the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Aloka »

Mckoll wrote: Sheesh, I've read radical vegans online but this is the first radical meat eater I've ever encountered.
Its not the first for me, unfortunately, which is why I decided it was probably best not to waste my time having discussions with them.


:pig:
Last edited by Aloka on Sun Jun 22, 2014 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Mkoll »

Aloka wrote:
Sheesh, I've read radical vegans online but this is the first radical meat eater I've ever encountered.
Its not the first for me, unfortunately, which is why I've decided to try not to waste my time by having discussions with them.


:pig:
What I find peculiar is that he thinks vegetarians will go to hell. I mean, that's just really out there.

:alien:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Aloka »

Mkoll wrote: What I find peculiar is that he thinks vegetarians will go to hell. I mean, that's just really out there.

:alien:
There's an intriguing short article by Master Hsuan Hua: "The Horrors of Taking Lives and Eating Meat"

http://www.shabkar.org/download/pdf/The ... g_Meat.pdf

Excerpt:

"How strange! How very strange indeed!
The grandson marries the grandmother.
The daughter is eating her mother's flesh,
And the son is beating on a drum stretched with his father's skin.
Pigs and sheep are sitting on the couch,
And the six kinds of relatives are cooking in the pots.
People have come to offer congratulations,
But I see that it is truly suffering!"
:)
User avatar
TheNoBSBuddhist
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:06 pm
Location: Loch Lomond, via the High AND Low road....

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by TheNoBSBuddhist »

I'm going to Tweet
"I don't eat meat,
Greens are my thing
from Fall to spring
in Winter-time
(to make things rhyme)
fewer shoots
more tubers, roots..."
If meat's your dish
I only wish
you like your meal
but really feel
I've made it clear
at least in here
that argument
is time ill-spent
and your opinion
holds no dominion.
All flesh is grass,
so up your artfully- prepared chicken cutlet and gravy.
:namaste:

You will not be punished FOR your 'emotions'; you will be punished BY your 'emotions'.



Image

Pay attention, simplify, and (Meditation instruction in a nutshell) "Mind - the Gap."
‘Absit invidia verbo’ - may ill-will be absent from the word. And mindful of that, if I don't respond, this may be why....
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by seeker242 »

mahat wrote: The animal is fed, protected and in turn it provides us with meat.
Most people, at least where I am from, become vegetarians because many of the animals are not protected. They are horribly mistreated and abused, and then killed. They are treated like mere property, like inanimate objects, with no concern for their sentience. With no respect whatsoever. They suffer tremendously at the hands of those farm workers.
Buddha loved us all and as long as we do plenty of good deeds, and meditate everyday, he couldn't care less about what we ate as long as we are free of aversion, lust and greed...


I would not say that is entirely true. The rules he made concerning meat being "pure in 3 respects" indicated that he did care what his monks ate. The meat that was not "pure in 3 respect" he considered to not be "karmicily pure". He only allowed meat eating in certain circumstances, not any or all circumstances. Of course, this was just for his monks.
If vegetarians have aversion, they are not doing The Lord's teaching and are like unto Devdatta who never even became a stream enterer and will be trapped in this merciless world -- Buddha called this world the slaughter house.
Well, if you think about it, aversion to the systemic abusing and killing of masses of sentient beings, could easily just be a function of compassion. And trying to help those suffering beings is not really inappropriate according to the Lords teaching.

:anjali:
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10167
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

mahat wrote:Again, there is NO moral question for anyone who merely eats meat bought from a grocery store or a restaurant.
But the intention of the 3-fold rule seems to be avoiding unecessary slaughter of animals, and the spirit of the rule seems to reflect the development of Right Intention.
So while I don't see a problem with eating meat that has already been bought / prepared by somebody else, I would question the ethics of deciding to buy and prepare meat oneself, particularly when non-meat alternatives are readily available.
I've also noticed that sometimes people try to rationalise meat eating because they're actually quite attached to it and don't want to give it up.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
TheNoBSBuddhist
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:06 pm
Location: Loch Lomond, via the High AND Low road....

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by TheNoBSBuddhist »

Spiny Norman wrote:.....
I've also noticed that sometimes people try to rationalise meat eating because they're actually quite attached to it and don't want to give it up.
I think that's probably what people do with ANYTHING they are reluctant to stop doing, be it from eating meat, to having extra-marital sex....and any questionable behaviour in between....
:namaste:

You will not be punished FOR your 'emotions'; you will be punished BY your 'emotions'.



Image

Pay attention, simplify, and (Meditation instruction in a nutshell) "Mind - the Gap."
‘Absit invidia verbo’ - may ill-will be absent from the word. And mindful of that, if I don't respond, this may be why....
mahat
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by mahat »

Again, yes anyone with wrong view will go to hell and those who eat any food in lust and/or greed as well. I don't eat meat for taste, I eat it for nutrition and my concern is human nutrition. I have raised children, they are finicky as heck. To deny them variety in food so they don't suffer from malnutrition is common sense. Yet vegetarians don't see this issue, they see only the animals. They follow vegetarianism not Buddhism.

Wrong view of vegetarians, kill the human save the animal!

1) they certainly give this impression-- don't care for our fellow human beings and their nutritional well being. India was probably the great case in point, nonvegetarian diets were considered sin (by foolish Buddhists who fell into the trap of Jains and Brahmins) and this led to the largest scale malnutrition, anemia and destruction of human potential in history.

There have been several cases of vegans being responsible for killing their baby through malnutrition! Vegans were arrested.

Vegetarians are responsible for any human beings, women, children etc. who are severely malnourished due to vegetarians lacking compassion for humans.

In Buddhism, the Vinaya states the sin for killing animals and plants requires confession, for killing a human - expulsion from the Sangha.

2) there is more proof that it is true that vegetarians lack sympathy for humans. Hitler is an example, he was a vegetarian.

In a survey in India to determine male to female sex ratio, I believe in the last census of India, Jains who would never think of eating a hamburger or even a chicken of egg, had no problem killing their human female babies. Jains in India are some of the worst offenders of female foetocide and have a highly skewed gender ratio.

It might be a mere coincidence that Female infanticide has the highest prevalence in states which has the largest number of vegetarians (Gujurat, Punjab), the Jains make this quite believable.

So, vegetarians -- if I may ask, what is your stand on human nutrition and health? Should those propagating vegetarian diets
And other limited diets be held responsible if any human being dies due to malnutrition or child becomes malnourished due to their foolishness?

Vegetarians are being blamed in India big time.

Vegetarians always take the Buddha's teachings out of context.
User avatar
TheNoBSBuddhist
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:06 pm
Location: Loch Lomond, via the High AND Low road....

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by TheNoBSBuddhist »

mahat wrote:.....
There have been several cases of vegans being responsible for killing their baby through malnutrition! Vegans were arrested.
Please give verifiable links.
Also, give links to balance view that some meat-eaters were also responsible for ill-health of children.
It's only fair...

Like this one

or this one.

Vegetarians are responsible for any human beings, women, children etc. who are severely malnourished due to vegetarians lacking compassion for humans.
Verifiable source of this information, please.
....2) there is more proof that it is true that vegetarians lack sympathy for humans. Hitler is an example, he was a vegetarian.
Hitler was also a male Austrian and Catholic.
So it must follow by your blinding logic, that all Austrian Male Catholics also lack sympathy for humans.
Obviously.
In a survey in India to determine male to female sex ratio, I believe in the last census of India, Jains who would never think of eating a hamburger or even a chicken of egg, had no problem killing their human female babies. Jains in India are some of the worst offenders of female foetocide and have a highly skewed gender ratio.It might be a mere coincidence that Female infanticide has the highest prevalence in states which has the largest number of vegetarians (Gujurat, Punjab), the Jains make this quite believable.
It's Bovine Scatology, that's what it is.
This is nothing to do with vegetarianism, but everything to do with the despicable prejudice that that particular society has against female babies. The same happened in China.
China is largely omnivorous. They eat meat, and kill their baby girls.

I've encountered some really dreadful :strawman: strawman arguments but that one really takes the biscuit...


So, vegetarians -- if I may ask, what is your stand on human nutrition and health? Should those propagating vegetarian diets
And other limited diets be held responsible if any human being dies due to malnutrition or child becomes malnourished due to their foolishness
?
In view of the links I posted above, any form of 'nutritional neglect' is a punishable offence.

I say it as I find it:
Your views are prejudiced, skewed and biased.
Your arguments shallow and frankly of little worth because they can be shot to pieces.
Any form of diet, unskillfully administered, is harmful.
Be it vegetarian, omnivorous or carnivorous.
Vegetarians always take the Buddha's teachings out of context.
Something which of course you would never do, or have done. (sarcasm).
I won't even say that it's the pot calling the kettle black. Nobody here has done this, but your words have twisted all intention, and are biased to the point of lunacy.
:namaste:

You will not be punished FOR your 'emotions'; you will be punished BY your 'emotions'.



Image

Pay attention, simplify, and (Meditation instruction in a nutshell) "Mind - the Gap."
‘Absit invidia verbo’ - may ill-will be absent from the word. And mindful of that, if I don't respond, this may be why....
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Aloka »

mahat wrote: Vegetarians always take the Buddha's teachings out of context.
Why thank you, kind sir !


:rofl:


.
mahat
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by mahat »

TheNoBSBuddhist wrote:
mahat wrote:.....
There have been several cases of vegans being responsible for killing their baby through malnutrition! Vegans were arrested.
Please give verifiable links.
Also, give links to balance view that some meat-eaters were also responsible for ill-health of children.
It's only fair...

Like this one

or this one.

That's a false argument. NonVegetarians don't prohibit any food to their children, vegetarians do.

Anyone can google the stories that vegan dietary restrictions led to death in children:

http://naturalhygienesociety.org/diet-veganbaby.html

So here is the link for posterity.
Vegetarians are responsible for any human beings, women, children etc. who are severely malnourished due to vegetarians lacking compassion for humans.
Verifiable source of this information, please.
....2) there is more proof that it is true that vegetarians lack sympathy for humans. Hitler is an example, he was a vegetarian.
Hitler was also a male Austrian and Catholic.
So it must follow by your blinding logic, that all Austrian Male Catholics also lack sympathy for humans.
Obviously.

Incorrect, he looked up to Islam and he did not decide to be male. He chose to be vegetarian and kill Jews. This is about choices and their results. Your arguments are pretty bad.
In a survey in India to determine male to female sex ratio, I believe in the last census of India, Jains who would never think of eating a hamburger or even a chicken of egg, had no problem killing their human female babies. Jains in India are some of the worst offenders of female foetocide and have a highly skewed gender ratio.It might be a mere coincidence that Female infanticide has the highest prevalence in states which has the largest number of vegetarians (Gujurat, Punjab), the Jains make this quite believable.
Nonsense, so you are saying Jains who supposedly are not to eat meat because it involves killing animals have no qualms about killing baby girls? That's called hypocrisy. Meat eaters are not hypocrites-- they are not propounding foolish diets to show a false sense of compassion. They admit, life sucks. You are so biased you don't even see it. So basically vegetarians don't care about human life. Time and time again it shows. Simple. You constantly speak about adapting vegetarianism but not fully knowing the human body, vegetarians have destroyed millions of human lives. Killing humans and leading them to malnutrition -- that is a sin vegetarian fanatics have on their heads. That is why I say vegetarians will go to hell.



It's Bovine Scatology, that's what it is.
This is nothing to do with vegetarianism, but everything to do with the despicable prejudice that that particular society has against female babies. The same happened in China.
China is largely omnivorous. They eat meat, and kill their baby girls.

I've encountered some really dreadful :strawman: strawman arguments but that one really takes the biscuit...


So, vegetarians -- if I may ask, what is your stand on human nutrition and health? Should those propagating vegetarian diets
And other limited diets be held responsible if any human being dies due to malnutrition or child becomes malnourished due to their foolishness
?
In view of the links I posted above, any form of 'nutritional neglect' is a punishable offence.

I say it as I find it:
Your views are prejudiced, skewed and biased.
Your arguments shallow and frankly of little worth because they can be shot to pieces.
Any form of diet, unskillfully administered, is harmful.
Be it vegetarian, omnivorous or carnivorous.
Vegetarians always take the Buddha's teachings out of context.
Something which of course you would never do, or have done. (sarcasm).
I won't even say that it's the pot calling the kettle black. Nobody here has done this, but your words have twisted all intention, and are biased to the point of lunacy.
Nonsense. You can't even see the hypocrisy of a vegetarian who won't touch meat but will kill a human baby in an instant to save money. I am a lay person and will advocate for human nutrition over your strawman arguments of false compassion for animals while showing no compassion for destroying the human body, speech and mind.

NonVegetarians DO NOT restrict diets. Everything is available thanks to nonVegetarians -- for you to compare an open diet with restrictive diets is like comparing democratic countries to communist ones. Buddhists should not be advocating dietary restrictions to lay people. I am seeing this happen too many times.

Vegetarians are like dietary communists. :smile:
User avatar
TheNoBSBuddhist
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:06 pm
Location: Loch Lomond, via the High AND Low road....

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by TheNoBSBuddhist »

Sorry, mahat.
I have now declared you a 'foe', therefore, if you are addressing me, you're whistling in the wind.
Enjoy your cabbage and lentil salad. And let your wind go free.

:toilet:

:jumping:
:namaste:

You will not be punished FOR your 'emotions'; you will be punished BY your 'emotions'.



Image

Pay attention, simplify, and (Meditation instruction in a nutshell) "Mind - the Gap."
‘Absit invidia verbo’ - may ill-will be absent from the word. And mindful of that, if I don't respond, this may be why....
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Mkoll »

TheNoBSBuddhist wrote:Sorry, mahat.
I have now declared you a 'foe', therefore, if you are addressing me, you're whistling in the wind.
Enjoy your cabbage and lentil salad. And let your wind go free.

:toilet:

:jumping:
I might do that, too. I feel like I'm losing IQ points just by reading his inane diatribes.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
TheNoBSBuddhist
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:06 pm
Location: Loch Lomond, via the High AND Low road....

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by TheNoBSBuddhist »

:clap: :rofl:

Aaah....dear.....
:namaste:

You will not be punished FOR your 'emotions'; you will be punished BY your 'emotions'.



Image

Pay attention, simplify, and (Meditation instruction in a nutshell) "Mind - the Gap."
‘Absit invidia verbo’ - may ill-will be absent from the word. And mindful of that, if I don't respond, this may be why....
User avatar
waterchan
Posts: 699
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 7:17 pm
Location: Kamaloka

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by waterchan »

mahat wrote: <diatribe>
Milinda Panha wrote: “ He who is reborn, Nàgasena, is he the
same person or another?”

“Neither the same nor another.”

“Give me an illustration.”

“In the case of a pot of milk that turns first
to curds, then to butter, then to ghee; it would not be right
to say that the ghee, butter and curds were the same as the
milk but they have come from that, so neither would it be
right to say that they are something else.”
In some long lost page of the Milinda Panha, there has to be a section where Nagasena says it's OK to eat annoying vegetarians because their bodies are made from the vegetables they eat. Just as milk and curds are neither different nor the same.
quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur
(Anything in Latin sounds profound.)
Post Reply