the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Dinsdale
Posts: 6676
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Dinsdale » Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:49 am

chownah wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:34 am
but then people might misinterpret what I was saying and think that I was just talking about humans eating meat since that is what the topic is all about....and I am not talking just about humans eating meant...I am talking about how animal bodies are recycled in the cycles of life.....hope I'm not getting to spiritual or new agey here....
chownah
The point is that we humans now usually have a choice of diet. Most of us don't have to eat meat, it's a dietary preference.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 6676
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Dinsdale » Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:50 am

chownah wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:21 am
Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:17 am
But we're not talking about "nature", we're talking about the factory farming of livestock.
I think it must be "natural" because I don't see it as being "supernatural".
:redherring:
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 6676
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Dinsdale » Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:58 am

binocular wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:23 am
chownah wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:21 am
I think it must be "natural" because I don't see it as being "supernatural".
In that case, everything is natural anyway, and we can dispose of the concept of "natural" altogether. There, problem solved.
You could argue that killing is "natural".
Buddha save me from new-agers!

binocular
Posts: 6589
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by binocular » Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:01 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:58 am
You could argue that killing is "natural".
Your point being?
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

User avatar
Nicolas
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Nicolas » Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:07 am

D1W1 wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:57 am
I know meat is non-living thing but maybe it's more related to supply and demand. More meat means more supply therefore greed over meat produces more unwholesome karma compare to greed over non-meat dishes. Is that right?
I don’t know. I imagine that within the intention, there is no connection to offer and demand, so the kamma would be “the same”. And yet, supply/demand is one of the reasons I don’t eat meat myself.
Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:20 am
What about the intention of harmlessness in Right Intention? The intention of not harming, rather than just the absence of the intention to harm.
I would think that one intent on harmlessness can eat meat, because in eating meat there is no (direct) harm nor intention to harm. Again, the monk practicing brahmaviharas in the Jivaka Sutta (MN 55) is certainly intent on harmlessness.

Let’s suppose one likes to collect fossils. Can one do that while being intent on harmlessness? I would think so. (Maybe not the best example, because there is no offer/demand there, but it still gives something of the idea, as far as the intention goes.)

D1W1
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 5:52 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by D1W1 » Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:00 am

Nicolas wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:07 am
I don’t know. I imagine that within the intention, there is no connection to offer and demand, so the kamma would be “the same”. And yet, supply/demand is one of the reasons I don’t eat meat myself.
When we make a personal choice there is always an effect and the effect of an individual meat consumption IMO is insignificant compare to the demand for meat or fast growing of human population. This is the reason I'm considering to eat little meat (currently I am a vegetarian too myself). But when one person is greedy and decided to eat a lot of meat, I'm not quite sure but when I think about it, I don't think that would have a significant effect too. Meat demand is growing fast worldwide and it's kind of scary if we look at this number.

chownah
Posts: 8284
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah » Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:42 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:49 am
chownah wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:34 am
but then people might misinterpret what I was saying and think that I was just talking about humans eating meat since that is what the topic is all about....and I am not talking just about humans eating meant...I am talking about how animal bodies are recycled in the cycles of life.....hope I'm not getting to spiritual or new agey here....
chownah
The point is that we humans now usually have a choice of diet. Most of us don't have to eat meat, it's a dietary preference.
Sure. Those who choose not eating meat can do that. This does not take anything away from what I am saying.
chownah
P.S. In the vegetarian debate thread the point is whatever point anyone wants to discuss....don't start thinking you are the god of the vegetarian thread and you get to dictate what the point is.....hahhahahhah
chownah

chownah
Posts: 8284
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah » Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:44 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:50 am
chownah wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:21 am
Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:17 am
But we're not talking about "nature", we're talking about the factory farming of livestock.
I think it must be "natural" because I don't see it as being "supernatural".
:redherring:
You really should give a hint as to what the red fishy means. To me it just means that you either don't understand what I am saying or you do understand what I am saying and you have no way to refute.
chownah

chownah
Posts: 8284
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah » Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:52 am

Nicolas wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:07 am


Let’s suppose one likes to collect fossils. Can one do that while being intent on harmlessness? I would think so. (Maybe not the best example, because there is no offer/demand there, but it still gives something of the idea, as far as the intention goes.)
I laughed when I read this. I'm not sure if I understand what your intended meaning is but what I get from this is if eating fossils is ok then it must be because the animal was dead for a long time....so how long does an animal have to be dead before it is ok to eat it?....a million years seems to be ok so why not a week? :jumping:
chownah

Dinsdale
Posts: 6676
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Dinsdale » Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:28 pm

Nicolas wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:07 am
Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:20 am
What about the intention of harmlessness in Right Intention? The intention of not harming, rather than just the absence of the intention to harm.
I would think that one intent on harmlessness can eat meat, because in eating meat there is no (direct) harm nor intention to harm. Again, the monk practicing brahmaviharas in the Jivaka Sutta (MN 55) is certainly intent on harmlessness.
If you mean applying the 3-fold rule, I'd agree that this is consistent with the spirit or intention of harmlessness. But it is less clear to me how choosing to buy meat from a butcher or supermarket is consistent with this spirit of harmlessness, since it is adding to the demand for meat and leading to more animals being killed. And of course it is expecting somebody else to break the first precept and do wrong livelihood.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
Nicolas
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Nicolas » Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:07 pm

chownah wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:52 am
Nicolas wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:07 am
Let’s suppose one likes to collect fossils. Can one do that while being intent on harmlessness? I would think so. (Maybe not the best example, because there is no offer/demand there, but it still gives something of the idea, as far as the intention goes.)
I'm not sure if I understand what your intended meaning is but what I get from this is if eating fossils is ok then it must be because the animal was dead for a long time....so how long does an animal have to be dead before it is ok to eat it?....a million years seems to be ok so why not a week?
Yes, the idea was that I expected most people having no issue with collecting (eating?) fossils, and comparing that with meat, thus making it “okay” (but again, no offer/demand there.)
Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:28 pm
If you mean applying the 3-fold rule, I'd agree that this is consistent with the spirit or intention of harmlessness. But it is less clear to me how choosing to buy meat from a butcher or supermarket is consistent with this spirit of harmlessness, since it is adding to the demand for meat and leading to more animals being killed. And of course it is expecting somebody else to break the first precept and do wrong livelihood.
I guess I agree with you in the end, the spirit of harmlessness might not be fully there. It still feels like the harm belongs to another (+threefold rule), but like I said, I am sufficiently unsure/I agree with you enough that I don’t buy or eat meat. Unrelated, but another argument for me is that in an ideal country where all lay people follow the precepts, no meat would be accessible, and so I act as if that is the case.

chownah
Posts: 8284
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah » Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:30 pm

But it is less clear to me how choosing to buy meat from a butcher or supermarket is consistent with this spirit of harmlessness
I guess then that it is also less clear if someone buys vegetables or fruits that are not organically grown and so involve killing by poisoning untold multitudes of beings be consistent with this spirit of harmlessness.

I guess then that it is less clear if someone buys organic fruits and vegetables that are grown with the manure from cows how this could be consistent with this spirit of harmlessness. chownah

D1W1
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 5:52 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by D1W1 » Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:04 pm

D1W1 wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:00 am
When we make a personal choice there is always an effect and the effect of an individual meat consumption IMO is insignificant compare to the demand for meat or fast growing of human population. This is the reason I'm considering to eat little meat (currently I am a vegetarian too myself). But when one person is greedy and decided to eat a lot of meat, I'm not quite sure but when I think about it, I don't think that would have a significant effect too. Meat demand is growing fast worldwide and it's kind of scary if we look at this number.
I would like to add. Someone eats 250 gr of steak, after he finishes it he is still a bit hungry then he orders another 250 gr steak. Would you call that greedy?

chownah
Posts: 8284
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah » Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:01 am

D1W1 wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:04 pm

I would like to add. Someone eats 250 gr of steak, after he finishes it he is still a bit hungry then he orders another 250 gr steak. Would you call that greedy?
Seems like gluttony.....it would be greedy if he ate up all the steak and wouldn't let others have any.
chownah
edit: I just looked at the definition for greedy and I was surprised to learn that d1w1's use of the word is correct. As to whether eating 500 grams of steak is excessive indulgence in food I would say that probably it is although from some teen agers this might be a pretty typical meal....when I was a teenager I sometimes ate that much steak in one meal and did not feel like I had overeaten. Even now I think that 250 gr of steak would not be excessive for me to eat (not sure because I very seldom eat steak and when I do I don't weigh it)...so I can imagine that others might want to eat more.
chownah

D1W1
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 5:52 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by D1W1 » Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:11 am

chownah wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:01 am
D1W1 wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:04 pm

I would like to add. Someone eats 250 gr of steak, after he finishes it he is still a bit hungry then he orders another 250 gr steak. Would you call that greedy?
Seems like gluttony.....it would be greedy if he ate up all the steak and wouldn't let others have any.
chownah
edit: I just looked at the definition for greedy and I was surprised to learn that d1w1's use of the word is correct. As to whether eating 500 grams of steak is excessive indulgence in food I would say that probably it is although from some teen agers this might be a pretty typical meal....when I was a teenager I sometimes ate that much steak in one meal and did not feel like I had overeaten. Even now I think that 250 gr of steak would not be excessive for me to eat (not sure because I very seldom eat steak and when I do I don't weigh it)...so I can imagine that others might want to eat more.
chownah
I think probably it's (highly) subjective. For example, two persons orders the second bowl of the same chicken fried rice. The first person orders another bowl because of the taste of that delicious chicken fried rice. Another person orders the second bowl with different state of mind i.e. today is gonna be a long day, I need more energy to accomplish the task. I would say the first person is greedy but the second person is not.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 88 guests