Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Peter Harvey and Ian Harris both document that Mahāyāna sutras like the Laṅkāvatāra explicitly prohibit meat eating on grounds of compassion, creating doctrinal tension with Tibetan practice.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Mahāyāna diversity means no single sutra's position creates universal 'doctrinal tension'—different schools prioritize different texts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Tibetan Buddhist philosophers developed sophisticated arguments (e.g., intention, necessity, tantra) addressing meat-eating that aren't mere rationalizations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Claiming 'tension' assumes Tibetan practice contradicts core doctrine, but context-dependent ethics may be legitimately integral to Buddhist thought.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The Laṅkāvatāra Sutra explicitly condemns meat consumption as incompatible with bodhisattva compassion toward sentient beings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Tibetan Buddhist communities historically adopted meat-eating due to environmental constraints, not doctrinal justification, creating unresolved tension.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Harvey and Harris's scholarship documents this contradiction as recognized by Buddhist scholars themselves, not as external criticism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.