Page 307 of 359

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:36 pm
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?

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:00 pm
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).

Re: the great vegetarian debate

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

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:28 am
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!

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:57 am
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?

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:17 am
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.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:20 am
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.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:21 am
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

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:23 am
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.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:34 am
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

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:49 am
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.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:50 am
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:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:58 am
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".

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:01 am
by binocular
Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:58 am
You could argue that killing is "natural".
Your point being?

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:07 am
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.)