Page 53 of 380

Re: what's wrong with eating meat?

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:38 am
by pilgrim
appicchato wrote:For this vegetarian it's a no brainer...if one has the idea to lessen suffering in this life, and can be nourished quite nicely on a multitude of alternatives, why would anyone wish to cause the pain and death of another living being?...is it really necessary to kill our four legged, flying, and finny friends to survive?...to me the answer is no...I believe the Buddha allowed it because he saw, at that critical time, the necessity of getting the fledging Sangha of monks and nuns going, and realized that it might have been too much of a burden on lay support to specify...(and my heart tells me he wasn't a flesh fan)...leading anything approaching a spiritual life dosen't include causing suffering, and death, of our fellow sentients...if I were asked...
Would not the same argument then also require one to insist only on pesticide free vegetables, to refrain from using leather, as well as paper and wood-based products as the felling or trees inevitably results in loss of animal habitat, metals as it requires extensive land clearing and destruction?

Re: what's wrong with eating meat?

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:40 am
by DNS
Hi pilgrim,

The "pork" view / interpretation can also be seen as a "pro-meat" bias of the situation. Especially when you consider that there is no mention of meat or flesh anywhere in that passage.

In other instances in the Pali Canon I have so far only seen mamsa used in the Pali, for example sukaramamsa (Anguttara Nikaya III. 49) to describe meat or flesh.

We are most likely not going to agree on this and that is fine.

Re: what's wrong with eating meat?

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:50 am
by Prasadachitta
pilgrim wrote:
appicchato wrote:For this vegetarian it's a no brainer...if one has the idea to lessen suffering in this life, and can be nourished quite nicely on a multitude of alternatives, why would anyone wish to cause the pain and death of another living being?...is it really necessary to kill our four legged, flying, and finny friends to survive?...to me the answer is no...I believe the Buddha allowed it because he saw, at that critical time, the necessity of getting the fledging Sangha of monks and nuns going, and realized that it might have been too much of a burden on lay support to specify...(and my heart tells me he wasn't a flesh fan)...leading anything approaching a spiritual life dosen't include causing suffering, and death, of our fellow sentients...if I were asked...
Would not the same argument then also require one to insist only on pesticide free vegetables, to refrain from using leather, as well as paper and wood-based products as the felling or trees inevitably results in loss of animal habitat, metals as it requires extensive land clearing and destruction?
Indeed The judicious use of resources is in my opinion ethically prudent.

Re: what's wrong with eating meat?

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 5:03 am
by Prasadachitta
x dlete

Re: what's wrong with eating meat?

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 5:04 am
by pilgrim
David N. Snyder wrote:Hi pilgrim,

The "pork" view / interpretation can also be seen as a "pro-meat" bias of the situation. Especially when you consider that there is no mention of meat or flesh anywhere in that passage.

In other instances in the Pali Canon I have so far only seen mamsa used in the Pali, for example sukaramamsa (Anguttara Nikaya III. 49) to describe meat or flesh.

We are most likely not going to agree on this and that is fine.
It appears that we will not agree, but I feel the wiki article is not objective.

1. There is no basis to think the majority of scholars think the term refers to mushrooms. A few, yes, some maybe, the majority? highly unlikely.
2. To think it is mushrooms is a desired translation, not an objective one. To the argument above, pls show me reference that mushrooms was referred to anywhere, not only in the passage but the entire sutta. There is no connection between pigs and mushrooms except for that obscure European practice. To think that Indians had the same practice 2,500 years ago is ridiculous. Truffles are not eaten or even known in India.
3. There is adequate evidence elsewhere that the Buddha ate meat and expressly allowed his monks to do so.

I can understand why people would wish it to be otherwise, but by the principle of Occam's Razor, "simplest explanation is usually the correct one" - it is more likely to be pork.

Re: what's wrong with eating meat?

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 5:05 am
by Prasadachitta
Today I ordered a vegetarian meal at a restaurant as I practice eating vegetarian. A couple sitting next to me got up and left leaving a chicken breast to be thrown away. I reached over and speared the chicken with my fork and added it to my meal. I did not add to the demand for meat I made an effort to conserve resources. Ethical practice does not always need to fit into simple guidelines. :juggling:


Metta

Gabe

Re: what's wrong with eating meat?

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 5:15 am
by DNS
Hi pilgrim,

See, I told ya we would not agree on this. :D

There are scholars and respected teachers on both sides of this debate. So there could be some merit in both positions. Neither view can be called or labeled as not being objective or as misrepresentation. Such a label would border on or be an ad hominem. So therefore, there are two primary views on this and as I stated we are not going to agree on this.

I was writing on the last meal in my posts in this thread, not on the Threefold Rule, lay people choosing to eat meat, or any of the other issues related to the vegetarian-meat debates.

If you see my article, I openly admit that I have found one reference and apparently there is only this one reference in the entire Pali Canon where the Buddha eats mamsa (out of pity, to accept the meal), which is clearly flesh / meat. However, there are numerous other references to simple vegetarian / vegan foods, around what appears to be 95 percent of his diet.

Re: what's wrong with eating meat?

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 5:24 am
by Vepacitta
I'm just wondering - just wondering mind you - do you really think Anapindika would have served only vegetarian food to the Tathagata - he was very rich - as were other followers of the Buddha who invited him to meals - perhaps they would have served meat to the Buddha? The texts seem to read 'where he was served choice hard and soft foods" without a specific reference as to what foods.

It's just a thought - and NO BIGGIE - not trying to stir the pot here - and there's no way we'll know anyhow unless we can slingshot around the sun and go back in time - but my warp drive ship is in the shop.

V.

Re: what's wrong with eating meat?

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 5:30 am
by pilgrim
David N. Snyder wrote:Hi pilgrim,

See, I told ya we would not agree on this. :D

There are scholars and respected teachers on both sides of this debate. So there could be some merit in both positions. Neither view can be called or labeled as not being objective or as misrepresentation. Such a label would border on or be an ad hominem. So therefore, there are two primary views on this and as I stated we are not going to agree on this.
You said the majority of scholars believe sukaramaddava is mushrooms. In the absence of evidence, this should be amended.

Some cut and paste -
In Sumangalavilasini --the book of commentary on Mahavagga, Digha Nikaya--, Buddhaghosa Thera wrote that what is called sukara-maddava is "meat of pig of prime species, which is in moderate age --not too young but not too old--, which is tender, which is available in the market for public consumption (pavatta-mamsa)." This opinion is strongly supported by Dhammapala Thera, writer of Paramatthadipani --the commentary book of Udana, Khuddaka Nikaya-- saying that in Maha-atthakatha there is also such a statement. In addition, Buddhadatta Thera who wrote Mathuratthavilasini --a book of commentary on Buddhavamsa, Khuddaka Nikaya-- also stated that one of the thirty natural points for each Sammasambuddha is: His last meal before Final Release is `animal meat' (parinibbanadivase mamsarasabhojanam). In the Tipitaka Scripture in Thai language --published by Mahamakut-rajavidyalay--, and in Burmese language (and its translation in English) --published by Burma Pitaka Association--, the term sukara-maddava is translated into "tender pork"

It seems that Prof. Rhys Davids translated this term as `dried flesh of the boar'.

David: Apologies if my post came across as ad hominem. Not intended to be so, perhaps I'm disturbed by the article which makes as though mushrooms is the accepted translation, when actually that is the desired and IMHO, baseless, interpretation of a minority, who I feel wish to interpret events to support their own position. Their interpretation rest on the premise that the European sport of truffle hunting was practised 2,500 years ago in a land where truffles are unknown.

Re: what's wrong with eating meat?

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 5:59 am
by DNS
Hi pilgrim,

There is no absence of evidence.

Dhammapala, in his commentary to Udana VIII.5, suggests that it refers to young bamboo shoots trampled by pigs (sukarehi maddita-vamsakaliro).

K.E. Neumann, in the preface to his German translation of the Majjhima Nikaya, quotes from an Indian compendium of medicinal plants, the Rajanigantu, several plants beginning with sukara.

Dhammapala is certainly a very respected and credible Pali scholar, writer of many of the Commentaries.

Other suggestions from the Commentaries include: a medicinal plant or yam or tuber (also vegetarian).

Re: what's wrong with eating meat?

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 7:06 am
by tiltbillings
Of interest. There is a foucus is on the Pali texts and early Buddhist history:

http://www.skepticfiles.org/mys3/jivaka.htm

Re: what's wrong with eating meat?

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:43 pm
by poto
pilgrim wrote: You said the majority of scholars believe sukaramaddava is mushrooms. In the absence of evidence, this should be amended.

Some cut and paste -
In Sumangalavilasini --the book of commentary on Mahavagga, Digha Nikaya--, Buddhaghosa Thera wrote that what is called sukara-maddava is "meat of pig of prime species, which is in moderate age --not too young but not too old--, which is tender, which is available in the market for public consumption (pavatta-mamsa)." This opinion is strongly supported by Dhammapala Thera, writer of Paramatthadipani --the commentary book of Udana, Khuddaka Nikaya-- saying that in Maha-atthakatha there is also such a statement. In addition, Buddhadatta Thera who wrote Mathuratthavilasini --a book of commentary on Buddhavamsa, Khuddaka Nikaya-- also stated that one of the thirty natural points for each Sammasambuddha is: His last meal before Final Release is `animal meat' (parinibbanadivase mamsarasabhojanam). In the Tipitaka Scripture in Thai language --published by Mahamakut-rajavidyalay--, and in Burmese language (and its translation in English) --published by Burma Pitaka Association--, the term sukara-maddava is translated into "tender pork"

It seems that Prof. Rhys Davids translated this term as `dried flesh of the boar'.

David: Apologies if my post came across as ad hominem. Not intended to be so, perhaps I'm disturbed by the article which makes as though mushrooms is the accepted translation, when actually that is the desired and IMHO, baseless, interpretation of a minority, who I feel wish to interpret events to support their own position. Their interpretation rest on the premise that the European sport of truffle hunting was practised 2,500 years ago in a land where truffles are unknown.
I agree with this and personally think pork is the most likely translation. Mushrooms seem to be a very far stretch.

The wiki page should be amended. At the very least it should be made to show both sides of the debate over the translation.

To show only one side, smacks of slanting/misinterpreting to conform to personal views. People should be given all information available and allowed to decide for themselves which translation is correct.

Re: what's wrong with eating meat?

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 7:32 pm
by Ben
poto wrote:I agree with this and personally think pork is the most likely translation. Mushrooms seem to be a very far stretch.
And what actually qualifies you to have an opinion on the matter - apart from your own personal prediliction and view?
poto wrote:To show only one side, smacks of slanting/misinterpreting to conform to personal views.
Attend to your own defiled mind.
poto wrote: People should be given all information available and allowed to decide for themselves which translation is correct.
I think you mean People should be given all information available and allowed to decide for themselves which translation best fits with their view of the Buddha and their personal predilictions. Which would be making the same mistake you did. The truth is not arrived at through ignorance.

Re: what's wrong with eating meat?

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 8:32 pm
by DNS
:thanks:

Thanks Ben!

Rather than go with any so-called pro-veggie views or pro-meat biases of certain people, I think I'll stick with the opinion of the scholars mentioned in the article. I did update the page, but to include the important opinions of Dhammapala, one of the greatest Theravada Commentators, if not the most important, who states that the last meal was probably young bamboo shoots.

Re: what's wrong with eating meat?

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 9:33 pm
by poto
Ben wrote: And what actually qualifies you to have an opinion on the matter - apart from your own personal prediliction and view?
Having some farm experience I'd have to say a hog's favorite food is snake. I've seen hogs go wild when they find a snake in the field. They'll carry it around like a trophy, even get to fighting over it. Must be some kinda delicacy to them best as I can figure. Never seen hogs fight over mushrooms.

But you're probably right, I'm just an uneducated fool.