YOU CANNOT POST. OUR WEB HOSTING COMPANY DECIDED TO MOVE THE SERVER TO ANOTHER LOCATION. IN THE MEANTIME, YOU CAN VIEW THIS VERSION WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW POSTING AND WILL NOT SAVE ANYTHING YOU DO ONCE THE OTHER SERVER GOES ONLINE.

the great vegetarian debate - Page 107 - Dhamma Wheel

the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths. What can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Meat eating

Postby DAWN » Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:46 pm

Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Postby Cittasanto » Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:56 pm



He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 2873
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Meat eating

Postby Mr Man » Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:11 pm


User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Postby Cittasanto » Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:40 pm



He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.

User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: Meat eating

Postby Dan74 » Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:01 pm

_/|\_

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Postby Cittasanto » Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:28 pm



He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.

User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Meat eating

Postby DAWN » Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:11 pm

Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Postby Cittasanto » Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:31 pm



He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.

User avatar
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Meat eating

Postby beeblebrox » Sun Nov 18, 2012 4:01 pm

I keep on seeing a lot of eel-wrigglings with this topic. When asked if there's a relationship in between buying the meat (at least in today's marketplace), and others' intention of killing the animals, we only get the answer that they're not responsible.

They refuse to acknowledge (or disacknowledge) the relationship. I think that this kind of habit in eel-wriggling is not useful for the practice, as per the Brahmajala Sutta. I know that the sutta really has more to do with the question of whether or not there is a self... but I think it's still not a good habit.

There also seem to be a lot of inferences that are being drawn to the suttas (or commentaries)... making an attempt to show some kind of relationship (or the lack of it) between the eating of meat and the killing of the animals. I think that this kind of habit should also be discouraged. (See: )

If we still must make some kind of inference, then I think it's a good idea to make sure that it's a wholesome one... i.e., that eating the meat being offered is meant to encourage generosity (which I think would be a blameless inference); not to show that it's OK for us to just allow others to continue the killing, nor to show that there is no relationship at all in between what one eats (especially when he procured what he ate) and the animals being killed. The latter two I think would be seen as unwholesome inferences, at least to a sane person... and I don't see what their usefulness might be at all to the practice. I think they might even be pernicious if the practitioner is unaware of what habits gave rise to these kind of inferences in the first place.

Ben, your suggestion about eating the deceased human remains seems like it might be a good idea on the surface (at least for those who feel like that they must continue to eat meat for the nutrient value)... but I even wouldn't suggest that to them, because of the prions. Most people are likely to gain some kind of serious degenerative disease from that... similar to the mad cow, which was what happened after the farmers fed their cows some ground-up leftover cow parts... as an attempt to save on the cost of feeding them grass, or even grains.

I think that a better suggestion would be to just get your meat from a dumpster, after the supermarket throws out the stuff that no one bought. This might even be a good practice, to study what kind of habits arise... and whether the person would think it's worth it to continue obtaining the meat in such a way, just to sustain himself... especially on a daily basis, considering other alternatives.
Last edited by beeblebrox on Sun Nov 18, 2012 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BubbaBuddhist
Posts: 640
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:55 am
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Postby BubbaBuddhist » Sun Nov 18, 2012 4:11 pm

Of course there is a relationship between supply and demand. But the question is:What is this relationship, and is this an economic law or a moral law?

BB
Author of Redneck Buddhism: or Will You Reincarnate as Your Own Cousin?

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Postby Cittasanto » Sun Nov 18, 2012 4:18 pm



He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 2873
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Meat eating

Postby Mr Man » Sun Nov 18, 2012 4:29 pm


User avatar
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Meat eating

Postby beeblebrox » Sun Nov 18, 2012 4:32 pm


User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Postby Cittasanto » Sun Nov 18, 2012 5:21 pm



He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Meat eating

Postby Cittasanto » Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:35 pm



He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 2873
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Meat eating

Postby Mr Man » Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:36 pm


User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 2873
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Meat eating

Postby Mr Man » Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:58 pm


User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8502
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Indian Textbook Claims Meat Eaters...

Postby cooran » Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:02 pm

He also ate the meat given.
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

User avatar
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Meat eating

Postby beeblebrox » Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:15 pm


User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Indian Textbook Claims Meat Eaters...

Postby DAWN » Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:21 pm

It's true :pig:
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...


Return to “Connections to Other Paths”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine