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 Malcolm » Fri Oct 25, 2013 7:01 pm

ClearblueSky wrote:
Factory farming is still much, much crueler to animals. By a lot. And if you want to bring up the environment, there is no comparison. Factory farming of cows is the number one cause of global warming. 15% of global warming is due to it, that's more than all the cars on earth.

And I still don't get that logic. Just because it's happening anyway, doesn't mean we have to participate. Sorry to keep referencing my previous post, but I only see how that works if people apply the same to other industries:
There was a point in time where slavery was thought to be inevitable and worldwide. Do you think the people had no karmic consequences if they bought slaves that were already captured, not by their request?
What about with the recent revealing of Seaworld's cruelty. If someone knows what they do to those whales, but still pays seaworld money to go watch them, is that okay because they have the assumption it won't ever change?

If someone explains that those are the same as eating meat, then I would understand. It's really only the separation, people saying one is okay karmically and not the other that I still don't really understand.


Owning a person is different than eating a the flesh of a dead animal.

One can eat meat without participating in industrial agriculture.

There are two issues in your post:

1. Ethics of eating meat
2. The karmic consequences of eating meat.

The Buddhist ethical positions have been laid out already. The majority of people who are opposing the issue of eating meat are not doing so on the basis of a strictly Buddhist position.

As for karma, karma requires intention, an object, the deed, and satisfaction that the deed was done.

No Buddhist who eats meat will satisfy the criteria for creating a perfect karma of killing. No Buddhist is happy that animals are killed for food. We all regret it.

Even if we refuse to buy meat, still animals will be killed for food. The production of organic food on a national ands global scale requires the animal husbandry industry, especially for poultry litter, feather meal, bone meal, blood meal and other such organic fertilizers.

But this issue goes way beyond what Buddhists may or may not do,

A friend of mine whose father runs the largest organic produce farm in Bakersville, CA., was heard to remark that there is not enough chicken shit to produce organic food on a national scale.

Frankly, the real problem is the majority of people who live in cities who do not participate in the production of their own food, people who have no idea how their food is grown, where, and so on.

Our nation throws away an astonishing amount of food everyday, to the tune of 40%-50% of all the food we produce.

IN 2011, 1.3 bilion tons of food was discarded. This represents a third of global food production. The amount of food wasted per US citizen is 240 lbs per year.

Rather than worrying about who is eating what, we ought to turn our attention to who is wasting what.

And lets not get started on FOG (fats, oils and greases) that pollute our waterways.

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: 10148
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Johnny Dangerous » Fri Oct 25, 2013 7:02 pm

:good:
"Just as a lotus does not grow out of a well-levelled soil but from the mire, in the same way the awakening mind
is not born in the hearts of disciples in whom the moisture of attachment has dried up. It grows instead in the hearts of ordinary sentient beings who possess in full the fetters of bondage." -Se Chilbu Choki Gyaltsen
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2128
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Jikan » Fri Oct 25, 2013 7:32 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Our nation throws away an astonishing amount of food everyday, to the tune of 40%-50% of all the food we produce.

IN 2011, 1.3 bilion tons of food was discarded. This represents a third of global food production. The amount of food wasted per US citizen is 240 lbs per year.

Rather than worrying about who is eating what, we ought to turn our attention to who is wasting what.

And lets not get started on FOG (fats, oils and greases) that pollute our waterways.

M


And here there are consequences that anyone with compassion would do well to reflect on: wasting food means wasting water, with consequences for wildlife and habitats; wasting food means accelerated erosion, fertilizer pollution, soil depletion, air pollution from harvest processing and transport, with consequences for wildlife; food production means the production of greenhouse gases, hence every wasted food item means a hotter planet to no purpose, with consequences for wildlife...
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4275
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Adi » Fri Oct 25, 2013 7:56 pm

Jikan wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Our nation throws away an astonishing amount of food everyday, to the tune of 40%-50% of all the food we produce.

IN 2011, 1.3 bilion tons of food was discarded. This represents a third of global food production. The amount of food wasted per US citizen is 240 lbs per year.

Rather than worrying about who is eating what, we ought to turn our attention to who is wasting what.

And lets not get started on FOG (fats, oils and greases) that pollute our waterways.

M


And here there are consequences that anyone with compassion would do well to reflect on: wasting food means wasting water, with consequences for wildlife and habitats; wasting food means accelerated erosion, fertilizer pollution, soil depletion, air pollution from harvest processing and transport, with consequences for wildlife; food production means the production of greenhouse gases, hence every wasted food item means a hotter planet to no purpose, with consequences for wildlife...


These seem to me excellent points, something everyone can participate in -- the "who is wasting what" and the consequences of all that waste. Instead of proscribing that everyone must eat one way or another, pay attention to what is wasted and to increased efficiencies by not wasting so much food. A middle way of sorts that leaves no one out.

On a personal note, I knew there was a lot of wasting of food in the US as I've worked in the past as a waiter and in catering. But :shock: 1.3 billion tons of food wasted in 2011? I had to go look that up. For those interested in the full report Global Food Loses and Food Waste (apologies if it was already posted in the preceding 130+ pages) by the UN group, it is here:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf

Adi
Adi
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Malcolm » Fri Oct 25, 2013 8:32 pm

Adi wrote:
Jikan wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Our nation throws away an astonishing amount of food everyday, to the tune of 40%-50% of all the food we produce.

IN 2011, 1.3 bilion tons of food was discarded. This represents a third of global food production. The amount of food wasted per US citizen is 240 lbs per year.

Rather than worrying about who is eating what, we ought to turn our attention to who is wasting what.

And lets not get started on FOG (fats, oils and greases) that pollute our waterways.

M


And here there are consequences that anyone with compassion would do well to reflect on: wasting food means wasting water, with consequences for wildlife and habitats; wasting food means accelerated erosion, fertilizer pollution, soil depletion, air pollution from harvest processing and transport, with consequences for wildlife; food production means the production of greenhouse gases, hence every wasted food item means a hotter planet to no purpose, with consequences for wildlife...


These seem to me excellent points, something everyone can participate in -- the "who is wasting what" and the consequences of all that waste. Instead of proscribing that everyone must eat one way or another, pay attention to what is wasted and to increased efficiencies by not wasting so much food. A middle way of sorts that leaves no one out.

On a personal note, I knew there was a lot of wasting of food in the US as I've worked in the past as a waiter and in catering. But :shock: 1.3 billion tons of food wasted in 2011? I had to go look that up. For those interested in the full report Global Food Loses and Food Waste (apologies if it was already posted in the preceding 130+ pages) by the UN group, it is here:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf

Adi


Ironically, most of the food produced in the world is grains and vegetables, which also represents vast majority of food wasted per annum. The amount of meat wasted is quite low by comparison (see chart on page four, chapter two).

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: 10148
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby seeker242 » Fri Oct 25, 2013 8:44 pm

Adi wrote:
Jikan wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Our nation throws away an astonishing amount of food everyday, to the tune of 40%-50% of all the food we produce.

IN 2011, 1.3 bilion tons of food was discarded. This represents a third of global food production. The amount of food wasted per US citizen is 240 lbs per year.

Rather than worrying about who is eating what, we ought to turn our attention to who is wasting what.

And lets not get started on FOG (fats, oils and greases) that pollute our waterways.

M


And here there are consequences that anyone with compassion would do well to reflect on: wasting food means wasting water, with consequences for wildlife and habitats; wasting food means accelerated erosion, fertilizer pollution, soil depletion, air pollution from harvest processing and transport, with consequences for wildlife; food production means the production of greenhouse gases, hence every wasted food item means a hotter planet to no purpose, with consequences for wildlife...


These seem to me excellent points, something everyone can participate in -- the "who is wasting what" and the consequences of all that waste. Instead of proscribing that everyone must eat one way or another, pay attention to what is wasted and to increased efficiencies by not wasting so much food. A middle way of sorts that leaves no one out.

On a personal note, I knew there was a lot of wasting of food in the US as I've worked in the past as a waiter and in catering. But :shock: 1.3 billion tons of food wasted in 2011? I had to go look that up. For those interested in the full report Global Food Loses and Food Waste (apologies if it was already posted in the preceding 130+ pages) by the UN group, it is here:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf

Adi


Good points indeed! What a lot of people don't realize though is how inefficient modern day animal agriculture really is. For example, it takes 4,000-18,000 gallons of water to make ONE hamburger! Meanwhile a pound of corn takes 110 gallons. Food wastage is important, resource wastage to produce various kinds of food is also quite important IMO. One of the best ways to increase efficiency in one's consumption is to consume products that are not as costly to produce to begin with. And of course, don't waste them!

:namaste:
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: 641
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby dzogchungpa » Fri Oct 25, 2013 9:00 pm

seeker242 wrote:Meanwhile a pound of corn takes 110 gallons.

Would you say that corn was a high quality food?
ཨོཾ་མ་ཧཱ་ཤུནྱ་ཏཱ་ཛྙཱ་ན་བཛྲ་སྭཱ་བྷཱ་བ་ཨཱཏྨ་ཀོ་྅ཧཾ༔

The thousands of lines of the Prajnaparamita can be summed up in the following two sentences:
1) One should become a Bodhisattva (or, Buddha-to-be), i.e. one who is content with nothing less than all-knowledge attained through the perfection of wisdom for the sake of all beings.
2) There is no such thing as a Bodhisattva, or as all-knowledge, or as a ‘being’, or as the perfection of wisdom, or as an attainment.
To accept both these contradictory facts is to be perfect.
- Conze
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby seeker242 » Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:12 pm

dzogchungpa wrote:
seeker242 wrote:Meanwhile a pound of corn takes 110 gallons.

Would you say that corn was a high quality food?


Yes generally corn is considered a fairly high quality food. That is why it's found as a "staple food" for many regions around the world, south and central America especially so.

:anjali:
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: 641
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby dzogchungpa » Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:29 pm

We will have to agree to disagree.

:namaste:
ཨོཾ་མ་ཧཱ་ཤུནྱ་ཏཱ་ཛྙཱ་ན་བཛྲ་སྭཱ་བྷཱ་བ་ཨཱཏྨ་ཀོ་྅ཧཾ༔

The thousands of lines of the Prajnaparamita can be summed up in the following two sentences:
1) One should become a Bodhisattva (or, Buddha-to-be), i.e. one who is content with nothing less than all-knowledge attained through the perfection of wisdom for the sake of all beings.
2) There is no such thing as a Bodhisattva, or as all-knowledge, or as a ‘being’, or as the perfection of wisdom, or as an attainment.
To accept both these contradictory facts is to be perfect.
- Conze
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby seeker242 » Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:34 pm

Nothing wrong with that! Although, I can't imagine why. But I guess it really doesn't matter. :namaste:
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: 641
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Thrasymachus » Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:06 pm

Johnny Dangerous wrote:...

If you believe that we are this culpable for indirect actions (i.e. equating a purchase from a supermarket to participating in the killing itself), I would like to again point out that your very vegetarianism (or at least the availability of foods that makes it possible for you to be a vegetarian and remain healthy in this particular society) is possible in part to 100's of years of imperialism, which has indirectly included untold slaughter of other humans and many other beings, as well as the obvious enormous transfer and accumulation of resources that makes your lifestyle possible.

...


Where did you get to be this historically ignorant and delusional about the world around you? Probably from meat addiction. How in the world can you imagine it takes more resources to be vegetarian or vegan than a meat eater? Why do you think imperialism exists? So certain people can consume more resources that they take from other nations through direct military plunder or indirect plunder(debt). So be happy you live in the imperialist USA, Johnny, so you can eat meat everyday(and be unhealthier doing it), then try to twist the issue and blame first world vegetarians. If everyone in the West was vegetarian and didn't feel the need to own a personal automobile, huge home and eat as much animal products as they personally could, maybe the Global South could have had some peace.

This is what people elsewhere eat, from Time: Hungry Planet What the World Eats:
Image
"Mali: The Natomos of Kouakourou - Food expenditure for one week: 17,670 francs or $26.39. Family Recipe: Natomo Family Rice Dish."

Image
"Ecuador: The Ayme family of Tingo. Food expenditure for one week: $31.55. Family recipe: Potato soup with cabbage."

Image
"Chad: The Aboubakar family of Breidjing Camp. Food expenditure for one week: 685 CFA Francs or $1.23. Favorite foods: soup with fresh sheep meat."
If you look at the photo, yes, they eat meat, but it must be one of the very small satchels. They probably actually eat way less animal products than any first world ethical vegetarian.

Animal products are simply more expensive. Beans, potatoes, corn, rice, etc., which are actually highly self stable without refrigeration are cheaper than meat, even in the West, where meat is unfairly subsidized officially and unofficially(allowing to dump animal waste indiscriminately, even selling the toxic stuff as fertilizer which Malcolm dishonestly presents as necessary for growing plants). According to John Robbins, the man who gave up his considerable dairy fortune from Baskin Robbins, the real cost of hamburger meat is $35 a pound, beefsteak ought to be $89 a pound.

@Simon E:
The difference between me and people like you: everyday I try to learn more about the world I live in, not increase my level of self comforting myths. This best sums up the effect I have on people:
"If you take the life lie from an average man, you take away his happiness as well." -- Henry Ibsen

You carnists cannot just admit that you want to eat meat because you like the taste, that was how you were raised by default, so it is a comfortable habit, and don't care about anything else. So you lot instead invent fantasy health benefits, fantasy environmental benefits and non-existent ethical and karma benefits. Just admit what it is and move on. Like I have pointed out before, most non-Buddhist meat eaters(except for the crazy Paleo people) are much more comfortable with admitting they like the taste, that they won't change their habit and they don't care about the environment, the animals or their health.
User avatar
Thrasymachus
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Dover, NJ

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Thrasymachus » Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:39 pm

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


That still does not deal with the objection: why does the animal have to die? Why can't you just drink a small portion of its blood without killing it, eat its nail or hair? I am guessing because the Vajrayana authority who invented that justification was not addicted to blood, hair or nails.

Further:
If these Vajrayana people are so powerful as to cause the eventual liberation of animals by eating their flesh, why do they still ask for money or donations? How can their amazing omnipotent powers allow them to liberate dead beings eventually, and not say do something more mundane and easier like guess winning lottery numbers?

Malcolm wrote:Of course.

If there is a source, why can't you quote it?

Malcolm wrote: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.


This is once again another case of using the worse behavior of others to excuse exercising personal agency over what you can control. It is not impressive that you use the excuse of vegetarians not doing everything, so you can personally be more comfortable about doing nothing.
User avatar
Thrasymachus
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Dover, NJ

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Johnny Dangerous » Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:44 pm

Thrasymachus wrote:
Where did you get to be this historically ignorant and delusional about the world around you? Probably from meat addiction. How in the world can you imagine it takes more resources to be vegetarian or vegan than a meat eater? Why do you think imperialism exists? So certain people can consume more resources that they take from other nations through direct military plunder or indirect plunder(debt). So be happy you live in the imperialist USA, Johnny, so you can eat meat everyday(and be unhealthier doing it), then try to twist the issue and blame first world vegetarians. If everyone in the West was vegetarian and didn't feel the need to own a personal automobile, huge home and eat as much animal products as they personally could, maybe the Global South could have had some peace.


I got it from the fact that the majority of vegans, vegetarians etc. who practice this diet in the US are only able to do so due to the fact that virtually any diet is available to them due to the excesses of capitalism, and being at the center of the excesses of capitalism. Seriously, thinking was talking about expense of products, rather than availability of dietary choices is really simple minded, the expense part is really obvious, and has nothing to do with the really, blindingly obvious fact that poorer people simply have to eat what they can, rather than having the cushy options of feeling like they are changing the world by eating organic seitan and posting on forums about it instead of meat or whatever. Talk about first world narcissism, and despite all your claims to the contrary your view of yourself as some kind of heroic anarchist loner is the best example of such I can think of.

Oh wow a bunch of jpg's of vegetarian food, well, your point is proved now for sure.

Everyone in the West isn't a vegetarian, and such a situation never will be, because society doesn't change by a bunch of people changing simple dietary habits.

The rest of your post is the usual nonsense, and i'm in this to talk to pretty much everyone here but you, so i'm stopping at that, I really hope you and your shrill, juvenile polemics either tone down or just go somewhere else. You can think that's due to your truth speaking or whatever (and i'm sure you will), but it's actually just because you behave like an obnoxious ass consistently.
Last edited by Johnny Dangerous on Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Just as a lotus does not grow out of a well-levelled soil but from the mire, in the same way the awakening mind
is not born in the hearts of disciples in whom the moisture of attachment has dried up. It grows instead in the hearts of ordinary sentient beings who possess in full the fetters of bondage." -Se Chilbu Choki Gyaltsen
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2128
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Thrasymachus » Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:52 pm

Okay, you do that since facts apparently hurt you so much, so you can continue on with the fantasy accusation that eating vegetables, fruit and grains is something only for rich people in the first world.

I have actually researched(second hand) this type of stuff. I first got the intention of going vegetarian after taking out the Norton's Critical edition of The Jungle from the library. I had the intention of reading the novel, but after seeing that at the end of the novel they had many articles about the meat and meat-packing industry over the years, I read the real info instead. Meat eating is massively widespread thanks to the invention of the railroad, refrigeration, later the refrigerated railroad car and centralized slaughter houses and a meat packing industry. Before all that even in the imperialist so called "developed countries", you simply could not eat meat whenever you wanted. But you are all welcome to continue in your fantasies, I am sure no logic, history or facts will not change anything for those who believe in the carnist ideology.
User avatar
Thrasymachus
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Dover, NJ

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Johnny Dangerous » Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:57 pm

Thrasymachus wrote:Okay, you do that since facts apparently hurt you so much, so you can continue on with the fantasy accusation that eating vegetables, fruit and grains is something only for rich people in the first world.



Lol look a you, you have to misquote me, and use terms like "carnist" to even get anywhere, of course vegetables and fruits are cheaper, has nothing to do with what I said about lifestyle politics led myopia being the domain of people like you, and not people who actually have to live hand to mouth everyday. Seriously, Nothing but constant straw men and angry rants.

It's also somewhat mind boggling that someone could read ( or I guess start to read) The Jungle and come away thinking mainly about food safety, I mean sure the stuff about people falling into meat grinders, formaldehyde in milk, etc. is disgusting and horrid..but THAT was the takeaway? The Jungle actually deals with political and social issues that go above and beyond the narcissistic lifestyle politics and rich kid anarchism that seem to define your worldview, so yeah, shoulda given that one a read.
Last edited by Johnny Dangerous on Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:17 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Just as a lotus does not grow out of a well-levelled soil but from the mire, in the same way the awakening mind
is not born in the hearts of disciples in whom the moisture of attachment has dried up. It grows instead in the hearts of ordinary sentient beings who possess in full the fetters of bondage." -Se Chilbu Choki Gyaltsen
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2128
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby dzogchungpa » Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:05 am

Thrasymachus wrote:...carnist ideology.

If by "carnist ideology" you mean the idea that it's alright for people to eat meat, then it's kind of odd to call a belief that has been prevalent in all societies an ideology.
ཨོཾ་མ་ཧཱ་ཤུནྱ་ཏཱ་ཛྙཱ་ན་བཛྲ་སྭཱ་བྷཱ་བ་ཨཱཏྨ་ཀོ་྅ཧཾ༔

The thousands of lines of the Prajnaparamita can be summed up in the following two sentences:
1) One should become a Bodhisattva (or, Buddha-to-be), i.e. one who is content with nothing less than all-knowledge attained through the perfection of wisdom for the sake of all beings.
2) There is no such thing as a Bodhisattva, or as all-knowledge, or as a ‘being’, or as the perfection of wisdom, or as an attainment.
To accept both these contradictory facts is to be perfect.
- Conze
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Thrasymachus » Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:18 am

Well, you just admitted that plant foods are cheaper, admitting a straw man that you invented in a fit of fantasy which you repeated over and over like it was novel just a few posts earlier -- that being vegetarian was a sign of privelege.

I say carnism, because meat eating is an insidious ideology as exposed by the psychologist Melanie Joy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vWbV9FPo_Q

For example, do the meat eaters of North America actually eat squirrel, raccoon, deer, moose, bison? Only a few rural, outdoor type people, which are considered backward do that. The majority emulate the historic preferred foods of the European royalty: cows, chicken and pigs. Actually that is true for most the world: the non-native invasive species preferred to be consumed by European royalty have replaced and are continuing to displace fodder animals, that other societies preferred, as they Westernize. So you are wrong again, eating meat has alot to do with imperialism, dominance and social peacocking.

Egyptian royalty had similar health problems to common Westerners, and they ate the same "rich" diet:
Dr. John McDougall wrote:The Egyptian Mummy Diet Paradox

...

Discoveries of Atherosclerosis in Mummies

Beginning in 1898, shortly after the discovery of x-rays, scientists focused their penetrating beams on mummies. The x-rays readily detected calcium deposits deep within the bodies of these ancient Egyptians (calcium accumulates in the tissues as a result of years of chronic inflammation). Calcium deposits in the artery walls, a condition referred to as hardening of the arteries, means that the individual has suffered from years of disease characterized by fiery eruptions: atherosclerosis.

A major technological advance in x-rays was the development of computed tomography (CT). This technology uses multiple x-rays, combined with computer analysis, to show three-dimensional pictures of body parts that look almost lifelike. The first CT studies were performed on Egyptian mummies in 1977, and over the next three decades CT technology has been employed to examine hundreds of mummies.

The controversy of diet and artery disease was raised to new heights by the April 2011 report in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC) of Cardiovascular Imaging showing with CT that half (20 out of 44) of ancient Egyptian mummies with identifiable cardiovascular structures had evidence of atherosclerosis. Calcifications were identified in the heart, aorta, and blood vessels of the legs. Examinations of the hearts and bodies of modern Americans and Europeans by CT show a similar incidence of calcification due to atherosclerosis.
...

The Egyptian Mummy Diet Paradox Answered

This apparent contradiction between the disease-filled bodies of mummies and the ancient Egyptian diet is resolved by understanding that people entitled to the rituals of mummification and noble burials were wealthy, typically royalty and priests, not the common person. The rich foods consumed by the elites were vastly different than the frugal, mainly vegetarian, diets that most common farmers and laborers ate.

Hieroglyphic inscriptions on Egyptian temple walls indicate that the royalty regularly consumed beef, sheep, goats, wild fowl, bread, and cake. Excavation of the pyramids found that the foods placed in the burial chambers to provide sustenance for people in the afterlife were ducks, geese, beef, mutton, and lamb.
Fish was considered a food for the poor, but was occasionally found in the tombs of the rich.

...

Hair Analysis Proves Ancients Are Like Moderns

Confirmation of the royal Egyptian diet was provided by research published in 1998 on the molecular makeup of the hair of the mummies. Hair is composed of proteins that are not easily degraded and therefore hair is well preserved for eons for analysis. The carbon, sulfur, and nitrogen isotope compositions of human hair are reliable and powerful indicators of the diet of an individual. When the hairs from Egyptian mummies are compared to those of modern people eating the Western diet the composition is the same, showing they both ate similar diets. (The same kind of hair analysis in this study determined that the Ice Man, preserved in a glacier of the Oetztaler Alps 5200 years ago, was essentially vegan.)

...

[Note: His sources were given as links, that I am not gonna take my time to reproduce.]
User avatar
Thrasymachus
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Dover, NJ

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby padma norbu » Sat Oct 26, 2013 5:11 am

Simon E. wrote:' In a universe where everything eats everything else eventually, avoiding meat is splitting hairs. The best thing to do is eat with gratitude, because something, whether animal or vegetable, has died for you.'

Gary Snyder. Buddhist. Ecological pioneer, poet, and wilderness advocate.


I believe this makes the most sense. This world itself is the way it is. Even if you could find a spot of land and grow all your own food in your own garden, good luck accomplishing that without killing a bunch of critters in the soil and good luck trying to grow your food without pest control. My grandmother had quite a garden and it was definitely impossible to grow everything you'd need to sustain yourself. She also had to use pesticides and her trusty .22 which she used to shoot rabbits and gophers. She certainly killed a lot of critters for a few measley vegetables and her garden was quite large, bigger than many house's dimensions.

I really think the point is to cultivate the authentic attitude of compassion and generosity. Vegans who act from a point of moral superiority and put others down aren't being compassionate at all, so it's kind of a waste of effort. That's a classic sort of "Spiritual Materialism" thing, as Trungpa might have said (maybe he did, can't remember).
"Use what seems like poison as medicine. We can use our personal suffering as the path to compassion for all beings." Pema Chodron
User avatar
padma norbu
 
Posts: 2000
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 1:10 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby porpoise » Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:36 am

Johnny Dangerous wrote:If you believe that we are this culpable for indirect actions (i.e. equating a purchase from a supermarket to participating in the killing itself), I would like to again point out that your very vegetarianism (or at least the availability of foods that makes it possible for you to be a vegetarian and remain healthy in this particular society) is possible in part to 100's of years of imperialism, which has indirectly included untold slaughter of other humans and many other beings, as well as the obvious enormous transfer and accumulation of resources that makes your lifestyle possible.


Yes, I do believe we culpable for these indirect actions. If we decide to buy meat then there are consequences. I can't see the relevance of the rest of your post.
porpoise
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:27 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:56 am

Well that's your view.
And that's fine as long as you realise that it does not accord with the accepted view of any school of Buddhism or of Dzogchen. With the exception of one or two Chinese sub-schools.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2114
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 16 guests

>