Page 306 of 315

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:59 pm
by binocular
seeker242 wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 2:47 pm
I didn't say you said that. I said that's the implication of what you said.
You inferred it.
That's the difference between an implication and an inference.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:43 am
by Dinsdale
lyndon taylor wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:50 pm
chownah wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 1:54 pm
Dinsdale wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:50 am


Perhaps not, but if we choose to buy meat then we are expecting somebody else to violate the First Precept and do wrong livelihood. That seems like hypocrisy to me.
I think that most people buying meat do not have that expectation....I think it dosn't enter their mind at all.
chownah
Well if it doesn't, it should!!
I think it probably should for a Buddhist who is serious about the practice of Right Intention and harmlessness.

"While you are performing a bodily act, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily act I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily act, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to affliction of others, or both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not... you may continue with it."

— MN 61

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:22 pm
by chownah
Dinsdale wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:43 am


"While you are performing a bodily act, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily act I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily act, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to affliction of others, or both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not... you may continue with it."

— MN 61
I think this sutta makes it very clear that if one sees eating meat as leading to affliction then one should give it up and if one sees that eating meat does not lead to affliction then one may continue with it.
chownah

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:39 pm
by lyndon taylor
chownah wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:22 pm
Dinsdale wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:43 am


"While you are performing a bodily act, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily act I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily act, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to affliction of others, or both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not... you may continue with it."

— MN 61
I think this sutta makes it very clear that if one sees eating meat as leading to affliction then one should give it up and if one sees that eating meat does not lead to affliction then one may continue with it.
chownah
Yeah, when you see eating meat is not leading to affliction, as in the killing of animals, you can go ahead and eat it. Unfortunately for you Chownah, eating meat always leads to the killing of animals, I don't know why I have to point this out, it should be quite obvious!!

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:34 am
by chownah
lyndon taylor wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:39 pm
chownah wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:22 pm
Dinsdale wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:43 am


"While you are performing a bodily act, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily act I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily act, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to affliction of others, or both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not... you may continue with it."

— MN 61
I think this sutta makes it very clear that if one sees eating meat as leading to affliction then one should give it up and if one sees that eating meat does not lead to affliction then one may continue with it.
chownah
Yeah, when you see eating meat is not leading to affliction, as in the killing of animals, you can go ahead and eat it. Unfortunately for you Chownah, eating meat always leads to the killing of animals, I don't know why I have to point this out, it should be quite obvious!!
Eating of meat leads to the meat providing nutrients for sustaining the body. Killing animals leads to the killing of animals. I don't know why I have to point this out, it should be quite obvious!!
chownah

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:02 am
by Polar Bear
chownah wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:34 am
lyndon taylor wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:39 pm
chownah wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:22 pm

I think this sutta makes it very clear that if one sees eating meat as leading to affliction then one should give it up and if one sees that eating meat does not lead to affliction then one may continue with it.
chownah
Yeah, when you see eating meat is not leading to affliction, as in the killing of animals, you can go ahead and eat it. Unfortunately for you Chownah, eating meat always leads to the killing of animals, I don't know why I have to point this out, it should be quite obvious!!
Eating of meat leads to the meat providing nutrients for sustaining the body. Killing animals leads to the killing of animals. I don't know why I have to point this out, it should be quite obvious!!
chownah
Yeah, just the eating of meat can't tell us whether it leads to the affliction of others or not. Eating roadkill wouldn't lead to killing, nor would eating meat that others were about to throw away. It is the buying of meat, and eating of other people's meat when that would cause them to buy more meat sooner, that is a problem, because then you are contributing to an economic incentive for those who kill animals for money to continue doing so. In these cases, you are tacitly condoning the slaughter of animals, which is callous, even if we don't realize it or want to think of it that way.

Edit: a callous is a growth that reduces feeling for protective reasons (which may be maladaptive), not a word meant to insult.

:anjali:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:33 am
by Dinsdale
polarbear101 wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:02 am
Yeah, just the eating of meat can't tell us whether it leads to the affliction of others or not. Eating roadkill wouldn't lead to killing, nor would eating meat that others were about to throw away. It is the buying of meat, and eating of other people's meat when that would cause them to buy more meat sooner, that is a problem, because then you are contributing to an economic incentive for those who kill animals for money to continue doing so. In these cases, you are tacitly condoning the slaughter of animals, which is callous, even if we don't realize it or want to think of it that way.
What I see as problematic is the decision to buy meat regularly when dietary alternatives are available. Partly because it doesn't seem consistent with the practice of Right Intention and harmlessness, and partly because it involves somebody else breaking the first precept and doing wrong livelihood.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 10:48 am
by binocular
Dinsdale wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:33 am
What I see as problematic is the decision to buy meat regularly when dietary alternatives are available. Partly because it doesn't seem consistent with the practice of Right Intention and harmlessness, and partly because it involves somebody else breaking the first precept and doing wrong livelihood.
Exactly.

Also, I think part of the problem is that many people have a bad attitude to food, in the sense that they eat too much (which partly leads to the problem of obesity and other health problems) and indulge in overly luxurious tastes. It's (partly) because of this that so much food gets produced, and so much gets discarded.

I think that if people would change their attitude to food, this would dramatically change the food production situation, to the point that new solutions could become visible and possible that currently aren't.

The spirit of five precepts

Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 5:43 am
by D1W1
Hi all,

Happy New Year 2018!!

Just a simple question about five precepts.
The first precept tells us to refrain from killing living beings. If everyone in a city practices five precepts, no one will kill animals, everyone will become vegetarian. Is it true the spirit Buddha wants us to develop is vegetarianism? Thanks.

Re: The spirit of five precepts

Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:14 am
by jmccoy
IMO no because I didn't do the killing.

If I don't buy the chicken sandwich, will that chicken then not ever have been killed?

Trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses, ferns, and mosses are all living creatures too but I'll still eat vegetables and use paper etc

Re: The spirit of five precepts

Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:37 am
by justindesilva
jmccoy wrote:
Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:14 am
IMO no because I didn't do the killing.

If I don't buy the chicken sandwich, will that chicken then not ever have been killed?

Trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses, ferns, and mosses are all living creatures too but I'll still eat vegetables and use paper etc
Both Mahayana and Theravada buddhists accept the five precepts in common as a buddhist practise.
The five precepts overlaps the Noble eight fold path in its first five elemants in the path or more so as right action, right word of mouth or right communication and right livelyhood ( samma vaca samma vaya samma ajiva) .
Agganna sutta and Vasetta sutta at places mention the five precepts as valid moral ethics for human beings.
Though I cannot find the relevant passage it is said in buddhist practise that one who strictly observes the five precepts will not be borne in a lower realm from humans.
Five precepts are also the stepping stone to the sovan phala ( stream enterer) .
One who observes the five precepts also protect the environment as they protect others lives while protecting the resources belonging to others while ensuring the sexual rights and protecting the beings from proper nutrition by avoiding illegal liquors and drugs.
May this year of 2018 bring peace and Harmony to all beings with metta.

Re: The spirit of five precepts

Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:48 pm
by befriend
An explanation of Buddhas understanding of this is in the jivaka sutta

Re: The spirit of five precepts

Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:55 pm
by befriend
Sorry wrong sutta but there is a sutta forget the name that explains why Buddhists can eat meat but some ways in which a Buddhist can't eat meat like if the animal was killed for them if they heard the animal scream when it died or if they killed it themselves etc.. Anyone know the name of the this sutta?

Re: The spirit of five precepts

Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 2:49 pm
by cappuccino
You're only human because you kept the precepts…

By not keeping the precepts, people sink in existence…

Re: The spirit of five precepts

Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:58 pm
by dharmacorps
It would be great if everyone would practice the 5 precepts. Or 1 precept. But nowhere on earth at any time has even an entire group or tribe or county or country of people universally practiced 1 precept. So while its an interesting thought experiment, it isn't a very realistic possibility. It isn't emphasized in the suttas for obvious reasons but the number of people who actually undertake the practice will always be small relative to the total population.