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 » Wed May 16, 2012 12:41 pm

tobes wrote:
Thrasymachus wrote:
Personally as a vegan I know I am doing a very small favor to livestock animals by being on the vanguard of the animal liberation movement with my dietary choice, not to mention the health and environmental benefits. Every year over 10 billion totally enslaved animals are slaughtered so Americans can be one of the fattest populations around the globe.


How about this argument Thrasymachus: If no one ate meat, those 10 billion animals would not ever be born. If you care for their sentience, isn't it better that they exist rather than they never exist?

Five years in a paddock, as a sentient creature, is surely more valuable than non-existence.

The cause of those 5 years of sentient life? People eating meat!

You want an argument about causality, here it is. Advocating global veganism is not simply advocating the cessation of killing: it is also advocating the cessation of breeding, birth, life and the existence of however many animals are desired by humans for food.

:anjali:


No, he wants us all to keep them as pets. Oh right, I forgot, keeping pets is chattle slavery too. I guess we just cut all these cows, chickens and pigs loose and let them fend for themselves.
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 mindyourmind » Wed May 16, 2012 12:45 pm

tobes wrote:
Thrasymachus wrote:
Personally as a vegan I know I am doing a very small favor to livestock animals by being on the vanguard of the animal liberation movement with my dietary choice, not to mention the health and environmental benefits. Every year over 10 billion totally enslaved animals are slaughtered so Americans can be one of the fattest populations around the globe.


How about this argument Thrasymachus: If no one ate meat, those 10 billion animals would not ever be born. If you care for their sentience, isn't it better that they exist rather than they never exist?

Five years in a paddock, as a sentient creature, is surely more valuable than non-existence.

The cause of those 5 years of sentient life? People eating meat!

You want an argument about causality, here it is. Advocating global veganism is not simply advocating the cessation of killing: it is also advocating the cessation of breeding, birth, life and the existence of however many animals are desired by humans for food.

:anjali:


That's a question I often asked myself, and I have come to a different conclusion. We are speculating wildly here, but I think that non-existence, specifically as in never-having-existed, may very well be a better deal than to have existed, with life's little pleasures and the suffering that comes with the territory, only to be killed and end up as someone's steak.

We now make us eating meat sound like something that animals should be grateful for :rolleye:
As bad as bad becomes its not a part of you

Talk Talk
User avatar
mindyourmind
 
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:11 am
Location: South Africa

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Malcolm » Wed May 16, 2012 12:50 pm

Andrew108 wrote:
treehuggingoctopus wrote:
Namdrol wrote:According to our karmic vision plants are non-sentient. But according to Padmasambhava in the Khandro Nyinthig:

After first being created by the energy (rtsal) of wisdom, in the middle, as it was not recognized that the body of the refined part of the assembled elements actually is the five wisdoms, since this was not realized through intellectual views, the non-sentient and sentient both appear, but don’t believe it... As such, the sign of non-duality is [the body] disappearing into wisdom without any effluents because the critical point of the non-duality or sameness of the non-sentient and the sentient was understood according to the Guru’s intimate instructions.


Thanks a lot.

This is part of the all inclusive view of Dzogchen where there really isn't 'reality' - just wisdom. So it's not saying plants are sentient and it's not saying that they are not. It's not making claims about sentience as such or that there is a reality that can be established as anything other than wisdom.


It is making the claim that disctinction between the sentient and the non-sentient is false. You can work out the rest.

N
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 Dave The Seeker » Wed May 16, 2012 1:18 pm

Just to clarify, 5 years is the life of a dairy cow. So thats your hamburger.
The life of the other cuts of meat, feed lot cattle, is 18 months. Anything over 30 months old is only used for hamburger as the meat is too tough for a "prime" cut.

Kindest wishes, Dave
Everyday problems teach us to have a realistic attitude.
They teach us that life is what life is; flawed.
Yet with tremendous potential for joy and fulfillment.
~Lama Surya Das~

If your path teaches you to act and exert yourself correctly and leads to spiritual realizations such as love, compassion and wisdom then obviously it's worthwhile.
~Lama Thubten Yeshe~

One whose mind is freed does not argue with anyone, he does not dispute with anyone. He makes use of the conventional terms of the world without clinging to them
~The Buddha~
User avatar
Dave The Seeker
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:02 pm
Location: Reading MI USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Andrew108 » Wed May 16, 2012 2:05 pm

Namdrol wrote:
It is making the claim that disctinction between the sentient and the non-sentient is false. You can work out the rest.

N

Sorry for being pedantic but the statement is not making a distinction as to what is false - otherwise that would be a position held in regard to the relative. And as you know in Dzogchen there are no positions held in terms of conventional and ultimate truth.
Andrew108
 
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby gad rgyangs » Wed May 16, 2012 2:07 pm

tobes wrote:
Thrasymachus wrote:
Personally as a vegan I know I am doing a very small favor to livestock animals by being on the vanguard of the animal liberation movement with my dietary choice, not to mention the health and environmental benefits. Every year over 10 billion totally enslaved animals are slaughtered so Americans can be one of the fattest populations around the globe.


How about this argument Thrasymachus: If no one ate meat, those 10 billion animals would not ever be born. If you care for their sentience, isn't it better that they exist rather than they never exist?

Five years in a paddock, as a sentient creature, is surely more valuable than non-existence.

The cause of those 5 years of sentient life? People eating meat!

You want an argument about causality, here it is. Advocating global veganism is not simply advocating the cessation of killing: it is also advocating the cessation of breeding, birth, life and the existence of however many animals are desired by humans for food.

:anjali:


in whose philosophy is this planet the only place one can be born?
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 » Wed May 16, 2012 2:13 pm

Andrew108 wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
It is making the claim that disctinction between the sentient and the non-sentient is false. You can work out the rest.

N

Sorry for being pedantic but the statement is not making a distinction as to what is false - otherwise that would be a position held in regard to the relative. And as you know in Dzogchen there are no positions held in terms of conventional and ultimate truth.


There are statements made with regard to what a product of ignorance and a product of knowledge.

N
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 PadmaVonSamba » Wed May 16, 2012 5:13 pm

I get along nicely with cows.
Attachments
mewithcow.jpg
I get along nicely with cows.
mewithcow.jpg (30.86 KiB) Viewed 465 times
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: 2790
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Wed May 16, 2012 5:17 pm

since we are on the topic of eating beef...
Attachments
cowtoon02.jpg
cowtoon02.jpg (60.21 KiB) Viewed 462 times
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: 2790
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Thrasymachus » Wed May 16, 2012 6:12 pm

@PadmaVonSamba:
Again with the reductionist dharma approach. If you believed that is all that mattered, whether you could narrowly practice dharma or not, why would you be the biggest producer of apologia for the ethics of carnism lately in this thread? Since compassion doesn't matter, only meditative practice why produce those arguments? We can look at societies much more dedicated to dharma in the past and present to see how this reductionism works:
1. A shocking study in Bhutan shows 70% of women say they deserved domestic abuse under many conditions.
2. Article on the Ldab Ldob, violent monks of Tibet who beat up other monks, they even kidnapped and raped boys, and were estimated to compromise 10% of larger monasteries
It seems you have a fetishized, unrealistic image where you mistake dharma ideals for something that has or can be translated to reality. The huge apologia for carnism seen in this thread, is even worse than mainstream American discourse on the same issue. The American mainstream mostly argues that, "God created animals to serve man," and that "they taste good," which. However much of the dharma apologia for carnism is far worse because it actually tries to guilt vegetarians for not being able to do or see the impossible. Wouldn't it be more compassionate and closer to realization to not produce such arguments urging less compassion?

@tobes:
Go say similar to any African-American or any current or past victim of human slavery about their ancestors and how they should be thankful for slavery, see how your face feels afterwards. This is the problem with followers of carnism, they cannot understand a world were humans do not have some kind of natural right to totally enslave animals. They consider animals so inferior they should face the greatest tortures devised by humanity, and that these animals should be thankful merely for living.

You think your dietary choice triumphs the right of other beings to be free and not suffer. They never get a choice about anything in the industrial food system. They are treated as raw inputs and dragged with forklifts violently and ground up while still alive to feed to other livestock when their health fails. I don't think you could stand to live as they do, or have your family treated as they are treated, and just be thankful for their or your opportunity to be alive.
User avatar
Thrasymachus
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Dover, NJ

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Wed May 16, 2012 7:17 pm

Thrasymachus wrote:@PadmaVonSamba:
Again with the reductionist dharma approach. If you believed that is all that mattered, whether you could narrowly practice dharma or not, why would you be the biggest producer of apologia for the ethics of carnism lately in this thread? ...


It's fun.

Thrasymachus wrote:@PadmaVonSamba:
It seems you have a fetishized, unrealistic image where you mistake dharma ideals for something that has or can be translated to reality.


If you think dharma teachings are unrealistic, why are you posting here at all?
.
.
.
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: 2790
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Wed May 16, 2012 7:24 pm



How can you meditate on top of such a high horse?
It might be better to climb down off of it, cook it, and eat it.
Real heroes don't go around boasting about how much better it is to be a hero.

Yes, samsara has very long reaching tentacles. It is really amazing how messed up people can get.
Even buddhism is not exempt from the truth of suffering.

And Hitler was a vegetarian. So, even some vegetarians are bad too.

Please tell me, what is your opinion of lions, wolves, owls, crocodiles, sharks, spiders and other carivores.
Is it okay for them to kill and eat meat?

YES_____ NO______

If the answer is yes, then why is it okay for one species to eat meat and not another?
That just sounds like speciesism to me.
If the answer is no, then what shall we do with them so that they stop killing?
I used to know this guy a long time ago, Alex Pacheco. A very nice guy.
We used to hang out and talk about stuff, and he told me all about speciesism.
then he went and stated a group called Peta.
I haven't heard from him since then but I think he is quite famous now.

You may think Buddhists who eat meat are hypocrites.
Buddhism is open to hypocrites too. It is a very accepting philosophy.
But the animal rights philosophy is also hypocritical.
it says that people shouldn't eat meat because eating meat is wrong.
But it argues that ethical concepts of right and wrong do not apply to animals, only to people.
But people are also animals.
So if you say a rule applies to one set of animals and not another,
that is also hypocritical.


I totally support vegetarianism.
I am 98% vegetarian, down slightly from 100%.
I have my own garden but it takes a long time because I try to be very careful not to kill worms or other bugs.
You see? I am a nice guy!!!!
I think veganism is a bit wacko, but that's just my opinion.

All of the concerns about the meat industry and everything are well founded.
I already agreed with you that as long as people keep buying meat the killing of animals will continue.

But that doesn't have much to do with Buddhism.
Since you already said, basically, that you don't really believe that the teachings of the dharma are valid,
it shouldn't matter to you.

Anyhow, please answer my yes/no question.


.
.
.
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: 2790
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Nemo » Wed May 16, 2012 8:56 pm

Before eating a practicing Tibetan Buddhist would offer the food to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. This alone is a very auspicious connection. Worth 18 months as a cow IMO.

Then a mantra would be recited that frees the animal from any further rebirths as a food animal. With this mantra and enough Buddhists eventually all beings will be blessed and the Karmic cause of being a food animal will be exhausted. Without the need for neurotically obsessing about the purity of ones food.

Then it is offered to the Guru, Tathagatas, Protectors, personal deities and the Four Guardian Kings who take it from the Mandala of your body.

,...Or you could be a Vegan and have no compassion for the beings who are reborn as food animals. Then compound that with a vicious pride about being better than everyone else. Your choice.
User avatar
Nemo
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Bhusuku » Wed May 16, 2012 9:45 pm

I really don't get why so many people here seem to be (sometimes quite desperately) in need of (sometimes really absurd) justifications about what they like to eat or don't like to eat... If a simple issue like "what do you like or don't like to be on your plate?" can cause so many quarrels, so much judging, irritation and bashing each other - even among buddhist practitioners - it really doesn't come as a surprise that there is so much hate and violence going on here on this small blue ball.

Namdrol wrote a wonderful post in the "Dzogchen and Buddhism" thread where he's talking about the necessity to overcome our own limitations regarding religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe to participate in changing the world. But honestly, I don't see this happen very soon if we can't even overcome our limited ideas about what other people should eat or not eat.
Bhusuku
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:18 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby tobes » Wed May 16, 2012 10:57 pm

Thrasymachus wrote:@tobes:
Go say similar to any African-American or any current or past victim of human slavery about their ancestors and how they should be thankful for slavery, see how your face feels afterwards. This is the problem with followers of carnism, they cannot understand a world were humans do not have some kind of natural right to totally enslave animals. They consider animals so inferior they should face the greatest tortures devised by humanity, and that these animals should be thankful merely for living.

You think your dietary choice triumphs the right of other beings to be free and not suffer. They never get a choice about anything in the industrial food system. They are treated as raw inputs and dragged with forklifts violently and ground up while still alive to feed to other livestock when their health fails. I don't think you could stand to live as they do, or have your family treated as they are treated, and just be thankful for their or your opportunity to be alive.


I would totally agree that it is better to be free than to be enslaved.

But you haven't dealt with nub of the argument: is existence more morally valuable than non-existence? These are the terms of your position.

Your grounding premise is that it is, which is why animals ought not be killed.

But if that is the case, how can justify the fact that your position precludes them from being born? In this case, you are clearly denying the possibility of particular animals existing, and contradicting your core claim that existence is more morally valuable than non-existence.

Now don't be evasive on this - I agree with your claims about factory farming et al. Let us bracket those issues for a moment and consider animals raised and killed for meat in a free range/organic way.

How can you reconcile your core claim that sentient existence is morally valuable, whilst advocating a position which precludes animals from existing in the first instance?

:anjali:
User avatar
tobes
 
Posts: 981
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby practitioner » Wed May 16, 2012 11:09 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:Please tell me, what is your opinion of lions, wolves, owls, crocodiles, sharks, spiders and other carivores.
Is it okay for them to kill and eat meat?

YES_____ NO______


No, it's not okay. That is why strive to not be born as one of those creatures in the animal realm. They don't have a choice, we do. That is just one of the many benefits of our precious human rebirth.
One should do nothing other than benefit sentient beings either directly or indirectly - Shantideva
User avatar
practitioner
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 5:48 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby LastLegend » Wed May 16, 2012 11:25 pm

Animals want to live, we want to live. Animals feel pain, we feel pain. So raise them as pets but torture and don't kill them.
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)
User avatar
LastLegend
 
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Thu May 17, 2012 1:09 am

Thrasymachus wrote:@tobes:
Go say similar to any African-American or any current or past victim of human slavery about their ancestors and how they should be thankful for slavery, see how your face feels afterwards.


My earliest ancestors were chased up into trees by predatory carnivores.
the ones who couldn't get away fast enough got eaten and never had offspring.
the ones who got away did so because they started standing up more on their back legs.
they are the ones who reproduced, and their kids stood upright too.
Gradually they evolved into homo sapiens.
In Africa.

If you enjoy the fact that there is a human realm,
where you can be born and practice dharma,
thank a predatory carnivore.
.
.
.
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: 2790
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Thu May 17, 2012 1:16 am

practitioner wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:Please tell me, what is your opinion of lions, wolves, owls, crocodiles, sharks, spiders and other carivores.
Is it okay for them to kill and eat meat?

YES_____ NO______


No, it's not okay. That is why strive to not be born as one of those creatures in the animal realm. They don't have a choice, we do. That is just one of the many benefits of our precious human rebirth.


What about vultures and jackals and hyenas, who only eat what other animals have already killed?
is it okay for them to eat meat?
.
.
.
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: 2790
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Nemo » Sun May 20, 2012 10:15 pm

Scientist finds Vegans so annoying he proves they are self righteous, judgmental douches, :stirthepot:

"When it came to helping out a needy stranger, the organic people also proved to be more selfish, volunteering only 13 minutes as compared to 19 minutes (for controls) and 24 minutes (for comfort food folks)."

http://todayhealth.today.msnbc.msn.com/ ... in=bodyodd
User avatar
Nemo
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anders, Google [Bot], Sherab Dorje, smcj, theanarchist and 17 guests

>