the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 12824
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 » Fri Dec 22, 2017 4:43 pm

D1W1 wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:02 am
As far as Buddhist ethics goes, it's intention that matters. Buddhist ethics is not personal value, fashion, etc. As a person who lives in the different time than Buddha's my logic tells me there is difference between greed over meat that comes from farmed factory animals and greed over meat that comes from animals that live in the wild. What do you think guys, is there any difference in terms of unwholesomeness?
In terms of logic and not the Buddha's teachings, if one had to eat meat, it would probably be better to go to the forest and hunt wild game rather than store bought meat. Buying store bought meat contributes to the factory farming industry.* There are numerous documentaries reporting about the horrid conditions animals are raised in and how they are basically slaves from birth to the slaughter house. Wild game on the other hand, lives out their natural lives up until the point the hunter kills them. I don't hunt and never have hunted and don't advocate it, but strictly speaking from an ethical position for animals, the meat from game animals probably involves less suffering to the animals. Of course it violates the First Precept from a Buddhist perspective, though. And the best option is still in my opinion to just go vegetarian or vegan, if one is able.

* The causal connection is often debated but it's really not that complicated:
100 people buy whole chickens from a supermarket one day.
Later that day the grocer requests 100 more slaughtered chickens from the slaughter house to be delivered.
Later as time goes on, meat demand drops.
50 people buy whole chickens from a supermarket in an average day.
Later that day the grocer requests only 50 more slaughtered chickens from the slaughter house to be delivered.
That's 50 less chickens killed at the slaughter house due to the less demand from that grocer.
And so on, either upwards or downwards in demand . . .

nitinku5021a
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:30 pm

Re: Gym and Buddhism

Post by nitinku5021a » Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:32 pm

It really matters on your conscience, nothing else matters. Your karma depends on with what conscience you perform it. Take a case of Doctor vs Killer. Both takes a knife and make a cut, but with different intention and conscience. Suppose in both cases, the ultimately the person dies, will the doctor be acquiring the same sankhara as the killer?

chownah
Posts: 8628
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah » Sat Dec 23, 2017 2:45 am

DNS wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 4:43 pm
the meat from game animals probably involves less suffering to the animals.
THere is another way.

My wife raised some cows. They really did seem to suffer less than wild animals. They had no predator animals lurking about waiting for the kill, a comfortable and safe shed to sleep in, plenty of very healthy food, medicine when they got sick, a very low infant mortality rate, etc.....they even got brushed sometimes which is heavenly for a cow....

If people who cared about cows raised cows then cows would clearly suffer less than wild animals.
chownah

Dinsdale
Posts: 6916
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Dinsdale » Sat Dec 23, 2017 9:09 am

lyndon taylor wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:06 pm
chownah wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:16 pm
Dinsdale wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:21 am


I see it more in terms of attachment to harmful behaviours, in this case attachment to a dietary choice which causes harm to other living beings.

Obviously any dietary choice we make will cause some harm, the point is to minimise the harm we do, based on the intention of harmlessness ( Right Intention ). This principle of harmlessness could probably be applied to other lifestyle choices we make.
Any attachment to any dietary choice is harmful behavior.
chownah
What a ridiculous statement, so attachment to not harming animals is a harmful behaviour, I don't think so!!
:goodpost:
Buddha save me from new-agers!

chownah
Posts: 8628
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah » Sat Dec 23, 2017 12:17 pm

lyndon taylor wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:06 pm
chownah wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:16 pm
Dinsdale wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:21 am


I see it more in terms of attachment to harmful behaviours, in this case attachment to a dietary choice which causes harm to other living beings.

Obviously any dietary choice we make will cause some harm, the point is to minimise the harm we do, based on the intention of harmlessness ( Right Intention ). This principle of harmlessness could probably be applied to other lifestyle choices we make.
Any attachment to any dietary choice is harmful behavior.
chownah
What a ridiculous statement, so attachment to not harming animals is a harmful behaviour, I don't think so!!
Any attachment of any kind is harmful behavior.
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 » Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:34 pm

Not true, there are plenty of examples of attachments that are positive, such as attachment to the dhamma.
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
seeker242
Posts: 954
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by seeker242 » Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:35 pm

Any attachment of any kind is harmful behavior.
chownah
Yet simply making a particular choice preference does not = harmful attachment. For example, I prefer to choose to not steal things. Does that mean I'm attached to the choice of not stealing? And that this is harmful? Of course not!

chownah
Posts: 8628
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah » Sat Dec 23, 2017 2:11 pm

seeker242 wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:35 pm
Any attachment of any kind is harmful behavior.
chownah
Yet simply making a particular choice preference does not = harmful attachment. For example, I prefer to choose to not steal things. Does that mean I'm attached to the choice of not stealing? And that this is harmful? Of course not!
So, you are agreeing with me then.
chownah

chownah
Posts: 8628
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah » Sat Dec 23, 2017 2:12 pm

lyndon taylor wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:34 pm
Not true, there are plenty of examples of attachments that are positive, such as attachment to the dhamma.
Plenty.
chownah

chownah
Posts: 8628
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah » Sat Dec 23, 2017 2:15 pm

lyndon taylor wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:06 pm
so attachment to not harming animals is a harmful behaviour, I don't think so!!
Yes, it is.
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 » Sat Dec 23, 2017 2:35 pm

Its not enough that you don't consider animals lives important enough not to eat them, you have the nerve to claim vegetarians are bad Buddhists because they are attached to not harming animals.
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
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 12824
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 » Sat Dec 23, 2017 4:00 pm

Calling the other side "attached to their view" sounds likes an ad hominem that could be used by either side in this debate or virtually any other one. An omnivore could say vegetarians are attached to their view. And vegetarians could say omnivores are attached to their views and their taste of meat. Attachment is not the issue. The issue (in this thread) is whether eating meat violates the First Precept and in general, the consensus is that it does not. However, there are plenty of points the vegetarians make about how it does contribute to the killing of animals and the meat industry from supply and demand and then other issues related animal welfare with factory farming, etc. In the end, we each decide for ourselves (although, I doubt this will be the final word on the matter). :tongue:

And then back on the subject of attachment, there is a Pali term for wholesome desire and that is chanda.
https://dhammawiki.com/index.php/Chanda

It is not tanha (unwholesome desire) to keep precepts and follow the Dhamma.

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 » Sat Dec 23, 2017 4:18 pm

DNS wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 4:00 pm
Calling the other side "attached to their view" sounds likes an ad hominem that could be used by either side in this debate or virtually any other one. An omnivore could say vegetarians are attached to their view. And vegetarians could say omnivores are attached to their views and their taste of meat. Attachment is not the issue. The issue (in this thread) is whether eating meat violates the First Precept and in general, the consensus is that it does not. However, there are plenty of points the vegetarians make about how it does contribute to the killing of animals and the meat industry from supply and demand and then other issues related animal welfare with factory farming, etc. In the end, we each decide for ourselves (although, I doubt this will be the final word on the matter). :tongue:

And then back on the subject of attachment, there is a Pali term for wholesome desire and that is chanda.
https://dhammawiki.com/index.php/Chanda

It is not tanha (unwholesome desire) to keep precepts and follow the Dhamma.
Sorry but we haven't established that buying meat and paying the butcher does not violate the first precept, maybe you interpret it that way but that's just one person's interpretation.
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
seeker242
Posts: 954
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by seeker242 » Sat Dec 23, 2017 4:32 pm

chownah wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 2:11 pm
seeker242 wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:35 pm
Any attachment of any kind is harmful behavior.
chownah
Yet simply making a particular choice preference does not = harmful attachment. For example, I prefer to choose to not steal things. Does that mean I'm attached to the choice of not stealing? And that this is harmful? Of course not!
So, you are agreeing with me then.
chownah
Not with the implication that vegetarianism = harmful attachment.

chownah
Posts: 8628
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah » Sun Dec 24, 2017 2:04 am

seeker242 wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 4:32 pm
chownah wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 2:11 pm
seeker242 wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:35 pm


Yet simply making a particular choice preference does not = harmful attachment. For example, I prefer to choose to not steal things. Does that mean I'm attached to the choice of not stealing? And that this is harmful? Of course not!
So, you are agreeing with me then.
chownah
Not with the implication that vegetarianism = harmful attachment.
Did I say that?....I think not.
Slander?
chownah

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 369 guests