the great vegetarian debate

[PadmaVonSamba]

when one follows a vegetarian diet, is there intent to harm or kill sentient beings? no.

Hitler was a vegetarian.

[Malcolm]

if you purchase meat, either in a store or restaurant, you are, in effect, paying someone to kill the animal for you, so the intent is there just as much as if you killed the animal yourself.

By the same reasoning, if you eat a tomato, etc. to which pesticides have been applied, you are as culpablein terms of intent as the farmer in the death of the insects. But of course ideological vegetarians alway try to excuse the harm to beings caused by agriculture. It is one of their largest blind spots.

N

[practitioner]

when one follows a vegetarian diet, is there intent to harm or kill sentient beings? no.

Hitler was a vegetarian.

And Stalin ate meat.

[Infinite]

when one follows a vegetarian diet, is there intent to harm or kill sentient beings? no.

Hitler was a vegetarian.

And Stalin ate meat.

The point you are missing is vegetarianism doesn't guarantee or tell you anything about an individual. I don't get why people have such a hard time getting this.

[saltspring]

This issue has always been a huge problem for me. I agree with Namdrol that eating meat that is grass fed, and not raised in a factory feedlot is ethicaly ok. Vegetarians hopefuly do realize that animals and insects are killed in large numbers for their food. But I disagee with Nangwa assertion that those working in a slaughterhouse are more karmicaly guilty than those who purchase there products. I personaly can't buy meat from a grocery store I find the idea repugnant, but I do eat animals that I have raised and slughtered for myself and family. I feel if I eat it I should bare the consequences not some poor butcher. i will be attending a class this summer taught by Joel Salatin here on Saltspring Island hopefully I can learn to further minimize my impact on the environment through proper husbandry.Anyway rant over and I do hope we can all get off this ride that is Samsara, vegetarians and meat eaters may we all achieve liberation soon!

[gad rgyangs]

if you purchase meat, either in a store or restaurant, you are, in effect, paying someone to kill the animal for you, so the intent is there just as much as if you killed the animal yourself.

By the same reasoning, if you eat a tomato, etc. to which pesticides have been applied, you are as culpablein terms of intent as the farmer in the death of the insects. But of course ideological vegetarians alway try to excuse the harm to beings caused by agriculture. It is one of their largest blind spots.

N

i was speaking of intention, as was the Buddha when he said, in the Nibbedhika Sutta AN 6.63:

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.

and Vasubandhu in Ch 4 of the Kosa:

What is action?
1b. It is volition (cetana) and that which is produced through volition.
1c-d Volition is mental action: it gives rise to two actions, bodily and vocal action

according to the Buddhist view of karma, accidentally stepping on a bug is different from deliberately stepping on a bug. What is the difference? In the first case there is no intention to kill, in the second there is. In eating a carrot, there is no intention to kill; in eating a hamburger, by definition, there is. If you don't agree with Buddhist doctrine, thats fine, but you have to admit that before you can argue what you are saying above.

[saltspring]

Good posting gad rgyangs.

[Acchantika]

But frankly, being a vegetarian is not a superior moral choice. If you are a vegetarian for reasons of health it is one thing. But vegetarianism as moral campaign is deluded. Millions of animals large and small die to bring vegetables and grains to our plates every day. But over and over again vegetarians justify this claiming that the purpose of such agriculture is not to kill animals, so therefore, they morally excuse themselves from culpability in the death of countless millions of creatures.

It seems to me that your argument is against the modern agriculture industry not vegetarianism per se. If vegetarianism could operate without the use of organic or inorganic pesticides in a sustainable way perhaps that would be the superior moral choice. This isn't feasible on a large scale currently, but vegetarianism even in its current state would be a progressive step towards that end while non-vegetarianism cannot be. In the same way that world peace is not achievable currently, and many may technically die because one does not join an army to protect oppressed countries by killing oppressors, this is not a valid reason to join the army.

[Nemo]

I don't know if that is still true. Organic agriculture would only produce enough food for about 3 billion people right now with current land usage. Not a particularly moral choice for roughly half the planet.

The health benefits for either camp are simply not there. They are fabricated in some studies for either group of course. But in larger studies outcomes of veggies and omnivores are statistically insignificant unless dealing with those with specific genetic anomalies like lactose intolerance and the inability to fabricate certain amino acids.

If you can't stomach murdering animals for your food though I think that is a good thing.

[Malcolm]

according to the Buddhist view of karma, accidentally stepping on a bug is different from deliberately stepping on a bug. What is the difference? In the first case there is no intention to kill, in the second there is. In eating a carrot, there is no intention to kill; in eating a hamburger, by definition, there is.

Sorry, that just not fly. Buying a hamburger in a market does not eqaute intention to kill. I know you desperately want it too, but it does not. Asking someone outright to slaughter a steer so you can have meat on the other hand would involve an intention to kill.

Bhavaviveka dispensed with your argument long ago in his Tarkajvala.

N

[Malcolm]

I don't know if that is still true. Organic agriculture would only produce enough food for about 3 billion beople right now with current land usage. If that is the "moral" choice,.....

That is also not true. The only reason we have industrial agriculture is because of oil.

There are much smarter ways to do agriculture. Small organic farms generate a much higher yield per acre than large agrobusiness monocrop "farms".

N

[Nemo]

Maybe on planet granola. Pests eat so much you need to plant at least twice as much and the labour involved is often ridiculous.

As well the produce rots much faster and in the "good ol' days" of organic farming it took one in six adults working full time growing food to produce enough to feed everyone.

[gad rgyangs]

Buying a hamburger in a market does not eqaute intention to kill.
Asking someone outright to slaughter a steer so you can have meat on the other hand would involve an intention to kill.

Buying a hamburger in a market initiates a causal chain that results in someone outright slaughtering another steer to restock the shelf in the market. You might actually end up buying the meat of the steer that you "ordered" to be killed on your next trip to the market.

Are you actually claiming that if you go to one of those Chinese seafood restaurants where they have the live fish in tanks, and you point to the fish you want them to kill and cook, it is karmically and morally different from going to a restaurant and letting them choose which fish to kill and cook to feed you?

[Malcolm]

But frankly, being a vegetarian is not a superior moral choice. If you are a vegetarian for reasons of health it is one thing. But vegetarianism as moral campaign is deluded. Millions of animals large and small die to bring vegetables and grains to our plates every day. But over and over again vegetarians justify this claiming that the purpose of such agriculture is not to kill animals, so therefore, they morally excuse themselves from culpability in the death of countless millions of creatures.

It seems to me that your argument is against the modern agriculture industry not vegetarianism per se. If vegetarianism could operate without the use of organic or inorganic pesticides in a sustainable way perhaps that would be the superior moral choice. This isn't feasible on a large scale currently, but vegetarianism even in its current state would be a progressive step towards that end while non-vegetarianism cannot be. In the same way that world peace is not achievable currently, and many may technically die because one does not join an army to protect oppressed countries by killing oppressors, this is not a valid reason to join the army.

When people stop killing animals for food, I will stop eating meat. Until then, I won't. It is pretty simple. I personally don't care what diet people have -- but the saccharine fake compassion holier than thou attitude of some vegetarians is pretty pathetic. So if your conscience won't permit you to eat meat, great, don't eat it. My conscience won't permit me not to. But don't lecture me with some lame ass criticisms and poorly cited arguments from Abhidharma (which incidentally is a Hinayāna system in which meat eating is permitted). If people wish to follow common Mahāyāna and avoid meat, fine. The Hevajra tantra states however "Those who eat meat have compassion."

If you really want to follow the common Mahāyāna POV, not only must you avoid meat, but you must avoid onion, garlic, scallions, wine, and so on. So if you are going to do down that road, be consistent. Don't eat onion, garlic, meat, drink wine and so on.

As I pointed out, if people grass fed their cattle in a proper way, for both dairy and meat, we could reverse 200 years of carbon release in ten-twenty years.

So far no one has answered my observation that whether eats meat or not makes absolutely not one whit of difference concerning whether one will become an awakened person or not. But there are apparently some people think that their choice diet makes them superior buddhists -- well, screw that, what bullshit -- load of religious crapola disconnected with reality.

N

N

[Malcolm]

Are you actually claiming that if you go to one of those Chinese seafood restaurants where they have the live fish in tanks, and you point to the fish you want them to kill and cook, it is karmically and morally different from going to a restaurant and letting them choose which fish to kill and cook to feed you?

I don't eat seafood in those kind of Chinese resturants; I don't order lobster in places where they boil them to order. I don't eat meat that I have seen being killed. And I never ask anyone to slaughter animals on my behalf. I won't eat meat that has been slaughtered for me.

N

[Malcolm]

Maybe on planet granola. Pests eat so much you need to plant at least twice as much and the labour involved is often ridiculous.

As well the produce rots much faster and in the "good ol' days" of organic farming it took one in six adults working full time growing food to produce enough to feed everyone.

I think you don't know very much about organic farming, companion planting etc. But believe whatever you want. People have different definitions of food. Mine excludes anything grown through agrocorporate methods, GMOS, etc.

If organic produce really rots faster (it doesn't), I would take that as a good sign.

[Malcolm]

The health benefits for either camp are simply not there.

Nonesense, industrial agriculture contributes significantly to global warming or climate instability, whatever you want to call it. It results in large scale enviromental degradation, it is hugely inefficient, costly, and it returns less and less every year in terms of energy inputs.

N

[gregkavarnos]

If organic produce really rots faster (it doesn't), I would take that as a good sign.

Actually, organically grown food tends to rot more slowly. Probably because only the healthiest "fruits" tend to be the ones that grow to maturity. My father has a large patch of land where he grows fruit and veges and he does not even use organic pesticides (technically the fruit and vege are not organic coz he uses chicken shit from his friends coop as fertiliser, and I don't know what his friend feeds his chickens with), anyway he has VERY healthy plants and the produce takes forever to wilt and rot!

[practitioner]

So if I have a house infested with termites and I hire an exterminator to spray the whole place, since I didn't do the actual killing myself I have no karmic responsibility? Sure...

[Malcolm]

So if I have a house infested with termites and I hire an exterminator to spray the whole place, since I didn't do the actual killing myself I have no karmic responsibility? Sure...

Of course you are, you are contracting it to be done, just as if you contracted a butcher to slaughter a steer for you.

Your objection is moot however since I was not making this argument.