the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3372
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Mr Man » Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:08 pm

Cittasanto wrote:
Mr Man wrote:I think the act of trying to seperate may be a "rationialization".
If the two are not separate you did in fact accuse people of murdering animals, and tilts previous assertion would still be valid because the eater and acts of the producer(s) are not separate. Although, it is not a rationalisation in anyway it is just a fact of the intentions and motivations most people who eat meat in the west will have. But if you can show it is one and the same I would be interested in seeing the logic.

There is the death and then at a later point (after some carving up and preparation) there is eating. these are two separate parts, which, in most cases (particularly in the west) these will not be related with one persons intentions or motivations.
It is interlinked. Something topical in the UK news: If I want to take Rhino horn medicine I have to accept that medicine comes from a Rhino and that the Rhino was killed for the reason of making that medicine. I have become part of that process. I haven't killed the Rhino but I am linked to its death. To disassociate the Killing of Rhinos from the medicine would be a rationalization (which we all do all the time). The same analogy could be used with porn. View porn and you are becoming part of that industry. When we view porn our intention is not to degrade but the reality of the porn industry is that it degrades.

With regard to Tilts assertion I acknowledge that animals are killed in the process of providing me with food and I know to some extent this cannot be avoided (I rationalize) or more often than not I don't even think about it. I'm prepared to live with the fact that animals die in the production of food for me. I take responsibility.

My understanding is that the Buddha didn't teach lay people to be vegetarian or to eat meat - maybe he didn't see it as being important?. If we eat meat so be it but I don't think we should say "I eat meat because Buddha didn't say be vegetarian" or because of "General Siha" or because the eating of meat is not connected with the killing of animals (not that anyone in particular is doing that).

-

Upajjhatthana Sutta: Subjects for Contemplation http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

:anjali:

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

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Cittasanto » Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:56 pm

Mr Man wrote:It is interlinked. Something topical in the UK news: If I want to take Rhino horn medicine I have to accept that medicine comes from a Rhino and that the Rhino was killed for the reason of making that medicine. I have become part of that process. I haven't killed the Rhino but I am linked to its death. To disassociate the Killing of Rhinos from the medicine would be a rationalization (which we all do all the time). The same analogy could be used with porn. View porn and you are becoming part of that industry. When we view porn our intention is not to degrade but the reality of the porn industry is that it degrades.
The interlinking is not a volitional interlinking (although in some cases it maybe). there is a relation between between A, B, & C, but none of them are any of the other ones.
With regard to Tilts assertion I acknowledge that animals are killed in the process of providing me with food and I know to some extent this cannot be avoided (I rationalize) or more often than not I don't even think about it. I'm prepared to live with the fact that animals die in the production of food for me. I take responsibility.
That explains why you regarded it as facetious, even though it still is valid, and there is a relationship. However that for me does not make a vegetarian or Vegan... a Killer, it makes the person who volitionally killed the killer, which is the same for meat eaters (except those who order a specific animal to be killed as in the lobster example).
My understanding is that the Buddha didn't teach lay people to be vegetarian or to eat meat - maybe he didn't see it as being important?. If we eat meat so be it but I don't think we should say "I eat meat because Buddha didn't say be vegetarian" or because of "General Siha" or because the eating of meat is not connected with the killing of animals (not that anyone in particular is doing that).
Who eats meat because of General Siha? this goes to the difference between intention and motivation, there is a difference between explaining something and using as an excuse. I believe the only use has been to show as an example the difference between killing an animal and eating/buying meat.
And no one is saying there is not a relationship between eating and an animal dying, only that your proximity is too close to the extent everyone without the volition is a killer.
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: 3372
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Mr Man » Sat Nov 24, 2012 12:07 am

Cittasanto wrote:
Mr Man wrote:It is interlinked. Something topical in the UK news: If I want to take Rhino horn medicine I have to accept that medicine comes from a Rhino and that the Rhino was killed for the reason of making that medicine. I have become part of that process. I haven't killed the Rhino but I am linked to its death. To disassociate the Killing of Rhinos from the medicine would be a rationalization (which we all do all the time). The same analogy could be used with porn. View porn and you are becoming part of that industry. When we view porn our intention is not to degrade but the reality of the porn industry is that it degrades.
The interlinking is not a volitional interlinking (although in some cases it maybe). there is a relation between between A, B, & C, but none of them are any of the other ones.
With regard to Tilts assertion I acknowledge that animals are killed in the process of providing me with food and I know to some extent this cannot be avoided (I rationalize) or more often than not I don't even think about it. I'm prepared to live with the fact that animals die in the production of food for me. I take responsibility.
That explains why you regarded it as facetious, even though it still is valid, and there is a relationship. However that for me does not make a vegetarian or Vegan... a Killer, it makes the person who volitionally killed the killer, which is the same for meat eaters (except those who order a specific animal to be killed as in the lobster example).
My understanding is that the Buddha didn't teach lay people to be vegetarian or to eat meat - maybe he didn't see it as being important?. If we eat meat so be it but I don't think we should say "I eat meat because Buddha didn't say be vegetarian" or because of "General Siha" or because the eating of meat is not connected with the killing of animals (not that anyone in particular is doing that).
Who eats meat because of General Siha? this goes to the difference between intention and motivation, there is a difference between explaining something and using as an excuse. I believe the only use has been to show as an example the difference between killing an animal and eating/buying meat.
And no one is saying there is not a relationship between eating and an animal dying, only that your proximity is too close to the extent everyone without the volition is a killer.
Well I really think that I need to finish on this thread now but a couple of final comments: With regard to "A, B, & C, but none of them are any of the other ones." you will notice that I said "I haven't killed the Rhino but I am linked to its death". With regard to "Who eats meat because of General Siha? " in my opinion it it not unusual for people to try and use third party authority to justify their position. With regard to "proximity is too close". How close we wish to be to a particular enterprise is a personal decision, I personally think the link between eating meat and the killing of animals is pretty close. I don't think they are the same though. I think to say that eating meat is okay because there is no volition to kill is a "rationalization" and a cop out (even though I don't think eating meat is the same as killing).
:)

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

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Cittasanto » Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:03 pm

Mr Man wrote:It is interlinked. Something topical in the UK news: If I want to take Rhino horn medicine I have to accept that medicine comes from a Rhino and that the Rhino was killed for the reason of making that medicine. I have become part of that process. I haven't killed the Rhino but I am linked to its death. To disassociate the Killing of Rhinos from the medicine would be a rationalization (which we all do all the time). The same analogy could be used with porn. View porn and you are becoming part of that industry. When we view porn our intention is not to degrade but the reality of the porn industry is that it degrades.
The interlinking is not a volitional interlinking (although in some cases it maybe). there is a relation between between A, B, & C, but none of them are any of the other ones.
With regard to Tilts assertion I acknowledge that animals are killed in the process of providing me with food and I know to some extent this cannot be avoided (I rationalize) or more often than not I don't even think about it. I'm prepared to live with the fact that animals die in the production of food for me. I take responsibility.
That explains why you regarded it as facetious, even though it still is valid, and there is a relationship. However that for me does not make a vegetarian or Vegan... a Killer, it makes the person who volitionally killed the killer, which is the same for meat eaters (except those who order a specific animal to be killed as in the lobster example).
My understanding is that the Buddha didn't teach lay people to be vegetarian or to eat meat - maybe he didn't see it as being important?. If we eat meat so be it but I don't think we should say "I eat meat because Buddha didn't say be vegetarian" or because of "General Siha" or because the eating of meat is not connected with the killing of animals (not that anyone in particular is doing that).
Who eats meat because of General Siha? this goes to the difference between intention and motivation, there is a difference between explaining something and using as an excuse. I believe the only use has been to show as an example the difference between killing an animal and eating/buying meat.
And no one is saying there is not a relationship between eating and an animal dying, only that your proximity is too close to the extent everyone without the volition is a killer.
Well I really think that I need to finish on this thread now but a couple of final comments: With regard to "A, B, & C, but none of them are any of the other ones." you will notice that I said "I haven't killed the Rhino but I am linked to its death".
you also said this "To disassociate the Killing of Rhinos from the medicine would be a rationalization (which we all do all the time)" which BTW isn't happening. saying there is a disassociation and saying there is a separation are two different things.
With regard to "Who eats meat because of General Siha? " in my opinion it it not unusual for people to try and use third party authority to justify their position.
yet this isn't happening here as explained.
With regard to "proximity is too close". How close we wish to be to a particular enterprise is a personal decision, I personally think the link between eating meat and the killing of animals is pretty close. I don't think they are the same though. I think to say that eating meat is okay because there is no volition to kill is a "rationalization" and a cop out (even though I don't think eating meat is the same as killing).
:)
If someone doesn't have the intention they do not have the intention, all is not one. we are not responsible for the intentional acts of another.

(edited the quote problem out)
Last edited by Cittasanto on Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:06 pm, edited 4 times in total.
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
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by beeblebrox » Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:54 pm

Cittasanto wrote: we are not responsible for the intentional acts of another.
Did the Buddha ever said such a thing? "Bhikkhus, we are not responsible for the actions of others." Your constant usage of that as an argument just keeps on reminding me of this:
Ud 6.6

People are intent on the idea of
'made by me'
and attached to the idea of
'made by another.'
Some do not realize this,
nor do they see it as a thorn.
But to one who sees,
having extracted this thorn,
(the thought) 'I am doing,' doesn't occur;
'Another is doing,' doesn't occur.
This human race is possessed by conceit,
bound by conceit,
tied down by conceit.
Speaking [with antagonism] because of their views
they do not go beyond wandering-on.
Everyone who participated in this recent thread has been agreeing with you... that eating of meat is not linked with personal act of killing. Even after Mr Man clarified what his statement meant (which afterwards you seemed to agree with), you kept on arguing with something that just wasn't there.

Much like Nigantha's behavior with General Siha... where they would just keep on accusing him of the killing... you just keep on accusing Mr Man of making a suggestion that the eating of meat was same as the killing. He's already clarified many times that this wasn't what he meant.

It seems like there's something wrong going on in here, and I'm not sure if there's even any cognizance of that at all... which can't be good for practice. Hope that you take care...

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

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Cittasanto » Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:12 pm

please see here!
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 80#p216686" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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
Polar Bear
Posts: 1193
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Location: Bear Republic

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Polar Bear » Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:46 pm

Who thinks that less animals get killed because they're vegetarians? How do you know that? Got any stats? Or are you just assuming? It may be the case that less animals get killed if someone is a vegetarian and it seems like it would be a logical consequence but I don't think it is necessarily true which is why I would like to know if anyone can provide some solid data on whether being a vegetarian actually saves animals.

:anjali:
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."

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

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by beeblebrox » Sat Nov 24, 2012 9:43 pm

Cittasanto wrote:please see here!
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 80#p216686" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ok. :anjali:
polarbuddha101 wrote:Who thinks that less animals get killed because they're vegetarians? How do you know that? Got any stats? Or are you just assuming? It may be the case that less animals get killed if someone is a vegetarian and it seems like it would be a logical consequence but I don't think it is necessarily true which is why I would like to know if anyone can provide some solid data on whether being a vegetarian actually saves animals.
Speaking for myself, that is not the way I see it... I see that animals are being raised and then killed for meat. I'm not going to support that sort of activity, by buying meat.

I don't try to see it any further beyond that. I think that to do so would have to be based on some kind of conceit... I don't say to myself, "I'm going to save animals," or, "I'm going to convert a slaughterer to do something that is more wholesome," or, "I'm doing this to make a point," or, "I don't like carnivores," or, "I'm going to research on data to support my position," or some nonsense like that.

I just see that there is an industry which is based around the killing for our consumption. I'm not going to be a part of that activity, especially not by contributing money to it... that is all. I'm not trying to make any kind of judgment on anyone. If it seems that way sometimes... be assured that it's something that I recognize, and I apologize.

:anjali:

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

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Cittasanto » Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:21 pm

beeblebrox wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:please see here!
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 80#p216686" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ok. :anjali:
Do note that things can move on yet the appearance is not different.
I seriously do not see the relevance of what you have said as they point predominantly to the person rather than what has been said, and miss or ignore allot of what has been said.

Whether or not the you see an agreement is of little relevance to the proximity being associated and discussed.
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
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by beeblebrox » Sat Nov 24, 2012 11:08 pm

Cittasanto wrote:
beeblebrox wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:please see here!
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 80#p216686" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ok. :anjali:
Do note that things can move on yet the appearance is not different.
I seriously do not see the relevance of what you have said as they point predominantly to the person rather than what has been said, and miss or ignore allot of what has been said.

Whether or not the you see an agreement is of little relevance to the proximity being associated and discussed.
Cittasanto, I think that's quite a feat to find an argument to the acknowledgement of your post, and an anjali... if this is not dukkha, then what is? Who cares about vegetarianism, or the eating of meat, when that happens?

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

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Cittasanto » Sun Nov 25, 2012 3:07 am

beeblebrox wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: Do note that things can move on yet the appearance is not different.
I seriously do not see the relevance of what you have said as they point predominantly to the person rather than what has been said, and miss or ignore allot of what has been said.

Whether or not the you see an agreement is of little relevance to the proximity being associated and discussed.
Cittasanto, I think that's quite a feat to find an argument to the acknowledgement of your post, and an anjali... if this is not dukkha, then what is? Who cares about vegetarianism, or the eating of meat, when that happens?
You prove my point with even more personal remarks ignoring the amount you use, and what is actually said in conversation. Whether this is Dukkha or not is irrelevant to what was said, although it is quite a feat to use this fallacy so often.

Stay with the argument not the person!
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: 3372
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Mr Man » Sun Nov 25, 2012 12:23 pm

beeblebrox wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: we are not responsible for the intentional acts of another.
Did the Buddha ever said such a thing? "Bhikkhus, we are not responsible for the actions of others." Your constant usage of that as an argument just keeps on reminding me of this:
Ud 6.6

People are intent on the idea of
'made by me'
and attached to the idea of
'made by another.'
Some do not realize this,
nor do they see it as a thorn.
But to one who sees,
having extracted this thorn,
(the thought) 'I am doing,' doesn't occur;
'Another is doing,' doesn't occur.
This human race is possessed by conceit,
bound by conceit,
tied down by conceit.
Speaking [with antagonism] because of their views
they do not go beyond wandering-on.
Everyone who participated in this recent thread has been agreeing with you... that eating of meat is not linked with personal act of killing. Even after Mr Man clarified what his statement meant (which afterwards you seemed to agree with), you kept on arguing with something that just wasn't there.

Much like Nigantha's behavior with General Siha... where they would just keep on accusing him of the killing... you just keep on accusing Mr Man of making a suggestion that the eating of meat was same as the killing. He's already clarified many times that this wasn't what he meant.

It seems like there's something wrong going on in here, and I'm not sure if there's even any cognizance of that at all... which can't be good for practice. Hope that you take care...

beeblebrox thank you for this post, in my opinion it was timely.

User avatar
GraemeR
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:20 am
Location: Thailand

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by GraemeR » Sun Nov 25, 2012 12:50 pm

Mr Man wrote:
beeblebrox thank you for this post, in my opinion it was timely.
I got bored with this whole debate, I think trying to convince others of your ideas can be a form of clinging ... I my view and if people don't accept it I move on.

Graham

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

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ben » Sun Nov 25, 2012 1:05 pm

GraemeR wrote:
Mr Man wrote:
beeblebrox thank you for this post, in my opinion it was timely.
I got bored with this whole debate, I think trying to convince others of your ideas can be a form of clinging ... I my view and if people don't accept it I move on.

Graham
Well said, Graham!
“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
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by DAWN » Sun Nov 25, 2012 1:15 pm

polarbuddha101 wrote:Who thinks that less animals get killed because they're vegetarians? How do you know that? Got any stats?

:anjali:
Once i read some stats about it, and it was said that one veg-man save about 20 or + lives per year.
I have no link. :thinking:
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 70 guests