the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1887
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ron-The-Elder » Sat May 03, 2014 2:22 pm

NoBS..."being a vegetarian is having certain culinary preferences, and shunning others, on health, taste or moral grounds."
Add to this medical / psychological reasons to prefer a diet primarily of vegetables, fruits and nuts, such as cardio-vascular diseases, various cancers, animal protein phobias, or being a zoo-o-phile. :reading:
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 11806
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by DNS » Sat May 03, 2014 5:48 pm

TheNoBSBuddhist wrote: being a vegetarian is having certain culinary preferences, and shunning others, on health, taste or moral grounds.
Huh? Shunning others? That is not the definition. Sure, some vegetarians shun others; and also some omnivores shun others, but I don't think it qualifies as a definition of vegetarian; perhaps the definition of 'vegan-nazi' in the urban dictionary sense, but not the traditional definition of vegetarian.

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 11806
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by DNS » Sat May 03, 2014 5:52 pm

Ron-The-Elder wrote: or being a zoo-o-phile. :reading:
I hope that is some kind of joke?

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 » Sat May 03, 2014 8:49 pm

David N. Snyder wrote:
TheNoBSBuddhist wrote: being a vegetarian is having certain culinary preferences, and shunning others, on health, taste or moral grounds.
Huh? Shunning others? That is not the definition. Sure, some vegetarians shun others; and also some omnivores shun others, but I don't think it qualifies as a definition of vegetarian; perhaps the definition of 'vegan-nazi' in the urban dictionary sense, but not the traditional definition of vegetarian.
I meant shunning other foods, not shunning other people.
: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
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 11806
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by DNS » Sat May 03, 2014 9:03 pm

TheNoBSBuddhist wrote: I meant shunning other foods, not shunning other people.
:oops: thanks for the clarification; guess I am too used to hearing that vegetarians supposedly shun other people, so thought it was that. :mrgreen:

User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 742
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by seeker242 » Sat May 03, 2014 10:35 pm

I think technically, vegetarianism is a "dietary preference" according to the dictionary. But when people say it's not just a dietary preference, what I think they are trying to say is that it's about much more than just "my personal preferences". Or, it's not about me and it's not for me. It's not about what I want or don't want. It's not a self centered preference about "my food". Something like that I think.

:smile:

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by lyndon taylor » Sat May 03, 2014 10:40 pm

my "dietary preference" would probably be to eat some meat, but my moral preference is to not eat any animals, sort of a difference.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/

User avatar
waterchan
Posts: 699
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 7:17 pm
Location: Kamaloka

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by waterchan » Sat May 03, 2014 10:56 pm

lyndon taylor wrote:my "dietary preference" would probably be to eat some meat, but my moral preference is to not eat any animals, sort of a difference.
In rural India, if you go to the market to buy chicken, they take a live one and slit its throat in front of you while holding down the struggling, writhing animal in its death throes.

Gives you an overwhelming moral reason not to buy chicken.
quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur
(Anything in Latin sounds profound.)

chownah
Posts: 7530
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah » Sun May 04, 2014 2:32 am

waterchan wrote:
lyndon taylor wrote:my "dietary preference" would probably be to eat some meat, but my moral preference is to not eat any animals, sort of a difference.
In rural India, if you go to the market to buy chicken, they take a live one and slit its throat in front of you while holding down the struggling, writhing animal in its death throes.

Gives you an overwhelming moral reason not to buy chicken.
I guess it must not be overwhelming for a lot of people.....if it was overwhelming for everyone then no one would buy chicken......and yet people do......
Maybe the chicken's death could be used to study ones own aversions and help in the development of equanimity......I guess......don't know for sure.......
chownah

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 » Sun May 04, 2014 7:22 am

David N. Snyder wrote:
TheNoBSBuddhist wrote: I meant shunning other foods, not shunning other people.
:oops: thanks for the clarification; guess I am too used to hearing that vegetarians supposedly shun other people, so thought it was that. :mrgreen:
I know; and is it not a shame?

I did point out earlier* that I am in fact a vegetarian, but the kinds of people I shun, are the kinds of people who shun people!

I am a vegetarian, but refuse to be divisive.

:namaste:

(* It could have been in the 'alcohol in cooking' thread....)
: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....

Dinsdale
Posts: 5963
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Dinsdale » Sun May 04, 2014 9:16 am

TheNoBSBuddhist wrote: I did point out earlier* that I am in fact a vegetarian, but the kinds of people I shun, are the kinds of people who shun people!
In my experience vegetarians like both people and animals. ;)
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6440
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Mkoll » Sun May 04, 2014 10:29 am

It's kinda OT but it's wise to shun certain people. The people you're around influence you. The Buddha said fellowship with fools is painful and friendship with the wise is the heart of the holy life. He was pretty clear about shunning fools.

Nothing to do with vegetarianism so :focus:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

User avatar
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by beeblebrox » Sun May 04, 2014 11:39 am

chownah wrote:
waterchan wrote: In rural India, if you go to the market to buy chicken, they take a live one and slit its throat in front of you while holding down the struggling, writhing animal in its death throes.

Gives you an overwhelming moral reason not to buy chicken.
I guess it must not be overwhelming for a lot of people.....if it was overwhelming for everyone then no one would buy chicken......and yet people do......
Maybe the chicken's death could be used to study ones own aversions and help in the development of equanimity......I guess......don't know for sure.......
chownah
I think that's perverse.

People who are not turned off by the act of killing is simply because of their kamma. I'd be cautious in trying to train my kamma like that.

There is a quote from Dhammapada about paying attention to the dripping of poison in a jar.

:anjali:

User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1887
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Ron-The-Elder » Sun May 04, 2014 12:40 pm

David N. Snyder wrote:
Ron-The-Elder wrote: or being a zoo-o-phile. :reading:
I hope that is some kind of joke?
Hi, Dave. Not a joke. Most plants like light, are attracted to light, literally need light, because that is where they get the photon energy necessary to thrive and conduct their metabolic processes, such as photosynthesis. They are therefore called "photo-philes".


Carnivores cannot manufacture their own nutrients as can plants, and as a result "are attracted dietarily to animals", usually herbivores, lower order carnivores, carion, and logically from a dietary perspective can properly be called zoo-o-philes, because that is how they prefer to gather their nutrients, by eating animals to get the energy necessary to thrive and conduct their metabolic processes.

Herbivores are animals that prefer plants and can logically, therefore, be labled as "herb-o-philes". Lovers of plants. People, who love plants for their esthetics, can also be called herb-o-philes, but this has nothing to do with dietary preferences. Vegetarians are in the dietary sense herb-o-philes. In the social justice sense some could be called "zoo-o-philes", because of their love and respect for animals and would avoid eating them, given a choice.

Omnivores (pigs :pig: , many fish, dogs and bears,like us humans and other higher order primates for example) are attracted dietarily to both plant and animal forms of nutrients, and can use either effectively to thrive. It seems to me that they (we humans) are the only creatures in samsara, which have a true choice, as the term "phile" is the case of nutrient preference and energy gathering equals an attachment. The rest is dictated by nutrient type availability. In the tundra and Arctic Biomes, there is little plant-life availability. So, to survive, we may have to rip out the throat of a baby seal, or penguin, unless we can find a frozen carcas and have the means to thaw it out.

All of us have a need to consume life in order to live. It seems only omnivores truly have a choice as to what they consume given that both forms of nutrients are present from which to choose.

Hope this clears thing up! :coffee:
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

chownah
Posts: 7530
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by chownah » Sun May 04, 2014 1:44 pm

beeblebrox wrote:
chownah wrote:
waterchan wrote: In rural India, if you go to the market to buy chicken, they take a live one and slit its throat in front of you while holding down the struggling, writhing animal in its death throes.

Gives you an overwhelming moral reason not to buy chicken.
I guess it must not be overwhelming for a lot of people.....if it was overwhelming for everyone then no one would buy chicken......and yet people do......
Maybe the chicken's death could be used to study ones own aversions and help in the development of equanimity......I guess......don't know for sure.......
chownah
I think that's perverse.

People who are not turned off by the act of killing is simply because of their kamma. I'd be cautious in trying to train my kamma like that.

There is a quote from Dhammapada about paying attention to the dripping of poison in a jar.

:anjali:
Are you saying that if one witnesses a chicken's death that if one uses this experience to study one's aversions that this is perverse or are you saying that maintaining equanimity even when a chicken dies is perverse?.........or both?......or something else?
chownah

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 81 guests