Eating Meat Is OK

[waybackhome83]

I propose that eating meat is OK.  It helps to provide us with essential nutrients, and contrary to the belief that the individual is indirectly involved with the harming of animals, I further propose that, while demand equals supply, the demand for meat products will always exist and therefore, that one person gives up meat won't make any difference at all.

Some might also argue that if one person gives up meat, this can lead to more people following by example.  And while I agree that this can be effective to a very small degree, this argument is, on the whole, very weak.

[spiritnoname]

 In modern countries we have access to alternative foods that are much less difficult and expensive to raise. Eating meat was a matter of survival in the past and still is in some places but it is not necessary to my knowledge in modern countries for virtually all people, and when it is not necessary it is recognized by me as a cruel luxury.

 So in context to what I know as fundamental Buddhist morality it is not without fault for those whom it is not necessary for sustenance, which is the purpose of food in Buddhist training. This obviously does not apply to monks who do not choose their food, or tantrikas who are eating meat for other reason than sustenance, and of course people that have health conditions that require meat which does happen.

 I think I should mention however that you'd be hard pressed to find food without any fault, and it would be incorrect to impose a training rule on anyone, it's up to them to accept it.

"“Bhikkhus, how should a practitioner regard edible food? Imagine a young couple with a baby boy whom they look after and raise with all their love. One day they decide to bring their son to another country to make their living. They have to go through the difficulties and dangers of a desert.

During the journey, they run out of provisions and fall extremely hungry. There is no way out for them and they discuss the following plan: ‘We only have one son whom we love with all our heart. If we eat his flesh we shall survive and manage to overcome this dangerous situation. If we do not eat his flesh all three of us will die.’ After this discussion, they killed their son, with tears of pain and gritting their teeth they ate the flesh of their son, just so as to be able to live and come out of the desert.”

The Buddha asked: “Do you think that couple ate their son’s flesh because they wanted to enjoy its taste and because they wanted their bodies to have the nutriment that would make them more beautiful?”

The monks replied: “No, Venerable Lord.”

The Buddha asked: “Were the couple forced to eat their son’s flesh in order to survive and escape from the dangers of the desert?”

The monks replied: “Yes, Venerable Lord.”

The Buddha taught: “Monks, every time we ingest edible food, we should train ourselves to look at it as our son’s flesh. If we meditate on it in this way we shall have clear insight and understanding which puts an end to misperceptions about edible food and our attachment to sensual pleasures will dissolve. Once the attachment to sensual pleasures is transformed there are no longer any internal formations concerning the five objects of sensual pleasure in the noble disciple who applies himself to the training and the practice. When the internal formations still bind us we have to keep returning to this world."--Samyukta Agama, Sutra 373

[waybackhome83]

Hmm, I'm sorry, but to imply that it's fine for some humans to eat meat for certain purposes, while implying that other people who simply eat it because they like it are doing something immoral, doesn't really make sense.  Surely, from your point, an animal has to give up its life regardless of the requirement of the person who eats it? 

The Buddha's teachings are logical (as always) and sensible - but where does he say it is wrong to eat meat?  He says: "If we meditate on it in this way we shall have clear insight and understanding which puts an end to misperceptions about edible food and our attachment to sensual pleasures will dissolve. " 

Part of my argument is that it's OK to eat meat for nutritional reasons - the Buddha's teaching relates to "edible food" and attachment to sensual pleasures; this teaching could be applied to ice-cream, strawberries or lettuce!  Not just meat.

Eating meat for sensual pleasure isn't ideal - but that can be said for any food we eat.  However, meat does provide essential nutrients that helps to sustain us as part of a balanced diet.  That's why I propose that eating meat is OK.

[spiritnoname]

I'm glad you agree with me on some things whether you realize it or not.

 The purpose of eating meat does matter, as it does with any action.

 The quote I included was meant to talk about food in general, it was to support the idea that almost all foods are not without fault.

 Where does Buddha Shakyamuni say it is wrong to eat meat? I'm not aware of a passage where he does. He does say to refrain from killing or being the cause of a being's death.

 ""He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should he incite another to kill. Do not injure any being, either strong or weak, in the world." --- Dhammika Sutta

 Your argument that eating meat is ok because it provides essential nutrients, well,... so do human babies,... doesn't make it okay, so lets not get confused about what we're doing, this world is cruel and many have to eat meat but if it is not necessary then like other cruel things it makes sense to avoid it. Whether you have to or not it is not OK.

 When you mention a portion of my quote, I think you misunderstand, misperceptions about edible food is thinking that there is something good about it rather than recognizing it as the disgusting horrible thing we are dependent on that we will even kill to get if necessary in order to support this physical body.  The attachment to dissolve is that of thinking it is something pleasant and desirable that we should happily live for and have a cause for more birth.

 I should clear some confusion, when I say fault I'm really talking about two kinds of fault, a fault of the training (which cannot be incurred when breaking the precept is unavoidable) and a general fault or harmful activity.

 Eating meat for sustenance is with fault regardless, most things are with varying degrees of fault in terms of harmful activity.
 Eating meat for sustenance in regards to fundamental training is not a fault, however contributing to or killing is.

 Any training rule is something people take on themselves.

[Blueberry]

I feel each person can have his/her own opinion to follow. I respect Sandy's opinion as well as SNN's opinion.

I remember Rinpoche's teaching, correct me if i m wrong ya.. He said like this "whatever i told you today ( abt dharma la) if you think it fits you and make you good then do it. If you think it does not fit you and you dont do then also ok. Cos it doesnt matter you want to take it or not, dharma is it. You follow or not follow then result is on your hand."

Similarly with eating meat or not. I believe i dont eat meat then it will give good result for me and i also believe it will give good difference to world. Hence i follow cutting meat for my meals.

While Sandy's believe eating meat also give good result to one's health, then i respect it la cos Sandy also gave explanation behind it.

The problem is exploitation is there. IF only we follow harmonious nature to flow then like Buddha teaching lor.. everything everyone has it own part to give this world to be used. Like river has to flow endlessly, like trees has to grow for beings, like the insects has to live to eaten by frog, and frog has to live to eaten for snakes...circle of nature na

Well....thats my humble simple thoughts 

[wmw111]

Blueberry ,
This is one on one showdown/debate , you're not supposed to be in this debate .

[Blueberry]

Opppsss....sorry sorry...my apology 

[waybackhome83]

Spirit, to make outlandish comparisons doesn't work in debate.  Of course it's insane to eat human babies, but I'm not talking about eating humans; I'm talking about the socially acceptable practice of eating animal meat...didn't Buddha eat meat?  Wasn't Jesus said to have fed the five thousand partly with fish?

Of course I'm aware that I agree with you that eating meat for certain purposes is OK - I initially made the point to say it was OK since it provides nutrients essential to the well-being of the human body.

You contradict yourself quite blatantly by saying:

"Eating meat for sustenance is with fault regardless, most things are with varying degrees of fault in terms of harmful activity.
 Eating meat for sustenance in regards to fundamental training is not a fault, however contributing to or killing is."

How can you first say that eating meat for sustenance is with fault regardless, and then say in the next sentence that it is without fault in regards to fundamental training?  This makes absolutely no sense - it's absurd to say that eating meat is absolutely with fault and then make exceptions: if you make an absolute point, you can't then be selective on it; it's either one or the other.

I didn't misunderstand the Buddha's teaching at all.  He talked about the danger of being attached to edible food (any food) and that we should look on the eating of edible food as a means of surviving, as opposed to being something pleasurable, pleasing the senses (i.e. being attached), just like the parents in the desert - they had to eat their son's flesh in order that they had the nourishment to survive.

Some monks eat meat, and certainly it has been argued that in order to do certain practices, the consumption of meat is necessary to keep the body strong.   I'm sure I've read that the Buddha was against the suggestion of employing a rule to say that vegetarianism is a must in order to be part of the sangha.  I'll need to check this point out to be concretely sure, but I doubt this will be a problem.

[spiritnoname]

 Yes, Buddha Shakyamuni rejected the proposal by Devadatta to prohibit eating meat.

 It is not a fault in fundamental Buddhist training because there is not a rule about eating meat, however killing is, though their is no fault if it is unavoidable.

 The topic of the debate is whether or not eating meat is OK. I'm saying no, it's not okay, but sometimes it's the best option we have and other times it's a cruel luxury.

 I didn't actually contradict myself, I was very careful to make distinctions between general faults and training faults, it's just written with such precision that you really have to study it carefully to understand the subtle differences.  You can be at fault and not be breaking any training rules.

[waybackhome83]

I am quite aware of words, their meanings and the contexts in which they're used.  To say that doing something is wrong "regardless" (i.e. of reasons) is to say that no matter what, there is no excuse for carrying out that specific act.  So therefore, you cannot then give exceptions of fault to an action you say has fault regardless.  There's nothing subtly hidden or abstract in your words - it's plain and simple contradiction.

And again you contradict yourself by saying:  "The topic of the debate is whether or not eating meat is OK. I'm saying no, it's not okay, but sometimes it's the best option we have and other times it's a cruel luxury."

So here you are saying that it's not OK to eat meat, but it is OK sometimes.  This makes absolutely no sense.   If you mean that it's OK when nutrition is taken into consideration rather than eating the meat for pleasure, then this agrees with what I already stated: I initially said that eating meat was fine for nurtitional reasons - I didn't give any opinion at all on people eating meat for pleasure.  That wasn't part of my proposal.

[spiritnoname]

 If you're aware of my words then you're not acknowledging them. I am not speaking with contradiction, you're using a debating tactic called strawman, where you attempt to defeat my argument by defeating a similar but different one, it is a logical fallacy and doesn't work on sharp people.
 
 There are excuses for carrying out harmful actions at times, because the benefit outweighs the fault.

 No, I didn't say it was okay for nutritional reasons. Okay means there is no harm from it, but there is.

 So,.... I guess I have to use a more formal debating method, you'll have to defeat my premises to defeat my conclusion

  Premise 1: Eating meat is the concomitant cause of killing animals for meat.
  Premise 2: Killing is a harm.
  Premise 3: Harm is not okay.
  Conclusion: Eating meat is not okay.

 Do you disagree with any of these premises?

 You might not like the idea that things we do all the time are harmful, but if you want to debate me you'll have to open your eyes to it.

[waybackhome83]

Spirit,

I'm not using any tactic - you contradict your words.  You did it again:

"Okay means there is no harm from it, but there is."

How can there be no harm, yet harm?  This is pure contradiction: you cannot say that something has fault regardless of the reason, but that there are some cases where there is no fault.  I'm not using tactics - this is solid logic.

Please don't try and swerve from the original debating point, which was that eating meat is OK for nutritional reasons.  Your first premise is an entirely seperate debate on its own - can we stick to this one, yes?

I admire your (albeit completely futile) attempt to suggest that I'm not aware that actions we carry out can be harmful.  This is life sir, samsara - there is no escaping harm or negativity; I can assure you that my eyes are wide open to this.  But again, this digresses from the debate.

Bringing it back, you either think that it is OK to eat meat for nutritional purposes  or you don't.  Now, I'm not talking about eating meat for pleasure, or as you dramatically put it, as a "cruel luxury"; my proposal is that it is OK to eat meat because it provides us with essential nutrients.

You answered, "No, I didn't say it was okay for nutritional reasons."  But you did:

"Eating meat for sustenance in regards to fundamental training is not a fault"

Even to consider for a moment that you did not say it was OK, are you then disagreeing with both my view and Buddha's teaching?  The parents in his story didn't eat the flesh for any other reason than nourishment, so they could survive.  There was no pleasure at all in their decision, no "cruel luxury", and no thought other than to have the nutrients to survive the desert.  Their actions seem not to have been condemned
The Buddha, through this story, taught the importance of not being attached to food in such a way that we satisfy the sensual pleasures, but rather to meditate on the food as sustenance vital for us to keep going - and he addressed ALL edible food...he did not single out meat.

In order for this debate to take any forward progress, you really need to be specific:  WHEN and under WHAT circumstances you think is it OK to eat meat?  Now, you say that (for some reason) it is OK...but then go on to say that it's not. 
You also give a completely absurd definition of OK.  "OK" means satisfactory, or fine, or acceptable.  It does not mean that there is "no harm from it (whatever "it" is), but there is".

I think I've been pretty clear in my points, in arguing yours, and providing clear points to the things you've addressed, despite your attempts of diversion, digression and complete fudging of words.  This is all part of debate sometimes, as is the pointing out and discrediting of points made through these tactics, but you must - without exception - make your case parfectly clear.

If you say that eating meat is OK for, as you clearly stated, sustenance,  then you agree with my initial argument.  If, on the other hand, you don't think eating meat is OK, then there can be no exceptions...this comes from your own words, not mine:

""Eating meat for sustenance is with fault regardless, most things are with varying degrees of fault in terms of harmful activity.
 Eating meat for sustenance in regards to fundamental training is not a fault, however contributing to or killing is."

[spiritnoname]

Is English your first language?

[spiritnoname]

Do you disagree with any of my premises? If not you accept my conclusion.

  Premise 1: Eating meat is the concomitant cause of killing animals for meat.
  Premise 2: Killing is a harm.
  Premise 3: Harm is not okay.
  Conclusion: Eating meat is not okay.


 You might not like the idea that things we do all the time are harmful, but if you want to debate me you'll have to open your eyes to it.

[waybackhome83]

Well, I guess I have to concede under the rules