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: 6513
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Cittasanto » Sun Aug 14, 2016 5:58 am

cjmacie wrote:Just to throw some gasoline (petrol) on the smoldering embers here: :jumping:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/italy-law-vegan-diet_us_57ac4664e4b0db3be07d446b

or (lots of different coverage this week):
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37034619

As both links point out it is due to a number of a vegan diet attributed child malnourishment cases that have happened in Italy. And as is also mentioned opposition to the law at this time argue education is better than punishment.

Today the sort of news that led upto this law being drafted should not be happening due to all the supplements added to foods.... And although I disagree with the law and agree education is the way forward, I understand where this law is coming from and the need for the government to do something. Hopefully, the proposed law will fail but have the benefit of causing parents to better educate themselves, until educational information, recipes... can be published to aid parents.

Yours In Truth
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

chownah
Posts: 5383
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby chownah » Sun Aug 14, 2016 7:04 am

Better education for parents is a good thing. Why limit it to vegan diets? Lots of parents feed their children stuff that boggles the mind.....but humanity keeps on stumbling along anyway....same as it ever was...
chownah

Virgo
Posts: 1315
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Virgo » Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:19 pm

Is vegan food better than regular food? Let us find out.

phpBB [video]


Kevin

TRobinson465
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm

Re: Does been a vegetarian mean gods are with you?

Postby TRobinson465 » Sun Aug 28, 2016 5:12 am

David N. Snyder wrote:I believe a vegetarian diet can be either unwholesome, neutral, or wholesome.

If the intention is for self-aggrandizement, to belittle and ridicule omnivores, then that would be unwholesome.

If the intention is only for eating healthy and nutritious diet, then perhaps neutral kamma, neither good nor bad.

If the intention is to contribute to less killing and harm to animals; then that would be wholesome. (Referring to lay people, not monks who receive what is placed in alms bowls.)


This summarizes my opinion on the great vegetarian debate perfectly lol. But also, i think it really isnt something that important in the overall practice.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism"

Luca123
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2015 5:46 am

Re: Does been a vegetarian mean gods are with you?

Postby Luca123 » Tue Sep 20, 2016 1:57 am

David N. Snyder wrote:I believe a vegetarian diet can be either unwholesome, neutral, or wholesome.

If the intention is for self-aggrandizement, to belittle and ridicule omnivores, then that would be unwholesome.

If the intention is only for eating healthy and nutritious diet, then perhaps neutral kamma, neither good nor bad.

If the intention is to contribute to less killing and harm to animals; then that would be wholesome. (Referring to lay people, not monks who receive what is placed in alms bowls.)

mature Buddhists think not just of the effects their actions have on themselves but the effects they have on others also, and whether one kills an animal with one's own hands or buys meat from a supermarket, in both cases a sentient being is dead as a result. Consequently, there are Buddhists who feel that by not eating meat they are helping to lessen some of the cruelty in the world, and to this degree vegetarianism is more consistent with the general spirit of the first Precept.
Buddhism A to Z
http://buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=442


I think your comment expresses a point of view based only on the desires of human beings without taking into consideration the even more stringent desire and will to life of animals unnecessarily and brutally killed to appeal the stomach of human beings

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1422
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby lyndon taylor » Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:22 am

Yeah, if you do a good thing for bad reasons, you're still doing a good thing.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/

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

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby dhammarelax » Tue Sep 20, 2016 1:38 pm

Dear Friends

If we consider that animals are killed because we are eating meat hence a vegetarian diet would produce a better Karma, would it be also true for example that if we consider the wars in the middle east waged for oil then using electricity generated using it or driving a car or riding a car would generate unwholesome kamma? it seems that many articles that we consume every day can have an origin that involves unwholesome action, even eating vegetables means that insects have to be killed and if insects are killed then the animals that feed on them are also killed, it seems that the Buddha does not take in account this long consequences but he rather focuses on the immediate action/intention.

If the Buddha would have thought that a vegetarian diet is better then why did not instruct the lay people to follow one?

Smile
dhammarelax
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
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
Posts: 10148
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby David N. Snyder » Tue Sep 20, 2016 3:01 pm

dhammarelax wrote:If we consider that animals are killed because we are eating meat hence a vegetarian diet would produce a better Karma, would it be also true for example that if we consider the wars in the middle east waged for oil then using electricity generated using it or driving a car or riding a car would generate unwholesome kamma?


No, because it is not the direct intent. However, it might produce wholesome kamma if the intent is to have less wars, less of a carbon footprint, etc. It is always a good idea to consume less fossil fuel, energy, etc for the sake of the environment. This does not mean those who consume are doing something unwholesome, but it is still a good idea to conserve and if that is the intent, then yes, there could be wholesome kamma generated.

User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 3350
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Bhikkhu Pesala » Tue Sep 20, 2016 3:36 pm

lyndon taylor wrote:Yeah, if you do a good thing for bad reasons, you're still doing a good thing.

Up to a point, yes, but not in every case.

In the case of being a vegetarian merely for self-aggrandisement, to make yourself appear superior to others, then where is the wholesome kamma? It's not done out of compassion for animals, but only for a sense of superiority, which is pride (māna), an unwholesome mental state.

What makes some action wholesome or unwholesome is the intention behind it. If done for the sake of one's own health, or to be easily contented, or out of compassion for animals, these are all wholesome: loving-kindness for oneself, non-greed, and compassion.
AIM WebsitePāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1422
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby lyndon taylor » Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:22 pm

Most of the vegetarians I know do it because they love animals, that and the health benefits, I hardly think self aggrandizement comes into it.....
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1122
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Coëmgenu » Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:00 am

lyndon taylor wrote:Most of the vegetarians I know do it because they love animals, that and the health benefits, I hardly think self aggrandizement comes into it.....
In my experience, vegetarians who get judgemental and holier-than-thou about their newfound meatlessness frequently are only in it for that, and don't stick with vegetarianism once the novelty of it has worn off for them. They are an extreme minority.
Bhagavā arahaṃ sammasāmbuddho:
Svākkhāto yena bhagavatā dhammo / Supaṭipanno yassa bhagavato sāvakasaṅgho
Tammayaṃ bhagavantaṃ sadhammaṃ sasaṅghaṃ / Imehi sakkārehi yathārahaṃ āropitehi abhipūjayāma.
(Dedication of Offerings)
此等諸法,法住、法空、法如、法爾,法不離如,法不異如,審諦真實、不顛倒。These many dharmāḥ, the residence of these dharmāḥ, the emptiness of these dharmāḥ, these dharmāḥ self-explain, these dharmāḥ are thus, these dharmāḥ do not depart from their self-explaining, these dharmāḥ are not different than their self-explaining, judged as truly real, not delusional. (SA 296, 因緣法)
揭諦揭諦,波羅揭諦,波羅僧揭諦,菩提薩婆訶

davidbrainerd
Posts: 818
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby davidbrainerd » Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:04 am

Coëmgenu wrote:
lyndon taylor wrote:Most of the vegetarians I know do it because they love animals, that and the health benefits, I hardly think self aggrandizement comes into it.....
In my experience, vegetarians who get judgemental and holier-than-thou about their newfound meatlessness frequently are only in it for that, and don't stick with vegetarianism once the novelty of it has worn off for them. They are an extreme minority.


Vegans are really bad with the holier-than-thou. And I've noticed some of the loudest mouthed vegans on youtube support abortion. So its wrong to eat some cheese or honey, but Ok to kill a human baby. That's total nonsense.

Faelig
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Faelig » Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:48 am

dhammarelax wrote:If we consider that animals are killed because we are eating meat hence a vegetarian diet would produce a better Karma, would it be also true for example that if we consider the wars in the middle east waged for oil then using electricity generated using it or driving a car or riding a car would generate unwholesome kamma? it seems that many articles that we consume every day can have an origin that involves unwholesome action, even eating vegetables means that insects have to be killed and if insects are killed then the animals that feed on them are also killed, it seems that the Buddha does not take in account this long consequences but he rather focuses on the immediate action/intention.


It's true. If one stops eating meat because he sees the relationship between his consumption and deaths of animals, why stop there? As you mention, eating vegetables leads to the killing of insects. And everything we do is linked in one way or another to the pain and deaths of some living beings.

Rather than concluding that we should not look into these long-term consequences why not conclude that living is always associated with harming other living beings, and therefore for their welfare we need to get out of samsara.
Maybe these lines of thoughts should actually be cultivated: they could promote 'saṃvega' and a healthy desire to reduce our harmfulness to other living beings by minimizing our footprint in this world as much as possible.

And the holy life revealed by the Buddha (forest-dwelling rags-wearing mendicants with strong sila etc) is doing, in my opinion, exactly that: it is the life that is probably the least harmful while still in samsara.

Even abstaining from injuring seeds and plants is part of the 'gradual training', a central teaching found many times in the suttas:
MN51 (B. Bodhi transl): "Having thus gone forth and possessing the bhikkhu’s training and way of life, abandoning the killing of living beings, he abstains from killing living beings; with rod and weapon laid aside, conscientious, merciful, he abides compassionate to all living beings. [...] He abstains from injuring seeds and plants. [...] He abstains from wounding, murdering, binding, brigandage, plunder, and violence."
.
The simile of the desert and the parents eating their child is as well a powerful image of how even the simple act of eating to survive should be seen as harmful.

User avatar
samseva
Posts: 1991
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby samseva » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:59 am

lyndon taylor wrote:Yeah, if you do a good thing for bad reasons, you're still doing a good thing.

Actually, it's rather the opposite. It's not black and white, and externally the result might be positive, but if you "do a good thing" for bad reasons, then ultimately it is still unwholesome kamma.

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1422
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby lyndon taylor » Thu Sep 22, 2016 3:13 am

samseva wrote:
lyndon taylor wrote:Yeah, if you do a good thing for bad reasons, you're still doing a good thing.

Actually, it's rather the opposite. It's not black and white, and externally the result might be positive, but if you "do a good thing" for bad reasons, then ultimately it is still unwholesome kamma.


You don't get it, if I do a good thing like feed starving children for bad reasons, It is still a good thing for the starving children, likewise with not eating animals, it is still a good thing for the animals you're not eating.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 3350
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Bhikkhu Pesala » Thu Sep 22, 2016 3:21 am

lyndon taylor wrote:You don't get it, if I do a good thing like feed starving children for bad reasons, It is still a good thing for the starving children, likewise with not eating animals, it is still a good thing for the animals you're not eating.

There are plenty of peodophiles in Asia who entice poor children by buying them food etc. Is it a good thing that they're doing?
AIM WebsitePāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1122
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Coëmgenu » Thu Sep 22, 2016 3:28 am

lyndon taylor wrote:
samseva wrote:
lyndon taylor wrote:Yeah, if you do a good thing for bad reasons, you're still doing a good thing.

Actually, it's rather the opposite. It's not black and white, and externally the result might be positive, but if you "do a good thing" for bad reasons, then ultimately it is still unwholesome kamma.


You don't get it, if I do a good thing like feed starving children for bad reasons, It is still a good thing for the starving children, likewise with not eating animals, it is still a good thing for the animals you're not eating.
I don't claim to be an expert in Buddhadharma. But if one were you rhetorically feed starving children for the selfish purposes of gaining fame and reputation (lets say you were being filmed while doing so), the positive karma of feeding the children doesn't "cancel out" the negative mindset generated by indulging in egoistic fame-seeking. Similarly, the negative mindset generated by indulging in egoistic fame-seeking does not negate the positive karma of feeding the children. They are both generated and the result will be either positive or negative, depending on the needs of the children being fed and how self-absorbed one is in regard to one's social standing/fame. Does this seem reasonable?
Bhagavā arahaṃ sammasāmbuddho:
Svākkhāto yena bhagavatā dhammo / Supaṭipanno yassa bhagavato sāvakasaṅgho
Tammayaṃ bhagavantaṃ sadhammaṃ sasaṅghaṃ / Imehi sakkārehi yathārahaṃ āropitehi abhipūjayāma.
(Dedication of Offerings)
此等諸法,法住、法空、法如、法爾,法不離如,法不異如,審諦真實、不顛倒。These many dharmāḥ, the residence of these dharmāḥ, the emptiness of these dharmāḥ, these dharmāḥ self-explain, these dharmāḥ are thus, these dharmāḥ do not depart from their self-explaining, these dharmāḥ are not different than their self-explaining, judged as truly real, not delusional. (SA 296, 因緣法)
揭諦揭諦,波羅揭諦,波羅僧揭諦,菩提薩婆訶

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1422
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby lyndon taylor » Thu Sep 22, 2016 4:28 am

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:
lyndon taylor wrote:You don't get it, if I do a good thing like feed starving children for bad reasons, It is still a good thing for the starving children, likewise with not eating animals, it is still a good thing for the animals you're not eating.

There are plenty of peodophiles in Asia who entice poor children by buying them food etc. Is it a good thing that they're doing?


That's kind of an extreme example, no ones claiming people are being vegetarian in order to molest children, are they. The point is they are doing it for their own ego, that may not be good kamma for them, but its still good kamma for the animals they don't eat.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 3350
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Bhikkhu Pesala » Thu Sep 22, 2016 5:16 am

lyndon taylor wrote:The point is they are doing it for their own ego, that may not be good kamma for them, but its still good kamma for the animals they don't eat.

I think you don't understand what kamma is. That animals get slaughtered for their meat is the resultant (vipāka) of their own previous kamma.

Even vegetarians who abstain from eating meat out of compassion cannot prevent animals being slaughtered by people who do not believe in kamma.
AIM WebsitePāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)

User avatar
samseva
Posts: 1991
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby samseva » Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:33 am

lyndon taylor wrote:You don't get it, if I do a good thing like feed starving children for bad reasons, It is still a good thing for the starving children, likewise with not eating animals, it is still a good thing for the animals you're not eating.

For the action to be good, it must first be acted upon by a wholesome intention. Yes, with a third-person perspective, having fed starving children can be considered "good", and the children will be happy to eat some food. However, if the person did this with intentions based on greed, hate or delusion, the action is unwholesome.


Return to “Connections to Other Paths”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], robertk and 4 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine