the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by seeker242 »

Cittasanto wrote:Hi Seaker,
Just so you know I wont be able to respond again until sunday evening at the earliest.
Ditto as I am attending a retreat this weekend. :)
I would agree with the lack of existence. However it can be inferred.
One can claim it can be inferred but still one has to explain precisely how, if the conclusion is going to have some logical support. You really can't just say it can be inferred and leave it at that, if you are speaking strictly in logical terms.
There was no such thing as "industrial". Focusing only on the slaughter misses the main point I was making. Which is how the animals are treated during their lifetime. The horrible conditions that they have to endure and the abuse they are subjected to, before they are sent to slaughter. "Battery cages" and "gestation crates" did not exist during the Buddhas time. To assume he would have said nothing about "battery cages", because he didn't say anything about animals grazing in a pasture, is not very logical because it compares apples to oranges.


Are you sure I am assuming what the Buddha would say based on what wasn't said? or am I using inference based on what has been said in comparable situations.

I am basing my opinion on what is known the Buddha done and advised. i.e. his advice on proper conversation, his unwillingness to directly attack someone's profession (actors & warriors was after several refusals to comment directly upon) The Buddha is only ever general, not specific, in matters which could be seen as attacking. And when it is other groups, The Buddha only ever deals with specific views, not the group itself.
He attacked "business in meat", the very thing we are talking about, and call it wrong livelihood. He called the entire group of people engaged in the business of meat as being engaged in wrong livelihood. There is plenty of evidence that the Buddha taught that one should not cause harm, nor be a cause for harm, to other living beings. You speak as if animals being beaten and abused doesn't really matter. I don't see how this can match up with what the Buddha taught.
inference based on the texts. I am not presupposing the Buddha would have acted in a way not already shown.
Again, one really can't just say inference and leave it at that.
When there is evidence of how the Buddha acted in other situations it is inductive or deductive reasoning, not assumption. Can you show your evidence for the Buddha being direct in this matter, and not simply keeping with what has already been said?
Technically, It's not on me to show any evidence because I am the one challenging the logic of the claim, not making the claim. According to a "logical analysis", etc. the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. However, I could just say "inference based on the texts" and give a couple vague examples, but that just would not be good enough for logic. I would have to provide a logical explanation of the inference and how the inference is being made, why it's being made, which particular texts it's being made from with specific examples, sutta references, etc, so that the inference itself can be examined also, logically speaking. Saying inference and leaving it at that, does not provide any more support to the conclusion. Technically, doing that is called "circular reasoning" and is, by definition, not logical. There were some vague examples of how the Buddha did not get involved in wars, etc. but it has to be much more detailed and much more in depth than that in order to prove the validity of the inference. However, if one is just expressing one's opinions on the matter, and not the logical structure of the argument, then all that really isn't necessary.

:anjali:
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22413
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

lyndon taylor wrote:I don't think I could accept the invitation clw, you might spike the vegeloaf with hamburger!!!

Then that would suggest clinging to ideals, since you hadnt bought the meat and I would have eaten it anyway
“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.”
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

seeker242 wrote: He attacked "business in meat", the very thing we are talking about, and call it wrong livelihood. He called the entire group of people engaged in the business of meat as being engaged in wrong livelihood. There is plenty of evidence that the Buddha taught that one should not cause harm, nor be a cause for harm, to other living beings. You speak as if animals being beaten and abused doesn't really matter. I don't see how this can match up with what the Buddha taught.
I think the wrong livelihood argument is significant, not least because if we buy meat we're effectively condoning it.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah »

Current agriculture practices includes using poisons. If eating meat implicates one in the wrong livelihood of business in meat then doesn't eating vegetables raised using pesticides implicate one in the wrong livelihood of business in poisons?
chownah
User avatar
Anagarika
Posts: 915
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:25 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Anagarika »

chownah wrote:Current agriculture practices includes using poisons. If eating meat implicates one in the wrong livelihood of business in meat then doesn't eating vegetables raised using pesticides implicate one in the wrong livelihood of business in poisons?
chownah
Not likely. But even these questions are rhetorical, in a way. Isn't the bottom line being mindful of the kamma we are creating? We all have different positions on different issues. Some folks eat animal meat, some do not. Some people are kind to others, some avoid other people. Some people actively support monks at a wat, and some folks have no wat within 500 km. The suttas (and the scholarship around them) describe with some clarity what conduct is actively proscribed, including what is characterized as Right Livelihood. We all have to decide what kamma we wish to accumulate, and what our intentions may be with that conduct. I could take a long walk in a forest, knowing I might step on some insects and kill them unintentionally, or I could choose to stay inside and not go out.

If we use a natural pesticide to rid our garden of insects and during harvest some insects die, we have to accept that kamma. To me, putting a bolt in a cows head, and then cutting its throat while it is still kicking is torture of a sentient being, so my choice is to not eat meat. That's my kamma decision. But at the end of the day, we all commit various volitional acts, all which aggregate as our kamma. Some vegetarians might also be paramilitary snipers for an evil regime...all the soy meat they eat might just not help them avoid a rebirth as that cow destined for the slaughterhouse. My two baht on the subject....arguing over vegetarianism neglects the fact that choosing to eat meat, or not, is just one part of this wide and deep stream of kamma we create.
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 »

Yes, just one part, but a very important part, partly because its just so easy to make a difference, simply don't support the meat industry, its easier than being kind to everyone you know, trust me!!!
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/
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah »

I think people are not understanding my post. Here is what I am saying.....for people who think that eating meat implicates one in the business of meat doesn't it make sense that they would also think that eating foods raised using poisons implicates one in the business of poisons?
chownah
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 »

As pesticides as we know them didn't exist in the Buddha's time its impossible to determine where he would have stood on the issue, but I can guarantee you he would not be telling you not to eat vegtables!!!
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/
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah »

Business in poisons is wrong livelihood. Pesticides are poisons. The Buddha never qualified the term poison in any way. The concept is that if eating meat you are implicated in the wrong livelihood of business in meat then the same logic applies to buying vegetables raised using poisons doesn't it?.....seems like a no brainer too me.

Additionally, the poisons are sprayed on the crops specifically for the purpose of killing sentient beings.....so aren't you implicated in the killing of all those sentient beings if you buy the produce?

The concept is guilt by implication....I guess.......
chownah
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 »

Well I hope you don't brush your teeth or heaven forbid take antibiotics because that kills sentient bacteria beings!!
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/
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah »

Bacteria are not sentient.
chownah
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 »

And insects are sentient on par with a cow, a pig or a chicken??
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/
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

chownah wrote:Business in poisons is wrong livelihood. Pesticides are poisons. The Buddha never qualified the term poison in any way. The concept is that if eating meat you are implicated in the wrong livelihood of business in meat then the same logic applies to buying vegetables raised using poisons doesn't it?.....seems like a no brainer too me.
In context of wrong livelihood, poison in the Buddha's time would have been stuff that poisons people or animals, not bacteria - I'm pretty sure they didn't have pesticides in the Buddha's time!
See here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

But yes, if we wanted to further reduce the harm we do to other living things, then buying organic vegetables would be a logical step.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah »

Spiny Norman wrote:
chownah wrote:Business in poisons is wrong livelihood. Pesticides are poisons. The Buddha never qualified the term poison in any way. The concept is that if eating meat you are implicated in the wrong livelihood of business in meat then the same logic applies to buying vegetables raised using poisons doesn't it?.....seems like a no brainer too me.
In context of wrong livelihood, poison in the Buddha's time would have been stuff that poisons people or animals, not bacteria - I'm pretty sure they didn't have pesticides in the Buddha's time!
See here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

But yes, if we wanted to further reduce the harm we do to other living things, then buying organic vegetables would be a logical step.
Indeed people or animals....pesticides are often used to kill animals.....note that the term pesticide includes many kinds of poisons such as herbasides, insecticides, rodentacides, etc. I did not mention bacteria...that is lyndon tayler's fantasy addition, not mine.
In relation to eating meat you posted, "I think the wrong livelihood argument is significant, not least because if we buy meat we're effectively condoning it." Are you hear admitting that the same argument is significant in relation to buying vegetables raised using poisons?....in other words, buying poison raised vegetables implicates one in the wrong livelihood of dealing in poisons in the same way that buying meats implicates one in the wrong livelihood of business in meat?
chownah
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 »

Basically, chownah, you're making a straw man argument as we know you eat food grown with pesticides, and you obviously support eating meat. Isn't introducing spurious arguments you don't believe yourself just to cause dissension the definition of trolling???
Last edited by lyndon taylor on Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:29 pm, 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/
Post Reply