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 Simon E. » Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:43 pm

Simon E. wrote:
Simon E. wrote:Lets have a look at some semantics. :)

Can anyone interested see the difference between these two statements ?

1) I am a diabetic.
2) I have diabetes.


Bump.

Anyone else ?
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby dharmagoat » Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:48 pm

Simon E. wrote:Can anyone interested see the difference between these two statements ?

1) I am a diabetic.
2) I have diabetes.

Stating "I am a diabetic" suggests that the person with diabetes identifies as a member of a group.

Do I get a cookie?
User avatar
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Sherab Dorje » Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:51 pm

The fact that you state that you: "follow another path" is a pretty clear indication that you have no real knowledge of Shabkar and his teachings coz if you did you wouldn't have stated that you "follow another path". Unless, of course, you are not a Mahayana Buddhist, in which case this statement:
I am more than happy to concede Greg that my particular paradigm is consistent only to that school of Buddhist thought to which I adhere.
Is untrue.

I am having an adult discussion with you, part of adult discussions is pointing out inconsistencies. Another part is admitting ones inconsistencies. ;)

If you are not up to it right now, I'll leave you in peace.

Do I get a cookie?
Now what sort of cookie would a goat want to eat?
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7892
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby padma norbu » Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:54 pm

Simon E. wrote:
Simon E. wrote:
Simon E. wrote:Lets have a look at some semantics. :)

Can anyone interested see the difference between these two statements ?

1) I am a diabetic.
2) I have diabetes.


Bump.

Anyone else ?


#2 does not define what you are as a person

Also... completely different perspective, but if you look at this from the point of view of a ketogenic diet treating diabetes, it becomes more like #1 is like being HIV+ and number 2 is like AIDS. By this, I mean, that one can cure diabetes with a ketogenic diet, but of course, we wouldn't really say "cured." They would still be diabetic but with diabetes in remission (or something). If they go back on a glucose-based diet, their diabetes will likely return. So, right there is a benefit of eating meat besides just satiating one's hunger. I read (and mentioned earlier) that the Buddha prescribed meat for certain illnesses, too.
"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 Jikan » Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:57 pm

Sherab Dorje wrote:
Simon E. wrote:
Simon E. wrote:Lets have a look at some semantics. :)

Can anyone interested see the difference between these two statements ?

1) I am a diabetic.
2) I have diabetes.


Bump.
I'll bite: No difference, diabetics have diabetes, that is what makes them diabetics. If you do not have diabetes you cannot be a diabetic. A diabetic being somebody that adopts a certain set of behaviours as a consequence of having diabetes: ie absolutley no relevance to the discussion at hand.


Disagree.

The statement "I am a diabetic" articulates a form of identification, an identity. The second statement, "I have diabetes," articulates a characteristic of a person that may or may not have an identity structure built around it. Other examples:

"I like to play basketball" vs "I am a basketball player"

"Frank once beat his wife" vs "Frank is a wifebeater"

in both these examples, the latter formulation is much more reductive. The relevance to this discussion? The two statements "I keep a vegetarian diet" and "I am a vegetarian" reflect this distinction too. The latter articulates an identity one has built for oneself, while the former just describes something about the person, a characteristic.

This isn't splitting hairs. It's a consequential distinction, especially in a Buddhist context.

EDIT: looks like Simon beat me to it. Sorry to pile on.
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4285
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:59 pm

porpoise wrote: What I haven't seen yet is a good reason for eating meat.


It was offered to me.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:01 pm

dharmagoat wrote:
Simon E. wrote:Can anyone interested see the difference between these two statements ?

1) I am a diabetic.
2) I have diabetes.

Stating "I am a diabetic" suggests that the person with diabetes identifies as a member of a group.

Do I get a cookie?

You get half a cookie... :tongue:

" I am a diabetic " suggests that being diabetic is my identity, or a major part of it.
" I have diabetes " suggests that I do not see my condition as defining me.

And was not plucked out of the air. It is common practice when someone is diagnosed with diabetes to encourage them to see themselves as a rounded complete and complex person who has developed diabetes..and not to identify themselves by that condition.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:04 pm

Jikan gets a cookie ! :thumbsup:
Ok lets try this one..
What is the difference between

1) He is a schizophrenic, and
2) He has schizophrenia..
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Jikan » Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:11 pm

Simon E. wrote:Jikan gets a cookie ! :thumbsup:
Ok lets try this one..
What is the difference between

1) He is a schizophrenic, and
2) He has schizophrenia..


1) indicates that he is reducible to his diagnosis of schizophrenia: that's all you need to know about him, and that's his identity.

2) indicates that there is a human being in the world who has a particular condition.

This distinction is at work in conversations about race and gender as well.
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4285
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby padma norbu » Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:11 pm

Seems like I should get 2 cookies, but instead I got skipped. :tantrum:
"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 Jikan » Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:12 pm

padma norbu wrote:Seems like I should get 2 cookies, but instead I got skipped. :tantrum:


I'm glad to offer you mine...
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4285
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby dharmagoat » Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:14 pm

Simon E. wrote:You get half a cookie... :tongue:

" I am a diabetic " suggests that being diabetic is my identity, or a major part of it.
" I have diabetes " suggests that I do not see my condition as defining me.

And was not plucked out of the air. It is common practice when someone is diagnosed with diabetes to encourage them to see themselves as a rounded complete and complex person who has developed diabetes..and not to identify themselves by that condition.

Yes, I see your point. That it is possible to adopt a vegetarian diet without identifying oneself as a vegetarian, and therefore avoiding wearing one's vegetarianism as a kind of badge, an extension of one's personality.
User avatar
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:19 pm

I think its clear that the first takes a particular facet of a person and treats it like their fixed identity.

Jikan had already done the heavy lifting, but I think there is a clear difference between

1 ) I am vegetarian, and
2 ) I eat a vegetarian diet.

The first is an identity I have moved into to. The second does not contradict the basic Buddhist axiom that what I am is a stream of consciousness which is characterised by constant change and is not fixed around a particular identity, or personality display.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby dharmagoat » Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:21 pm

Simon E. wrote:Jikan gets a cookie ! :thumbsup:
Ok lets try this one..
What is the difference between

1) He is a schizophrenic, and
2) He has schizophrenia..

"He is a schizophrenic" not only implies that his schizophrenic condition is his most dominant characteristic, but also that it is a permanent and unchanging one.

Edit: like you just said ;)
Last edited by dharmagoat on Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:22 pm

1) I am a diabetic.
2) I have diabetes.[/quote]

Bump.[/quote]
Anyone else ?[/quote]

#2 does not define what you are as a person

Also... completely different perspective, but if you look at this from the point of view of a ketogenic diet treating diabetes, it becomes more like #1 is like being HIV+ and number 2 is like AIDS. By this, I mean, that one can cure diabetes with a ketogenic diet, but of course, we wouldn't really say "cured." They would still be diabetic but with diabetes in remission (or something). If they go back on a glucose-based diet, their diabetes will likely return. So, right there is a benefit of eating meat besides just satiating one's hunger. I read (and mentioned earlier) that the Buddha prescribed meat for certain illnesses, too.[/quote]
I missed this Padma Norbu...a whole packet of cookies is yours by way of compensation.. :thumbsup:
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby dharmagoat » Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:25 pm

Simon E. wrote:I missed this Padma Norbu...a whole packet of cookies is yours by way of compensation.. :thumbsup:

(But be careful of those blood sugar levels...)
User avatar
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:26 pm

dharmagoat wrote:
Simon E. wrote:Jikan gets a cookie ! :thumbsup:
Ok lets try this one..
What is the difference between

1) He is a schizophrenic, and
2) He has schizophrenia..

"He is a schizophrenic" not only implies that his schizophrenic condition is his most dominant characteristic, but also that it is a permanent and unchanging one.

Edit: like you just said ;)

Double cookie... :smile:
When I was a med student one of my mentors would say to us on ward rounds ' He is NOT a schizophrenic, however he does have a diagnosis of schizophrenia..its essential that you see the difference.'
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby padma norbu » Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:31 pm

What I found, personally, as a vegetarian, was that I was far less compassionate to human beings. As a meat-eater who would really prefer not to eat meat (grosses me out), I am cornered into this horrible realization about the human predicament every time I sit down to eat. The science shows we are omnivores by nature; there is something attractive in the martyrdom of dying for your beliefs by aging rapidly and sacrificing your health for the sake of being compassionate toward animals, but there is another idea in there asking how we can be compassionate given that we biologically require meat. It has got to be part of the whole 5 Poisons thing regarding our particular circumstances in samsara; were we designed/evolved to be perfectly vegan, we would be too perfect. Using this suffering as the path makes so much sense to me now, as opposed to my involuntary looking-down on meat-eaters as a vegetarian. The compassion that was supposed to be there was more or less clinging and rejection from a delusional pride of superiority, like the god realm. I have since considered the idea of getting a tatto just so I can have more compassion for the ever-increasing lot of tattooed cool dudes who I have noticed I increasingly dismiss as mindless followers the older I get...
"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 dharmagoat » Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:41 pm

Eating meat on rare occasions not only increases my awareness of the suffering of animals, but also allows me to better relate to other meat eaters, something that I was unable to do as a strict vegetarian.

Everything we do provides an opportunity for awareness.
User avatar
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby seeker242 » Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:50 pm

Simon E. wrote:Whereas having a prepared and prescripted answer which does not acknowledge that there is a spectrum of views is OK ?


Are you trying to say I have not acknowledged that people hold other views? If so, then you are misrepresenting again.

Simon E. wrote:So, Seeker242, have you changed your mind ? Or do you still believe as you did last July that meat eating leads straight to hell ?
And if so does that include all those who eat meat in Vajrayana Pujas ?


You are misrepresenting...again. It was not my idea that was being expressed. It was a direct quote from Buddhist scripture, the Shurangama Sutra specifically. But, you can try to attribute it to me if you want...I would take it as a compliment that you would consider me to be a good Buddhist scripture author! Thank you! :thumbsup:
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: 645
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dan74, tomamundsen and 15 guests

>