the great vegetarian debate

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:58 pm

Some are.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby seeker242 » Thu Jan 09, 2014 11:01 pm

pueraeternus wrote:
Simon E. wrote:I predict that the vast majority are not about to swap meat for grain however compelling one might find the reasons for so doing .


The vast majority are also not going to give up the three poisons, however compelling one might find the reasons for so doing. But then again, Buddhists are not exactly known to be realistic.


The vast majority aren't about to stop (insert whatever harmful activity here) but that does not mean one should stop trying to stop that harmful activity.

:namaste:
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!
User avatar
seeker242
 
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:31 am

You are free to exercise your judgement in the matter of course.
My point is that it is an individual moral judgement. Not one that is suddenly going to have appeal to the majority on practical /economic grounds. No matter how eloquently argued.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Jigme Tsultrim » Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:23 pm

Making a judgment as to "harmful" activity is an individual's responsibility.
Tepco has perhaps negligently murdered millions. So Japanese people bear responsibility for this when they turn on the lights? We live in a much more complex and interdependent world than the Buddha did.
Again the question must be whether the chain of causation is broken at some point or not?
Do we live in a rigid and deterministic universe, or one that is without essence?
Do enlightened beings teach to the capacity of those they are addressing?
Can one achieve enlightenment after (or even during) eating a burger? Having sex? Drinking a beer?
In my opinion, the answers are as varied and complex as human beings are.
One thing I do know for certain, and that is both good will and ill will are contagious.
The very fact that Buddhists would spend over 3,000 posts bickering over something like this hints at some much deeper issues both in society at large and within the community of Buddhists.
User avatar
Jigme Tsultrim
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:41 am
Location: N.E. Thailand

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Fri Jan 10, 2014 1:08 pm

Jigme Tsultrim wrote:Making a judgment as to "harmful" activity is an individual's responsibility.
Tepco has perhaps negligently murdered millions. So Japanese people bear responsibility for this when they turn on the lights? We live in a much more complex and interdependent world than the Buddha did.
Again the question must be whether the chain of causation is broken at some point or not?
Do we live in a rigid and deterministic universe, or one that is without essence?
Do enlightened beings teach to the capacity of those they are addressing?
Can one achieve enlightenment after (or even during) eating a burger? Having sex? Drinking a beer?
In my opinion, the answers are as varied and complex as human beings are.
One thing I do know for certain, and that is both good will and ill will are contagious.
The very fact that Buddhists would spend over 3,000 posts bickering over something like this hints at some much deeper issues both in society at large and within the community of Buddhists.

This deserves framing. Notwithstanding my own contribution to the bickering.
:namaste:
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby pueraeternus » Fri Jan 10, 2014 2:29 pm

What is surprising is that Mahayana Buddhists even need to be arguing about this among themselves. For some, it appears that in the rush to instant Buddhahood, they have degenerated into misapplication of Shravakayana guidelines or worse, all in the name of attaining Buddhahood at any cost. Really, the guidelines about pure meat is only relevant if you are begging for it (like mendicants as it meant to be applied to), not shopping at the supermarket. Some spend so much time stressing that they practice "dharma" instead of "Buddhism", and yet resorts to arguments from the ecclesiastical structures and rules whenever it suits their desires. Even better - some spend their supposedly sharp faculties in topsy-turvy turns and reversals of logic and common sense in "supply and demand", "technical impossibility of vegetarianism", or trying to argue that others are pushing an absolutist agenda, or that just because most forget to focus on one area (like mowing the lawn) then they should not be fixated on another (like encouraging less meat-consumption). Sadly, many seems to have forgotten that the pursue of Buddhahood is for the sake of all sentient beings, not a self-centered goal of attaining Buddhahood, whatever that means by the time it gets to this sad state of affairs.
When I set out to lead humanity along my Golden Path I promised a lesson their bones would remember. I know a profound pattern humans deny with words even while their actions affirm it. They say they seek security and quiet, conditions they call peace. Even as they speak, they create seeds of turmoil and violence.

- Leto II, the God Emperor
User avatar
pueraeternus
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby seeker242 » Fri Jan 10, 2014 2:33 pm

When has there ever not been a debate over this topic in Buddhism? Seems to me the debate has been going on for about 2,500 years now. Do people expect it to all of a sudden just stop? I don't know, seems unrealistic to expect that.
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!
User avatar
seeker242
 
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby dzogchungpa » Fri Jan 10, 2014 7:57 pm

pueraeternus wrote:Sadly, many seems to have forgotten that the pursue of Buddhahood is for the sake of all sentient beings, not a self-centered goal of attaining Buddhahood, whatever that means by the time it gets to this sad state of affairs.

So, is it OK to mow your lawn or not?
ཨོཾ་མ་ཧཱ་ཤུནྱ་ཏཱ་ཛྙཱ་ན་བཛྲ་སྭཱ་བྷཱ་བ་ཨཱཏྨ་ཀོ་྅ཧཾ༔

The thousands of lines of the Prajnaparamita can be summed up in the following two sentences:
1) One should become a Bodhisattva (or, Buddha-to-be), i.e. one who is content with nothing less than all-knowledge attained through the perfection of wisdom for the sake of all beings.
2) There is no such thing as a Bodhisattva, or as all-knowledge, or as a ‘being’, or as the perfection of wisdom, or as an attainment.
To accept both these contradictory facts is to be perfect.
- Conze
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 1446
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby pueraeternus » Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:04 pm

dzogchungpa wrote:
pueraeternus wrote:Sadly, many seems to have forgotten that the pursue of Buddhahood is for the sake of all sentient beings, not a self-centered goal of attaining Buddhahood, whatever that means by the time it gets to this sad state of affairs.

So, is it OK to mow your lawn or not?


I don't have one.
When I set out to lead humanity along my Golden Path I promised a lesson their bones would remember. I know a profound pattern humans deny with words even while their actions affirm it. They say they seek security and quiet, conditions they call peace. Even as they speak, they create seeds of turmoil and violence.

- Leto II, the God Emperor
User avatar
pueraeternus
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Malcolm » Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:41 pm

pueraeternus wrote: Really, the guidelines about pure meat is only relevant if you are begging for it (like mendicants as it meant to be applied to), not shopping at the supermarket.


Bhavaviveka reviews all the arguments against meat-eating in Mahayāna. His conclusion is that as long as the meat that you eat is pure in three ways, it is karma free.

Sadly, many seems to have forgotten that the pursue of Buddhahood is for the sake of all sentient beings, not a self-centered goal of attaining Buddhahood, whatever that means by the time it gets to this sad state of affairs.


Others seem to have forgotten that followers of Buddhadharma are not Jains, nor followers of Devadatta.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10169
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby pueraeternus » Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:57 am

Malcolm wrote:Bhavaviveka reviews all the arguments against meat-eating in Mahayāna. His conclusion is that as long as the meat that you eat is pure in three ways, it is karma free.


Can you ask him if his position has changed in the light of our modern factory farming industry?

Malcolm wrote:
Sadly, many seems to have forgotten that the pursue of Buddhahood is for the sake of all sentient beings, not a self-centered goal of attaining Buddhahood, whatever that means by the time it gets to this sad state of affairs.


Others seem to have forgotten that followers of Buddhadharma are not Jains, nor followers of Devadatta.


Of course, taking up the banner of sravaka teachings, which is specifically geared towards arhathood as quickly as possible, totally makes so much sense to Mahayana practice. Kind of makes my point about the self-centered goal some seem to have embraced in attaining Buddhahood. It's funny that we spend so much time accusing them of self-centeredness and now it has come full circle. Wonderful. And I didn't realize that being vegetarian or advocating less meat consumption means one is a Jain. Shakbar was so good at disguising himself as a Buddhist huh?
When I set out to lead humanity along my Golden Path I promised a lesson their bones would remember. I know a profound pattern humans deny with words even while their actions affirm it. They say they seek security and quiet, conditions they call peace. Even as they speak, they create seeds of turmoil and violence.

- Leto II, the God Emperor
User avatar
pueraeternus
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Jigme Tsultrim » Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:53 am

Gosh, I really need to learn the rules here. I know personal attacks aren't approved of, so I must remember to say "some others" instead of "you" . * making notes
User avatar
Jigme Tsultrim
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:41 am
Location: N.E. Thailand

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:23 pm

This should spice up the conversation a little. If you remove the frontal cortex from the chicken, is it still suffering?

"...But Ford goes a step further and proposes a “Headless Chicken Solution.” This would involve removing the cerebral cortex of the chicken to inhibit its sensory perceptions so that it could be produced in more densely packed conditions without the associated distress. The brain stem for the chicken would be kept intact so that the homeostatic functions continue to operate, allowing it to grow."

more here...
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/02/ ... -solution/

can samsara get any weirder?
.
.
.
Attachments
chicken_farm-660x990.jpg
chicken_farm-660x990.jpg (27.16 KiB) Viewed 356 times
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby asunthatneversets » Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:43 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:This should spice up the conversation a little. If you remove the frontal cortex from the chicken, is it still suffering?

"...But Ford goes a step further and proposes a “Headless Chicken Solution.” This would involve removing the cerebral cortex of the chicken to inhibit its sensory perceptions so that it could be produced in more densely packed conditions without the associated distress. The brain stem for the chicken would be kept intact so that the homeostatic functions continue to operate, allowing it to grow."

more here...
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/02/ ... -solution/

can samsara get any weirder?
.
.
.


The way this metaphorically mirrors the current socioeconomic system in general is uncanny. And the way it microcosmically frames our attitude towards (and relationship to) nature in general isn't even metaphorical. If only we could subjugate everything by process of lobotomy! (sarcasm of course)
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Aemilius » Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:45 am

Malcolm wrote:
pueraeternus wrote: Really, the guidelines about pure meat is only relevant if you are begging for it (like mendicants as it meant to be applied to), not shopping at the supermarket.


Bhavaviveka reviews all the arguments against meat-eating in Mahayāna. His conclusion is that as long as the meat that you eat is pure in three ways, it is karma free.



That is true if you are absolutely enlightened, and you are never attached to life or existence. You are always willing to die or to pass away, if the beings in the world do not pray and petition You to continue living for their sake. And only then do You accept their offerings of food. With perfect disgust and indifference towards continued existence in the world of becoming.

If you are a more ordinary layperson ( monk or nun), you will have habits of liking some food, and habits of wanting what you like.
In this way you will easily become responsible for wanting to eat meat, which is a karmic factor for You, and for those who know that you like to eat meat, and who act accordingly.
svaha
User avatar
Aemilius
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby asunthatneversets » Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:15 pm

This thread wouldn't be complete without a little love from Earth Crisis...

Earth Crisis - New Ethic

This is the new ethic.
Animals' lives are their own and must be given respect.
Reject the anthropocentric falsehood that maintains the oppressive hierarchy of mankind over the animals.
It's time to set them free.
Their lives reduced to biomachines in the factory, farm and laboratory.
Dairy, eggs and meat, fur, suede, wool, leather are the end products of torture, confinement and murder.
I abjure their use out of reverence for all innocent life.
Wildlifes' right to live in peace in their natural environment
without this civilization's interference can no longer be denied.
Must no longer be denied.
To make a civilization worthy of the word civilized the cruelty must end, starting within or own lives.
Reject the anthropocentric falsehood that maintains the oppressive hierarchy of mankind over the animals.
It's time to set them free.
Veganism is the essence of compassion and peaceful living.
The animals are not ours to abuse or dominate.
I abjure their use out of reverence ...
I abjure their use out of reverence ...
I abjure their use out of reverence for all innocent life.

asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Tue Jan 21, 2014 12:20 am

asunthatneversets wrote:This thread wouldn't be complete without a little love from Earth Crisis...

Earth Crisis - New Ethic

This is the new ethic.
Animals' lives are their own and must be given respect.
Reject the anthropocentric falsehood that maintains the oppressive hierarchy of mankind over the animals.
It's time to set them free.


Are they still allowed to kill and eat each other?
Is it okay for some primates to be omnivores?
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby asunthatneversets » Tue Jan 21, 2014 1:33 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:This thread wouldn't be complete without a little love from Earth Crisis...

Earth Crisis - New Ethic

This is the new ethic.
Animals' lives are their own and must be given respect.
Reject the anthropocentric falsehood that maintains the oppressive hierarchy of mankind over the animals.
It's time to set them free.


Are they still allowed to kill and eat each other?
Is it okay for some primates to be omnivores?
.
.
.


Not my writing, but Karl Earth Crisis is a nice guy, I'm sure he'd give his opinion if you really wanted to ask.
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Jigme Tsultrim » Tue Jan 21, 2014 4:39 pm

"Reject the anthropocentric falsehood that maintains the oppressive hierarchy of mankind over the animals. "
It is not that which creates this alleged hierarchy, but history. Before the rise of man, the animals hunted and ate us as they saw fit.
User avatar
Jigme Tsultrim
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:41 am
Location: N.E. Thailand

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby asunthatneversets » Tue Jan 21, 2014 7:56 pm

Jigme Tsultrim wrote:"Reject the anthropocentric falsehood that maintains the oppressive hierarchy of mankind over the animals. "
It is not that which creates this alleged hierarchy, but history. Before the rise of man, the animals hunted and ate us as they saw fit.

Very true. I don't think it's an objection to the natural order of predator and prey. What's being addressed is the perverse subjugation and objectification of other beings as bio machines and so on... literally using them as a means to fulfill human interests. The anthropocentric falsehood he's addressing is simply the way that humanity's relationship to animals has evolved to be what it is today. Whether it's influences such as the church originally declaring that animals have no soul, which spilled over into scientific views, or otherwise. A prime example being the fact that in just the past five years, scientists have reformed their views to state that animals have consciousness, or that they have emotions etc. Which is ludicrous to think that many thought otherwise, the level of disconnect there is astonishing to say the least. I literally saw an article not even six months ago which said something to the order of; 'scientists declare that animals have consciousness'. Even the very titles 'animal' and 'human' sets humanity apart, Derrida has an excellent piece about this.

All in all it should be blatantly obvious that humanity puts itself on a pedestal. But yes you're right, animals used to hunt us too, and still may in some regions of the world. What they don't do however, is put us in factory farms by the tens of millions, pump us full of antibiotics, milk us and systematically kill us for our meat or profitable parts. When a systematic killing of humans occurs we call it genocide, when a systematic killing of animals occurs, we call it the standard.
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dan74, tomamundsen and 15 guests

>