Page 195 of 315

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 4:44 pm
by DNS
waterchan wrote: Could that not be considered a valid way of loving animals?
Yes, I think so, the higher altruistic, metta, karuna, and mudita love.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 5:21 pm
by Ron-The-Elder
Hi, Dave.

Yes. There are those folks that have a sexual interest in animals, also called zoophiles :oops: , but the variety of folks that I am referencing are "non-sexual zoophiles":
Individuals with a strong affinity for animals but without a sexual interest can be described as "non-sexual" (or "emotional") zoophiles, but may object to the zoophile label. They are commonly called animal lovers instead.

Non-sexual zoophilia, as with animal love generally, is generally accepted in society, and although sometimes ridiculed, it is usually respected or tolerated. Examples of non-sexual zoophilia can be found on animal memorial pages such as petloss.com, in-memory-of-pets.com (memorial, tribute and support sites), by googling "pet memorials", or on sites such as MarryYourPet.com and other pet marriage sites.
source: http://www.reference.com/browse/Zoophilia

What I was trying to frame with the term was the concept of :quote: dietary preference :quote: or nutritional need due to biological disposition.

My apologies for any lexical ambiguity. :jawdrop:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 5:35 pm
by waterchan
David N. Snyder wrote:
waterchan wrote: Could that not be considered a valid way of loving animals?
Yes, I think so, the higher altruistic, metta, karuna, and mudita love.
Okay, just that to me it sounded like you were saying that PETA peeps have no love for animals because they don't keep pets. :thinking:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 7:37 pm
by beeblebrox
chownah wrote: 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?
Hi Chownah,

I'm sorry for the confusion. I meant it was in the way that Waterchan's post seemed to be read that is perverse...

I understood it to be about witnessing a chicken be killed alive for one's consumption. If a lay person wanted to use the Vinaya as a guideline for his/her moral behavior, it actually forbids a Bhikkhu from doing that.

Of course, a lay person is still free to practice in whatever ways he wishes... but it is not something that I would suggest, personally.

It's not due to aversion... but as a concern for the person's judgment in using the chickens in this way as a practice.

:anjali:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 8:12 pm
by Mkoll
Ron-The-Elder wrote: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.
Only human beings have the choice of choosing what to eat based on ethical or moral standards. Or making any choice based on ethical or moral standards (virtue). Animals don't have this luxury. That's one of the many reasons why being an animal isn't as fortunate as being a human being.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 8:15 pm
by seeker242
David N. Snyder wrote:
One of the myths of animal rights activists is that they love animals. It is true that they like and respect animals and want them not to suffer or be killed. But most animal rights activists do not even have pets; some PETA members even feel that pet ownership is not good, subjugating them for our own personal use and desires; declawing them, clipping their ears, etc.
Personally, I don't think that is a myth. Pet ownership is not considered good with regards to breeding, selling animals, etc. However, ownership of abandoned pets, pets from shelters, etc. nothing at all wrong with that. From my experience as an animal rights activist, most animal rights activists do have pets, ones they adopted from shelters, rescued, etc. As far as the "pet trade business" is concerned, yes they are very much against that! In all my years working as an animal rights activist, I've found that all activists I've ever met, adore animals of all kinds personally. Never met an activist that did not love animals personally. A large majority the people that I know who work for PETA and other animal rights organizations, all have rescued animals as pets. Some even have pet pigs! :smile:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 9:23 pm
by Ron-The-Elder
Has the pendulum swung too far with regard to "Animal's Rights?" :tongue:

Image

Should PETA be reigned-in? :thinking:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 11:27 pm
by Mkoll
PETA is pretty tame compared to the ALF and other radical groups. They've been labelled domestic terrorists by some governments. I think we need activist organizations like PETA but I'm not so sure about radical organizations like the ALF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Liberation_Front

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 11:38 pm
by DNS
9 times out of 10 any organization with the words Liberation and/or Front are extremist terrorist organizations. I can remember several years back when the Earth Liberation Front destroyed a bunch of large SUV vehicles and burned a bunch of homes under construction, complaining that the vehicles were gas guzzlers and the housing projects were urban sprawl. So what happened? The developers made their insurance claim and rebuilt everything, got new vehicles and more trees had to be cut down to rebuild the homes. Extremist practices tend to back-fire, do more environmental damage and do more damage to their cause.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Mon May 05, 2014 3:04 am
by chownah
beeblebrox wrote:
chownah wrote: 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?
Hi Chownah,

I'm sorry for the confusion. I meant it was in the way that Waterchan's post seemed to be read that is perverse...

I understood it to be about witnessing a chicken be killed alive for one's consumption. If a lay person wanted to use the Vinaya as a guideline for his/her moral behavior, it actually forbids a Bhikkhu from doing that.

Of course, a lay person is still free to practice in whatever ways he wishes... but it is not something that I would suggest, personally.

It's not due to aversion... but as a concern for the person's judgment in using the chickens in this way as a practice.

:anjali:
When you say that this is not something that you would suggest are you saying that if a person goes to a market and buys a live chicken and the seller kills the chicken and one has some 'negative' reaction that one should not be mindful of that negative reaction and try to use that experience to understand how that reaction arises and to perhaps further develop one's equanimity?......that it is better to not be mindful of what is going on and just indulge in the negative reaction?
chownah

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Mon May 05, 2014 11:07 am
by seeker242
Mkoll wrote:PETA is pretty tame compared to the ALF and other radical groups. They've been labelled domestic terrorists by some governments. I think we need activist organizations like PETA but I'm not so sure about radical organizations like the ALF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Liberation_Front
What is interesting is that these days there are people who consider people in PETA, even in ALF, to be too mild mannered, not extreme enough. It's a revival within the animal rights movement called the "abolitionist movement". They criticize any activity that has to do with improving animal lives on farms, etc. They say PETA and ALF are not even animal rights groups, which is dumb! But anyway! Although, animal rights terrorist are pretty tame in comparison to other terrorists as they have never caused physical harm to a person.
Ron-The-Elder wrote:
Should PETA be reigned-in?
I don't think that's possible unless one starts infringing on the freedom of speech.

:namaste:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Mon May 05, 2014 11:35 am
by lyndon taylor
chownah wrote:
beeblebrox wrote:
chownah wrote: 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?
Hi Chownah,

I'm sorry for the confusion. I meant it was in the way that Waterchan's post seemed to be read that is perverse...

I understood it to be about witnessing a chicken be killed alive for one's consumption. If a lay person wanted to use the Vinaya as a guideline for his/her moral behavior, it actually forbids a Bhikkhu from doing that.

Of course, a lay person is still free to practice in whatever ways he wishes... but it is not something that I would suggest, personally.

It's not due to aversion... but as a concern for the person's judgment in using the chickens in this way as a practice.

:anjali:
When you say that this is not something that you would suggest are you saying that if a person goes to a market and buys a live chicken and the seller kills the chicken and one has some 'negative' reaction that one should not be mindful of that negative reaction and try to use that experience to understand how that reaction arises and to perhaps further develop one's equanimity?......that it is better to not be mindful of what is going on and just indulge in the negative reaction?
chownah
Would you say the same thing about a guard at a Nazi concentration camp witnessing the killing, sometimes its just OK to have a negative reaction to seeing something, no need to get all equanameaous about it......

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Mon May 05, 2014 12:48 pm
by beeblebrox
chownah wrote: When you say that this is not something that you would suggest are you saying that if a person goes to a market and buys a live chicken and the seller kills the chicken and one has some 'negative' reaction that one should not be mindful of that negative reaction and try to use that experience to understand how that reaction arises and to perhaps further develop one's equanimity?......that it is better to not be mindful of what is going on and just indulge in the negative reaction?
chownah
Hi Chownah,

I understand what you're trying to say, but I think that you forget the first precept involves not killing. If the person was a serious practitioner of Buddhism, then he/she would've not gone to a market and then ordered a chicken to be killed.

It is moot whether he keeps on observing his reaction every time a chicken was killed... because if the mindfulness was successfully observed, he would've not strayed from the precept in the first place.

This kind of observation would be unsuccessful every time, by definition.

:anjali:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 2:43 am
by chownah
lyndon taylor wrote:
chownah wrote:
When you say that this is not something that you would suggest are you saying that if a person goes to a market and buys a live chicken and the seller kills the chicken and one has some 'negative' reaction that one should not be mindful of that negative reaction and try to use that experience to understand how that reaction arises and to perhaps further develop one's equanimity?......that it is better to not be mindful of what is going on and just indulge in the negative reaction?
chownah
Would you say the same thing about a guard at a Nazi concentration camp witnessing the killing, sometimes its just OK to have a negative reaction to seeing something, no need to get all equanameaous about it......
Yes, I would. There are people acting as guards in concentration camps today who witness killings. The best thing is for them to be mindful of what is happening and to develop equanimity.....this does not preclude action to change what is happening.

I think it would be good to revisit some teachings on equanimity so here is an excerpt from Wings to Awakening:

G. Equanimity in Concentration & Discernment

We have pinpointed the fifth, reflective level of noble right concentration [§150] as the mental state in which transcendent discernment can arise. A look at how equanimity functions in this process will help to flesh out our account of this state.

The word "equanimity" is used in the Canon in two basic senses: 1) a neutral feeling in the absence of pleasure and pain, and 2) an attitude of even-mindedness in the face of every sort of experience, regardless of whether pleasure and pain are present or not. The attitude of even-mindedness is what is meant here.

Passage §179 gives an outline of the place of equanimity in the emotional life of a person on the path of practice. This outline is interesting for several reasons. To begin with, contrary to many teachings currently popular in the West, it shows that there is a skillful use for the sense of distress that can come to a person who longs for the goal of the practice but has yet to attain it. This sense of distress can help one to get over the distress that comes when one feels deprived of pleasant sensory objects, for one realizes that the goal unattained is a much more serious lack than an unattained sensual pleasure. With one's priorities thus straightened out, one will turn one's energy to the pursuit of the path, rather than to the pursuit of sensual pleasure. As the path thus matures, it results in the sense of joy that comes on gaining an insight into the true nature of sensory objects — a joy that in turn matures into a sense of equanimity resulting from that very same insight. This is the highest stage of what is called equanimity "dependent on multiplicity" — i.e., equanimity in the face of multiple objects.

Passages §180 and §181 go into more detail on how to foster this sort of equanimity. Passage §181 describes three stages in the process: 1) development, or a conscious turning of the mind to equanimity in the face of agreeable or disagreeable objects; 2) a state of being in training, in which one feels a spontaneous disillusionment with agreeable or disagreeable objects; and 3) fully developed faculties, in which one's even-mindedness is so completely mastered that one is in full control of one's thought processes in the face of agreeable or disagreeable objects. Because the first of these three stages is a conscious process, both §180 and §181 illustrate it with a series of graphic metaphors to help "tune" the mind to the right attitude and to help keep that attitude firmly in mind.


chownah

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 2:55 am
by chownah
beeblebrox wrote:
chownah wrote: When you say that this is not something that you would suggest are you saying that if a person goes to a market and buys a live chicken and the seller kills the chicken and one has some 'negative' reaction that one should not be mindful of that negative reaction and try to use that experience to understand how that reaction arises and to perhaps further develop one's equanimity?......that it is better to not be mindful of what is going on and just indulge in the negative reaction?
chownah
Hi Chownah,

I understand what you're trying to say, but I think that you forget the first precept involves not killing. If the person was a serious practitioner of Buddhism, then he/she would've not gone to a market and then ordered a chicken to be killed.

It is moot whether he keeps on observing his reaction every time a chicken was killed... because if the mindfulness was successfully observed, he would've not strayed from the precept in the first place.

This kind of observation would be unsuccessful every time, by definition.

:anjali:
I think you do not understand what I am saying, if you did you would not think that I have forgotten that there is a precept involving killing.

I think you should consider whether you should be declaring who is and who is not a serious practitioner of Buddhism. Your statement disenfranchises 90% of Buddhists in Thailand.

People do go to markets and buy chicken to eat......they do it regularly.....every week.... I have suggested a way for them to use that experience to develop their practice. What do you suggest they should do?

I thought of putting the excerpt on equanimity in this post but will instead just suggest that whoever reads this post look at the excerpt which can be found in my post immediately above.
chownah