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 Pero » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:36 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
Pero wrote:
KonchokZoepa wrote:no actually i dont have an intent to kill even if i eat meat. none whatsoever and i would never kill an animal to eat it.

Don't bother, vegetarians lose all reason about this.


all classical expositions of karma include the case of ordering someone else to kill for you for the very reason that people of low intelligence will actually think that it excuses them from culpability.

if you actually think that saying "i would never kill an animal to eat it but Im OK with paying someone else to kill it so I can eat it" makes sense, then I really don't know what else to say to you.

Yes well, I don't know when was the last time you went to a restaurant, caffeteria or a grocery etc. but these days (and as long as I've been alive) you don't come there and say "hey, I'd like some beef, go and kill some for me and I'll pay you". You come, there's meat, you buy or you don't.
It's just a silly argument.
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar
Pero
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby David N. Snyder » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:44 pm

over 2,500 posts ! !

:woohoo:

I think . . . :thinking:
User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby David N. Snyder » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:48 pm

Pero wrote:Yes well, I don't know when was the last time you went to a restaurant, caffeteria or a grocery etc. but these days (and as long as I've been alive) you don't come there and say "hey, I'd like some beef, go and kill some for me and I'll pay you". You come, there's meat, you buy or you don't.
It's just a silly argument.


Well, the vegetarian position sees that as just as silly. The vegetarian position contends that the meat you purchase will be replaced; supply and demand and in order for the meat to be replaced, someone (cow, chicken, bull, etc) has to be killed.
User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby gad rgyangs » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:50 pm

Pero wrote:Yes well, I don't know when was the last time you went to a restaurant, caffeteria or a grocery etc. but these days (and as long as I've been alive) you don't come there and say "hey, I'd like some beef, go and kill some for me and I'll pay you". You come, there's meat, you buy or you don't.
It's just a silly argument.


the only thing this demonstrates is that you have no idea how an economy works or what "supply and demand" means.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Malcolm » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:51 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:
so you're claiming that intent is irrelevant when it comes to karma?


No, I am observing that all living beings feed on other living beings. I will add that the distinction between sentient and non-sentient life is artificial and anachronistic.

M


thats a non-sequitur as a response to the question of intent and karma.


I answered your question. The answer is no (I am not claiming that intent is irrelevant when it comes to karma -- no one would unless they knew nothing about Buddhadharma).
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: 10165
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Johnny Dangerous » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:56 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
Pero wrote:
KonchokZoepa wrote:no actually i dont have an intent to kill even if i eat meat. none whatsoever and i would never kill an animal to eat it.

Don't bother, vegetarians lose all reason about this.


all classical expositions of karma include the case of ordering someone else to kill for you for the very reason that people of low intelligence will actually think that it excuses them from culpability.

if you actually think that saying "i would never kill an animal to eat it but Im OK with paying someone else to kill it so I can eat it" makes sense, then I really don't know what else to say to you.



Do you pay taxes in the US? You are basically culpable killing people with drones then, by your own logic.

Insert another example if that one doesn't fit, the point is, determining moral culpability by indirect action can only go so far until it becomes absurd.

Again, look at the fact that most westerners can only enjoy their "ethical" diet choices due to insane amounts of wrongly-accrued wealth and abundance, and IMO many of the arguments claiming vegetarianism as a high ground being to look pretty shotty. I am not someone who thinks there's no merit there mind, I believe it's a meritorious, great thing to do, but not the flawed ethical reasoning that's it's often presented with.
"Just as a lotus does not grow out of a well-levelled soil but from the mire, in the same way the awakening mind
is not born in the hearts of disciples in whom the moisture of attachment has dried up. It grows instead in the hearts of ordinary sentient beings who possess in full the fetters of bondage." -Se Chilbu Choki Gyaltsen
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2139
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Malcolm » Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:05 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
Pero wrote:Yes well, I don't know when was the last time you went to a restaurant, caffeteria or a grocery etc. but these days (and as long as I've been alive) you don't come there and say "hey, I'd like some beef, go and kill some for me and I'll pay you". You come, there's meat, you buy or you don't.
It's just a silly argument.


the only thing this demonstrates is that you have no idea how an economy works or what "supply and demand" means.



And vegetarians, and especially vegans, have their head in the sand with respect to the necessity of animals being involved in the cycle of any viable sustainable, organic, local agricultural system.

for example, all that rice you eat is fertilized with feather meal and poultry litter which comes from exactly the same abattoirs you are condemning. We are all eating animal inputs all the time whenever we eat any organically produced vegetables.
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: 10165
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby David N. Snyder » Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:14 pm

Johnny Dangerous wrote:Do you pay taxes in the US? You are basically culpable killing people with drones then, by your own logic.


Not necessarily. You can vote for the anti-war candidate, if there is one. I have become an almost single-issue voter, voting for the one who is the most anti-war, because I know wars do the most damage, the most carnage to living beings. Sometimes the most anti-war is one from the center-right and sometimes from the far-left, such as Dennis Kucinich. Whoever is the most anti-war, that is who I support.

Eating is sort of like voting too. What you decide to eat, decides what will be replaced, be it the veggies, the dairy, the eggs, or the meat. There is violence across the whole spectrum as some of you have noted. Some argue that some choices are "less violent" and have less killing.
User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Johnny Dangerous » Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:17 pm

David N. Snyder wrote:
Johnny Dangerous wrote:Do you pay taxes in the US? You are basically culpable killing people with drones then, by your own logic.


Not necessarily. You can vote for the anti-war candidate, if there is one. I have become an almost single-issue voter, voting for the one who is the most anti-war, because I know wars do the most damage, the most carnage to living beings. Sometimes the most anti-war is one from the center-right and sometimes from the far-left, such as Dennis Kucinich. Whoever is the most anti-war, that is who I support.

Eating is sort of like voting too. What you decide to eat, decides what will be replaced, be it the veggies, the dairy, the eggs, or the meat. There is violence across the whole spectrum as some of you have noted. Some argue that some choices are "less violent" and have less killing.


It has nothing to do with voting though, only applying the same logic to something like paying taxes that many vegetarians/vegans apply to meat eating. I.e., that indirect responsibility is exactly the same as directly taken actions, which is nonsense. I agree that some choices are better than others for sure, what I don't agree with is people taking something that is easy to do for first-worlders (much easier than not paying taxes for instance), and then applying this flawed argument about culpability for indirect harm to support it, especially when we are guilty of many of these indirect actions that cause all kinds of suffering just by virtue of living our normal, everyday lives. It's not that I don't agree with changing these things, it just seems pretty clear that people are choosing the most convenient one, and trying to use it as some kind of moral high ground. I don't see nearly as many people making real sacrifices, like simply eating less, not paying taxes, not owning cars etc. for the sort of "indirect ahimsa" reasons. Mind, i'm not claiming I do those things by any stretch, maintaining compassion for sentient beings I encounter is a full practice for me.. but i do not make doctrinaire arguments about other people's diets either.
Last edited by Johnny Dangerous on Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Just as a lotus does not grow out of a well-levelled soil but from the mire, in the same way the awakening mind
is not born in the hearts of disciples in whom the moisture of attachment has dried up. It grows instead in the hearts of ordinary sentient beings who possess in full the fetters of bondage." -Se Chilbu Choki Gyaltsen
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2139
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby KonchokZoepa » Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:18 pm

David N. Snyder wrote:
Johnny Dangerous wrote:Do you pay taxes in the US? You are basically culpable killing people with drones then, by your own logic.


Not necessarily. You can vote for the anti-war candidate, if there is one. I have become an almost single-issue voter, voting for the one who is the most anti-war, because I know wars do the most damage, the most carnage to living beings. Sometimes the most anti-war is one from the center-right and sometimes from the far-left, such as Dennis Kucinich. Whoever is the most anti-war, that is who I support.

Eating is sort of like voting too. What you decide to eat, decides what will be replaced, be it the veggies, the dairy, the eggs, or the meat. There is violence across the whole spectrum as some of you have noted. Some argue that some choices are "less violent" and have less killing.



:good: :anjali:
KonchokZoepa
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:50 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Pero » Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:21 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
Pero wrote:Yes well, I don't know when was the last time you went to a restaurant, caffeteria or a grocery etc. but these days (and as long as I've been alive) you don't come there and say "hey, I'd like some beef, go and kill some for me and I'll pay you". You come, there's meat, you buy or you don't.
It's just a silly argument.


the only thing this demonstrates is that you have no idea how an economy works or what "supply and demand" means.

Well thanks then for proving my point. How could I have any intention of killing when I have no idea how things really work?
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar
Pero
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Jikan » Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:29 pm

Samsara has so many shortcomings.
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4285
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby gad rgyangs » Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:42 pm

Malcolm wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:
thats a non-sequitur as a response to the question of intent and karma.


I answered your question. The answer is no (I am not claiming that intent is irrelevant when it comes to karma -- no one would unless they knew nothing about Buddhadharma).


then you admit that there is a karmic difference between "intent to kill & eat" vs. "intent to try and minimize killing while eating"?
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby KonchokZoepa » Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:44 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:
thats a non-sequitur as a response to the question of intent and karma.


I answered your question. The answer is no (I am not claiming that intent is irrelevant when it comes to karma -- no one would unless they knew nothing about Buddhadharma).


then you admit that there is a karmic difference between "intent to kill & eat" vs. "intent to try and minimize killing while eating"?



you have only made this intent to kill in your mind. most people who eat meat have no intent to kill.
KonchokZoepa
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:50 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Jikan » Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:58 pm

Malcolm wrote:
David N. Snyder wrote:What if everyone were Buddhist? Who would man the slaughter-houses?


We have already performed this experiment in Tibet, Thailand, etc. The answer is that Buddhists would man the abattoirs and come up with rites of karmic expiation.


Or a caste system emerges...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burakumin
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4285
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Malcolm » Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:20 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:
thats a non-sequitur as a response to the question of intent and karma.


I answered your question. The answer is no (I am not claiming that intent is irrelevant when it comes to karma -- no one would unless they knew nothing about Buddhadharma).


then you admit that there is a karmic difference between "intent to kill & eat" vs. "intent to try and minimize killing while eating"?


You left out the middle one:

"Eating without intent to kill."

Anyway, killing is not the problem, the taking of life is. The later requires intent. The former does not.

But eating anything that lives is a problem for something somewhere. All food involves the death of something else living.
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: 10165
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby gad rgyangs » Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:49 pm

Malcolm wrote:
You left out the middle one:

"Eating without intent to kill."

Anyway, killing is not the problem, the taking of life is. The later requires intent. The former does not.

But eating anything that lives is a problem for something somewhere. All food involves the death of something else living.


thats like receiving stolen goods, knowing that they're stolen goods, and claiming innocence by saying "hey, i didn't steal them, I didn't even have any intent to steal them!"

even secular jurisprudence rejects this excuse as sophistry and puts your ass in jail.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Johnny Dangerous » Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:58 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
You left out the middle one:

"Eating without intent to kill."

Anyway, killing is not the problem, the taking of life is. The later requires intent. The former does not.

But eating anything that lives is a problem for something somewhere. All food involves the death of something else living.


thats like receiving stolen goods, knowing that they're stolen goods, and claiming innocence by saying "hey, i didn't steal them, I didn't even have any intent to steal them!"

even secular jurisprudence rejects this excuse as sophistry and puts your ass in jail.


That's a bad comparison, because you are not required to receive stolen goods, nor is your life dependent on receiving them. Whereas we all have to eat, and for most dietary choice or lack thereof is based on income, environment, country of origin, physiology etc. you are basically equating engaging a "normal" human diet with knowingly participating in a crime. Again it seems to me that in other walks of life, many vegetarians and vegans are pretty much mum about all the other sources of indirect killing they are involved in, including the very fact that historical imperialism and it's wealth gathering is in large part what ever makes their diets possible.. I think it's often an easy source of undeserved pride and moral superiority..a great thing to do as a personal choice, but nothing special to be proud of, and not a stick to shake and other people.
"Just as a lotus does not grow out of a well-levelled soil but from the mire, in the same way the awakening mind
is not born in the hearts of disciples in whom the moisture of attachment has dried up. It grows instead in the hearts of ordinary sentient beings who possess in full the fetters of bondage." -Se Chilbu Choki Gyaltsen
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2139
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby gad rgyangs » Wed Oct 16, 2013 8:19 pm

its simply a matter of intent: does one try to avoid participating in violence and killing as much as possible, or does one justify extra and unnecessary killing for the sake of one's gustatory pleasure?
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Johnny Dangerous » Wed Oct 16, 2013 8:29 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:its simply a matter of intent: does one try to avoid participating in violence and killing as much as possible, or does one justify extra and unnecessary killing for the sake of one's gustatory pleasure?



The vast majority of people who eat meat do so because they are following the diet choices of their culture, not just for pleasure, for most it isn't even a consciously made decision. The people doing something exceptional are the ones changing their diet (again, ironically often first-worlders who have the luxury of doing so due to the gross amounts of wealth they indirectly benefit from) with some perceived notions of an isolated lifestyle change having a much greater effect on anything (either inner or outer) than it likely does.

Seriously, take your argument and apply it to anything, driving ,paying taxes, buying clothing, whatever, and it quickly becomes absurd, because you can't judge moral culpability the same way when it comes indirect circumstances, otherwise it gets ridiculous...you are just choosing one among many different indirect activities that contribute to awful things in the world. a meritorious thing to do, but I don't think it gives you any moral high ground over those that choose not to.

So if someone wants to make these arguments, my question is at what point does indirect moral culpability stop? I mean if you are going to assert it's that important, it needs to have clearly defined parameters, else the only truly moral thing is living completely off the grid, in a pre-modern lifestyle affecting no one and nothing. Since it actually requires pretty much the opposite of this to even engage in a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle at all, the claims of moral superiority strike me as ridiculous.
Last edited by Johnny Dangerous on Wed Oct 16, 2013 8:38 pm, edited 4 times in total.
"Just as a lotus does not grow out of a well-levelled soil but from the mire, in the same way the awakening mind
is not born in the hearts of disciples in whom the moisture of attachment has dried up. It grows instead in the hearts of ordinary sentient beings who possess in full the fetters of bondage." -Se Chilbu Choki Gyaltsen
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2139
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Inge, smcj, Tabkye and 11 guests

>