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 KonchokZoepa » Fri Oct 25, 2013 7:53 am

for meat eaters there is a very beneficial mantra you can blow on the meat

om ah bira kechara hum


http://geshezopa.blogspot.fi/search/label/Mantras


30. Mantra for blessing meat
(Recite then blow on the meat before consumption. It will purify the meat and it will bring the benefit of liberation to the being. The mantra will transform the meat to nectar and create extensive generosity and merits so it becomes a cause of enlightenment. One will not commit heavy negative karma of eating the meat rather one will bring great benefit to the being the meat belongs to.)
Om Ah Bira Khe Chara Hum (7x)


om mani padme hum, blessings :anjali:
If the thought of demons
Never rises in your mind,
You need not fear the demon hosts around you.
It is most important to tame your mind within....

In so far as the Ultimate, or the true nature of being is concerned,
there are neither buddhas or demons.
He who frees himself from fear and hope, evil and virtue,
will realize the insubstantial and groundless nature of confusion.
Samsara will then appear as the mahamudra itself….

-Milarepa

OMMANIPADMEHUNG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls6P9tOYmdo
KonchokZoepa
 
Posts: 1285
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:50 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby ClearblueSky » Fri Oct 25, 2013 8:37 am

Thrasymachus wrote:
Malcolm wrote:BTW, when Norbu Rinpoche says that being a vegetarian is "miserable" compassion, he is primarily referring to Vajrayāna Buddhists who advocate vegetarianism. Why? Because there are methods in Vajrayāna which assist the animals in question achieve liberation who are connected with the production of our food, whether they are destroyed through pesticides and cultivation or through slaughter. Thus, even if one is a vegetarian one may not justify one's choice not to eat meat through resort of arguments of compassion since one is leaving behind animals who are slaughtered for meat.

He also makes it very clear that the writings on vegetarianism by Shabkar and so on are direct towards common people who are not real Vajrayāna practitioners. Since they have no method and no understanding it is much better that they not eat meat. Also the Buddha taught in Mahāyāna sutra that we mustn't eat meat.


This is just crazy and also speciesist. Why not also have the obviously superior Vajrayana humans also eat other inferiors who are also humans -- cannibalism, to liberate them? I think it is unfair to humans to not eat them also, so they can be liberated from samsara. Why do animals deserve better? Also, if we are gonna descend to this level of crazy, why can't we object and just eat hair or nails? Is that not enough?


Since everyone is currently calling Thrasymachus out (and with some good reason, I myself gave him some pretty stern disagreement in a recent thread), I'm going to have to say I actually agree with this part to some degree. I've been practicing Vajrayana for years myself, and I do genuinely believe in the power of prayer to help liberate beings. But when it comes to this type of thing, it bothers me on a very deep level. Perhaps more than anything I ever encounter in Buddhist teaching to be honest. It's not so much that I'm suggesting people need to be vegetarian. There are other things more important to practice. I also think people should do the good things they can, and still be Buddhists even if they can't do everything. Being a practitioner is not about upholding some kind of "purity" or being perfect. I see it similar (well, in some ways) to celibacy, where one could say it's maybe "better" in some ways for your practice to be, but not required whatsoever.

But it truthfully sickens me, when something so clearly brutal from an objective, removed from any religion, perspective is almost presented as if it's better, or equally beneficial to beings. When it comes to things like this, I think we need to step back, and see what it would look like to someone that wasn't a vajrayana practitioner. The bottom line is, the argument against what is absolutely horrific (modern day factory farming), is doing something that is invisible, and has no real-world proof of benefit. Yes, I have faith in teachings but I do not believe every teaching ever, even from great Lamas is necessarily morally correct. Prayer is important, but it should never override doing 100% harmful things. It reminds me of seeing Christians emotionally torturing gay youth in the real world, and then them reassuring me it's fine because their invisible god will actually make things better for them in the long run that way. There is literally no difference, it is comparing black and white horror to a subjective religious belief that it may not harm/or benefit them.

I'll try to make one more comparison:
So you are not directly responsible for the animals death. And then, you choose to eat it long after it's dead, and then justify it with a prayer for it's benefit, thus making it okay. Let's say there is a human that is kidnapped for sex slavery. She spends her whole life in absolute torture, birth to death. You go to a restaurant. They have a secret offering, where they've killed these sex slaves, and let customers have sex with their bodies. You are taught that you can liberate a dead body by saying a prayer while you have sex with it, if you happen to be making a choice to have sex with it. But, you have to pay the restaurant a large sum of your money, and every time you do it it not only encourages them, but the money goes towards buying more sex slaves and continuing the trade. Would you do it, give them your money, and continue funding the practice even if someone told you saying a prayer during might help liberate this person? And to people that say you might as well participate in something because it will never change, do you feel that it was morally right for people to participate in the slave trade, because it was the total norm at the time? What if you bought some slaves, but the only freedom you gave them was saying prayers they could no longer hear?

Meat eating bothers me to a certain degree, but religious justification, and saying not participating in a cycle of horror is no different than participating while mumbling certain words and thinking certain thoughts, truly upsets me deeply.
User avatar
ClearblueSky
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:27 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Fri Oct 25, 2013 8:43 am

So maybe your being upset is your jumping off point for seeing that there might be realities that you have not yet processed.
:namaste:
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Fri Oct 25, 2013 8:48 am

Adamantine wrote:Thrasymachus, are you a Buddhist? I am asking because a lot of things you've said on this thread recently seem to indicate otherwise. And if not, why are you interested in spending so much time here on DW debating with Buddhists?

I strongly suspect that he has a number of forums on which to be a gadfly.
The nature of those forums is irrelevant to his purpose.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby ClearblueSky » Fri Oct 25, 2013 8:53 am

Simon E. wrote:So maybe your being upset is your jumping off point for seeing that there might be realities that you have not yet processed.
:namaste:

That doesn't really debate my point. As I said, I do think there is some power to prayer. But as you put it, it is still comparing a reality that "might be", to a reality that is. And look at the point I made about the Christians with gay youth. They argue it in the exact same way, and they are just as confident as yourself, perhaps even more to that reality.
User avatar
ClearblueSky
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:27 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Fri Oct 25, 2013 8:55 am

It wasn't meant to debate your point.
It was a statement that might have truth in it.
The 'maybe ' indicates that it is not a matter of rightness or wrongness.
The idea that the animal eaten can benefit from the intentions of a Vajrayana practitioner when eating its flesh may represent a reality beyond your experience.
Last edited by Simon E. on Fri Oct 25, 2013 9:00 am, edited 2 times in total.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby KonchokZoepa » Fri Oct 25, 2013 8:59 am

ClearblueSky wrote:I'll try to make one more comparison:
So you are not directly responsible for the animals death. And then, you choose to eat it long after it's dead, and then justify it with a prayer for it's benefit, thus making it okay. Let's say there is a human that is kidnapped for sex slavery. She spends her whole life in absolute torture, birth to death. You go to a restaurant. They have a secret offering, where they've killed these sex slaves, and let customers have sex with their bodies. You are taught that you can liberate a dead body by saying a prayer while you have sex with it, if you happen to be making a choice to have sex with it. But, you have to pay the restaurant a large sum of your money, and every time you do it it not only encourages them, but the money goes towards buying more sex slaves and continuing the trade. Would you do it, give them your money, and continue funding the practice even if someone told you saying a prayer during might help liberate this person? And to people that say you might as well participate in something because it will never change, do you feel that it was morally right for people to participate in the slave trade, because it was the total norm at the time? What if you bought some slaves, but the only freedom you gave them was saying prayers they could no longer hear?

Meat eating bothers me to a certain degree, but religious justification, and saying not participating in a cycle of horror is no different than participating while mumbling certain words and thinking certain thoughts, truly upsets me deeply.



i dont think its about justifying that its ok. at least not for me. i dont think if its ok or not. cause it happens anyway, and buddhist or moral people in this day and age are so few it makes no difference if we stop eating meat or not. no one also prays for the meat so it is defenitely beneficial for the animal to be prayed for even if you eat it. it is not done for '' ME '' to '' JUSTIFY '' that i can eat meat if i pray. the prayer is for the animal, not for my justification.

if i quit eating meat, i wont save a single animal. theyre gonna slauther all the cows and pigs no matter if i stop eating meat or not. its out of my hands. but when i eat meat and pray and do mantras for the animal or if i practice lots of Chenrezig, the meat and the meats owner ( the animal ) gets blessed and creates better karma that if it would be fed to normal human beings who are not Dharma practitioners.

it is and it was the animals karma to be killed and there is nothing you can really do to that with your choice of being vegetarian or not. theyre not gonna just save the cow and say '' oh you have vegetarian friends so were gonna let you go free to run and eat grass in fields all day '' ,no, theyll just save it later few months more and then they kill it cause people who eat meat are hungry. its the animals karma.
If the thought of demons
Never rises in your mind,
You need not fear the demon hosts around you.
It is most important to tame your mind within....

In so far as the Ultimate, or the true nature of being is concerned,
there are neither buddhas or demons.
He who frees himself from fear and hope, evil and virtue,
will realize the insubstantial and groundless nature of confusion.
Samsara will then appear as the mahamudra itself….

-Milarepa

OMMANIPADMEHUNG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls6P9tOYmdo
KonchokZoepa
 
Posts: 1285
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:50 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Snovid » Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:23 am

" For the sake of clarification , in Buddhism there is no verse in both the Suttas , Succi Pitaka , Vinaya and Abhidhamma
where the Buddha would say ( banned ) to his disciples , religious or secular , that they should not eat meat.

( A figment of some sutras mahajanistów ), eg ; the Succi Pitaka in the set Anguttara Nikaya (III , 49)
Gotama is described in them as a meat eater , and in another place clearly remembers
the man who sent his servant to market the meat in order to be prepared and offered to the Buddha
( Anguttara Nikaya 4 , 187) is described here that the Buddha ate the best cuts of meat - Vinaya III , 208
One of the criticisms directed against the Jains Buddha was that he ate meat .

"Many Jains have passed through the city , through the main streets and lanes , alleys and lanes
waving his arms and shouting, r17 ; General Siha slaughtered today, many beings , to feed them, the monk Gotama
and he will eat them , knowing they were slaughtered especially for niegor17 ; "
( Anguttara Nikaya IV , 187) .

In this case, the Jains were trying to discredit or embarrass the Buddha because of eating meat
suggesting that at that time in India was felt that at least the monks should be vegetarians .
While the original Buddhism ( Hinayana ) did not teach vegetarianism , while Mahayana Buddhism the most .

Although the canon mahajanistycznym are conflicting views on this issue.
In fact, only a small number of Mahayana sutras promotes vegetarianism
the main one is Hastikaksya Sutra Sutra Mahamegha , Angulimaliya Sutra , Nirvana Sutra
Brahmajala Sutra and the Lankavatara Sutra .
The sequences of these arguments shows that vegetarianism in karmic religions ( Buddhism ) is produced by reflection
intersubjective reflection of secular humanism in connection with the doctrine of not harming
not szkodzeniu , not to kill sentient beings .
I note that both the Buddhist religion , Buddhist ethics is directly related to the idea of ​​vegetarianism
but early ( primary) Buddhism and most contemporary schools of Buddhism as sacred truth
does not prohibit the eating of animals, but does not clearly prohibit the killing to eat afterwards .

Buddhist monks as most recommend not eating meat and eat more because they do not know
that eating meat from animals degenerates feeling better . "
I am from Poland I use google translator I do not know English
User avatar
Snovid
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:10 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby KonchokZoepa » Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:05 am

in the liturgy of Bodhisattva precepts it is said that eating meat ( as a monk or not i dont know ) is a secondary offense.

http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhi ... nstext.htm
If the thought of demons
Never rises in your mind,
You need not fear the demon hosts around you.
It is most important to tame your mind within....

In so far as the Ultimate, or the true nature of being is concerned,
there are neither buddhas or demons.
He who frees himself from fear and hope, evil and virtue,
will realize the insubstantial and groundless nature of confusion.
Samsara will then appear as the mahamudra itself….

-Milarepa

OMMANIPADMEHUNG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls6P9tOYmdo
KonchokZoepa
 
Posts: 1285
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:50 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby seeker242 » Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:00 pm

padma norbu wrote:
Johnny Dangerous wrote:I think he replies any time there's chance to cut down other people, and to express his absolute disgust with pretty much everyone but himself, and whoever he is posting links from that day. It's a running theme with virtually everything he's ever posted on here, everyone else is a deluded pathetic worker/consumer/hypocrite/meat addict/fat/lazy/stupid/ whatever, and he alone sees reality.

...even though his posts are full of holes, unlike the opposition.


I would not go so far as to say the opposition's arguments have no holes. They are often full of holes, which have already been pointed out in the previous 100 pages of this thread. :jumping:
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!
User avatar
seeker242
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:11 pm

Whatever the merits or demerits of the arguments presented, a little cross referring of threads will show pretty conclusively that Thrasymachus has no actual interest in Dharma.
He is not the only poster that uses the forum to air their issues, while having apparently only the most tenuous connection to Dharma..which I guess is fair enough as long as it is conducted in a mutually respectful tone..and Thrasymachus's are not. They are not to a remarkable degree.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Malcolm » Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:26 pm

Thrasymachus wrote:
This is just crazy and also speciesist.


Humans can practice. Animals cannot. We have other methods for creating a positive cause for the eventual liberation of humans who do not practice.

Is there an actual canonical Buddhist source text that supports this, because you only gave one that supports vegetarianism?


Of course.

So who is really being benefited by killing animals due to an addiction to the taste of unhealthy animal products, an addiction and attachment to food, so strong that you are literally killing yourself via diet?


The production of meat and dairy is deeply embedded into our economy. It will never stop. If you think so you are kidding yourself. Therefore, in Vajrayāna, we have methods to help creatures that are killed as a result of food production.

You may deride them, of course, as you have here. But that just exposes your own narrow-mindedness.
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: 10217
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby gad rgyangs » Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:37 pm

as if whether he is a Buddhist or not has any bearing on the veracity if his arguments. He has presented links to clear evidence that disproves a major plank in the cannibals' flimsy web of justification: the argument that, since you can't avoid killing entirely, you might as well not worry about it, and that being a vegetarian causes the death of more sentient beings through rice growing than does killing one cow to feed many. Notice that the cannibals, unable to respond to this evidence, merely resort to ad hominem attacks against him.

the whole vajrayana excuse thing is tantamount to "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out"

I have stated before the simple solution to the ganapuja problem: get the meat for the ganapuja from dumpsters, not supermarkets. And don't discriminate between dumpsters behind restaurants and those behind morgues. Only then can you consider yourself a real tantrika.
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 Simon E. » Fri Oct 25, 2013 2:00 pm

In the context of a debate about meat eating which has developed to include the eating of meat in the context of a Vajrayana puja his being or not being a Buddhist is vital in assessing his lack of knowledge of same.
And incidentally your fatuous and nonsensical use of the term ' cannibals ' renders your willingness or ability to debate in an objective way doubtful.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby gad rgyangs » Fri Oct 25, 2013 2:11 pm

Simon E. wrote:In the context of a debate about meat eating which has developed to include the eating of meat in the context of a Vajrayana puja his being or not being a Buddhist is vital in assessing his lack of knowledge of same.
And incidentally your fatuous and nonsensical use of the term ' cannibals ' renders your willingness or ability to debate in an objective way doubtful.


if sentient beings are your brothers and sisters, and yet you happily kill and eat them......
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 » Fri Oct 25, 2013 2:12 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:as if whether he is a Buddhist or not has any bearing on the veracity if his arguments. He has presented links to clear evidence that disproves a major plank in the cannibals' flimsy web of justification: the argument that, since you can't avoid killing entirely, you might as well not worry about it, and that being a vegetarian causes the death of more sentient beings through rice growing than does killing one cow to feed many.


He has not provided any evidence whatsoever that the majority of the world's nonbuddhists are going to adopt a vegetarian diet anytime soon. Also, his statistics do not show that the rice industry, for example, depends on chicken litter and feather meal. His statistics ignore the fact that animal inputs are required in any sort of sustainable agriculture, at minimum manure. They ignore the fact of the millions of creatures destroyed by standard organic agriculture, not to mention industrial agriculture.

I have stated before the simple solution to the ganapuja problem: get the meat for the ganapuja from dumpsters, not supermarkets. And don't discriminate between dumpsters behind restaurants and those behind morgues. Only then can you consider yourself a real tantrika.


The point is not to be a "real tantrika". The point is aiding sentient beings.

If you are a common Mahāyānist, you should not eat meat at all. If you are a Theravadin you can meat. If you are a Vajrayānist, you can eat meat.

M
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: 10217
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Malcolm » Fri Oct 25, 2013 2:13 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
Simon E. wrote:In the context of a debate about meat eating which has developed to include the eating of meat in the context of a Vajrayana puja his being or not being a Buddhist is vital in assessing his lack of knowledge of same.
And incidentally your fatuous and nonsensical use of the term ' cannibals ' renders your willingness or ability to debate in an objective way doubtful.


if sentient beings are your brothers and sisters, and yet you happily kill and eat them......


You cannot eat a sentient being, you can only its parts of its body.
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: 10217
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby gad rgyangs » Fri Oct 25, 2013 2:17 pm

Malcolm wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:
Simon E. wrote:In the context of a debate about meat eating which has developed to include the eating of meat in the context of a Vajrayana puja his being or not being a Buddhist is vital in assessing his lack of knowledge of same.
And incidentally your fatuous and nonsensical use of the term ' cannibals ' renders your willingness or ability to debate in an objective way doubtful.


if sentient beings are your brothers and sisters, and yet you happily kill and eat them......


You cannot eat a sentient being, you can only its parts of its body.


yes, after you kill them (or, by paying money into the supply chain, having someone else kill them for you)
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 Simon E. » Fri Oct 25, 2013 2:27 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
Simon E. wrote:In the context of a debate about meat eating which has developed to include the eating of meat in the context of a Vajrayana puja his being or not being a Buddhist is vital in assessing his lack of knowledge of same.
And incidentally your fatuous and nonsensical use of the term ' cannibals ' renders your willingness or ability to debate in an objective way doubtful.


if sentient beings are your brothers and sisters, and yet you happily kill and eat them......

They are not my brothers and sisters. My brothers and my sister are my brothers and sister.
Lets get real and drop the sentimentality.
We can have compassion without throwing our brain out of the window.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby porpoise » Fri Oct 25, 2013 2:28 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:the whole vajrayana excuse thing is tantamount to "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out"


I never found it convincing even when I was a Tibetan Buddhist.
porpoise
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:27 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Indrajala, Inge, M.G., smcj and 26 guests

>