Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 10:23 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3669 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117 ... 184  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 9:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Nilasarasvati wrote:
Because it seems like Chatral Sangye Dorje does.



He is entitled to his opinion. I don't follow people because they have famous reputations or are the disciples of famous people. I honestly could care less what Chatral Rinpoche thinks. I know what I think.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 9:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 12:28 am
Posts: 91
Location: New Zealand
Quote:
Monsoon wrote:
... if this is the case then life is one endless stream of bad karma. That is, bad karma is unavoidable because absolutely every action leads to death at one scale or another. Therefore karma must be viewed on a sliding scale of acceptability?



That's a bit extreme, and also untrue (that all actions lead to killing).


Mandal, I was talking from an absolute position. Every time anything moves, or breathes, or even just metabolises, things die. The part "at one scale or another" is totally true. If you were talking about the balance of karma weighed (nominally) good versus bad then yes, not all outcomes have net negative outcomes.

Beyond that, thanks for taking the time to offer further examples and explanations. All education is gratefully received and appreciated. :namaste:

_________________
Let peace reign!

Metta,

Monsoon


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 10:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 3:08 am
Posts: 428
Location: Trāyastriṃśa. Just kidding. What a cool sanksrit word, huh?
gregkavarnos wrote:


These are easy (you can always have a pack of nuts with you to nibble on during the course of the day) and cheap options that won't have the adverse side effects of Nila's recommendation.


Look, if you want that lightning-vehicle weight gain (why else are you asking this question on a Buddhist forum?!) you need to drink a tall glass of melted rocky road before and after every meal. :spy:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 10:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:28 am
Posts: 272
Location: Dover, NJ
I am vegan and have found since I have a high metabolism and I need to eat a decent amount of nuts, which tend to have higher fat content, everyday or I else I get too skinny. You could consume more milk and milk products, but milk is physiologically no different than meat, infact the best way to think of it as liquid meat. It has lots of cholesterol, saturated fat and not to mention it probably is contaminated with antibiotics and growth hormones. You can gain more weight drinking more milk and eating more cheese, but at the cost of your health. Actually gaining weight in general and eating more, shortens the lifespan period.

However, most people have the opposite problem in life: they are too fat from consuming too many concentrated calories mostly from animal derived food.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 11:29 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Posts: 4612
Location: Baltimore, MD
seeker242 wrote:
kirtu wrote:
His point was that no one on Plant Earth, and certainly no one in the West, could possibly be totally free from killing. In order for large scale food production to occur, beings die.


I'm curious if he also mentioned the fact that modern day animal agriculture causes much more harm to living beings than modern day plant agriculture?...No one in their right mind believes that, vegan, vegetarian or not, a person can be be totally free from killing to begin with. It's a moot point!


The article appeared just before Thanksgiving I think (so it was in their Fall issue that year).

Daido approached this problem from beyond karma but wanted to deepen the compassion of all beings. He wanted people to begin to realize the interdependence of all beings. From this perspective the fact that eating is supported by other beings dying, even on vegetarian or vegan diets, is not a moot point. I doubt that he addressed harm reduction, etc. because his point was to sit with all beings and to get his students to sit with all beings and to sit with all suffering. From that they made their own decisions.


Kirt
Kirt

_________________
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 1:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:03 am
Posts: 933
TaTa, Just a thought.....what about breath Hydrogen and Methane testing are used in the diagnosis of such intolerances and therefore assist in the future management of these symptoms.
It is useful for people who have symptoms of wheat intolerance and dairy or lactose intolerances. It can help identify conditions. Weight loss can have many hidden reasons including food allergies.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 1:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Posts: 732
Location: South Florida, USA
Adamantine wrote:
seeker242 wrote:
Adamantine wrote:
The cyclical nature of this extensive thread seems to be mirroring the cyclical nature of samsara. New people show up, don't read all 100+ pages, and end up rehashing the same points and dialogue that's been replicated again and again in this very thread. It's interesting to me that it has continued this long. I just want to orient you towards some pertinent points that Malcolm made which directly relate to some of those recently put forth, from a while back in this same thread --newcomers please read his posts here and venture a reply: http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=213&start=1700


IMO, the thread continues because people believe they have addressed the point sufficiently, while other people completely disagree! For example, Malcome says many things that are true AND many things that are false in many people eyes! He is using the same red herring and ignoring the fact that there are varying degrees of harm caused and one can choose to participate in more harm or less harm. He says

Quote:
"Many vegetarians argue the deaths caused by agriculature is unavoidable. And I agree with them. But they never accept responsibility for the deaths of creatures caused by agriculture, and do their best to pretend they have no karmic responsibility for them."


Like I said before, no one in their right mind believes this! This is a strawman! He says
Quote:
"Therefore we must respect all life, not just the life that is convientient for us to respect".


Agree! However, his whole post completely dodges the main issue. With the main issue being that some types of food are more harmful and other types are less harmful! Whenever someone speaks and says "Well, vegetarian diet causes harm too", they are not even addressing the issue and the thread continues! Whenever someone ignores the varying degrees of harm that is caused, they are dodging the issue! Perhaps because they can't speak of it and deny it at the same time, because this fact is undeniable. It seems the best way to deny an undeniable fact is to ignore it and pretend to address it, without actually addressing it!

:namaste:


Actually he brings up Organic farming techniques that involve bone meal, blood, feathers products, manure etc for fertilizer. This in addition to the targeted killing of pests ( I don't see how these are "accidental" deaths.)

If one industry causes more harm than the other, a reasonable question, and it's possible, yes .. But they are completely
intertwined-- in essence becoming one industry : agriculture. Since you are generalizing anyway.

His main point is that if the animal is already dead...you have not caused harm by paying the restaurant for a sliver of it
which may have been thrown away if you hadn't come around. (Yes, huge portions of meat are thrown away daily accross the globe). If you have the tools to be of some benefit to that animal through mantra and compassion, then it's more harmful to ignore and abstain, no?

I am a vegetarian, but I understand this argument, and Malcolm is practically a vegetarian as well.

If you ignore these points, it's not because they are not valid- I'd venture it may have more to
do with emotion and political ideology. I stopped eating factory farmed animals
due to political/environmental and empathetic reasons. I stopped eating seafood for Dharma reasons.


The idea that you are not causing any more harm because the meat is already on the shelf completely ignors basic economics of supply and demand. This is exactly the same as saying that it doesn't matter if you buy clothing made in a sweat shop with abused little kids working 16 hours a day? But, that does not matter because the clothes are already on the shelf. That's nonsensical! Do you think it's ok to buy clothing made by factories who abuse little kids? Most people think that's not ok! Is it the same a buying clothes from a responsible shop? Of course not...

As for organic farming, one does not need to use animal products. Simply because they are used does not equal the playing field when it comes to causing harm. Some vegans avoid organic for this very reason. However to think chopping the head off a carrot, is the same as chopping the head off a cow, is laughable nor is it consistent with traditional Buddhist ideas of not killing. There is a reason why the Buddha said business in meat is wrong livelihood. He did not say that about growing vegetables!

Of course it has to do with emotion. That's what's is all about to begin with. The emotion is compassion.

_________________
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!


Last edited by seeker242 on Mon Jun 24, 2013 1:52 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 1:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Posts: 732
Location: South Florida, USA
Malcolm wrote:
seeker242 wrote:

With the main issue being that some types of food are more harmful and other types are less harmful!



This is false. All food production is equally harmful.


Sorry friend, no it is not false. However, if you would like to provide some empirical evidence to back that statement up, I would be more than willing to consider it.

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 1:33 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Posts: 2940
Location: Space is the Place
Adamantine wrote:
seeker242 wrote:

The idea that you are not causing any harm because the meat is already on the shelf completely ignors basic economics of supply. This is exactly the same as saying that it doesn't matter if you buy clothing made in a sweat shop with abused little kids working 16 hours a day? But, that does not matter because the clothes are already on the shel? That's nonsensical! Do you think it's ok to buy clothing made by abused little kids? Most people think that's not ok!

Of course it has to do with emotion. That's what's is all about to begin with. The emotion is compassion.


When I said emotion, I meant afflictive emotion. Real compassion also includes everyone in the whole samsaric network.. those who are currently "victims" and those who may be inflicting suffering, since they're just one step from the other side of the equation. Anyway for the sake of examination we are trying to locate who is causing suffering here, regardless.

You are bold to bring up sweatshops, since you are on a computer now clearly, and therefore making use of one of the most abusive industries. Are you willing to abstain from computers, laptops, and smartphones?

Back to the OP, I think the point is the basic math of industrial agriculture, meat production, and how much is wasted daily , i.e. thrown away outright. This is all discussed ad infinitum earlier in this thread. A few Vajrayana Buddhists in the USA are not going to shift the supply and demand networks of this industry. I do believe it is important for large monasteries in India for example to be vigilant about this, because 1000's of monks ordering meat on a daily basis is going to certainly affect supply and demand on a local level.. clearly this was a hypocritical reality of Tibetan monastic institutions. And it is significant that the Dalai Lama and the 17th Karmapa have eliminated meat in most of their monasteries.

Anyway, I see both sides, to the point that I could argue both. But I won't argue both.. I don't think it should be an argument at all but a personal choice based on what you feel is correct.. not trying to convince another practitioner that their choice is wrong. That's the bottom line. I think it's great if some people here choose to be vegetarian and can stay healthy that way. That's been my path.

I also think it's great if some people here feel they need to eat meat for their health, and have been given tools to try and create a compassionate and beneficial relationship with that animal they might eat a part of-- through mantra practice, interdependent inevitability, and whatever else.

I don't have much respect for those who thoughtlessly eat meat however, without compassion and respect, and without remorse for the savagery of the industry.

_________________
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 1:44 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Posts: 2940
Location: Space is the Place
Nilasarasvati wrote:
Because it seems like Chatral Sangye Dorje does.



I'll just chime in: I have deep devotion to Chatral Rinpoche. I also have deep devotion to other Lamas of mine who encourage their students to eat meat. Dudjom Rinpoche did this, and his sons and many of his close Lama disciples continue/d to. Namkai Norbu does.

Is one great Lama right, and the other great Lamas wrong? I don't think it is so simple.

Chatral Rinpoche would encourage his close students to eat meat if their health was compromised, and they needed it. I also know close students of his that began eating meat again, but for no good reason like that. And you know what? Rinpoche didn't get angry or demand they become vegetarian again. I just think people should be careful of wielding the name of a great master around to support their own self righteous arguments with others.

Yes, it is clear that he promotes a vegetarian diet. He is now 103, and I have heard that he attributes his longevity to this diet and his constant practice of tsetar (releasing animals destined for slaughter). If that inspires you, great. . be vegetarian. But don't argue with others about their dietary choices!

_________________
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:40 pm
Posts: 452
Adamantine wrote:
Nilasarasvati wrote:
Because it seems like Chatral Sangye Dorje does.



I'll just chime in: I have deep devotion to Chatral Rinpoche. I also have deep devotion to other Lamas of mine who encourage their students to eat meat. Dudjom Rinpoche did this, and his sons and many of his close Lama disciples continue/d to. Namkai Norbu does.

Is one great Lama right, and the other great Lamas wrong? I don't think it is so simple.

Chatral Rinpoche would encourage his close students to eat meat if their health was compromised, and they needed it. I also know close students of his that began eating meat again, but for no good reason like that. And you know what? Rinpoche didn't get angry or demand they become vegetarian again. I just think people should be careful of wielding the name of a great master around to support their own self righteous arguments with others.

Yes, it is clear that he promotes a vegetarian diet. He is now 103, and I have heard that he attributes his longevity to this diet and his constant practice of tsetar (releasing animals destined for slaughter). If that inspires you, great. . be vegetarian. But don't argue with others about their dietary choices!



Fantastic post... I agree 100%

_________________
s.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:40 pm
Posts: 452
Nilasarasvati wrote:
Stewart wrote:
Does it though? Do you have the appropriate wisdom to discern the difference? Or are you just emotionally attached to your view?

Go back a few dozen pages and read what Malcolm wrote regarding this topic. It solid and emotionally neutral advice.

I was vegetarian for years, but started eating meat on advice of my Tibetan Dr... Vegetarians are amongst the most emotionally charged and self righteous group of people I have met. Obviously not all, but certainly a large proportion. It just swapping one set of concepts or another... I got fed up with all the bullshit.


Yeah I read what Malcolm said. I fail to see how it invalidates my observation that on a meal-by-meal basis, agrobusiness + factory farming kills more, harms more than agrobusiness without factory farming. They're both interconnected, interdependent industries, but I never said abstaining from meat was saving the planet.

As far as vegetarians being self-righteous goes...I think it's an unfair generalization. And a really lame rationalization for eating meat--I don't know if it is, but otherwise I don't know why you would have mentioned it.

With that in mind, just because 60% of all Western Buddhists are dosspots doesn't mean you shouldn't be Buddhist.

And in my experience, "meat lovers" can be strangely self-righteous when they encounter Vegetarians. I'm frequently asked to defend, explain, or justify my choice not to eat meat...as if I'm putting somebody out or really ruining their day. It's the same way people who don't drink get accosted and asked to justify that all the time, as if it really screws with other people's lives. Since I took a vow to abstain from eating meat six months ago, I've been constantly fussed over, interrogated, and pitied because of my choice. Being "on trial" whenever I have a cold or something because my family has this 1950s mentality about nutrition and think it must be because I don't get enough beef. It's weird.

I don't see anything wrong with people eating meat, but I do see something bizarre, addictive, and self-deceptive about dissing vegans/vegetarians, minimizing their choices, and pissing all over the reasoning for their choices. It seems like it all has more to do with feeling better about yourself than helping the vegetarian.


Brilliant... So it's unfair for me to generalise about vegetarians, but perfectly acceptable for you to generalise about meat eaters in the very next paragraph! Did you actually read over it before you hit submit.

My point is I felt this massive passive aggressive undercurrent with many vegetarians... Even when I was one which didn't sit right with me...this kind of 'I don't really mind what people eat, I mean we all know my opinion is the right one, but I'm okay with you being wrong'.... If you're not sure what I mean, just look over your posts, you'll get the idea.

I honestly don't care what people eat, but I don't want you beating me over the head with quotes from some Lama you in all likelihood haven't discussed this matter with... While ones I have talked to haven't criticised me for eating meat.

_________________
s.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 4:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Posts: 732
Location: South Florida, USA
Adamantine wrote:
Adamantine wrote:
seeker242 wrote:

The idea that you are not causing any harm because the meat is already on the shelf completely ignors basic economics of supply. This is exactly the same as saying that it doesn't matter if you buy clothing made in a sweat shop with abused little kids working 16 hours a day? But, that does not matter because the clothes are already on the shel? That's nonsensical! Do you think it's ok to buy clothing made by abused little kids? Most people think that's not ok!

Of course it has to do with emotion. That's what's is all about to begin with. The emotion is compassion.


When I said emotion, I meant afflictive emotion. Real compassion also includes everyone in the whole samsaric network.. those who are currently "victims" and those who may be inflicting suffering, since they're just one step from the other side of the equation. Anyway for the sake of examination we are trying to locate who is causing suffering here, regardless.


Yes, real compassion does include everyone, those who are currently "victims" and those who may be inflicting suffering. That is just one of the reasons why it is much worse to purchase products from a slaughterhouse than it is from a vegetable gardener. Slaughterhouse work is one of the most dangerous jobs in the entire workforce. Not to mention the fact that these people are engaging in very clear wrong livelihood and will be going to hell because they make a living killing other beings, just so people can have a hamburger to eat. Supporting such a practice is not a compassionate thing to do. Business in vegetables is not wrong livelihood. Business in meat is. There is a reason why the Buddha failed to mention vegetable gardening when he spoke of wrong livelihood.
Quote:
You are bold to bring up sweatshops, since you are on a computer now clearly, and therefore making use of one of the most abusive industries. Are you willing to abstain from computers, laptops, and smartphones?


I don't think it's bold to bring up sweatshops. But, you did not answer my question. My question was "Just because the product is already on the shelf, does that mean it's doesn't matter anymore"? You ignored the question and changed the subject (a red herring by definition) because if you did answer it, you would have to admit that yes, it still does matter even if the product is already on the shelf.


Quote:
Anyway, I see both sides, to the point that I could argue both. But I won't argue both.. I don't think it should be an argument at all but a personal choice based on what you feel is correct.. not trying to convince another practitioner that their choice is wrong. That's the bottom line.


I also see both sides but only can argue one side because only one side has a reasonable argument. Unless the person is an eskimo living in the Alaskan tundra, then it would be a reasonable argument. However, for people who shop at a supermarket with many different choices to make, there simply is no reasonable argument to be made in favor of choosing meat. Such an argument does not exist! Every single argument that is made in favor of eating meat, when a person can easily chose not to, is unreasonable. Yes, is is true, some people believe they need to eat meat to be healthy. Many people also have no knowledge of nutritional science and no knowledge of how to eat a balanced vegetarian diet!

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 4:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Posts: 732
Location: South Florida, USA
How many calories per day are you consuming? The normal amount or less than that? If it is less than that, you will almost always lose weight and simply need to eat more food!

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 4:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 3:08 am
Posts: 428
Location: Trāyastriṃśa. Just kidding. What a cool sanksrit word, huh?
To all and sundry, my apologies.

It appears I've made a huge faux pas by mentioning Chatral Rinpoche.

Specifically, I will remind the general public of DW, that I mentioned him in the context that he would disagree that a bowl of cheerios was equally harmful as a bowl of hamburger helper. It would perhaps have been more tasteful to say something like: Chatral Rinpoche is renowned for his strict vegetarianism and he urges people to follow suit if they have the means and ability.

And, that said, I can imagine he would encourage us to eat Cheerios, even if the cheerios came from big piles of bonemeal fertilizer.

But admittedly, that's all vain speculation.


Quote:
Stewart:
Brilliant... So it's unfair for me to generalise about vegetarians, but perfectly acceptable for you to generalise about meat eaters in the very next paragraph! Did you actually read over it before you hit submit...

I honestly don't care what people eat, but I don't want you beating me over the head with quotes from some Lama you in all likelihood haven't discussed this matter with... While ones I have talked to haven't criticized me for eating meat.


You said
Quote:
Stewart: Vegetarians are amongst the most emotionally charged and self righteous group of people I have met. Obviously not all, but certainly a large proportion.


That's a generalization. Your statement includes "a large proportion" (certainly!) of all the vegetarians currently trolling Dharma Wheel.

I said
Quote:
in my experience, "meat lovers" can be strangely self-righteous when they encounter Vegetarians.


There's a difference. Its not a generalization unless I said "all" or "most" or "Certainly a large proportion." I was talking about my experiences with meat lovers who "could" be self-righteous. I mean maybe it seems like I'm splitting hairs...but it's not the same thing.

I have definitely met self righteous vegetarians (and lived in a militant vegan household for a while-- :toilet: ) and I have also met stubborn and rude advocates of eating meat. Stewart, in my post I only expressed my personal experiences in the last six months. I never criticized you or anybody else for eating meat, nor did I say my own choice was superior in any way.

I'm amazed that it seemed like I was and, to be 100% frank, it seemed defensive of you and adamantine to react the way you did when I mentioned Chatral Rinpoche's speculative opinion about cheerios. :thinking:


Last edited by Nilasarasvati on Mon Jun 24, 2013 4:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 4:32 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Posts: 2940
Location: Space is the Place
Nilasarasvati wrote:
it seemed defensive of you and adamantine to react the way you did when I mentioned Chatral Rinpoche's speculative opinion about cheerios. :thinking:


Not defensive, rather I am trying to set the tone: any number of people can start saying " this great teacher says this" or "my guru thinks this" and all of them may contradict one another. So then it becomes a battle of whose mentor or Guru is superior, and it quickly degenerates the dialogue. Is this hard to understand?

_________________
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 4:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 3:08 am
Posts: 428
Location: Trāyastriṃśa. Just kidding. What a cool sanksrit word, huh?
Adamantine wrote:
Nilasarasvati wrote:
it seemed defensive of you and adamantine to react the way you did when I mentioned Chatral Rinpoche's speculative opinion about cheerios. :thinking:


Not defensive, rather I am trying to set the tone: any number of people can start saying " this great teacher says this" or "my guru thinks this" and all of them may contradict one another. So then it becomes a battle of whose mentor or Guru is superior, and it quickly degenerates the dialogue. Is this hard to understand?


No not at all. I don't want a guru-sectarian pissing contest either.

I was getting the impression that people felt their personal choices were being criticized by my self-righteous name-dropping.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 5:10 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Posts: 2940
Location: Space is the Place
seeker242 wrote:
I also see both sides but only can argue one side because only one side has a reasonable argument.


Then you clearly are not seeing both sides.

Quote:
Unless the person is an eskimo living in the Alaskan tundra, then it would be a reasonable argument. However, for people who shop at a supermarket with many different choices to make, there simply is no reasonable argument to be made in favor of choosing meat. Such an argument does not exist! Every single argument that is made in favor of eating meat, when a person can easily chose not to, is unreasonable. Yes, is is true, some people believe they need to eat meat to be healthy. Many people also have no knowledge of nutritional science and no knowledge of how to eat a balanced vegetarian diet!


And this shows that you are uninformed. I myself was a strict vegetarian for years, and then developed a serious digestion problem that no doctors could diagnose. I lost so much weight I began to look skeletal. I literally had to eat some meat and meat broths to get adequate nutrition and build my system back. It was not pleasant, but it did help.

Also, I really don't believe western medical versions of nutritional "science" should be considered the standards. Tibetan Medicine is said to originate from the Buddhas themselves, and Malcolm is a practicing Tibetan doctor and speaks from that nutritional perspective earlier in this thread. Also, even in Ayurveda, the ancient Indian medical science which you would assume to be somewhat rigid about vegetarian dietary regulations-- it speaks of different types of individuals who require different diets for their health-- some of which (the Vata types) do require meat in the diet.
And TCM nutrition is heavily adamant about the need for animal proteins.

Now, what some of these traditions are aware of is perhaps not on the radar of Western medicine or nutritional science.. the subtle energetic systems of the body for instance.

Regarding your previous post re: the Dalai Lama and Tibetan doctors not understanding a proper vegetarian diet.. I think this is grossly misinformed. Certainly, there are contemporary foods, and foods that traditionally were not found in the Himalayan region that most Tibetan doctors or otherwise would not have in their vocabulary. But I have seen a number of Tibetan doctors in my life and their recommendations of what to eat as a vegetarian have always been quite in line with the conventional wisdom of our doctors. If a Tibetan doctor has encouraged HHDL to eat meat over the last 40 years, you can be sure it is not because of their lack of understanding what a proper vegetarian diet entails, but for a good reason.

_________________
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 5:25 am 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Posts: 1467
Location: Europe
Nuts are a good idea, because they have many calories, are easily eaten and they are healthy to. Peanuts without salt are good too.
The healthiest Nuts are almonds. Nutritious. :smile:

_________________
Metta, Karuna, Mudita, Upekha
*** om vajra krodha hayagrīva hulu hulu hūm phat**


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:40 pm
Posts: 452
Nilasarasvati wrote:
To all and sundry, my apologies.

It appears I've made a huge faux pas by mentioning Chatral Rinpoche.

Specifically, I will remind the general public of DW, that I mentioned him in the context that he would disagree that a bowl of cheerios was equally harmful as a bowl of hamburger helper. It would perhaps have been more tasteful to say something like: Chatral Rinpoche is renowned for his strict vegetarianism and he urges people to follow suit if they have the means and ability.

And, that said, I can imagine he would encourage us to eat Cheerios, even if the cheerios came from big piles of bonemeal fertilizer.

But admittedly, that's all vain speculation.


Quote:
Stewart:
Brilliant... So it's unfair for me to generalise about vegetarians, but perfectly acceptable for you to generalise about meat eaters in the very next paragraph! Did you actually read over it before you hit submit...

I honestly don't care what people eat, but I don't want you beating me over the head with quotes from some Lama you in all likelihood haven't discussed this matter with... While ones I have talked to haven't criticized me for eating meat.


You said
Quote:
Stewart: Vegetarians are amongst the most emotionally charged and self righteous group of people I have met. Obviously not all, but certainly a large proportion.


That's a generalization. Your statement includes "a large proportion" (certainly!) of all the vegetarians currently trolling Dharma Wheel.

I said
Quote:
in my experience, "meat lovers" can be strangely self-righteous when they encounter Vegetarians.


There's a difference. Its not a generalization unless I said "all" or "most" or "Certainly a large proportion." I was talking about my experiences with meat lovers who "could" be self-righteous. I mean maybe it seems like I'm splitting hairs...but it's not the same thing.

I have definitely met self righteous vegetarians (and lived in a militant vegan household for a while-- :toilet: ) and I have also met stubborn and rude advocates of eating meat. Stewart, in my post I only expressed my personal experiences in the last six months. I never criticized you or anybody else for eating meat, nor did I say my own choice was superior in any way.

I'm amazed that it seemed like I was and, to be 100% frank, it seemed defensive of you and adamantine to react the way you did when I mentioned Chatral Rinpoche's speculative opinion about cheerios. :thinking:


Again, your the one who has made an error... Don't worry it's just your emotional reaction taking over :stirthepot:

Read again... I said: ... That I have met.. I didn't say 'on DW'... People I have personally encountered... I didn't say all of them were, but most have been in some patronising way or another... Many are fine... We tease each other etc. But in a friendly way. When I say passive aggressive an example would be pretending to be tolerant of people who eat meat, but using the phrase' meat lover' which makes eating meat sound 'illicit' or somehow a vice, so your still getting your agenda across but in a snide way.

_________________
s.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3669 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117 ... 184  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LastLegend, Saoshun and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group