the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Meat eating

Post by beeblebrox » Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:32 pm

robertk wrote:
Mr Man wrote:To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales.
Was general siha involved in killing animals
when he fed meat to the monks?
I think you misread Mr Man's statement.

User avatar
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Meat eating

Post by beeblebrox » Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:55 pm

robertk wrote:
Sam Vara wrote:Sekha:
Sure. For myself, I nevertheless consider that my attitude has an impact, however small it may be. I am quite eager to obtain the 'fruit' so I want to put all odds on my side.
For me, this is one of the best quotes in this whole massive debate. It is as humble as it is intelligent, and I thank you for it.
Yes wrong view is the main obstacle to obtaining any fruits
Devadatta, the vegetarian monk, had such.
Sekha's intention might be different from Devadatta's. If I understand correctly, Devadatta was trying to show others that he was better.

User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: Meat eating

Post by LonesomeYogurt » Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:56 pm

An important point made twice in Sujato Bhikkhu's article on Buddhist Vegetarianism:

"Indeed, there are several Vinaya rules that were laid down in response to the actions of arahants. An arahant cannot act in an intentionally harmful manner, so these rules cannot be taken to imply that the motivation behind the acts was wrong. The acts have unintended harmful consequences, and this is why they are prohibited."

"The notion that actions should not be done, even when they involve no harmful intention, is found constantly in the Vinaya. For example, a monk is criticised for baking bricks that have small creatures in them, even though he was unaware of them and did not intend any harm. The Buddha laid down a rule forbidding this."

To frame the debate around the consumption of meat in purely kammic terms is to, in my mind, miss the point. An action that leads to the suffering of living beings should be avoided (as per the Buddha's instructions to Rahula) regardless of whether or not the intention behind it is pure; as quoted above, many Vinaya rules address behaviors that were performed without even the possibility of malice or ill-will. If it is truly intention and only intention that matters in regards to the worth of an action, then why did the Buddha stop the monk from killing creatures he did not know existed? If intention is the sole determiner of an action's moral worth, then why did the Buddha prohibit an action that, while destructive, had no intentional harm behind it?

I believe a far more realistic approach to morality would dictate that we, as Buddhists, should not only cleanse ourselves of any malice or ill-will but also attempt to investigate our habitual behaviors and see if they fit the rubric provided by the Lord Buddha to Rahula:

"Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any bodily action of that sort is fit for you to do.
I don't think that a Western Buddhist, having available to him or her mountains of data illustrating the affliction that the meat industry brings upon living beings, can honestly look at their purchasing power and see it as completely devoid of complicity. The question is not what we can get away with, or what the precepts do and don't allow, but what does or doesn't lead to suffering; I would at least humbly suggest that those who consume meat really examine the nature of the industry and see if they come to the same conclusions.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.

User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Meat eating

Post by DAWN » Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:09 pm

Thanks you Dear LonesomeYogurt :namaste:
Hope you will not be punish by Moderation Team.

Only that i want to say, it's just that i prefere have no any fruition for my self, but let living beings live.
What is that fruition that is talking about, when this fruition will be full of blood?

The only Noble Fruit is freedom. Freedom from body attachement and taste attachement too.

Metta for all living beings who suffer because of egoism and ignorance. For all who seek for freedom by slavering others. :meditate:
I wish you all get free. Because it's horrible what ignorance can do... It's realy horrible.
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Meat eating

Post by tiltbillings » Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:17 pm

DAWN wrote:Thanks you Dear LonesomeYogurt :namaste:
Hope you will not be punish by Moderation Team..
You will notice that there is no punidshment by moderation team. There was no violation of the TOS.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Meat eating

Post by tiltbillings » Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:20 pm

LonesomeYogurt wrote:I don't think that a Western Buddhist, having available to him or her mountains of data illustrating the affliction that the meat industry brings upon living beings, can honestly look at their purchasing power and see it as completely devoid of complicity.
Yes. Well, there are mountains of data that illustrate that the production of food in general involves the mass destruction of living beings.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3362
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Meat eating

Post by Mr Man » Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:30 pm

robertk wrote:
Mr Man wrote:To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales.
Was general siha involved in killing animals
when he fed meat to the monks?
I'm not sure of the relevance. Can't you see the connection between eating meat and the killing of animals though? Animals are killed so humans can eat meat - it is that simple. If you want to eat meat eat meat but be grown up and except responsibility. Maybe it isn't a big deal? I certainly don't see diet as a great barometer of wisdom or compassion.

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Post by Cittasanto » Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:36 pm

Mr Man wrote:
robertk wrote:
Mr Man wrote:To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales.
Was general siha involved in killing animals
when he fed meat to the monks?
I'm not sure of the relevance. Can't you see the connection between eating meat and the killing of animals though? Animals are killed so humans can eat meat - it is that simple. If you want to eat meat eat meat but be grown up and except responsibility. Maybe it isn't a big deal? I certainly don't see diet as a great barometer of wisdom or compassion.
hopefully this will clear up the relevance.
VinMv.6.31.12/13 Translated from the pali by T.W. Rhys Davids & Hermann Oldenberg wrote:12. And the Blessed One preached to Sîha, the general, in due course; that is to say, he talked about the merits obtained by almsgiving, about the duties of morality (&c., in the usual way; see, for instance, I, 8, 2, 3, down to:) dependent on nobody else for knowledge of the doctrine of the Teacher, he said to the Blessed One; 'Lord, may the Blessed One consent to take his meal with me to-morrow, together with the fraternity of Bhikkhus.'

The Blessed One expressed his consent by remaining silent. Then Sîha, the general, when he understood that the Blessed One had accepted his invitation, rose from his seat, respectfully saluted the Blessed One, and, passing round him with his right side towards him, went away.

And Sîha, the general, gave order to a certain man (among his subalterns, saying), 'Go, my friend, and see if there is any meat to be had 1: And when that night had elapsed, Sîha, the general, ordered excellent food (&c., as in chap. 23. 5, down to the end).

13. At that time a great number of Niganthas (running) through Vesâlî, from road to road and from cross-way to cross-way, with outstretched arms, cried: 'To-day Sîha, the general, has killed a great ox and has made a meal for the Samana Gotama; the Samana Gotama knowingly eats this meat of an animal killed for this very purpose, and has thus become virtually the author of that deed (of killing the animal)!' [my note here - this is a false accusation]

Then a certain man went to the place where Sîha, the general, was. Having approached him he said to Sîha, the general, into his ear: 'Please, Lord, have you noticed that a great number of Niganthas (running) through Vesâlî, &c.?'

'Do not mind it, my good Sir. Long since those venerable brethren are trying to discredit the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Samgha; and those venerable brethren do not become tired of telling false, idle, vain lies of the Blessed One. Not for our life would we ever intentionally kill a living being.'

Note
1 - Pavattamamsa, which Buddhaghosa explains, 'matassa mamsam.' Pavatta means 'already existing,' opposed to what is brought into existence for a special purpose, and pavattamamsa is said here, therefore, in order to exclude uddissa-kata-mamsa (meat of animals killed especially for them), which Bhikkhus were not allowed to partake of (see chap. 3,1. 14). Compare also pavattaphala-bhogana at Gâtaka I, p. 6.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3362
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Meat eating

Post by Mr Man » Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:53 pm

Cittasanto wrote: hopefully this will clear up the relevance.
Thanks Cittasanto, I knew what was being refered to but I do not see it's relevance to my comment. Is it meant as a rebuttal?

User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: Meat eating

Post by LonesomeYogurt » Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:10 am

tiltbillings wrote:Yes. Well, there are mountains of data that illustrate that the production of food in general involves the mass destruction of living beings.
From a purely utilitarian standpoint, it is hard to argue that a strict vegetarian diet is even close to as destructive as one based on meat; moreover, from a philosophical standpoint, it's far more reasonable to advocate a system that unintentionally results in collateral damage over one that is designed specifically to kill.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Meat eating

Post by tiltbillings » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:11 am

LonesomeYogurt wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Yes. Well, there are mountains of data that illustrate that the production of food in general involves the mass destruction of living beings.
From a purely utilitarian standpoint, it is hard to argue that a strict vegetarian diet is even close to as destructive as one based on meat; moreover, from a philosophical standpoint, it's far more reasonable to advocate a system that unintentionally results in collateral damage over one that is designed specifically to kill.
Naw. Once you know that what you eat entails death and a lot of it, you know. Trying to say that this death is of lesser importance than that death is self-serving.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18442
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Meat eating

Post by Ben » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:51 am

How about eating the deceased (humans)?
e92c44d2ca970b524a49ae4a2e0da1bf (1).jpg
e92c44d2ca970b524a49ae4a2e0da1bf (1).jpg (391.93 KiB) Viewed 1872 times
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com..

User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: Meat eating

Post by LonesomeYogurt » Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:28 am

tiltbillings wrote:Naw. Once you know that what you eat entails death and a lot of it, you know. Trying to say that this death is of lesser importance than that death is self-serving.
You honestly don't see a difference between harvesting non-living things, incapable of suffering, in ways that result in the death of lesser beings, and killing living beings directly to eat their dead bodies? There isn't even the slightest bit of difference between those two?

It hardly matters anyway, considering that the meat industry is not an alternative but an addition to industrial agriculture; after all, what do you think we feed to cows to make them nice and fat?
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Meat eating

Post by tiltbillings » Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:19 am

LonesomeYogurt wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Naw. Once you know that what you eat entails death and a lot of it, you know. Trying to say that this death is of lesser importance than that death is self-serving.
You honestly don't see a difference between harvesting non-living things, incapable of suffering, in ways that result in the death of lesser beings, and killing living beings directly to eat their dead bodies? There isn't even the slightest bit of difference between those two?
I am not talking about harvesting non-living things. The act of planting and maintaining and harvesting grains, for example, is highly destructive of "lesser beings" and has a detrimental, deadly, impact, on the environment. And you are going to distinguish between "lesser beings," such as insects, rodents, birds, and other such mammals and such that are directly impacted by farming and "higher beings" such as cattle and sheep? Life is predicated upon death.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Meat eating

Post by DAWN » Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:40 am

It's impossible to delete all harm, it's possible to minimize it as it possible. Termodinamic law dont allow us to exist without any distruction.

A cow eat 25 pounds of corn per day (11.36kg), one meal per day is about 100g (0.22 Lbs).
By simple calcul we see that for feed one cow, we can feed 100 monks.

http://www.youaskandy.com/questions-ans ... -eat-.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests