the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
D1W1
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 5:52 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by D1W1 »

Nicolas wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:21 pm
D1W1 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:59 am
What if someone likes meat and prefers to eat meat dishes over non-meat dishes. Greed is unwholesome, right? Thanks.
Greed is greed. Greed for meat or greed for sugar, both are greed for food, gluttony. I would think that the meat aspect is irrelevant in that scenario.
But do you think greed for meat is more unwholesome since it comes from a living being?
How do you define greed in this context? A Bodybuilder, for instance, needs high amount of protein intake. Say 2-4 eggs per day, some consume even more and that does not include other sources of protein. Average bodybuilder needs to consume between 50-120 grams protein per day. Do you think that is gluttonous?

User avatar
Nicolas
Posts: 1047
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Nicolas »

D1W1 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:36 pm
But do you think greed for meat is more unwholesome since it comes from a living being?
How do you define greed in this context? A Bodybuilder, for instance, needs high amount of protein intake. Say 2-4 eggs per day, some consume even more and that does not include other sources of protein. Average bodybuilder needs to consume between 50-120 grams protein per day. Do you think that is gluttonous?
Meat is stuff, dead stuff. That's why one can eat meat with a pure mind, because when you eat meat, there does not need to be any intention of harming. (I'm still a vegetarian myself, though.)

Is there greed in the bodybuilder's mind when he/she eats a lot? In your example, it obviously depends on the person, but if the bodybuilder is planning to eat a lot of protein, there need not be greed in his/her mind, the craving "I want (more)", but simply the plan "I need more if I want to accomplish my goals". There could be greed towards the goal of developing one's physique, but not necessarily any gluttony present (although there could also be).

chownah
Posts: 8860
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah »

In nature, eating meat is just population control on edible animals....and let's face it, all animals are edible.
chownah

User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1023
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by seeker242 »

chownah wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:40 am
In nature, eating meat is just population control on edible animals....and let's face it, all animals are edible.
chownah
Even human beings!

D1W1
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 5:52 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by D1W1 »

Nicolas wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:00 pm
D1W1 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:36 pm
But do you think greed for meat is more unwholesome since it comes from a living being?
How do you define greed in this context? A Bodybuilder, for instance, needs high amount of protein intake. Say 2-4 eggs per day, some consume even more and that does not include other sources of protein. Average bodybuilder needs to consume between 50-120 grams protein per day. Do you think that is gluttonous?
Meat is stuff, dead stuff. That's why one can eat meat with a pure mind, because when you eat meat, there does not need to be any intention of harming. (I'm still a vegetarian myself, though.)

Is there greed in the bodybuilder's mind when he/she eats a lot? In your example, it obviously depends on the person, but if the bodybuilder is planning to eat a lot of protein, there need not be greed in his/her mind, the craving "I want (more)", but simply the plan "I need more if I want to accomplish my goals". There could be greed towards the goal of developing one's physique, but not necessarily any gluttony present (although there could also be).
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?

Spiny Norman
Posts: 7399
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

chownah wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:40 am
In nature, eating meat is just population control on edible animals....and let's face it, all animals are edible.
chownah
But we're not talking about "nature", we're talking about the factory farming of livestock.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Spiny Norman
Posts: 7399
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

Nicolas wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:00 pm
Meat is stuff, dead stuff. That's why one can eat meat with a pure mind, because when you eat meat, there does not need to be any intention of harming. (I'm still a vegetarian myself, though.)
What about the intention of harmlessness in Right Intention? The intention of not harming, rather than just the absence of the intention to harm.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

chownah
Posts: 8860
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah »

Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:17 am
chownah wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:40 am
In nature, eating meat is just population control on edible animals....and let's face it, all animals are edible.
chownah
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".
chownah
Edit: Seeing human activity as being apart from nature is a delusional derivative of a self view....it is such an obvious one that even alot of people who are fully vested in their self view can see the delusional quality of seeing human activity as being apart from nature.
chownah
Last edited by chownah on Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

binocular
Posts: 7767
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by binocular »

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.
“One man’s “magic” is another man’s engineering. “Supernatural” is a null word.”
- Robert Heinlein

chownah
Posts: 8860
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah »

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.
I agree. Instead of saying "In nature, eating meat is just population control on edible animals" I could have said "Eating meat is just population control on edible animals"....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

Spiny Norman
Posts: 7399
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

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!

Spiny Norman
Posts: 7399
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

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!

Spiny Norman
Posts: 7399
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

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: 7767
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by binocular »

Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:58 am
You could argue that killing is "natural".
Your point being?
“One man’s “magic” is another man’s engineering. “Supernatural” is a null word.”
- Robert Heinlein

User avatar
Nicolas
Posts: 1047
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Nicolas »

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.)

Post Reply