the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22398
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

lyndon taylor wrote:Its pretty clear from scripture that the Buddha didn't force vegetarianism, but rather encouraged vegetarianism without making it a rule, a feature sorely missed by many of the pro meat eating camp, who are basically encouraging meat eating, and belittleing vegetarianism, something the Buddha never did. Not to mention twisting around the Buddha's admonitions against killing by proxy.

Everytime you buy a steak, a certain percentage of your cost actually goes to pay the person who killed the cow, and the business that aims to profit off killing and selling the meat from the cow, that may not be killing to you, but it is to me, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree......

So when I worked in KFC, and there was spare chicken at the end of the shift that would go in the bin, I was wrong to take it home to my family to eat (and so save on money in general)


Was meat eating wrong then?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by lyndon taylor »

if you don't want to eat a lot of chicken hormones and antibiotics fed to chickens, then yes it was wrong, since when does every right or wrong answer have to be decided by buddhist scripture, sometimes you have to make your own decisions......

The whole problem in this debate started when a monk told us, not that its OK (optional)to eat meat when offered to us by a host, but rather we should eat the meat offered as not eating it would be considered rude, which is a greater crime than eating it. I don't agree, its a personal decision for each vegetarian to make themselves, not be dictated to them by some ones interpretation of 2500 year old customs.
Last edited by lyndon taylor on Mon Jan 06, 2014 7:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Mkoll »

Dear Lyndon,

Remember that being a vegetarian entails killing pests (insects, mammals, etc.) that would otherwise eat the crops and deaths from harvesters/machinery. So it's not like being a vegetarian makes you free from the chain of death. This is samsara. Beings take advantage and kill each other even if they don't want to; it's the way nature is set up. By the way, I'm a vegetarian myself and am so because of health and moral reasons among others. It causes less suffering overall than supporting the flesh trade.

In terms of a host offering you food, it depends on the context as to whether it's inoffensive to refuse to eat or not. I wouldn't make blanket statements for either case.

:anjali:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by binocular »

Mkoll wrote:In terms of a host offering you food, it depends on the context as to whether it's inoffensive to refuse to eat or not. I wouldn't make blanket statements for either case.
Yes. And it's not like one always has no choice as to whom to visit and what to do on that visit.

If one already knows that a person is an avid meat-eater and anti-vegetarian, then why go there for a meal, unless it is really necessary and inavoidable?
Often enough, there are ways to associate with other people that don't involve eating at all. So if one has to associate with an avid meat-eater, there may be ways to arrange that on one's own terms.


As an additional concern: Should we eat food that has been offered to us by another person, when this food has not been properly blessed, offered to the Buddha first?
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by lyndon taylor »

Actually I invite you to read through my posts and see anywhere were I try to say meat eaters should not be allowed to eat meat if they so choose, I do say it involves killing, but that should be rather obvious, unless you're eating roadkill. On the other hand I see a lot of meat eating Buddhists trying to tell me, a vegetarian, that there are times when I should eat meat so as not to be rude to my host, whereas I see my host as being quite rude to insist that I eat the meat he's serving.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ben »

image.jpg
image.jpg (42.6 KiB) Viewed 2020 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: [email protected]..
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by lyndon taylor »

We've been through this 100 times, the pig used for bacon eats 10 times more innocent plants than the vegetarian, classic straw man arguement coming from a vegan, whats up Ben??
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Anagarika
Posts: 915
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:25 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Anagarika »

Isn't part of the issue, Lyndon, that there is no Dhamma authority for the requirement of vegetarianism? If we have confidence in the Buddha's teachings, we really shouldn't be having this kind of argument. It seems to me that the Buddha placed the importance of the symbiotic relationship between the monks and the lay supporters over a concern for consumption of animal meat. Once the monks begin to make demands for the kind of food that they are to be offered, this sacred bond of dana is broken. I feel the Buddha understood the nature of this. That's why vegetarians like myself can do their part to not be part of the animal food chain industry (it's a choice I make here in the US [we abuse our animals so badly before/during their slaughter] though I acknowledge the chain of commerce is completely not affected), but when I was a samanera in Thailand I ate everything that was put into my bowl, blazingly spicy meat curries included. The ethic of respecting that family's dana was more important to me than my food preferences. To offend a host or giver based on my personal practices would be perhaps highminded, but to me it would be placing my ego above the need for equanimity in the host/guest relationship, which would negatively affect the host's view of me as a Buddhist. In other words, being a jerk about the food offered wins no points in favor of the practice or the Sangha.

Lyndon, your argument is logical and from a personal point of view authoritative, but it does not meet the test of what the Buddha would mandate of practitioners, especially those within the dana framework. As much as I love trees, the Vinaya (or tradition) as I recall, requires that robes be dyed with the wood of a jackfruit or similar tree. So, do I refuse to accept and wear a robe that was dyed with jackfruit wood? So, I raise a toast to you with the veggie burger I cooked yesterday, but suggest that vegetarianism as a mandate is a hot button subject that does not resonate within the Dhamma, and thus is something best left as a private matter of choice.
Last edited by Anagarika on Mon Jan 06, 2014 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Mkoll »

BuddhaSoup wrote:Isn't part of the issue, Lyndon, that there is no Dhamma authority for the requirement of vegetarianism? If we have confidence in the Buddha's teachings, we really shouldn't be having this kind of argument. It seems to me that the Buddha placed the importance of the symbiotic relationship between the monks and the lay supporters over a concern for consumption of animal meat. Once the monks begin to make demands for the kind of food that they are to be offered, this sacred bond of dana is broken. I feel the Buddha understood the nature of this. That's why vegetarians like myself can do their part to not be part of the animal food chain industry (it's a choice I make though I acknowledge the chain of commerce is completely not affected), but when I was a samanera in Thailand I ate everything that was put into my bowl, blazingly spicy meat curries included. The ethic of respecting that family's dana was more important to me than my food preferences. To offend a host or giver based on my personal practices would be perhaps highminded, but to me it would be placing my ego above the need for equanimity in the host/guest relationship, which would negatively affect the hosts view of me as a Buddhist. In other words, being a jerk about the food offered wins no points in favor of the practice or the Sangha.

Lyndon, your argument is logical and from a personal point of view authoritative, but it does not meet the test of what the Buddha would mandate of practitioners, especially those within the dana framework. As much as I love trees, the Vinaya (or tradition) as I recall, requires that robes be dyed with the wood of a jackfruit or similar tree. So, do I refuse to accept and wear a robe that was dyed with jackwood? So, I raise a toast to you with the veggie burger I cooked yesterday, but suggest that vegetarianism as a mandate is a hot button subject that does not resonate within the Dhamma, and thus is something best left as a private matter of choice.
:goodpost:

I think part of the issue here is the difference between a renunciate and a layperson. Ven. Dhammanando, Buddhasoup, and others are talking of this from the perspective of a renunciate who relies on the alms of others for survival. Lyndon taylor, myself, and others are talking of this from the perspective of laypeople who make their own food choices with their wallet.

Without acknowledging this difference in perspective, there is bound to be much talking past one another.

:anjali:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by seeker242 »

lyndon taylor wrote:One of the problems here is a double standard applied to animals vs humans, not by the Buddha but by his followers, If you were to hire someone to kill a rival, we would consider you just as guilty as the one who actually did the killing, but for some strange very illogical reason, when we pay someone at the supermarket to kill animals for us to eat, "we're completely innocent" of any killing, complete rubbish, like I said you could never win debate with logic like that, it just doesn't make sense, If no one buys the meat, the animals don't get bred and killed, at least to the same extent, its simple supply and demand economics.
Personally, I don't see it as strange or illogical. It's just a matter of discrimination. If a person thinks the discrimination is quite appropriate, then it's quite logical for a person who thinks that. The Buddha himself did not demand it. But at the same time he did declare that "business in meat" is wrong livelihood. Since it's self-evident, or should be self-evident, that meat production is intrinsically unethical. Now if one is a begging monk, one could argue that one is not participating in that activity AKA the meat is "pure in three respects". However, if one makes their own intentional food choices, and has a variety of food to chose from, then one could argue that one is intentionally participating in that activity to a certain degree. Certainly not to the degree that an actual slaughterhouse kill floor employee is, but still to some degree nonetheless.

Now the question arises: If one intentionally purchases meat at a market, when they could easily purchase something else with no negative consequences, is the meat still "pure in three respects"? :shrug:
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17188
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by DNS »

If it's any consolation to the debaters here, over at Dharma Wheel (Mahayana) the great vegetarian debate is now 3,556 posts and that is with the topic currently locked.

I saw this interesting chart over in that thread:

Image

The bottom line from an ahimsa view which all Dharmic religions aspire to, is that any diet choice is going to have some 'collateral' damage, even if you are vegan (the harvest damage to insects or small animals). So judging any diet as being particularly violent or unwholesome is not very helpful since all diets are somewhat violent. However, we could try to choose the least amount of violence, if we are able to. We should also realize that some people don't always have that luxury due to family, culture, or if they are a monastic.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10170
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

seeker242 wrote: Now the question arises: If one intentionally purchases meat at a market, when they could easily purchase something else with no negative consequences, is the meat still "pure in three respects"? :shrug:
I would argue that it isn't, because it's adding to the demand for meat and therefore to the killing of animals.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by lyndon taylor »

That would seem to be the logical conclusion, but if there's one thing I've learned from the vehement meat eating buddhists, traditional logic doesn't enter into it!!
Some people just want to eat meat, and they don't really give a damn who has to die in the process.......
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ben »

lyndon taylor wrote:That would seem to be the logical conclusion, but if there's one thing I've learned from the vehement meat eating buddhists, traditional logic doesn't enter into it!!
Some people just want to eat meat, and they don't really give a damn who has to die in the process.......
The only vehemence I have seen on this topic lately Lyndon is the vehemence you have brought to it.
“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: [email protected]..
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10170
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

David N. Snyder wrote: The bottom line from an ahimsa view which all Dharmic religions aspire to, is that any diet choice is going to have some 'collateral' damage, even if you are vegan (the harvest damage to insects or small animals). So judging any diet as being particularly violent or unwholesome is not very helpful since all diets are somewhat violent. However, we could try to choose the least amount of violence, if we are able to. We should also realize that some people don't always have that luxury due to family, culture, or if they are a monastic.
:goodpost:
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Post Reply