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 catmoon » Sun Dec 23, 2012 4:32 pm

On the other hand, if you DEFINE health as being vegan, then you will of course be healthy if you go vegan. Even if your hair is falling out, even though you half pass out every time you get out of a chair, even if your children suffer permanent mental impairments from B12 deficiency, even if your muscles waste away and you become permanently and irrationally irritable, those who define going vegan as "health" will claim you are perfectly healthy.

Even the Dalai Lama, who has as much motivation and compassion as anyone on the planet, got very sick on a vegetarian diet. He returned to his old diet and his health returned. Same story with Buddhist friends of mine.

*initiating Thrasymachus mode*

So don't follow the advice of the vegan criminals who are really just trying to kill you and/or co-opt you into their socialist political program. To control minds, they must first be weakened, and the socialist hordes just want to break down your strength and resistance so that you will give up and conform like the faceless, mindless, soulless masses of vegans that have gone before.

*terminating Thrasymachus mode*

Oh gee did that sound a bit over the top? A bit irrational and irritable maybe? Maybe a tad paranoid? Sorry about that, I've had almost no protein today.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Nemo » Sun Dec 23, 2012 6:47 pm

If you believe in evolutionary adaption you should probably eat what your ancestors did if you want to be healthy. Mine lived so far North that agriculture was not possible.

I do find it odd that I get much healthier when I live in Asia near the equator. I would love to find out why that happens. Even the natives I went with got sick. I drank the water on the first day and got healthier and healthier. Maybe I am allergic to gluten or some environmental thing up North here. Maybe all the swimming in the sea and fresh coconut water every morning. The equal day and night is so awesome. There are only 8.5 hours of daylight here today. Blech. :crying:

So the health "benefits" are dubious and the environmental arguments are incredibly short lived thanks to exponential population growth. Ethically,even if it wrecks your health, veggies have my utmost respect. No one said ethical decisions were easy. The cost is what makes them cool.
User avatar
Nemo
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:45 am

porpoise wrote:
seeker242 wrote:The practice of Buddhism intrinsically includes kindness to animals. The practice of Buddhism intrinsically includes kindness to all living beings.


That's my understanding. And I'd feel like a hypocrite buying meat because effectively I'd be saying: "I'm a Buddhist and don't want to kill animals, but I'm happy for somebody else to do it on my behalf."
Leaving aside the fact that business in meat is traditionally wrong livelihood. ;)


Are you clinging to "not being a hypocrite" ?
.
.
.
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 » Mon Dec 24, 2012 1:29 am

There are two reasons that usually guide people to a vegetarian diet. One is for personal health reasons, and another is out of kindness to animals. Lately, the protection of Earth's natural resources has also become a factor for many people. These are all good reasons not to eat meat, but they are also just as valid as reasons simply to not eat as much meat, even if one is not a "pure' vegetarian or vegan.

So then, what is to be gained by striving for some notion of dietary purity? To me, that is the question a Buddhist might want to consider. We cannot lead perfect lives, although we should make the effort to. At the same time, if we develop feelings of moral superiority, or condemn others, then how much further does that remove a person from realizing their Buddha Nature which is intrinsically pure to begin with? Even if we save a million animals by not eating them, this is only a very tiny amount compared to how many beings one would benefit as an enlightened being.

Being a vegetarian or a vegan, in Samsara, is a very nice thing to do, but that's really about all it is. So, thanks anyway, but don't act like it's some big deal, because it isn't. And any merit gained from such righteous culinary actions are quickly destroyed by an attitude of superiority (pride), which is a very hard habit to break.

Buddhists take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. But what does "refuge" mean? It is the path to realization of the end of suffering, meaning that it is the path one chooses as the method of liberation. And while it is a good thing to be a vegetarian Buddhist, it is another thing to "take refuge" in vegetarianism, or veganism, which, I think, is actually what some people do. Then they propagate vegetarianism or veganism as a path in itself, and when confronted by Buddhists who might eat meat, they experience a contradiction, or see people as hypocrites, and this does not conform to the picture in their minds that they cling to, about what a Buddhist should be. Then, they argue vegetarianism under the pretext of arguing some sort of "correct" Buddhism.

The fact is, some Buddhists eat meat and some do not. And then, they die. And I think, to argue vegetarianism as the only true way a Buddhist should eat misses the whole point of the Buddha's teachings, and reduces Dharma to a set of dietary laws. And since the act of chewing and swallowing anything takes up less than 2% or 3% of a person's whole life, maybe the issue is blown out of proportion. If the Dharma is only available to vegetarians, then it is a very narrow and limited path.
.
.
.
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 greentara » Mon Dec 24, 2012 1:40 am

catmoon, "On the other hand, if you define health as being vegan, then you will of course be healthy if you go vegan. Even if your hair is falling out, even though you half pass out every time you get out of a chair, even if your children suffer permanent mental impairments from B12 deficiency"
You can be B12 deficient on a vegetarian diet, you don't have to be vegan to be depleted. 'Ahimsa', (being harmless) is an issue we all have to think deeply about. There is no one shoe fits all.
In Sth India where vegetarianism is 'de regle', they eat huge servings of white rice and have a high incidence of diabetes. Their ancestors have been vegetarian for at least a thousand years and the body knows nothing else. We on the other hand......
greentara
 
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:03 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby coldwater » Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:06 am

this whole thread is really interesting...!

I'd like to share my views as another perspective in it all.

background:
I've been vegetarian since I was 8 years old, not from family influence. They all ate meat and do from time to time though less because of my choice. My purpose was I did not want to have a chicken (or another animal) die against it's will for me because it had parents and children also. That is my rationale then and I stick with it still. Never has it been a political or environmental statement for me. I don't tie it in to my religion or spirituality though it can imply spiritual ideas. I simply wanted to minimize my support of killing- as best as I was able- choosing the path of least harm. I simply understand that if I try to hurt an animal it will try to get away and it will feel pain. Later I became vegan for 8 years when I learned about factory farming. Now I occasionally eat dairy or egg if it is around though I do not purchase it. 21 years later I am healthy and not passing out or emaciated, looking like death or what have you. No major health problems or malnutrition. It's been working for me, it doesn't work for everyone and that could be because of many factors- constitution, diet, lifestyle, genetics etc. so I don't advocate it as the example of health. I do advocate it as way to interact with the objectification of life and our choice in it.

my ever changing argument for being vegetarian:
I do understand and accept that farming, driving, consuming any product whatsoever, even breathing will inadvertently harm, disturb or kill life. It is interesting to me when meat eaters feel the need to point this out repeatedly. To point it out so strongly as a reason *not* to be vegetarian or why one thinks vegetarians 'are no better, no innocent, not any less harmful', I feel, is side stepping the issue of individual choice and collective responsibility. Using this logic it could be carried further that if grain is mass murder, than beef is even worse as a cow needs to consume even larger quantities than I would consume in the same amount of time...plus the cow needs to be killed as well....funny thing this interdependence it goes on forever in every direction if you want it to. How I see it using this logic doesn't ever make any death or killing less deadly or painful and simply being in a body will cause harm to some degree.

The frequent use of 'eating rice=mass murder' thinking by vegetarians also could also lead to the opposite extreme form of vegetarianism and even the religious 'ahimsa death' found in systems like Jainism. I find it helpful to take an idea to both extremes and see what happens. I think the Buddha's idea of the 'middle way' is useful...for lay people with 5 precepts it is not to 'kill a human' and advice not to engage in 'wrong livelihood'. For monks and nuns it is not to accept 'impure meat'.

What makes more sense to me than this obvious interdependence...is the intention and choices behind my purchases and eating. In what way can I most reduce deliberate or methodical harm by myself or for myself right now? When given choices that are in my sphere of influence what do I choose? What systems that intentionally cause harm am I supporting?

some examples:

When I eat grains or vegetables it is not my intention to eat something killed specifically for me or requested by me- the 'consumer'. Nor am I asking the 'producer' to do it. The fact that people walked, tilled, harvested, transported and built buildings to sell those veggies will cause harm in the process but that is not the intention or goal of those activities.

On the other hand when I think about eating meat I consider that a individual life was bred, nourished, feed and then with a clear and direct intention was killed deliberately on my behalf against it's will...the whole thing, start to finish, was designed for me the 'consumer'.

I've applied the monastic practice of 'pure meat'... 'not seen, not known, not suspected to be killed on my benefit' to my purchases of food and so further along where my money goes for most services and products. Since factory farming and mass production of meat and animal products did not exist in the Buddha's time...I apply the label of 'consumer/customer' to myself when I enter a grocery store since the scale of production has changed. The products there are produced and sold by companies for anyone who is labelled 'consumer/customer'.

When I see, know or suspect intentional killing, theft, abuse etc. for the product I use I will choose a different supplier or source. This could be carried to clothing and products that employ child labor or unfair work practices etc. I can't stop it all from happening of course but I can make clear choices for myself.

So from my view then eating or not eating meat as an act is not inherently pure or ethical. I don't see any inherent value in it unless it is backed by and reinforced by intention and thought. Deliberately killing or asking others to on the other hand is usually a harmful choice.

Whether one does either with a sense of greed, arrogance, hatred, or unawareness to the process determines the 'purity' of ethics. For example...it would follow that to eat a meal of meat and rejoice in the death of the animal and be attached to the flavor of the animal's flesh would be 'rejoicing in death', to buy meat killed for me the 'consumer' would be 'asking another to do it on my behalf'. To eat a meal of meat that was 'purely offered' and to consider the life taken while not complaining or rejoicing in flavor/circumstances would be 'pure meat eating'.

For eating a vegetarian meal I try to think of it as a necessary medicine to support practice and that I need to turn over the energy gained through the work, sweat and blood of everyone who inadvertently suffered in the process to bring it to my table thus 'purely vegetarian'. To be vegetarian because it is a fad, diet, or I think it bestows special status, fame or rewards would for me mean 'impure vegetarian'. I can only live on the backs of others.

At the end of the day it is merely my opinion and I am responsible for my actions...it is up to others to figure out their minds in their own actions. I can't know the intentions of someone eating meat or vege so I am not assuming either is right. They have their reasons and I have my own as well.

On a side note- someone said the Dalai Lama tried being vegetarian but switched back to eating meat. One important point was not included- he eats meat every other day. The reason is to minimize his consumption but maintain his health according to his doctor's order. This way he can be vegetarian '6 months out of the year' and he promotes vegetarian eating in the Tibetan community. HH's main temple in Dharamsala only serves vegetarian food. A trend in Tibetan monasteries is to serve vege fare but monastics are still individuals and will purchase and eat meat outside of the monastery.
User avatar
coldwater
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 9:10 am
Location: California, SF/Bay Area

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Zealot » Mon Dec 24, 2012 5:24 am

coldwater wrote:this whole thread is really interesting...!

I'd like to share my views as another perspective in it all.

background:
I've been vegetarian since I was 8 years old, not from family influence. They all ate meat and do from time to time though less because of my choice. My purpose was I did not want to have a chicken (or another animal) die against it's will for me because it had parents and children also. That is my rationale then and I stick with it still. Never has it been a political or environmental statement for me. I don't tie it in to my religion or spirituality though it can imply spiritual ideas. I simply wanted to minimize my support of killing- as best as I was able- choosing the path of least harm. I simply understand that if I try to hurt an animal it will try to get away and it will feel pain. Later I became vegan for 8 years when I learned about factory farming. Now I occasionally eat dairy or egg if it is around though I do not purchase it. 21 years later I am healthy and not passing out or emaciated, looking like death or what have you. No major health problems or malnutrition. It's been working for me, it doesn't work for everyone and that could be because of many factors- constitution, diet, lifestyle, genetics etc. so I don't advocate it as the example of health. I do advocate it as way to interact with the objectification of life and our choice in it.

my ever changing argument for being vegetarian:
I do understand and accept that farming, driving, consuming any product whatsoever, even breathing will inadvertently harm, disturb or kill life. It is interesting to me when meat eaters feel the need to point this out repeatedly. To point it out so strongly as a reason *not* to be vegetarian or why one thinks vegetarians 'are no better, no innocent, not any less harmful', I feel, is side stepping the issue of individual choice and collective responsibility. Using this logic it could be carried further that if grain is mass murder, than beef is even worse as a cow needs to consume even larger quantities than I would consume in the same amount of time...plus the cow needs to be killed as well....funny thing this interdependence it goes on forever in every direction if you want it to. How I see it using this logic doesn't ever make any death or killing less deadly or painful and simply being in a body will cause harm to some degree.

The frequent use of 'eating rice=mass murder' thinking by vegetarians also could also lead to the opposite extreme form of vegetarianism and even the religious 'ahimsa death' found in systems like Jainism. I find it helpful to take an idea to both extremes and see what happens. I think the Buddha's idea of the 'middle way' is useful...for lay people with 5 precepts it is not to 'kill a human' and advice not to engage in 'wrong livelihood'. For monks and nuns it is not to accept 'impure meat'.

What makes more sense to me than this obvious interdependence...is the intention and choices behind my purchases and eating. In what way can I most reduce deliberate or methodical harm by myself or for myself right now? When given choices that are in my sphere of influence what do I choose? What systems that intentionally cause harm am I supporting?

some examples:

When I eat grains or vegetables it is not my intention to eat something killed specifically for me or requested by me- the 'consumer'. Nor am I asking the 'producer' to do it. The fact that people walked, tilled, harvested, transported and built buildings to sell those veggies will cause harm in the process but that is not the intention or goal of those activities.

On the other hand when I think about eating meat I consider that a individual life was bred, nourished, feed and then with a clear and direct intention was killed deliberately on my behalf against it's will...the whole thing, start to finish, was designed for me the 'consumer'.

I've applied the monastic practice of 'pure meat'... 'not seen, not known, not suspected to be killed on my benefit' to my purchases of food and so further along where my money goes for most services and products. Since factory farming and mass production of meat and animal products did not exist in the Buddha's time...I apply the label of 'consumer/customer' to myself when I enter a grocery store since the scale of production has changed. The products there are produced and sold by companies for anyone who is labelled 'consumer/customer'.

When I see, know or suspect intentional killing, theft, abuse etc. for the product I use I will choose a different supplier or source. This could be carried to clothing and products that employ child labor or unfair work practices etc. I can't stop it all from happening of course but I can make clear choices for myself.

So from my view then eating or not eating meat as an act is not inherently pure or ethical. I don't see any inherent value in it unless it is backed by and reinforced by intention and thought. Deliberately killing or asking others to on the other hand is usually a harmful choice.

Whether one does either with a sense of greed, arrogance, hatred, or unawareness to the process determines the 'purity' of ethics. For example...it would follow that to eat a meal of meat and rejoice in the death of the animal and be attached to the flavor of the animal's flesh would be 'rejoicing in death', to buy meat killed for me the 'consumer' would be 'asking another to do it on my behalf'. To eat a meal of meat that was 'purely offered' and to consider the life taken while not complaining or rejoicing in flavor/circumstances would be 'pure meat eating'.

For eating a vegetarian meal I try to think of it as a necessary medicine to support practice and that I need to turn over the energy gained through the work, sweat and blood of everyone who inadvertently suffered in the process to bring it to my table thus 'purely vegetarian'. To be vegetarian because it is a fad, diet, or I think it bestows special status, fame or rewards would for me mean 'impure vegetarian'. I can only live on the backs of others.

At the end of the day it is merely my opinion and I am responsible for my actions...it is up to others to figure out their minds in their own actions. I can't know the intentions of someone eating meat or vege so I am not assuming either is right. They have their reasons and I have my own as well.

On a side note- someone said the Dalai Lama tried being vegetarian but switched back to eating meat. One important point was not included- he eats meat every other day. The reason is to minimize his consumption but maintain his health according to his doctor's order. This way he can be vegetarian '6 months out of the year' and he promotes vegetarian eating in the Tibetan community. HH's main temple in Dharamsala only serves vegetarian food. A trend in Tibetan monasteries is to serve vege fare but monastics are still individuals and will purchase and eat meat outside of the monastery.

:good:
I was perhaps a little out of line pointing out the suffering that occurs regardless, and I think your view of minimizing suffering is definitely ideal as well your view of a 'pure meat offering'. I will try in the future not to be attached or enjoy the flesh that I am offered as I am currently certainly guilty of being attached to it. It is our responsibility to be aware of all the effort that has gone in too the food we intake and do our best not to waste the precious energy we have been given.

I am definitely against the meat factories and bred for slaughter animals that are on the plates of most americans. When in the past I've bought meat, I've always encouraged to buy free range meat or get meat that was hunted; I think hunted meat, though most hunters enjoy the sport, is generally a necessary thing as it keeps populations of animals in check. In this way we are playing a responsible part in the ecosystem by preventing over-population. So I tend to think of game meat as the 'most pure' meat.

In any case, thank you for the well thought out post. You simply ooze with compassion; it's beautiful (although my description maybe a little less so :rolling: )

Okay, enough DW for the night, sleep well everyone! (Or have a nice day depending on the part of the world you're in)

:namaste:
"My life for Aiur!" - Protoss Zealot
Zealot
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:38 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby catmoon » Mon Dec 24, 2012 5:43 am

greentara wrote:catmoon, "On the other hand, if you define health as being vegan, then you will of course be healthy if you go vegan. Even if your hair is falling out, even though you half pass out every time you get out of a chair, even if your children suffer permanent mental impairments from B12 deficiency"
You can be B12 deficient on a vegetarian diet, you don't have to be vegan to be depleted. 'Ahimsa', (being harmless) is an issue we all have to think deeply about. There is no one shoe fits all.
In Sth India where vegetarianism is 'de regle', they eat huge servings of white rice and have a high incidence of diabetes. Their ancestors have been vegetarian for at least a thousand years and the body knows nothing else. We on the other hand......


Actually I have no doubt there are even people on a heavy meat-based diet who suffer b12 deficiency. People are just that different. Somewhere on this planet there is probably someone who can eat a diet of brown rice and cat poop and be perfectly well. And I know that there are people who can be fed a "normal" diet containing every nutrient there is and who will still have poor health, because they just can't absorb what they need.

The real lesson of nature is, in my opinion, that human diversity is enormous and this means that selecting a diet on general principles, any principles, is going to be very harmful to a substantial number of people. You have to take the individual into account. Look at how carefully a borderline diabetic has to eat. Or someone who is lactose intolerant. Or allergic. Or phenylketonuric. God only knows how long this list is and it's just the stuff we know about.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby greentara » Mon Dec 24, 2012 7:35 am

Apparently mal absorption is quite an issue with 30% of Europeans having fructose malabsorption, I guess from guzzling apple and pear juice? I'm not sure of the stats regarding lactose intolerance. Of course it's going nothing to do with 'ahimsa'
greentara
 
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:03 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Zealot » Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:18 pm

As far as allergy and intolerance goes, it definitely seems like whatever I abuse or overuse my body develops a distaste for it. In the case of caffeine, I took caffeine pills excessively in high school and drank coffee as if it were at contest and Village Inn with friends for a while and then after than drank green tea daily for about 6 months. It's no wonder my body says, 'DONT DO THAT!'. Similar situations with lactose and onions, but it was more of a case of eating them daily than like an addict. I wouldn't be at all surprised if I have a malabsorption of fructose haha.
"My life for Aiur!" - Protoss Zealot
Zealot
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:38 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby porpoise » Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:03 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:Buddhists take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. But what does "refuge" mean? It is the path to realization of the end of suffering, meaning that it is the path one chooses as the method of liberation. .


Do we practice just to end our own suffering? And as we begin to develop wisdom and compassion, isn't it natural to care about the suffering of other living beings?
porpoise
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:27 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby porpoise » Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:03 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
porpoise wrote:
seeker242 wrote:The practice of Buddhism intrinsically includes kindness to animals. The practice of Buddhism intrinsically includes kindness to all living beings.


That's my understanding. And I'd feel like a hypocrite buying meat because effectively I'd be saying: "I'm a Buddhist and don't want to kill animals, but I'm happy for somebody else to do it on my behalf."
Leaving aside the fact that business in meat is traditionally wrong livelihood. ;)


Are you clinging to "not being a hypocrite" ?
.
.
.


No. Are you clinging to eating meat? :tongue:
porpoise
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:27 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:29 pm

porpoise wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Are you clinging to "not being a hypocrite" ?

No. Are you clinging to eating meat? :tongue:

Not at all.
Although I wonder how much people are driven by the fear of being seen as a hypocrite,
and how much of a roadblock this is to attainment.

It was suggested by Nagarjuna that food should be taken 'as medicine'
...meaning without any attachment to it whatsoever.
That's the advice I try to follow, even though I have my preferences.

This past Christmas, we received a sweet, smoked, spiral cut ham as a present.
The poor fellow that used to occupy that carcass moved out long ago,
leaving nothing but a bit of rump. But, oh my, how delicious it tastes!

Still, I am eager to get back to the large bowl of Chinese style tofu, vegetable and noodle soup
(quite vegan)
that I have every day for lunch.

It goes in food, it comes our crap.
getting attached to it is a big mistake.
:tongue: :tongue: :tongue:
.
.
.
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 Karma Gendun » Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:48 pm

Meat is not positive to eat at all. The only time meat is acceptable in vajrayana is if you have special powers which allow you to transfer the animals conciousness to a better rebirth or bring them back to life. Otherwise it is very bad for the eater and the animal. As for becoming a student in a future life that is life release not meat eating. Meat eating creates a negative karmic connection. In the commentary on Kalachakra it predicts that many Vajrayana practitioners will eat meat but that Buddha strictly prohibited that.
Karma Gendun
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:22 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Tue Jan 01, 2013 12:57 am

Karma Gendun wrote:Meat is not positive to eat at all. The only time meat is acceptable in vajrayana is if you have special powers which allow you to transfer the animals conciousness to a better rebirth or bring them back to life. Otherwise it is very bad for the eater and the animal. As for becoming a student in a future life that is life release not meat eating. Meat eating creates a negative karmic connection. In the commentary on Kalachakra it predicts that many Vajrayana practitioners will eat meat but that Buddha strictly prohibited that.



How long do you suppose animal consciousness clings to that 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: 2799
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby AdamAnt » Tue Jan 01, 2013 1:36 am

I am now vegetarian only by ethically reason.
Om Mani Peme Hung
User avatar
AdamAnt
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Austria

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby gyougan » Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:37 pm

Thrasymachus wrote:
@gyougan:
To say your exaggerating would be an understatement. If people could feel such micro-changes in their body, how would so many millions be able to smoke, do drugs both illicit and prescribed, eat a meat heavy diet, eat corn syrup, eat GMOs, etc.? Sadly people cannot feel micro-changes and everytime someone makes a statement like you do, I seriously doubt their credibility. The world would be a totally different place if what you are saying was true, and sadly it is isn't so.



You don't know anything about how my body reacts to fish so could you please shut up and stop being so arrogant?
gyougan
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 3:37 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby catmoon » Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:38 pm

Ahem. We usually try to express ourseves a little more kindly than that around here.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby gyougan » Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:49 pm

catmoon wrote:Ahem. We usually try to express ourseves a little more kindly than that around here.


Sorry. But veganazis really irritate me sometimes.
gyougan
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 3:37 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby catmoon » Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:52 pm

gyougan wrote:
catmoon wrote:Ahem. We usually try to express ourseves a little more kindly than that around here.


Sorry. But veganazis really irritate me sometimes.


I understand. They find us just as irritating, but we expect them to be polite anyhow, right?
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: namoh and 11 guests

>