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 PadmaVonSamba » Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:02 am

I don't think you can call it meat if it's been cooked.
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: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby ronnewmexico » Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:15 am

Of course it does cause cancer tobacco, but the research from the sixties is still.... though junk science of the finest sort..considered research.
So we if we just look at this strictly on the basis of research...we find perhaps two differing research conclusions.

Generally we can't look at things in many fashions strictly on the basis of research.....that is my point, not to change this into a discussion of tobacco.

Meditative research....there exists a bit but really not a bunch. What type of brain waves produced that is the type of research available. What part of the brain is used while meditating, not really much scientifically that I know of on other aspects to that thing. Characteristics of serious meditators found curiously also.....to be abnormally attentive to visual markers of emotion in others....people most closely replicating that.....very curiously..... secret service agents who are trained for that. Only that one group, not police or soldiers just secret service agents.
I suspect the defense industry has other research on this thing but that is not available to the public.

REsearch on vegetarians....a bit also..... but as I mention, with vegetarians not useing tobacco or drinking, it may skew the results making them not viable.
The defense industry years ago, I think it was around the time of world war two... curiously found vegetarians to have the ability to hold their arms out straight for a much longer time than meat eaters...curious that, but seemingly with little application.

Research has agenda attached to it too often. NO other effects from steroids.....the AMA is interwined with big pharma.... of course a study they may sponsor is tailored to produce the result they want, that big pharma wants. Just one example...but research nowadays is always suspect excepting when their is not a corporate win or loose to it.

Diets effect on demeanor...anyone I have ever met in the US who has tried the fruition diet, only fruit for any period of time, a week or so, has described it to me as making them spacy, sort of like light headed.
Anyone who has fasted knows after a day or so one gets into a certain pleasant mood, though still hungry this mood is present.
Just two examples but we can find much in the way of evidence to show that diet affects mood.
Mood is not the center of meditation and we may want to precipiate certain moods for effect or as means...but we can also manipulate diet that makes certain types of meditation easier due to mood.
Vegan...generally yes the mind will be quieter a bit.Meat eater generally the mind will be busier a bit. We can find these things to be that way by watching the effects of what we eat upon us(these are just two general examples). Some immediate effects and some longer term.
Many are the effects of diet upon mood...how when and why we eat is important to that thing of mood.
Some moods again...better than others for particular meditative means.
Last edited by ronnewmexico on Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.
User avatar
ronnewmexico
 
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:17 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby catmoon » Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:27 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
ronnewmexico wrote:There is no research I feel safe in saying.
There is probably still not conclusive research that even smoking causes cancer...


ummm, yes, there is conclusive evidence. It is a fact.


If the statement "smoking causes cancer" were a simple fact, then wouldn't it be true that every smoker would have to get cancer? Isn't it true that two thirds of all smokers do not get cancer?

A much more accurate statement would be "smoking can cause cancer" or "smoking may cause cancer".
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 ronnewmexico » Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:32 am

Within the realm of such nuance is why the tobacco companies are generally able to fend off lawsuits...

but this is not about tobacco or saying correct things but about vegetarianism... :smile:
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.
User avatar
ronnewmexico
 
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:17 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:46 am

catmoon wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
ronnewmexico wrote:There is no research I feel safe in saying.
There is probably still not conclusive research that even smoking causes cancer...


ummm, yes, there is conclusive evidence. It is a fact.


If the statement "smoking causes cancer" were a simple fact, then wouldn't it be true that every smoker would have to get cancer? Isn't it true that two thirds of all smokers do not get cancer?

A much more accurate statement would be "smoking can cause cancer" or "smoking may cause cancer".


No, you have it backwards.
People get lung cancer, or emphysema or heart disease, and then it can be seen that the illness is the result of having smoked.

By the logic you are using, dharma is crap because most beings who practice it have not become buddhas.
Instead, of those who attain realization, most have practiced dharma.
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: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby catmoon » Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:05 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:No, you have it backwards.
People get lung cancer, or emphysema or heart disease, and then it can be seen that the illness is the result of having smoked.

By the logic you are using, dharma is crap because most beings who practice it have not become buddhas.
Instead, of those who attain realization, most have practiced dharma.



And sometimes it happens that people get lung cancer who have never smoked in their lives. Ditto for emphysema and heart disease. Your "fact" is a great overstatement of reality, and misleading.
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 Jikan » Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:17 pm

Smoking tobacco is a cause of cancer and other serious health problems. There is a consensus on this. It is also true that not all smokers get cancer (or manage to die of something other than cancer before the cancer arises). The latter does not negate the former.
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby rory » Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:49 pm

Jains as a group are not vegans. The local Jain leader in my university town, who is vegan,explained to me previously in India cows were tended by families and treated very well but now there is factory farming there as well & there is now an effort to discuss this & some Jain vegans.

In America where we have factory farming, the young Jains are mostly vegan; they meet at conferences and see the films and read the abundant material . For most of the adult Jains I met (and these were all highly educated professionals), they were born into Jainism. So they are veg because it's familiar but are resistant to eliminating dairy and they know better. The community leader, a great guy, told me this so I wouldn't be disheartened. Due to him I am now almost completely vegan.

For health benefits of a non-smoking, vegan way of life I recommend the Seventh Day Adventist Study which has been ongoing in the US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventist_Health_Studies

They have great vegan american type recipes: nut gravy, cherry pie etc I had the good fortune to eat in their restaurants in NYC and just last year in Budapest. Delicious!
gassho
Rory
Last edited by rory on Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Honmon Butsuryu Shu USA http://www.beikokuhbs.com/about-us.html

NamuMyohoRengeKyo
User avatar
rory
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 8:08 am
Location: SouthEast USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:51 pm

catmoon wrote:Your "fact" is a great overstatement of reality, and misleading.


no, it's not:
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCaus ... fact-sheet
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: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:57 pm

catmoon wrote:
And sometimes it happens that people get lung cancer who have never smoked in their lives. Ditto for emphysema and heart disease.


All that proves is that smoking is not the only thing that leads to cancer!
It doesn't mean that smoking isn't something that leads to cancer.

Sucking cigs is a stupid thing to do. And it is addictive. But it isn't the only thing that is stupid to do or addictive.
:offtopic:
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: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Mr. G » Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:07 pm

Mr. G wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:Giving food to the hungry is of immense merit regardless of whther they are bodhisattvas on the path or not. ;)


I think it differs if one is about to become a Buddha, I'll have to look that up.


Both merit and knowledge could best be acquired, of course, in the
presence of a living buddha, for by serving and making offerings to such
a being one could make merit in vast quantities, and by listening to his
teachings one could quickly acquire the requisite knowledge necessary to
teach the Dharma in the future oneself.


- Prof. Jan Nattier - The Indian Roots of Pure Land Buddhism
    How foolish you are,
    grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
    - Vasubandhu
User avatar
Mr. G
 
Posts: 4098
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:36 am
Location: Spaceship Earth

Re: Ahimsa, Veganism, and Existing Food/Supplements

Postby daelm » Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:29 am

SittingSilent wrote:I am learning more about Buddhism, although I'm not sure which school I feel comfortable in. However, as I am learning more about the concept of ahimsa, I am feeling drawn to become a vegan, especially considering the horrific conditions other sentient beings are raised and then slaughtered under simply to provide food for us. I am not comfortable with this. My difficulty however, is with what I am supposed to do with the chicken and beef in my freezer, as well as the medications that are in capsules made with gelatin (animal-sourced), etc. I feel I shouldn't consume them because that would be contributing to all four negative intentions, but if I dispose of them, how is that any better?

Thoughts please!

E



take the medication. give the food away.

d
daelm
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 8:49 pm

Re: Ahimsa, Veganism, and Existing Food/Supplements

Postby SittingSilent » Sun Dec 25, 2011 8:53 pm

I donated a great deal of foodstuffs that contained animal products to my local community kitchen. I gradually am using up the others, and will continue to use my wearables until they give out. I will accept the realistic nature of nonperfectionist life as a vegan by eating dairy and eggs in the hospital and taking certain medications with gelatin in them should the manufacturer not offer alternatives.

Konchog1 wrote:Being vegetarian is nice, but are you doing it because it causes animals to suffer? Or because it's part of "the lifestyle" of being a Buddhist? There is overlap but also big differences. Personally, I feel it is acceptable to secretly cook and eat a dead bird you find while walking in a forest. Do you see?


I find this an interesting viewpoint. Myself, I would say I am becoming more veg leaning because of my evolving knowledge of Buddhism. I don't think I am trying for lifestyle Buddhism. In fact, I was told, by someone I cannot identify in my memory now, that many Buddhists are not vegetarians, perhaps to include the Dalai Lama. Am I mistaken? My memory hasn't been the best lately. Anyway, I just feel I am doing the right thing, regardless of what other Buddhists choose to do.

:yinyang:
SittingSilent
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:41 pm

Re: Ahimsa, Veganism, and Existing Food/Supplements

Postby Blue Garuda » Mon Dec 26, 2011 1:03 am

Well done for spotting that medicines contain animal products. I've tried to persuade the UK Govt to put the 'V' on the packs of medicines suitable for Vegetarians and Vegans but they claim the European Law prevents this; so I said change the law so people know what they are consuming!

Few people know of the Gelatin in capsules and even fewer know that it is also in some tablets.

Even pharmacists have little idea and tell you that different brands of tablets are the same becuase the 'active ingredients' are the same, but close reading shows the 'excipients' (non-active ingredients) may well include gelatin, cochineal etc.

So, remove the medicine from the capsules if possible or hand them back to the pharmacist.

As for the meat, your purchase has already caused marketing folk to plan more killing because of predicted demand, so I'm not sure that it matter what you do in terms of that karma as the action has completed. However, positive karma may include giving it to a carnivore whose unfortunate rebirth means they must live off meat, and in that way you save them from needing to kill.
Left
Blue Garuda
 
Posts: 2000
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Willy » Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:27 am

I once heard this story:

In the 1970's, when Kalu Rinpoche first visited the United States, he
was at a restaurant with a group of newly inspired buddhists. They
all ordered vegetarian meals except for the Rinpoche who ordered a
steak. You can imagine how many jaws dropped...

While everyone enjoyed herbal tea after dinner, one of the students
asked how could Rinpoche eat meat- wasn't that a direct link to the
death of the cow?

Rinpoche's reply was something like this, "In order to grow this tea
we're drinking now, the earth had to be tilled. Animals that live
under the ground are put above the ground, and animals that live above
the ground are buried. Countless numbers of beings died as a result
of tilling the earth, so you might as well be drinking a cup of
blood."

The value of a beings life is not measured by its weight or size, or
even whether or not it has a vertebrae - as defined by the Buddha. We
live in a realm where we knowingly or unknowingly continuously inflict
harm and even death.

The point of this is not to conjure a nihilistic or depressing view of
the world, but to put things into perspective. This should only
inspire us to seek out the teachings and methods of the Buddha with
more diligence.
User avatar
Willy
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:58 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Blue Garuda » Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:05 am

Willy wrote:I once heard this story:

In the 1970's, when Kalu Rinpoche first visited the United States, he
was at a restaurant with a group of newly inspired buddhists. They
all ordered vegetarian meals except for the Rinpoche who ordered a
steak. You can imagine how many jaws dropped...

While everyone enjoyed herbal tea after dinner, one of the students
asked how could Rinpoche eat meat- wasn't that a direct link to the
death of the cow?

Rinpoche's reply was something like this, "In order to grow this tea
we're drinking now, the earth had to be tilled. Animals that live
under the ground are put above the ground, and animals that live above
the ground are buried. Countless numbers of beings died as a result
of tilling the earth, so you might as well be drinking a cup of
blood."

The value of a beings life is not measured by its weight or size, or
even whether or not it has a vertebrae - as defined by the Buddha. We
live in a realm where we knowingly or unknowingly continuously inflict
harm and even death.

The point of this is not to conjure a nihilistic or depressing view of
the world, but to put things into perspective. This should only
inspire us to seek out the teachings and methods of the Buddha with
more diligence.


In the end it is intention which matters, surely. People planting tea bushes do not intend to kill worms etc. but people ordering steak do so in the knowledge that it creates the demand in the market for future killing. The act is also consuming the product of a deliberate killing on their behalf IMHO. It is surely not 'nihilistic' to have the intention to avoid killing wherever we can, and perhaps to teach that through our own example. Depressing? Yes, samsara seems so, but surely the first lesson we learn is that Buddhism offers a path to bliss, a release from samsara. The joy of Buddhism is the liberation from suffering - including surely the suffering of others whenever we are able to cause it. :)
Left
Blue Garuda
 
Posts: 2000
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Dechen Norbu » Thu Dec 29, 2011 12:44 pm

Most people who buy a stake also don't have the intention to kill.
Their intention is nourishing their body from a carcass they didn't kill.
They didn't order the death of the animal neither could they prevent it. So it is unfair to imply that they meant to kill the animal.
If you put a live animal in front of most people who eat meat, they'll pet it, not kill it.
They could never do it, not because they don't know how, but because they don't have such will. This is not the same as finding a steak in a package, which is quite similar to road kill these days. I've explained why, but I'll say it again.
Some people believe that if they don't buy meat, by simple economic rules, less animals will die.
If that is true in a small community, it's not in big cities.
Vegetarians are outliers in meat eating societies. They don't count for statistical purposes.
So it's as if they didn't exist when meat industry technicians do the math to establish the quotas of animals to be slaughtered.
This, however, doesn't mean that one shouldn't be a vegetarian, obviously. The intention behind it is very noble.
User avatar
Dechen Norbu
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Blue Garuda » Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:06 pm

Dechen Norbu wrote:
Vegetarians are outliers in meat eating societies. They don't count for statistical purposes.


Not sure I understand how we don't count.

I believe surveys place the figure in the UK at around 5%, some a lot more.

When eating out if there is no vegetarian option I have sometimes explained to the chef or owner that they could increase their market by (up to) that percentage if they offered vegetarians food they would buy. Most reacted very well, even a hotel whose main business was from hunting, shooting and fishing customers.

The Olympics are going to be held soon in the UK. The caterers are very much aware of the need for veggie food.

It's a quirk of the catering trade that often meat-eaters will choose the vegetarian option. I've seen this often on planes, where the veggie option looked tastier and so those meals get snaffled, leaving those at the back of the plane who actually ordered vegetarian food to go hungry. Of course, good airlines serve those who ordered vegetarian meals first. LOL :)
Left
Blue Garuda
 
Posts: 2000
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby LastLegend » Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:38 pm

Smoking is a condition that contributes to cancer. I do not know if smoking alone contributes to cancer. Sometimes we say there are predispositions and other factors involved.

Causes and conditions.
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)
User avatar
LastLegend
 
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby gad rgyangs » Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:39 pm

Willy wrote:I once heard this story:

In the 1970's, when Kalu Rinpoche first visited the United States, he
was at a restaurant with a group of newly inspired buddhists. They
all ordered vegetarian meals except for the Rinpoche who ordered a
steak. You can imagine how many jaws dropped...

While everyone enjoyed herbal tea after dinner, one of the students
asked how could Rinpoche eat meat- wasn't that a direct link to the
death of the cow?

Rinpoche's reply was something like this, "In order to grow this tea
we're drinking now, the earth had to be tilled. Animals that live
under the ground are put above the ground, and animals that live above
the ground are buried. Countless numbers of beings died as a result
of tilling the earth, so you might as well be drinking a cup of
blood."

The value of a beings life is not measured by its weight or size, or
even whether or not it has a vertebrae - as defined by the Buddha. We
live in a realm where we knowingly or unknowingly continuously inflict
harm and even death.

The point of this is not to conjure a nihilistic or depressing view of
the world, but to put things into perspective. This should only
inspire us to seek out the teachings and methods of the Buddha with
more diligence.


omg how many times does this sophistical bullshit need to be countered? the difference is: in tea growing there is no intent to kill, it is accidental and one can even take steps to try and minimize it. in lusty tibetan lama lip smacking meat eating, the only way to put the steak on the plate is to deliberately and with clear intent kill a sentient being for pleasure. simple, isnt it?

and, to save time, lets counter the next rationalization: Sargent Schultz sez, "Wait a minute, what are you mad at me for? I didnt drop the Zyklon into the chamber, I just guarded the door!"
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JKhedrup, Johnny Dangerous, Lotus108, Simon E., smcj, supermaxv and 11 guests

>