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 Nilasarasvati » Tue Jun 25, 2013 2:25 am

I'm worried some of these pages will give people an excuse to have a nihilistic attitude toward this whole issue.


In the past few pages, some of the arguments have been focused on the contention that eating meat is justified/irrelevant because the production of vegetarian food is also dependent on the murder of countless insects and organisms, let alone the animals that die in the process of postmodern agrobusiness. Animal body byproducts (not even including manure) are used to grow corn, soy, and countless other staples. Essentially, I'll summarize the argument as this: no matter what we buy or eat in this globalized, neoliberal capitalistic world, we are contributing and endorsing the murder and abuse of countless billions of chickens, pigs, cows, earthworms, aphids, etc. That makes sense to me. My only problem with this is it seems too easy to justify a nihilistic approach from that point. I.E. "the whole system is f*cked so whatever I do doesn't matter."

What about the wish to personally cut oneself off from as much of the karma/suffering/injustice as relatively possible? (I.E. It's best not to eat the egg. It's better to eat the egg than the chicken. It's better to eat the chicken than be the butcher. It's better to be the butcher than the shareholder.)

What do people think about that? I mean I get the sense from some of the attitudes expressed here that people think this choice can only come out of a dewy-eyed sense that you're really saving the world, protecting the lives of countless beings, or that everybody who does otherwise is a shameless cannibal.
User avatar
Nilasarasvati
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 3:08 am
Location: Trāyastriṃśa. Just kidding. What a cool sanksrit word, huh?

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby oldbob » Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:40 am

Nilasarasvati wrote:I'm worried some of these pages will give people an excuse to have a nihilistic attitude toward this whole issue.


In the past few pages, some of the arguments have been focused on the contention that eating meat is justified/irrelevant because the production of vegetarian food is also dependent on the murder of countless insects and organisms, let alone the animals that die in the process of postmodern agrobusiness. Animal body byproducts (not even including manure) are used to grow corn, soy, and countless other staples. Essentially, I'll summarize the argument as this: no matter what we buy or eat in this globalized, neoliberal capitalistic world, we are contributing and endorsing the murder and abuse of countless billions of chickens, pigs, cows, earthworms, aphids, etc. That makes sense to me. My only problem with this is it seems too easy to justify a nihilistic approach from that point. I.E. "the whole system is f*cked so whatever I do doesn't matter."

What about the wish to personally cut oneself off from as much of the karma/suffering/injustice as relatively possible? (I.E. It's best not to eat the egg. It's better to eat the egg than the chicken. It's better to eat the chicken than be the butcher. It's better to be the butcher than the shareholder.)

What do people think about that? I mean I get the sense from some of the attitudes expressed here that people think this choice can only come out of a dewy-eyed sense that you're really saving the world, protecting the lives of countless beings, or that everybody who does otherwise is a shameless cannibal.


:namaste:

Many thoughtful posts and viewpoints. Not an easy matter to decide.

Perhaps it knocks down to personal preference, allowing the emptiness of all Dhammas, and the cause and effect of karma - BOTH, as givens. Some enlightened Masters eat meat, with awareness, and some enlightened Masters do not, with awareness, and there are lots of good, and lengthy, explanations on both sides. I don't have the capacity to judge the activity of ANY enlightened Master. But I do have the capacity to take responsibility for my own actions, and so do you. Perhaps the key point is to eat meat AND / OR not eat meat, with awareness. Then whatever you do will have good results. This is not nihilism. What you do, and your own Karmic reaction to what you do, matters tremendously. What you eat, or don't eat, what you do or don't do, can affect your mind stream and can lead to heaven or hell.

Perhaps intention / motivation is what matters.

The nine Amazing Things and the twelve Vajra Laughs are not license, for those on the Path, to act in any way you spontaneously feel at the moment. These are indications of complete freedom, as voiced from the viewpoint of an enlightened Buddha, and NOT an injunction or "permission" to act in a nihilistic way, from inattention to karma, as if karma doesn't exist, for those on the Path: recall, "attend the mind as sky, and actions as fine as flour."

Perhaps it is prudent and wise to listen to all viewpoints, and then make your own choice, with as much awareness as you can draw on, as to what you eat, or don't eat, taking full responsibility for your actions.
Last edited by oldbob on Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
oldbob
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 8:19 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby dzogchungpa » Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:42 am

seeker242 wrote:Compassion is an emotion!

Since this is a Buddhist forum, the following observation may not be irrelevant. In a Buddhist context 'compassion' is usually a translation of 'karuṇā'. In my opinion, it is not clear that 'karuṇā', at least in a Buddhist context, is an example of what we in English call an 'emotion'.
ཨོཾ་མ་ཧཱ་ཤུནྱ་ཏཱ་ཛྙཱ་ན་བཛྲ་སྭཱ་བྷཱ་བ་ཨཱཏྨ་ཀོ་྅ཧཾ༔

The thousands of lines of the Prajnaparamita can be summed up in the following two sentences:
1) One should become a Bodhisattva (or, Buddha-to-be), i.e. one who is content with nothing less than all-knowledge attained through the perfection of wisdom for the sake of all beings.
2) There is no such thing as a Bodhisattva, or as all-knowledge, or as a ‘being’, or as the perfection of wisdom, or as an attainment.
To accept both these contradictory facts is to be perfect.
- Conze
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 1472
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Adamantine » Tue Jun 25, 2013 6:18 am

Because it seems that some people currently engaged in this thread have either decided to not address each other's points i.e. are talking past one another, or otherwise are degenerating the dialogue into ad hominem attacks; and also, because it seems evident that most of the current participants have not thoroughly reviewed the previous 100+ pages of discussion before presenting their strong and perhaps less-informed opinions...

for all these reasons I am locking the thread for the next 48 hours.

I hope this will inspire time for everyone involved to read through the previous 100+ pages, to consider the points raised herein, to reflect on the TOS and what "Enlightened Discussion" entails http://dharmawheel.net/viewforum.php?f=109, and hopefully to just spend some time simply meditating too!

:meditate:
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
User avatar
Adamantine
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2680
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Adamantine » Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:40 am

The thread is now unlocked: I moved the few posts that were ad homs, or angry responses to ad homs, to the Bardo..
Please keep the tone civilized, kind even, and let's see how it goes.
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
User avatar
Adamantine
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2680
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Monsoon » Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:16 am

/sheepishly re-emerging from behind the sofa/

I have 'contributed' to this thread with some views of my own and been met with a variety of repsonses ranging from helpful through incredulous to bordering on rude. It is true that some, if not all, of my posts were ill-advised and/or poorly conceived. And perhaps the responses are, in that sense, an accurate reflection of the low quality of my input.

Having re-read the whole thread, as well as most of the supporting links, I am beginning to experience a shift in both my understanding and my intentions. Where once I was a dyed-in-the-wool proponent of omnivorism, I now find myself edging toward the vegetarian side of the table. However, to avoid misunderstanding, I am not equating vegatarianism with heribvorism (is this a word?) as it is patently obvious that humans do not have the same digestive system as herbivores (in a multitude of ways). It seems that we are opportunist eaters by and large. Having flexibilty has enabled us to extend our range into previously unfavourable territories (from a pre-history perspective). There are theories that also suggest that this diet flexibility has enabled us to develop mentally, though at the expense of other physical attributes. Although I have little doubt that our distant ancestors, despite not having claws or fangs, were more than capable of ambushing small to medium sized herbivores and killing them bare handed. There's even people who do this today. I think the 'not adapted to hunt/kill' argument is one of the weakest parts of the vegetarian debate.

On a practical level, I do not eat a lot of meat - perhaps 100-150g a week (sometimes none) - about 2-3 eggs per week, and around half a litre of low-fat milk, and occasionally a little cheese. The rest is veges and nuts all the way. Beyond this I make no special effort to check that anything is 'organic' or not factory produced. There are only so many hours in any given day, and there simply isn't the time nor the will to spend it on examining the labels on every product in the store. I do not offer this as an excuse for my awful behaviour toward the surrering of sentient beings, but to illuminate the fact that I am aware of it and do what I can within certain pragmatic limits. Maybe I am just a bad person? Either way, despite this serious lapse in judgement, the least I can do is offer silent thought to those that have suffered to provided me with food.

Having said all this I would like to offer my deepest apologies to all members, and especially to those that may have been offended by my incoherent ramblings earlier in the thread. I am a poor student of the dharma in need of much correction.

:namaste:
Let peace reign!

Metta,

Monsoon
User avatar
Monsoon
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 12:28 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Nilasarasvati » Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:33 am

Monsoon, I think a lot of people will agree with me in saying you're not offensive at all. I appreciate your attitude. Thanks for being so kind.
User avatar
Nilasarasvati
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 3:08 am
Location: Trāyastriṃśa. Just kidding. What a cool sanksrit word, huh?

Re: Gaining weight while beeing vegetarian?

Postby rory » Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:31 am

I cook vegan at home and am thin so I have to be careful to add fats to my diet (I don't eat junk food, cookies, chips either). Good fats are avocados, guacamole is full of good fat calories, coconut, make a curry with coconut milk or something like Jamaican beans and rice as they use coconut milk, halvah made from sesame seeds is a healthy fattening candy. Also you can make drinks with almond/hemp/soy milks mixed with almond, cashew, sunflower etc butters, tahini, a bit of agave necter. Nice and fattening and no cholesterol!

hummus with tahini is a nice fattening snack.Tahini is also made from sesame seeds, good for you and full of calories. Also pepitas,roasted pumpkin seeds and olives are natural fats.

Also dress your salads, veggies with olive oil & tahini. Fats are necessary to build nerves, brain cells, so don't deprive yourself. I also take flax seed oil pills every day.
gassho
rory
Honmon Butsuryu Shu USA http://www.beikokuhbs.com/about-us.html

NamuMyohoRengeKyo
User avatar
rory
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 8:08 am
Location: SouthEast USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby seeker242 » Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:45 pm

Monsoon wrote:Although I have little doubt that our distant ancestors, despite not having claws or fangs, were more than capable of ambushing small to medium sized herbivores and killing them bare handed. There's even people who do this today. I think the 'not adapted to hunt/kill' argument is one of the weakest parts of the vegetarian debate.



I also consider this to be a fairly weak argument. It's quite obvious that human beings are omnivores. Neither carnivores nor herbivores have a choice in the matter. A biological omnivore, by it's nature, does have a choice in the matter precisely because they are an omnivore. This is the reason why it's quite easy to have a vegetarian dog and quite difficult to have a vegetarian cat! However, I still don't believe that it is just a sheer coincidence that human beings closest relatives, the great apes, are naturally 90% plus vegetarians.
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!
User avatar
seeker242
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Stewart » Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:20 pm

seeker242 wrote:
Monsoon wrote:Although I have little doubt that our distant ancestors, despite not having claws or fangs, were more than capable of ambushing small to medium sized herbivores and killing them bare handed. There's even people who do this today. I think the 'not adapted to hunt/kill' argument is one of the weakest parts of the vegetarian debate.



I also consider this to be a fairly weak argument. It's quite obvious that human beings are omnivores. Neither carnivores nor herbivores have a choice in the matter. A biological omnivore, by it's nature, does have a choice in the matter precisely because they are an omnivore. This is the reason why it's quite easy to have a vegetarian dog and quite difficult to have a vegetarian cat! However, I still don't believe that it is just a sheer coincidence that human beings closest relatives, the great apes, are naturally 90% plus vegetarians.


Right we'll keep this civil :smile:

Whether it's right or not to have a vegetarian diet for a dog is a different issue altogether....but IMO it is enforcing your agenda on another, and that is my only issue with this whole debate.

My point is that we should be free to eat meat or not, and still recognise that we all can be good practitioners....many of the greatest masters of the past ate meat. Many didn't/don't....sufficed to say diet has little to do with spiritual progress....stubbornly gripping on to a fundamental view, however righteous we believe it to be, as if it is the deal breaker for who has and who hasn't got compassion (which isn't an 'emotion' incidentaly) is definitely a hindrance to practice.

Best wishes,

S.
s.
Stewart
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:40 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Nilasarasvati » Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:13 pm

My point is that we should be free to eat meat or not, and still recognise that we all can be good practitioners....many of the greatest masters of the past ate meat. Many didn't/don't....sufficed to say diet has little to do with spiritual progress....stubbornly gripping on to a fundamental view, however righteous we believe it to be, as if it is the deal breaker for who has and who hasn't got compassion (which isn't an 'emotion' incidentaly) is definitely a hindrance to practice.


Stewart, I don't disagree with any of that (except the compassion is an emotion thing). I feel I must say though that nobody has represented almost any of those opinions (that it's a hindrance to spiritual progress, that great masters are ALL vegetarian, that it's a deal-breaker, that you can't be a good practitioner, etc) in the recent pages though. If you genuinely understood that to be what we were discussion/debating, then I guess I wasn't communicating very well.

I thought we were generally debating the merits or worthiness of eating meat or not. Clearly there are many many masters who were/are living Buddhas who ate meat. Clearly there are also many masters who say that it's inexcusable and a contradiction of Buddhist beliefs. So it's up to us to hash out the reasons why one would choose either. "Different strokes for different folks" I guess...and me personally I've got a sort of militant streak from reading Patrul Rinpoche's diatribes against butchers and "real cannibal" Lamas again and again.

All I really wish is that practitioners make a compassionate, intentional choice and do their best to find a source of merit with all this, and thoroughly contemplate pratitya sammutpada and all-pervasive suffering when they enjoy their steak, or eat their muesli, or whatever.

Like I said above I'm really afraid that some less experienced folks might take a nihilistic slant toward all this when they hear (the truth) that there's no real "boycott" benefit to being a vegetarian (I.E. your chickpeas come from a hellhole of oppression and animal exploitation, too), coupled with the reality that many Lamas and teachers and practitioners eat meat.
User avatar
Nilasarasvati
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 3:08 am
Location: Trāyastriṃśa. Just kidding. What a cool sanksrit word, huh?

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby kirtu » Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:42 pm

dzogchungpa wrote:
seeker242 wrote:Compassion is an emotion!

Since this is a Buddhist forum, the following observation may not be irrelevant. In a Buddhist context 'compassion' is usually a translation of 'karuṇā'. In my opinion, it is not clear that 'karuṇā', at least in a Buddhist context, is an example of what we in English call an 'emotion'.


Compassion is a decision and a mental stance. It can evoke emotions but compassion itself is a mental decision. In the Four Noble Thoughts (Brahmaviharas) the second one is: May all beings be free from suffering and the causes of suffering. This expresses the wish for all beings to be free from suffering and it's causes and is the definition of compassion. At the level of this wish this is called wishing compassion. We want to make that wish real for all beings. The goal of the Bodhisattva is to actualize the four Brahmaviharas for all beings, to make the four Brahmaviharas the actual experience of all beings.

However, wanting all beings everywhere, irrespective of form, to be free from suffering is exactly why harm reduction such as vegetarianism is not sufficient. Of course we should be vegetarian if we can be or if we can't be we should be as vegetarian as we can be. But if we wish for all beings to be free from suffering then we can't turn a blind eye to even industrial food production just producing non-meat and non-seafood items. Industrial food production necessarily kills millions of insects and larger animals. This suffering too cannot be exempt from out minds (we can't turn a blind eye to this suffering). On the other hand, there is really nothing we can do about it. The only thing we can do is to acknowledge that on planet Earth, in order for some to eat, others die. We have to acknowledge the suffering, hopefully sit with it, and pray for all suffering beings.

Kirt
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

“All beings are Buddhas, but obscured by incidental stains. When those have been removed, there is Buddhahood.”
Hevajra Tantra
kirtu
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Stewart » Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:54 pm

Nilasarasvati wrote:
My point is that we should be free to eat meat or not, and still recognise that we all can be good practitioners....many of the greatest masters of the past ate meat. Many didn't/don't....sufficed to say diet has little to do with spiritual progress....stubbornly gripping on to a fundamental view, however righteous we believe it to be, as if it is the deal breaker for who has and who hasn't got compassion (which isn't an 'emotion' incidentaly) is definitely a hindrance to practice.


Stewart, I don't disagree with any of that (except the compassion is an emotion thing). I feel I must say though that nobody has represented almost any of those opinions (that it's a hindrance to spiritual progress, that great masters are ALL vegetarian, that it's a deal-breaker, that you can't be a good practitioner, etc) in the recent pages though. If you genuinely understood that to be what we were discussion/debating, then I guess I wasn't communicating very well.

I thought we were generally debating the merits or worthiness of eating meat or not. Clearly there are many many masters who were/are living Buddhas who ate meat. Clearly there are also many masters who say that it's inexcusable and a contradiction of Buddhist beliefs. So it's up to us to hash out the reasons why one would choose either. "Different strokes for different folks" I guess...and me personally I've got a sort of militant streak from reading Patrul Rinpoche's diatribes against butchers and "real cannibal" Lamas again and again.

All I really wish is that practitioners make a compassionate, intentional choice and do their best to find a source of merit with all this, and thoroughly contemplate pratitya sammutpada and all-pervasive suffering when they enjoy their steak, or eat their muesli, or whatever.

Like I said above I'm really afraid that some less experienced folks might take a nihilistic slant toward all this when they hear (the truth) that there's no real "boycott" benefit to being a vegetarian (I.E. your chickpeas come from a hellhole of oppression and animal exploitation, too), coupled with the reality that many Lamas and teachers and practitioners eat meat.



Just to clarify.... I don't think compassion in an emotion.... Do you?

What I do believe however is that people get very emotional when there fixed views are challenged. Including what their view of compassion is.
s.
Stewart
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:40 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby seeker242 » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:07 pm

Stewart wrote:
seeker242 wrote:
Monsoon wrote:Although I have little doubt that our distant ancestors, despite not having claws or fangs, were more than capable of ambushing small to medium sized herbivores and killing them bare handed. There's even people who do this today. I think the 'not adapted to hunt/kill' argument is one of the weakest parts of the vegetarian debate.



I also consider this to be a fairly weak argument. It's quite obvious that human beings are omnivores. Neither carnivores nor herbivores have a choice in the matter. A biological omnivore, by it's nature, does have a choice in the matter precisely because they are an omnivore. This is the reason why it's quite easy to have a vegetarian dog and quite difficult to have a vegetarian cat! However, I still don't believe that it is just a sheer coincidence that human beings closest relatives, the great apes, are naturally 90% plus vegetarians.


Right we'll keep this civil :smile:

Whether it's right or not to have a vegetarian diet for a dog is a different issue altogether....but IMO it is enforcing your agenda on another, and that is my only issue with this whole debate.


I'm going to have to say I acknowledge that view but completely disagree with it. To me that view uses the equivalent logic of the following argument. "Your neighbor is abusing their child, but you should not enforce your own view on your neighbor, that it's wrong to abuse a child, because they should be allowed to do what they want and make their own decisions." Of course that is a very extreme example of "wrongness" you could say but the logic behind it is exactly the same. I do not see that as a reasonable argument, as it is a moral imperative to go help the child. It makes no difference if the childs parents don't believe it's wrong, they don't have a right to deprive someone else of their rights. Same goes for animals. Animals have rights, just like children do and no one, regardless of what they believe, has any right to violate another rights. "To each is own" is great, until it comes to the point where another's rights are being violated.

My point is that we should be free to eat meat or not, and still recognise that we all can be good practitioners....many of the greatest masters of the past ate meat. Many didn't/don't....sufficed to say diet has little to do with spiritual progress....


Who is saying diet has little to do with spiritual progress? Many people don't believe it has little to do with it. Some people believe it has a lot to do with it, which is why many monks are required to be vegetarian by their precepts. It is the reason why the Brama Net Sutra says "Eating of meat kills the seed of great compassion" and "Bodhisattvas should not eat the flesh of any sentient beings whatsoever".

stubbornly gripping on to a fundamental view, however righteous we believe it to be, as if it is the deal breaker for who has and who hasn't got compassion (which isn't an 'emotion' incidentaly) is definitely a hindrance to practice.


I believe that compassion is an emotion and that not all emotions are hindrances. Speaking up on behalf of living beings who are being killed every day and defending their rights to not be killed, because they do have a right to not be killed, I don't think is a hindrance to practice. I think it's the Bodhisattva way. Like Thich Nhat Hann says, "Compassion is a verb" and I would add "as well as an emotion that cause you to act to help reduce suffering". Thich Nhat Hann believes that diet is quite significant. That is why he has made his "5th mindfulness training" about what we consume, which diet is a very important part of. That is the reason why all his dharma centers are strictly vegan and the reason why he is too.
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!
User avatar
seeker242
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: Gaining weight while beeing vegetarian?

Postby Dan Dorje » Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:18 pm

Fats are also very necessary for males, because there are hormones derived from fat.
Only the combination: fats + carbs (with high GI) is bad.
Dan Dorje
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 4:26 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby seeker242 » Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:56 pm

Image

I came across this a while ago. Thought it was interesting and relevant. It's a mathematical calculation or estimate of the number of animals killed for various types of food. It's based on empirical data as much as possible and the references are included in the linked article. The article explains the methodology behind the mathematical calculations as well as the actual algebraic expressions themselves. However, when it speaks of "animals" it does not include insects. Most likely because it is near impossible for someone to into a field and actually count the number of insects in a field, before and after harvest, and then do the math to determine how many were actually killed. I don't believe anyone has done that or even tried to do that. If anyone knows of some entomologists somewhere that actually have done that, I would be interested in hearing about it. Although this chart does not include insects, it's quite safe and reasonable to assume that as the amount of land cultivated increases, the number of insects killed also increases. Below is an excerpt from the article, the rest of it can be found in the link. If anyone has any technical questions regarding the calculations, I'm sure the author would not mind explaining them further. If he has the time to do so that is. There is a contact link on the page.


Number of Animals Killed to Produce One Million Calories in Eight Food Categories
October 12, 2009

"The idea that a vegan diet kills as many or more animals than a meat-based diet is sometimes used as a rationalization for consuming meat, and this idea serves to add uncertainty to the ethical case for a plant-based diet. In an attempt to help clear up this uncertainty, I have made estimates of the number of animals killed directly by slaughter as well as through crop harvesting in order to produce one million food calories from eight different categories of food, shown in Figure 1. One million calories is an annual calorie intake for someone consuming 2740 calories / day, so the numbers would reflect an annual number of animals killed if all one million calories came from the same category. Of course, no one eats this way, but what is important is the number of animals killed per calorie. If you could determine what percentage of calories in a complete diet came from each category, you could determine a number of animals killed for that diet. To do this, you would probably need a more complete list of food categories than the eight presented here."

Continued: http://www.animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!
User avatar
seeker242
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: Gaining weight while beeing vegetarian?

Postby flavio81 » Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:58 pm

TaTa wrote:I need to gain some weight!!! HELP!!!! =P


LUCKY YOU!

Now, are you vegan or vegetarian? Do you eat chicken eggs? Cheese? Dairy products in general?

In any case, if you ask, for me it would be very EASY to add more pounds/kilos while staying vegetarian: Just eat the following liberally:

- Lasagnas (which are very high on calories)
- Gnocci (italian dish made from potatoes)
- Polenta (cooked semola, prepared the italian way)
- PIzza, obviously.
- Soy burgers, the more the better

:stirthepot:

A very high calorie food that can be 100% vegetarian comes from mexico: TACOS!!

Others have correctly mentioned Avocado, i'd also add corn. How about a salad that includes avocado and corn (boiled), mixed with some mayonaisse-based sauce?

If you feel full quickly, try eating till very full all the time. Your stomach will expand over time and allow more food in.

Basically my advice is: Do exactly the opposite that is indicated on a weight loss diet!! Although exercise like weight-lifting could be very beneficial. When i tried doing a bit of anaerobic excercise (bench press, etc), one undesireable side effect is that my appetite went sky-high.
User avatar
flavio81
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 5:25 am
Location: Lima, Peru

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby dzogchungpa » Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:58 pm

Maybe the whole emotion-compassion thing is off topic, but I nevertheless point out that George Dreyfus' essay
"Is Compassion An Emotion? A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Mental Typologies" can be read here:
http://content.yudu.com/Library/A16bap/ASIABookVisionsofcom/resources/44.htm

Here's a passage from the final paragraph:
We can discuss, for example, whether compassion is an emotion. This may be a difficult task that involves more than the mechanical application of a predefined notion. We may have to expand the concept of emotion to accommodate the levels of compassion as described by Buddhist traditions. We may also refrain from such an expansion and decide that the more equanimous levels of compassion as described by Buddhist traditions are not emotions after all.

I'm just starting to look through the essay, but I guess it's a tricky issue.
ཨོཾ་མ་ཧཱ་ཤུནྱ་ཏཱ་ཛྙཱ་ན་བཛྲ་སྭཱ་བྷཱ་བ་ཨཱཏྨ་ཀོ་྅ཧཾ༔

The thousands of lines of the Prajnaparamita can be summed up in the following two sentences:
1) One should become a Bodhisattva (or, Buddha-to-be), i.e. one who is content with nothing less than all-knowledge attained through the perfection of wisdom for the sake of all beings.
2) There is no such thing as a Bodhisattva, or as all-knowledge, or as a ‘being’, or as the perfection of wisdom, or as an attainment.
To accept both these contradictory facts is to be perfect.
- Conze
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 1472
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Monsoon » Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:53 am

Death in itself is not as important as the context within which it occurs?

If that is what you are saying then I totally agree.

So, many arguments are based on the degree of separation between the arguer and the being that is killed. Although if everything is interconnected, and I totally believe this is the case, then there is no separation great enough to diminish the loss of any sentient being through unmidnful action.

I've probably got it all wrong again, but this is what crossed my mind over the last few posts.
Let peace reign!

Metta,

Monsoon
User avatar
Monsoon
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 12:28 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Tara » Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:46 pm

Please note

Several posts have been removed as they contained ad homs/personal attacks in direct contravention of the Terms of Service or ... the Rules!

No Ad Hominem/Personal Attacks



Temporarily locked.
Tara

**********************************************************
Maybe you collect a lot of important writings,
Major texts, personal instructions, private notes, whatever.
If you haven’t practiced, books won’t help you when you die.
Look at the mind – that’s my sincere advice.

**********************************************************
from Longchenpa's 30 Pieces of Sincere Advice

Mors certa — hora incerta
User avatar
Tara
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:59 am
Location: Here.

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dan74, Google [Bot], jeeprs, Lotus108, MSN [Bot] and 18 guests

>