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 padma norbu » Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:56 pm

dharmagoat wrote: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.


Yes, that is what I was saying in a nutshell. Except now I eat meat regularly. When I had to eat meat for ganapujas as a vegetarian, my feelings were "this really seems gross and wrong, I guess that's the point of it (?), to go beyond limitations..." and I never really got past my superiority complex. When I finally had to eat meat as a last resort to see if it would solve my health problems, it was like eating crow every time I had to eat meat. Not only eating crow, but almost like licking maggots off a dying dog as per the story of Asanga because I found it absolutely disgusting. I was forced to do something I absolutely did not want to do and was picturing all the disgusting slaughterhouse videos I'd ever seen, imagining the meat mixed with fecal matter and pesticides and hormones and whatever else. Not only did I feel sorry for the animals, I felt sorry for myself and for all of humanity to a greater degree than typical. I have found this has lessened with time, but I still vividly picture the animals being slaughtered every time I eat meat and I say a mantra and eat with the intention of connecting the animal to the dharma. I think it has been one of the most important developments of my practice, actually, as far as softening me up... before, I was quite content to feel sorry for myself and sorry for the animals, but it was fueled by a kind of righteous indignation and fed-upness about society at large, which of course you see in all of Thras's comments plain as day, too.

Sometimes I wonder if the paradoxes people see in their own lives reflects the multifaceted perfection of the dharma. Were these different ideas we find in Buddhist texts really just 'mistakes' or 'later additions' by scribes or were all these teachings put out there by the Buddhas on purpose as part of the 84,000 different teachings for different mindsets? And maybe those of us who need a lesson develop health problems pertaining to the issue we need most instruction on?
Last edited by padma norbu on Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"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 Simon E. » Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:57 pm

In the context of that thread Seeker242 it appears that you are not simply quoting that passage, but quoting with relish.
But obviously this is your opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding..and on that thread a number of people seem to assume that the passage was quoted by you because it stated your beliefs...
So, Seeker242 do you believe that meat eating leads the eater to hell ?
Last edited by Simon E. on Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2121
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:57 pm

Simon E. wrote: Can anyone interested see the difference between these two statements ?
1) I am a diabetic.
2) I have diabetes.


As soon as you try to establish an identity for yourself, you lose.
Some people say that eating meat is the same as murder.
So, consider this:

If I murder hundreds of people over the course of many years
and then one day I decide to stop doing that
If somebody says I am not a murderer, is that statement correct or incorrect?

Thus, if I eat meat over the course of many years
and then one day I decide to stop doing that
If somebody says I am not a meat eater, is that statement correct or incorrect?
.
.
.
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: 2799
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:01 pm

Simon E. wrote:
Ok lets try this one..
What is the difference between
1) He is a schizophrenic, and
2) He has schizophrenia..

Ok lets try this one..
What is the difference between
1) He has a multiple personality disorder, and
2) They have a multiple personality disorder
.
.
.
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: 2799
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby padma norbu » Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:02 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Simon E. wrote:
Ok lets try this one..
What is the difference between
1) He is a schizophrenic, and
2) He has schizophrenia..

Ok lets try this one..
What is the difference between
1) He has a multiple personality disorder, and
2) They have a multiple personality disorder
.
.
.


Ah, a little humor! :ban:
"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 seeker242 » Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:07 pm

Simon E. wrote:In the context of that thread Seeker242 it appears that you are not simply quoting that passage, but quoting with relish.


And that appearance of "relish" is called "psychological projection".

But obviously this is your opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding..and on that thread a number of people seem to assume that the passage was quoted by you because it stated your beliefs...


What people assume and what is true often do not match. What people assume is irrelevant.

So, Seeker242 do you believe that meat eating leads the eater to hell ?


It's definitely possible!
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: 644
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Inge » Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:07 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..


Both are instances of some psychiatrist jerk, or psychologist jerk, without any understanding of the human psychology, has assigned that label to the poor person, due to matching of some "symptoms" with diagnostic criteria. The poor person, due to a lifelong abuse by authority figures, adopts this label for himself. He most likely uses both sentences interchangeably, without ascribing different meaning to them.

The first instance indicates that schizophrenia is some thing that it is possible to be. The second instance indicates that schizophrenia is some thing that it is possible to possess. Neither of those claims has any foundation.

What is the difference between
1) He is a human being, and
2) He has a human being?
User avatar
Inge
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:52 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby dharmagoat » Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:09 pm

padma norbu wrote:... And maybe those of us who need a lesson develop health problems pertaining to the issue we need most instruction on?

Health issues seem to provide the best lessons, and I would say that all the lessons we learn are relevant.

Your story sounds similar to mine, although for me the disgust was in the act of killing and eating an animal, rather than for the meat itself.
User avatar
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby dharmagoat » Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:13 pm

Inge wrote:2) He has a human being?

This one is called "slavery" :popcorn:

I'll get me coat...
Last edited by dharmagoat on Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:33 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 3:30 pm

Inge 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..


Both are instances of some psychiatrist jerk, or psychologist jerk, without any understanding of the human psychology, has assigned that label to the poor person, due to matching of some "symptoms" with diagnostic criteria. The poor person, due to a lifelong abuse by authority figures, adopts this label for himself. He most likely uses both sentences interchangeably, without ascribing different meaning to them.

The first instance indicates that schizophrenia is some thing that it is possible to be. The second instance indicates that schizophrenia is some thing that it is possible to possess. Neither of those claims has any foundation.

What is the difference between
1) He is a human being, and
2) He has a human being?

OK Inge as that example seems to have some emotional resonance for you, and as I don't want to be inadvertently responsible for dragging the thread off topic..what about my first example
what is the difference between
1) I have diabetes and
2) I am a diabetic. ?
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2121
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby deff » Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:35 pm

the same is true with:

1) I practice Buddhism
2) I am a Buddhist

however it seems a lot of people that shoot down others for identifying as something (such as a vegetarian) don't see themselves doing the same thing with calling themselves a Buddhist :smile:
deff
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Inge » Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:40 pm

Simon E. wrote:
Inge 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..


Both are instances of some psychiatrist jerk, or psychologist jerk, without any understanding of the human psychology, has assigned that label to the poor person, due to matching of some "symptoms" with diagnostic criteria. The poor person, due to a lifelong abuse by authority figures, adopts this label for himself. He most likely uses both sentences interchangeably, without ascribing different meaning to them.

The first instance indicates that schizophrenia is some thing that it is possible to be. The second instance indicates that schizophrenia is some thing that it is possible to possess. Neither of those claims has any foundation.

What is the difference between
1) He is a human being, and
2) He has a human being?

OK Inge as that example seems to have some emotional resonance for you, and as I don't want to be inadvertently responsible for dragging the thread off topic..what about my first example
what is the difference between
1) I have diabetes and
2) I am a diabetic. ?


1) There is a subject, "I", who possesses an object labeled "diabetes".
2) There is a subject, "I", and this subject, or some aspect of this subject, has the characteristics of being "diabetic".

In daily language both sentences are used interchangeably. There is no real difference in meaning. You are just playing with words.
User avatar
Inge
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:52 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:43 pm

deff wrote:the same is true with:

1) I practice Buddhism
2) I am a Buddhist

however it seems a lot of people that shoot down others for identifying as something (such as a vegetarian) don't see themselves doing the same thing with calling themselves a Buddhist :smile:

Well actually deff;

" When I came to the west I was surprised to hear people talking about Buddhism and Buddhists.
In Tibet we talk about the Dharma and those who follow it..not about ' isms ' and ' ists .'

Chime Rinpoche.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2121
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby dharmagoat » Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:55 pm

deff wrote:... however it seems a lot of people that shoot down others for identifying as something (such as a vegetarian) don't see themselves doing the same thing with calling themselves a Buddhist.

True, being "a Buddhist" is a badge worn with pride by many people practicing Buddhism. These are the ones who react to criticism of their particular brand of Buddhism is if it were an attack upon themselves.
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 3:57 pm

Thank you for your input Inge.

:namaste:
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2121
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby padma norbu » Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:01 pm

dharmagoat wrote:
padma norbu wrote:... And maybe those of us who need a lesson develop health problems pertaining to the issue we need most instruction on?

Health issues seem to provide the best lessons, and I would say that all the lessons we learn are relevant.

Your story sounds similar to mine, although for me the disgust was in the act of killing and eating an animal, rather than for the meat itself.

oh, that was certainly part of my disgust as well. Thought I covered that.
"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 dzogchungpa » Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:04 pm

seeker242 wrote:It was a direct quote from Buddhist scripture, the Shurangama Sutra specifically.

Seeker242, I do not know the answer to the following question:

Do you think everything in the Shurangama Sutra is literally true?
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: 1436
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby dharmagoat » Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:11 pm

padma norbu wrote:oh, that was certainly part of my disgust as well. Thought I covered that.

Yes, you did.

I was really just saying that I still found meat appetising, even though the idea of it was disturbing.
User avatar
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Johnny Dangerous » Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:17 pm

All kinds of sutra say all kinds of things, it's up to people to decide what is the best interpretation, what to follow and what not to follow, and obviously the Buddhist tradition has been arguing about such things for 2500 years now. Arguing being the key word, we shouldn't just say "oh well this sutra says x, case closed" without examination. Sutra quoting in that context is just lame, IMO, since one can find writings in support of and in opposition to a myriad of different things, and still be correctly identified as a Buddhist whether one does those things or not. Smacks of the kind of anti-intellectual nonsense you see in corners of the "big three" religions when tossed around like that, frankly.
"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: 2132
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby padma norbu » Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:33 pm

dharmagoat wrote:
padma norbu wrote:oh, that was certainly part of my disgust as well. Thought I covered that.

Yes, you did.

I was really just saying that I still found meat appetising, even though the idea of it was disturbing.


Maybe that is why I eventually suffered health problems... since I was not inclined to have any affinity toward meat, I wasn't really being all that compassionate about not eating it. Well, I was sort of, but it was easy for me. And I used it as a reason to hate people. EDIT: well, now I am getting into entirely supermundane reasons for things, which I don't mean to suggest, really. I think there are mundane reasons vegetarians suffer health problems.
"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

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: smcj and 8 guests

>