for this lack of clarity. Probably I should have added a diagram.

This is the goal of equanimity in this case; I think the ability to enjoy the company of this or that culinary companion will be informed by equanimity in personally difficult cases, good-will in personally easeful cases. The Vinaya rule to keep your eyes on your own bowl is instructive here. A discussion of the ethics of eating can happen with ones eyes on one's own bowl.
Yes, my groups were simplistic, and in practice it's a continuum. But is distinguishing equanimity from indifference really that straightforward? In the first case we don't mind, in the second we don't care - but then, perhaps we should care what's "in our bowl" - that seems to be the implication of the 3-fold rule.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
appicchato
Posts: 1603
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:47 am
Location: Bridge on the River Kwae

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by appicchato » Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:16 am

...is distinguishing equanimity from indifference really that straightforward?
I was trying to wrap my head around this one...and came to the conclusion (at this point in time) that it is...what's the dif whether we don't mind or we don't care?...checking the dictionary out for origins (not necessarily their etymology), equanimity, basically, boils down to 'equal mind', and indifference, basically, boils down to 'having no partiality for, or against', or 'not making any difference'...one could nitpick, although it might seem (to some) to be a case of basic semantics...so, this one opts for discerning over distinguishing...
'

User avatar
appicchato
Posts: 1603
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:47 am
Location: Bridge on the River Kwae

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by appicchato » Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:05 am

...the Buddha did eat meat if it was offered
Not everyone believes this to be carved in stone...personally, this rube likes to think, and believes, that the Buddha was a vegi...

To state the obvious, eating meat requires the taking of life, period...in my heart of heart's I truly think the Buddha thought long and hard before making the 'allowance'...it's (to me) a little ironic that just a little north from his home turf (Tibet), some people subsist solely on barley their entire lives, nothing else, just barley (so I've read)...

The 'last meal' details are neither definitive, nor conclusive, one way or the other...
:pig:

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by daverupa » Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:30 am

Spiny Norman wrote:But is distinguishing equanimity from indifference really that straightforward? In the first case we don't mind, in the second we don't care - but then, perhaps we should care what's "in our bowl" - that seems to be the implication of the 3-fold rule.
I'm not sure indifference and equanimity need to be distinguished, as these words might mean the same or different things depending on the sentences they end up being used within. Distinguish them for oneself, as necessary, else they can be synonyms.

And we should care what's in our bowls because we should be attending to our own training with great concern - but a lot of this thread is caring about what's in other peoples' bowls, grouping others and expressing ill-will towards those groups, and so forth...
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

Jhana4
Posts: 1309
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:20 pm
Location: U.S.A., Northeast

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Jhana4 » Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:59 am

Is there any point to this thread? It seems like the same people or similar people talking past each other( over and over again). If you take the time to post a quality post it will only be visible for a few days before it gets lost in a heap of more than 2000 posts.
In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.

User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8504
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by cooran » Sun Sep 08, 2013 12:05 pm

Jhana4,

If you don't see any point in a thread - don't enter the discussion,

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 ---

Dinsdale
Posts: 6135
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Dinsdale » Sun Sep 08, 2013 12:17 pm

appicchato wrote:
...is distinguishing equanimity from indifference really that straightforward?
I was trying to wrap my head around this one...and came to the conclusion (at this point in time) that it is...what's the dif whether we don't mind or we don't care?.....
'
The point I was making was that the 3-fold rule suggests we should care about what we eat. I would also suggest that the 3-fold rule sits in a wider context of Right Intention, metta and the first precept.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 6135
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Dinsdale » Sun Sep 08, 2013 12:19 pm

daverupa wrote:-I'm not sure indifference and equanimity need to be distinguished....
And yet I have seen detailed discussions on this forum about the distinction between indifference and equanimity, so it is apparently of some importance.
Last edited by Dinsdale on Sun Sep 08, 2013 12:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Jhana4
Posts: 1309
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:20 pm
Location: U.S.A., Northeast

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Jhana4 » Sun Sep 08, 2013 12:26 pm

cooran wrote:Jhana4,

If you don't see any point in a thread - don't enter the discussion,

With metta,
Chris
Translation: "If you have a critical opinion, the door is that way" ?
In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.

Dinsdale
Posts: 6135
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Dinsdale » Sun Sep 08, 2013 12:28 pm

daverupa wrote:And we should care what's in our bowls because we should be attending to our own training with great concern - but a lot of this thread is caring about what's in other peoples' bowls, grouping others and expressing ill-will towards those groups, and so forth...
OK, so it's about training. But we often debate different approaches to training on this forum.
Here's another one: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=13559
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 68 guests