the great vegetarian debate

[practitioner]

No, your argument is that as long as there is a middle man between you and the butcher your hands are clean, that is nonsense.
Butcher ---> Purchaser = bad karma
Butcher ---> Market ---> Purchaser = no problem

[asunthatneversets]

Chatral Rinpoche is a dzogchen master and is a big advocate of vegetarianism...

Frankly, eating grassfed meat is far better for the environment and ecosystems in the world than being a consumer of soy products. Soy is a very environmentally damaging crop (http://civileats.com/2009/01/27/a-vegan ... erspective). Grass fed cattle who are moved from fresh pasture to pasture actually sequester carbon and rebuild the local environment becase of the interaction between cattle and pasture. Joel Salatin writes in his recent The Sheer Ecstacy of Being a Lunatic Farmer (2010, Polyface):

I agree about the soy, no doubt... In addition to the environmental effects, soy in the amounts that are consumed regularly nowadays (by those who turn to it as an alternative) is very dangerous as well it seems:

# High levels of phytic acid in soy reduce assimilation of calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and zinc. Phytic acid in soy is not neutralized by ordinary preparation methods such as soaking, sprouting and long, slow cooking. High phytate diets have caused growth problems in children.

# Trypsin inhibitors in soy interfere with protein digestion and may cause pancreatic disorders. In test animals soy containing trypsin inhibitors caused stunted growth.

# Soy phytoestrogens disrupt endocrine function and have the potential to cause infertility and to promote breast cancer in adult women.

# Soy phytoestrogens are potent antithyroid agents that cause hypothyroidism and may cause thyroid cancer. In infants, consumption of soy formula has been linked to autoimmune thyroid disease.

# Vitamin B12 analogs in soy are not absorbed and actually increase the body's requirement for B12.

# Soy foods increase the body's requirement for vitamin D.

# Fragile proteins are denatured during high temperature processing to make soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein.

# Processing of soy protein results in the formation of toxic lysinoalanine and highly carcinogenic nitrosamines.

# Free glutamic acid or MSG, a potent neurotoxin, is formed during soy food processing and additional amounts are added to many soy foods.

# Soy foods contain high levels of aluminum which is toxic to the nervous system and the kidneys.

I personally go the almond milk/rice milk route instead, and stay away from soy products as much as possible, I've been vegetarian for 10 years now and have no desire to eat meat (probably ever again) but I would never persecute those who choose to. When I first started being involved with the DC I remember being told my diet choices were going to be an issue and that I should probably start eating meat. I didn't really understand it but remained open to the suggestion... presently I still haven't eaten meat and that hasn't caused an issue with the effects/insights/realizations the teaching has gave way to as far as I can tell. I still remain open to what ChNN suggests, and I respect everyone for doing what they would like to.

I definitely agree that taking a holier than thou attitude when it comes to diet is ridiculous. Also agree that even for those who claim to be living a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle in the name of compassion are still subject to causing death/harm to animals... be it bugs on the windshield, stepping on bugs, wearing leather, using products associated with animal testing etc... but also that even in being a vegetarian in the consumption of plants, life is still being taken. Some may argue that plants aren't sentient beings but there's been discoveries regarding plant behavior which refute that view. Either way the effect we have on our environment and beings around us via direct or collateral damage is always inescapable.

I am very interested in this aspect of dzogchen regarding meat and compassion, do you know anywhere I could get more info on that? Or what is it which makes consumption of meat compassionate vs. avoidance of meat incompassionate?

Finally, in the end, being an eater of meat does not make one less capable of realizing the meaning of the teachings, and being a vegetarian does not make one more capable of realizing the teachings.

That is the bottom line.

N

Agreed.

[Malcolm]

Some may argue that plants aren't sentient beings but there's been discoveries regarding plant behavior which refute that view.

Dzogchen theoretically rejects the distinction between sentient and non-sentient.

N

[Acchantika]

But frankly, being a vegetarian is not a superior moral choice. If you are a vegetarian for reasons of health it is one thing. But vegetarianism as moral campaign is deluded. Millions of animals large and small die to bring vegetables and grains to our plates every day. But over and over again vegetarians justify this claiming that the purpose of such agriculture is not to kill animals, so therefore, they morally excuse themselves from culpability in the death of countless millions of creatures.

It seems to me that your argument is against the modern agriculture industry not vegetarianism per se. If vegetarianism could operate without the use of organic or inorganic pesticides in a sustainable way perhaps that would be the superior moral choice. This isn't feasible on a large scale currently, but vegetarianism even in its current state would be a progressive step towards that end while non-vegetarianism cannot be. In the same way that world peace is not achievable currently, and many may technically die because one does not join an army to protect oppressed countries by killing oppressors, this is not a valid reason to join the army.

When people stop killing animals for food, I will stop eating meat. Until then, I won't. It is pretty simple. I personally don't care what diet people have -- but the saccharine fake compassion holier than thou attitude of some vegetarians is pretty pathetic. So if your conscience won't permit you to eat meat, great, don't eat it. My conscience won't permit me not to. But don't lecture me with some lame ass criticisms and poorly cited arguments from Abhidharma (which incidentally is a Hinayāna system in which meat eating is permitted). If people wish to follow common Mahāyāna and avoid meat, fine. The Hevajra tantra states however "Those who eat meat have compassion."

If you really want to follow the common Mahāyāna POV, not only must you avoid meat, but you must avoid onion, garlic, scallions, wine, and so on. So if you are going to do down that road, be consistent. Don't eat onion, garlic, meat, drink wine and so on.

As I pointed out, if people grass fed their cattle in a proper way, for both dairy and meat, we could reverse 200 years of carbon release in ten-twenty years.
So far no one has answered my observation that whether eats meat or not makes absolutely not one whit of difference concerning whether one will become an awakened person or not. But there are apparently some people think that their choice diet makes them superior buddhists -- well, screw that, what bullshit -- load of religious crapola disconnected with reality.

N

N

I think some people just discuss it because they don't know and are trying to make the right choice. Not everyone has an agenda.

[Nemo]

Maybe on planet granola. Pests eat so much you need to plant at least twice as much and the labour involved is often ridiculous.

As well the produce rots much faster and in the "good ol' days" of organic farming it took one in six adults working full time growing food to produce enough to feed everyone.

I think you don't know very much about organic farming, companion planting etc. But believe whatever you want. People have different definitions of food. Mine excludes anything grown through agrocorporate methods, GMOS, etc.

If organic produce really rots faster (it doesn't), I would take that as a good sign.

Small islands of organic agriculture in North America do well because they are surrounded by monocultures treated with pesticides and herbicides. If that ended pests would come back with a vengeance. Fallowing alone would decrease yields to the point that billions could starve. They also do not factor in the increased man power needed to offset the energy inputs on industrial agriculture which greatly inflates the price. Outside of North America many agricultural scientists find your view condescending. Like those assholes who use ethanol made from corn to run their SUV's. It may simply be too late for most of the world to eat super healthy food. Increasing yields without GMO, fertilizer, etc is largely wishful thinking. Norman Borlaug knows more about farming than you. Being an expert in one field does not make you magically proficient in others.

Look at the price tag of your organic food next time you are at the store. Are you going to tell me land is more productive specifically in calories per acre using organic practices? Then wouldn't everyone do it? Eventually organic eating will starve people in the same way ethanol fuel from corn did. Boutique eating for earth's elite. Only one in seven are malnourished/starving now. They went to bed hungry again tonight.

[mzaur]

No, your argument is that as long as there is a middle man between you and the butcher your hands are clean, that is nonsense.
Butcher ---> Purchaser = bad karma
Butcher ---> Market ---> Purchaser = no problem

Well, it's actually a very good argument. Someone earlier said that going into a supermarket and buying meat creates a causal chain which makes the market order more eat so that more animals get slaughtered. This is false. This just isn't how large businesses operate. The demand is there whether or not you buy it or not. If a supermarket has a couple dead chickens to throw out at the end of the day, that doesn't mean they'll order two less chickens in the morning.

[mzaur]

My point being, Milarepa was a Buddha, capable of extraordinary feats due to his complete realization of emptiness. So the fact that Milarepa or Marpa or any other highly realized practitioner ate meat is of no concern to me because they of course realized the true emptiness of that action.

Milarepa and Marpa weren't always Buddhas. Did they eat meat before they became Buddhas?

[practitioner]

No, your argument is that as long as there is a middle man between you and the butcher your hands are clean, that is nonsense.
Butcher ---> Purchaser = bad karma
Butcher ---> Market ---> Purchaser = no problem

Well, it's actually a very good argument. Someone earlier said that going into a supermarket and buying meat creates a causal chain which makes the market order more eat so that more animals get slaughtered. This is false. This just isn't how large businesses operate. The demand is there whether or not you buy it or not. If a supermarket has a couple dead chickens to throw out at the end of the day, that doesn't mean they'll order two less chickens in the morning.

Not true, businesses are in business to make money and they adapt to changing demands. If something starts selling less, they start buying less. They don't say well I've always bought 100 units of chicken a week and I'm gonna keep buying that much even if it ends up in the trash and I'm losing money.

This illustrates the point much better than I can.

[Infinite]

No, your argument is that as long as there is a middle man between you and the butcher your hands are clean, that is nonsense.
Butcher ---> Purchaser = bad karma
Butcher ---> Market ---> Purchaser = no problem

Well, it's actually a very good argument. Someone earlier said that going into a supermarket and buying meat creates a causal chain which makes the market order more eat so that more animals get slaughtered. This is false. This just isn't how large businesses operate. The demand is there whether or not you buy it or not. If a supermarket has a couple dead chickens to throw out at the end of the day, that doesn't mean they'll order two less chickens in the morning.

Not true, businesses are in business to make money and they adapt to changing demands. If something starts selling less, they start buying less. They don't say well I've always bought 100 units of chicken a week and I'm gonna keep buying that much even if it ends up in the trash and I'm losing money.

Uh actually they do. It would take more then one person stop eating meat to lead to a change in purchasing. Also one drop in sales for a week doesn't change how purchases are made I know I used to work in a Grocery Store and we would look at Monthly/Yearly trends to make purchases. Even then waste was high.

[practitioner]

Your argument reminds me of people who say "I'm not going to bother voting. It is only one vote after all, it can't possibly make a difference" It may be true for one single voter yet if hundreds or thousands of people share the same state of mind it does in fact make a difference.

[Infinite]

Your argument reminds me of people who say "I'm not going to bother voting. It is only one vote after all, it can't possibly make a difference" It may be true for one single voter yet if hundreds or thousands of people share the same state of mind it does in fact make a difference.

The likelihood of that is rather nil and comparing eating to voting is really bizarre. It feels at this point vegetarians are just stretching for something to hold onto in order to maintain a moral high ground of their own construction. Honestly this is bordering on red herring territory at this point. Though I do like how you didn't even respond to my fact that it would take something catastrophic to change not only how product is purchased by grocery stores but how they are produced. You want to go to the source go to the factory farms and get them to change this whole blaming the butcher, consumer, candlestick maker, random bloke, etc. is just bizarre.

[gregkavarnos]

This issue has always been a huge problem for me. I agree with Namdrol that eating meat that is grass fed, and not raised in a factory feedlot is ethicaly ok.

Why? I mean the animal is still be raised to be slaughtered in order to fulfil your atachment to the taste of flesh. Environmentally it may be better but ethically???

Dzogchen theoretically rejects the distinction between sentient and non-sentient.

Really? So rocks also have Buddha nature according to Dzogchen and are capable of attaining awareness of their true nature?

It feels at this point vegetarians are just stretching for something to hold onto in order to maintain a moral high ground of their own construction.

I am a vegetarian because I believe it is a compassionate act to not eat the flesh of sentient beings, not because I feel it makes me more compassionate then you. Your statement seems to betray an inferiority complex possibly brought on by a sense that maybe, just maybe, vegetarianism is actually a valid option. I don't judge ominvores, but I am certainly getting sick of people putting the boot into an action that, at the very least, may well constitute refraining from causing harm.

[Infinite]

Oh God now shitty pop psychology? I didn't realize the Dharma was full of such judgmental dogmatic followers. Honestly I think I am done with this board with nutters going on about conspiracies and passive-aggressive pseudo-psychology I have had about my fill. Honestly some of you people are utterly unbelievable. At least it has shown me that the same judgmental people who annoyed me in Fundamentalist Christianity are alive and well in Buddhism too. Maybe Buddhism isn't for me afterall since I'm not a judgmental prick. Thanks for the "enlightening" responses and general douchebaggery.

[Tree]

Oh God now shitty pop psychology? I didn't realize the Dharma was full of such judgmental dogmatic followers.

Welcome to Westernized Buddhism! Enjoy your stay!
I personally find that periods of withdrawal from Westernized Buddhist forums is essential to my growth and mental health.

Gassho!

[gregkavarnos]

Oh God now shitty pop psychology? I didn't realize the Dharma was full of such judgmental dogmatic followers. Honestly I think I am done with this board with nutters going on about conspiracies and passive-aggressive pseudo-psychology I have had about my fill. Honestly some of you people are utterly unbelievable. At least it has shown me that the same judgmental people who annoyed me in Fundamentalist Christianity are alive and well in Buddhism too. Maybe Buddhism isn't for me afterall since I'm not a judgmental prick. Thanks for the "enlightening" responses and general douchebaggery.

That's it! Spit out all the venom! Bring it on!

Now take a good, long, hard look at what is the source of your reaction. Can you see it? It's called ego!

[Blue Garuda]

Oh God now shitty pop psychology? I didn't realize the Dharma was full of such judgmental dogmatic followers. Honestly I think I am done with this board with nutters going on about conspiracies and passive-aggressive pseudo-psychology I have had about my fill. Honestly some of you people are utterly unbelievable. At least it has shown me that the same judgmental people who annoyed me in Fundamentalist Christianity are alive and well in Buddhism too. Maybe Buddhism isn't for me afterall since I'm not a judgmental prick. Thanks for the "enlightening" responses and general douchebaggery.

Oh man. Someone in a fury being judgemental about someone else and then denying being judgemental.

Guess the anger management classes failed then?

[Tara]

POLITE REMINDER

Will all members try to keep within the Terms of Service viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3591 especially #1. Please pay particular attention to the blue bolded out section in the quote below:

1. All members are responsible for their own Right Speech

Members are expected to self-moderate, being mindful of the adage that 'behaviour breeds behaviour'. Mutual respect and friendliness should be the basis of all interactions. The views presented by Dharma Wheel members are not necessarily the views of the administrators or moderators. If you find anything objectionable, let the admin or mods know using the Report Post function and we'll look into it. Administrators, moderators, and owners of this site may not have the time or notice every questionable post. In the event a post does not go reported or taken out of view or someone still has an issue over it or the moderating decision, it is up to that person to take their concern to the individual poster outside of Dharma Wheel (i.e., not on this board or the board PM system). The administrators, moderators, and owners are not responsible for the actions, views, and opinions of individual posters. Use of this forum is at no membership fee and voluntary.

Your co-operation is appreciated.

Regards,

[mindyourmind]

This issue has always been a huge problem for me. I agree with Namdrol that eating meat that is grass fed, and not raised in a factory feedlot is ethicaly ok.

Why? I mean the animal is still be raised to be slaughtered in order to fulfil your atachment to the taste of flesh. Environmentally it may be better but ethically???

Dzogchen theoretically rejects the distinction between sentient and non-sentient.

Really? So rocks also have Buddha nature according to Dzogchen and are capable of attaining awareness of their true nature?

It feels at this point vegetarians are just stretching for something to hold onto in order to maintain a moral high ground of their own construction.

I am a vegetarian because I believe it is a compassionate act to not eat the flesh of sentient beings, not because I feel it makes me more compassionate then you. Your statement seems to betray an inferiority complex possibly brought on by a sense that maybe, just maybe, vegetarianism is actually a valid option. I don't judge ominvores, but I am certainly getting sick of people putting the boot into an action that, at the very least, may well constitute refraining from causing harm.

Well said, young man

[Malcolm]

Look at the price tag of your organic food next time you are at the store. Are you going to tell me land is more productive specifically in calories per acre using organic practices?

Yes, actually it is.

Then wouldn't everyone do it?

It's a rigged game, with a long history that goes back to the 18th century. Fundamentally, the land use patterns of Southern planters became dominant in the wheat and corn growing regions of the US, and the Northen practices of restorative husbandry fell by the wayside.

[Malcolm]

I mean the animal is still be raised to be slaughtered in order to fulfil your atachment to the taste of flesh. Environmentally it may be better but ethically???

When meat is available I eat it. When it isn't I don't. It is pretty simple.

I already pointed out I do not eat meat if it is impure in any of three ways.

When practitioners consume meat with a method, then there is benefit.

Dzogchen theoretically rejects the distinction between sentient and non-sentient.

Really? So rocks also have Buddha nature according to Dzogchen and are capable of attaining awareness of their true nature?

Everything is made out of rigpa.