Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Not eating meat because it causes pain, discomfort and death to some living beings and then ignoring the pain, discomfort and death to other living beings just so you can eat vegdiet is obviously hypocrasy.
That is completely ludicrous. You are still being intellectually dishonest and downright unreasonable. To say eating vegetables is equal to ignoring pain is what is called a "strawman argument" and is not logical or reasonable. As soon as you stop employing logical fallacies in your arguments, then, and only then, can you accuse other of being illogical. You are the one being illogical by employing this faulty thinking process.
Straw man: A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position
You should stop using strawman arguments because they simply aren't valid.
Saying you are compassionate to all beings, and then paying some guy to kill one for you, in a manner where it suffers greatly, so you can eat it's dead body, "cause it taste good", is what is hypocrisy!
That is completely ludicrous. You are still being intellectually dishonest and downright unreasonable. To say eating vegetables is equal to ignoring pain is what is called a "strawman argument" and is not logical or reasonable. As soon as you stop employing logical fallacies in your arguments, then, and only then, can you accuse other of being illogical. You are the one being illogical by employing this faulty thinking process.
Straw man: A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position
You should stop using strawman arguments because they simply aren't valid.
Saying you are compassionate to all beings, and then paying some guy to kill one for you, in a manner where it suffers greatly, so you can eat it's dead body, "cause it taste good", is what is hypocrisy!
Eeeh. Alright you weren't actually ironic before. Scary.
You do understand where potatoes comes from? No seeker not from the grocerystore try again.
You do understand that Farmers Farm the land that used to be habitat for other living beings? Robbing them and from it and maybe even killing of a large number of them?
And again you understand that myriads of living beings occupy the land the farmer runs his plough through? From Mice to rats to insects and worms and microbs? You do understand that disregarding microbes millions of living beings are killed throught the process of preperation of the land to the harvets of the crop? not to talk about the pestisied needed and used even on ecological farms?
Have you considered how the fertilizers end up in streams and lakes and seriously change and harm the ecology there? killing and harming living beings in the process
Have you considered the transports of grain and how they harm our global ecology? killing and harming living beings in the process
Now the error you are making is that you thing a Cows life is worth more than a bugs.
You might think that and the cow might think that but certainly not the bug and most definately not me.
Typical western arrogance.
Mind you I am not saying it is better to kill a cow. But I am not closing my eyes on the fact that all food production causes pain in living beings and kills living beings. And I do not persume to know so much about other beings perspective to judge who is worse off.
>> And please do try to convince me that it is much better to kill 200 mice in a grain field or silo than to kill one cow in a farm...
It's about what is skillful. Is it more skillful to kill 2000 mice (in a 10 times larger grain field), then feed the grains to a cow, and then kill the cow so that the taste of meat can be enjoyed, or more skillful to kill 200 mice in a grain field and then eat the grain?
Eeeh. Alright you weren't actually ironic before. Scary.
You do understand where potatoes comes from?
Of course
You do understand that Farmers Farm the land that used to be habitat for other living beings? Robbing them and from it and maybe even killing of a large number of them?
Of course
And again you understand that myriads of living beings occupy the land the farmer runs his plough through? From Mice to rats to insects and worms and microbs? You do understand that disregarding microbes millions of living beings are killed throught the process of preperation of the land to the harvets of the crop? not to talk about the pestisied needed and used even on ecological farms? Of course
Have you considered how the fertilizers end up in streams and lakes and seriously change and harm the ecology there? killing and harming living beings in the process
Have you considered the transports of grain and how they harm our global ecology? killing and harming living beings in the process
of course
Now the error you are making is that you thing a Cows life is worth more than a bugs.
This is where your logic goes astray. This where the "strawman" comes into the picture. You operate under the false assumption that because a cow is not killed and a bug or mouse is killed, you unreasonably jump to the conclusion that one values the cow over mouse. This is not correct. They are both valued equally. The difference is that killing a cow is avoidable and having a mouse killed from tilling a field is not avoidable. One is aviidable, the other is not. This is what you don't understand. The reason why it is unavoidable is because not eating any food from plant sources, you would die of starvation. That is not an option, only an insane person would think it is. The cow is intentionally killed, and the mouse is unintentionally killed. The purpose of a wheat field is NOT to kill mice. The purpose of a slaughterhouse IS to kill cows. This is what you don't understand. Because you don't understand this, you say "hypocrisy!" all the while completely ignoring the difference between intentional and unintentional. Although one can say by buying meat at the market, you are not intentionally killing a cow. However, by doing that, you are intentionally giving money to someone to do it for you. You don't understand the difference between intentional and unintentional...
Mind you I am not saying it is better to kill a cow. But I am not closing my eyes on the fact that all food production causes pain in living beings and kills living beings. And I do not persume to know so much about other beings perspective to judge who is worse off.
To say that people who eat only plants do close their eyes to this, is to introduce a strawman, which causes all your statements to be not relevant, not logical and not reasonable. Do you know what a "strawman" is? If not, you should look it up because it is, by definition, illogical and unreasonable. AKA: a faulty thinking process. If you want people to take you seriously, you really should use sound arguments.
Good point on the mice versus cows. At some point I think technology will be able to 'grow' 'meat' from tissue vats with no nerves/brain. Or perhaps just grow protein and carbohydrates?
You haven't lived until you have grilled up some 'meat' grown in a laboratory!
Good point on the mice versus cows. At some point I think technology will be able to 'grow' 'meat' from tissue vats with no nerves/brain. Or perhaps just grow protein and carbohydrates
>> And please do try to convince me that it is much better to kill 200 mice in a grain field or silo than to kill one cow in a farm...
It's about what is skillful. Is it more skillful to kill 2000 mice (in a 10 times larger grain field), then feed the grains to a cow, and then kill the cow so that the taste of meat can be enjoyed, or more skillful to kill 200 mice in a grain field and then eat the grain?
Sounds like a valid point...but of course the Cow does not eat grain exclusiveley but is fed on grass too. I do not know but i imagine they are mostly fed on grass? I guess some of them are fed exclusively on organic grass and hay.
So according to your reasoning it would be better to eat the meat of a cow grown on organic grass than eat grain from a field where thousands/millions of bugs were chemically killed?
Is it the number of killed beings that is important according to you? How do you recon? and how do you count the lives forfeit to raise an elk or raindeer?
The reality is much more complex than statistics. And any ho that was not really my point.
To me the value of my child is worth more than the lifes of countless others. All beings want to live. When trying to survive we will inadvertantly kill and harm other living creatures. How can we say it is ok to ignore the pain of even one idividual that gets hurt by us? Thats what I mean by "Tell it to the mice".
How do we measure the impact of our actions and say it is better to kill this living being than that one? Or this one living being than those ten thousand?
Also to consider is that there wouldn't be any cows henceforth if we stopped eating them. Which would be a good thing to the extent they would not suffer. But another way to look is that the cow is getting rid of some bad karma. It might be better to raise cows and treat them lovingly and then butcher them kosher eventually than it would be to turn the cow over to whatever rebirth it would otherwise have.
If you raise cattle and are a buddhist you are the cows only connection to the dharma and think how wonderful it is if you can care for the cow, well carefully.
This is where your logic goes astray. This where the "strawman" comes into the picture. You operate under the false assumption that because a cow is not killed and a bug or mouse is killed, you unreasonably jump to the conclusion that one values the cow over mouse. This is not correct. They are both valued equally. The difference is that killing a cow is avoidable and having a mouse killed from tilling a field is not avoidable. One is aviidable, the other is not.
It is avoidable if you kill the elk, for instance.
This is what you don't understand. The reason why it is unavoidable is because not eating any food from plant sources, you would die of starvation.
Not if you eat the raindeer.
That is not an option, only an insane person would think it is. The cow is intentionally killed, and the mouse is unintentionally killed.
How so? You do not think the farmer applying pesticides know he is killing the bugs? Or you think it is ok because you let someone else do the killing for you?
The purpose of a wheat field is NOT to kill mice. The purpose of a slaughterhouse IS to kill cows. This is what you don't understand.
Still the mice die and you know the mice are going to die because you buy grain. You think the mice is going to feel better about it because you did not mean to kill them. Repeatedly every time you do your shopping?
Because you don't understand this, you say "hypocrisy!" all the while completely ignoring the difference between intentional and unintentional. Although one can say by buying meat at the market, you are not intentionally killing a cow. However, by doing that, you are intentionally giving money to someone to do it for you. You don't understand the difference between intentional and unintentional...
And the same applies to buying potatoes. You give someone money to kill the mice for you. What exactly is the difference?
To say that people who eat only plants do close their eyes to this, is to introduce a strawman, which causes all your statements to be not relevant, not logical and not reasonable. Do you know what a "strawman" is? If not, you should look it up because it is, by definition, illogical and unreasonable. AKA: a faulty thinking process. If you want people to take you seriously, you really should use sound arguments.
Hrm. Tell me seeker how is it that you know what people think?
Do you know what "repeating youself like a broken record" is? If you do not then do not bother to look it up just go back and examine your posts because that is what you have being doing the last few of them.
i don't think you can make unilateral claims for the karmic impact of something like killing. I would imagine that unintentionally killing of beings during farming is very different from the intentional killing of pests which is very different than the intentional killing of a cow for pleasure. these are drastically different things.
i don't think you can make unilateral claims for the karmic impact of something like killing. I would imagine that unintentionally killing of beings during farming is very different from the intentional killing of pests which is very different than the intentional killing of a cow for pleasure. these are drastically different things.
What kind of claim can be made about the karmic impact of anything? Effects of karma can be experienced, then described. That's about it. I have killed thousands of creatures. I can describe the circumstances of my life and someone might say that I am suffering for my actions. But I won't accept anyone's view of what may be in store for me because they cannot know that.
How so? You do not think the farmer applying pesticides know he is killing the bugs? Or you think it is ok because you let someone else do the killing for you?
I don't eat food that is sprayed with pesticides. I only eat organic food.
The purpose of a wheat field is NOT to kill mice. The purpose of a slaughterhouse IS to kill cows. This is what you don't understand.
Still the mice die and you know the mice are going to die because you buy grain. You think the mice is going to feel better about it because you did not mean to kill them. Repeatedly every time you do your shopping?
So what is the alternative, to not eat grain? Come on man, be reasonable...
Because you don't understand this, you say "hypocrisy!" all the while completely ignoring the difference between intentional and unintentional. Although one can say by buying meat at the market, you are not intentionally killing a cow. However, by doing that, you are intentionally giving money to someone to do it for you. You don't understand the difference between intentional and unintentional...
And the same applies to buying potatoes. You give someone money to kill the mice for you. What exactly is the difference?
No it isn't. The difference is this: You think the Buddha would approve of this?
To say that people who eat only plants do close their eyes to this, is to introduce a strawman, which causes all your statements to be not relevant, not logical and not reasonable. Do you know what a "strawman" is? If not, you should look it up because it is, by definition, illogical and unreasonable. AKA: a faulty thinking process. If you want people to take you seriously, you really should use sound arguments.
Hrm. Tell me seeker how is it that you know what people think?
Because I know what is logical and not logical and it's quite easy to tell if someone is being logical or not, simply by looking at what they say.
Do you know what "repeating youself like a broken record" is? If you do not then do not bother to look it up just go back and examine your posts because that is what you have being doing the last few of them. Yes, I repeat myself because you conveniently and repeatedly ignore what is reasonable, without even addressing the fact that you are making a strawman.
> So according to your reasoning it would be better to eat the meat of a cow grown on organic grass than eat grain from a field where thousands/millions of bugs were chemically killed?
Instead of pondering over this type of question, I think it makes more sense to realize that we don't want other beings to suffer. Then, if not eating meat is a small effort that avoids a lot of suffering, you just act in accordance to this wish.
> So according to your reasoning it would be better to eat the meat of a cow grown on organic grass than eat grain from a field where thousands/millions of bugs were chemically killed?
Instead of pondering over this type of question, I think it makes more sense to realize that we don't want other beings to suffer. Then, if not eating meat is a small effort that avoids a lot of suffering, you just act in accordance to this wish.
But if you take a moment to read what I have written. Then do you not realize that according to your own resoning the most harmless way to act might indeed be not to eat vegitarian but to eat organic meat?
Your reasoning implied that not mine. So I feel a bit confused now.
Should I not choose the path inflicting least pain and suffering to the fewest possible living beings? I thinks that was the meaning of your example?
From a Buddhist perspective, for a person living in a 1st or 2nd world country, there really is no solid argument that can be made that a diet including meat can be less harmful than a vegetarian diet.
From a Buddhist perspective, for a person living in a 1st or 2nd world country, there really is no solid argument that can be made that a diet including meat can be less harmful than a vegetarian diet.
From a Buddhist perspective, for a person living in a 1st or 2nd world country, there really is no solid argument that can be made that a diet including meat can be less harmful than a vegetarian diet.
Less harmful for who? In what context?
/Victor
for the beings involved but moreso for oneself karmically. that really is the issue here, is eating meat from a modern meat production system going to go against the intrinsic moral laws of the universe and accumulate unskillful karma that is going to make our progress towards liberation more difficult.
forgetting karma, even if just viewed from the point of how much suffering you are causing a living being to experience... the argument still holds.
I don't eat food that is sprayed with pesticides. I only eat organic food.
Still you do understand that farmers kill bugs in various ways even in organic cultivations knowingly? So the argument still holds.
So what is the alternative, to not eat grain? Come on man, be reasonable...
No of course not. The resonable thing to do is to know that it is impossible for us to know which path, veg vs meat diet, is the most costly in terms of suffering and death. I think it is better to argue for Vegitarianism out of a global perspective saying that ecologically and energyconservatively it is better to choose a veg diet. Look here, I think these are pretty convincing arguments:
No it isn't. The difference is this: You think the Buddha would approve of this?
You mean that it is less horrible that mice get killed by poisen or traps than this handeling? Or that bugs gets killed in traps that slowly kills them.
Just because people do not make a youtube movie of them dying? Again probably because people like cows better than bugs.
Because I know what is logical and not logical and it's quite easy to tell if someone is being logical or not, simply by looking at what they say.
I think your reasoning thus far is so far removed from the concept of logic that I really do not think you know the meaning of the word or its application.
Yes, I repeat myself because you conveniently and repeatedly ignore what is reasonable, without even addressing the fact that you are making a strawman.
I am always resonable and logical. I am sorry for you that you lack the ability to see it. Think of it this way. If my use of reasoning or logic or both is flawed then it should be pretty easy to refute what I am saying. But so far you have failed.
Instead you just go on and on about the Strawman and in the process making one yourself. Did you get that turn?
We are Borg, Resistance is Futile, You will be assimilated. /Victor
for the beings involved but moreso for oneself karmically. that really is the issue here, is eating meat from a modern meat production system going to go against the intrinsic moral laws of the universe and accumulate unskillful karma that is going to make our progress towards liberation more difficult.
Yes I agree in this context (Mahayana Buddhist Tradition I am guessing) it is obviously less skillfull to eat meat. I think I said as much before and I think it was seeker who quoted the relevant sutras?
forgetting karma, even if just viewed from the point of how much suffering you are causing a living being to experience... the argument still holds.
Again how do you weigh that? That is the question I am asking in my previous posts.
So if its less skillful for oneself and causing more harm to other beings to eat meat... what possible argument can be made for eating meat?
I think also something that keeps coming up is that beings suffer equally, and I don't believe this is true. There is a certain order to beings, and their capacity to suffer. Simple differences in the brain, emotions, consciousness etc make for a drastically different interpretation and relationship to things like physical pain and emotional pain. Poisoning a bug is not the same as keeping a cow alive for years on end in some horrendous situation. a bugs capacity to suffer is different than a mouses capacity is different than a cows capacity is different than a humans capacity.
I've heard the 'equalness of beings' argument made before and I think most people play that simply as a devils advocate. if you had a bug, mouse, cow and human lines up and were forced to kill one... the decision would not be very difficult.
So if its less skillful for oneself and causing more harm to other beings to eat meat... what possible argument can be made for eating meat?
What is the alternative?
I think also something that keeps coming up is that beings suffer equally, and I don't believe this is true. There is a certain order to beings, and their capacity to suffer. Simple differences in the brain, emotions, consciousness etc make for a drastically different interpretation and relationship to things like physical pain and emotional pain. Poisoning a bug is not the same as keeping a cow alive for years on end in some horrendous situation. a bugs capacity to suffer is different than a mouses capacity is different than a cows capacity is different than a humans capacity.
This is what I call human arrogance. No offence meant. But I get really angry when I hear this kind of reasoning. It is IMO made by people who shy away from reality because they are too afraid too see the truth.
I've heard the 'equalness of beings' argument made before and I think most people play that simply as a devils advocate. if you had a bug, mouse, cow and human lines up and were forced to kill one... the decision would not be very difficult.
I am sorry that you feel that way. Because the decision of taking a life should always be difficult.
No offense taken and I understand what you're getting at. But the fact that different being have different capacity to suffer, feel emotion, form complex emotional relationships with their experience is a fact. Beings have different brains, drastically different neurophysiology. Don't get me wrong, I in no way mean this as the lower beings are somehow less valuable... I'm just saying that the suffering of a bug is not the same as a cow, etc, so it should not be viewed as the same.
I don't mean the difficulty in taking life itself, I mean the difficulty in being able to discern which would be 'worse' to kill. You would not have the same difficulty killing a bug as you would a human.
But if you take a moment to read what I have written. Then do you not realize that according to your own resoning the most harmless way to act might indeed be not to eat vegetarian but to eat organic meat?
There is no need to choose between eating grain and eating meat. If you do not want the cows, pigs, and chicken to suffer for your pleasure in eating them, you replace meat with other protein sources. If you then realize that you don't want the mice in the grain fields to be killed for your grain, you could consider replacing grain with other sources of fiber and starch. I see no relation between these two choices.
Should I not choose the path inflicting least pain and suffering to the fewest possible living beings? I thinks that was the meaning of your example?
I think so, yes. But a more modest goal would be to take advantage (when you can) of simple ways to avoid suffering. The meaning of my example was to hint that in this case, there is a simple and (depending on your criteria) "better" way to feed yourself.
Patrul Rinpoche taught in his Lamrim treatise Kunzang Lama'i Shalung (Words of My Perfect Teacher) that the suffering of all beings are equal. There is no way to stop contributing to the suffering of other beings even when we breathe. We can only be aware and take the attitude of gratefulness towards the food we eat. And to empathize with all the beings who suffered to put the meal in front of us, from the tiny bug to the largest cow to the people who packed our food and got injured in the process.
I don't eat food that is sprayed with pesticides. I only eat organic food.
Still you do understand that farmers kill bugs in various ways even in organic cultivations knowingly? So the argument still holds.
The argument was never valid to begin with. It never did hold and still doesn't.
So what is the alternative, to not eat grain? Come on man, be reasonable...
No of course not. The resonable thing to do is to know that it is impossible for us to know which path, veg vs meat diet, is the most costly in terms of suffering and death.
Nope, it is possible to know this. A modern day meat diet is the most costly.
You mean that it is less horrible that mice get killed by poisen or traps than this handeling? Or that bugs gets killed in traps that slowly kills them.
Just because people do not make a youtube movie of them dying? Again probably because people like cows better than bugs.
"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.
"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in."
You think there is no difference between tending and harvesting a grain field and operating a slaughterhouse? The Buddha says they are different and you say they aren't? Come on now. Why is business in meat wrong livelihood and business in grains and vegetables not wrong livelihood? The answer: They aren't the same thing, not even close.
Because I know what is logical and not logical and it's quite easy to tell if someone is being logical or not, simply by looking at what they say.
I think your reasoning thus far is so far removed from the concept of logic that I really do not think you know the meaning of the word or its application.
Ditto
Yes, I repeat myself because you conveniently and repeatedly ignore what is reasonable, without even addressing the fact that you are making a strawman.
I am always resonable and logical.
No, you aren't.
I am sorry for you that you lack the ability to see it. Think of it this way. If my use of reasoning or logic or both is flawed then it should be pretty easy to refute what I am saying. But so far you have failed.
You wish.
Instead you just go on and on about the Strawman and in the process making one yourself. Did you get that turn?
I got the turn of you ignoring what I have said, yes I got that.
We are Borg, Resistance is Futile, You will be assimilated. /Victor
I'm not a vegetation (yet) I am however a pescetarian. For me personally I know I couldn't kill a cow, pig or chicken myself. So why should I make someone else kill an animal for me the consumer? Basically i go by "If you can't kill it yourself, then don't eat it" but that's just me. I have killed fish before though, so i know I can kill them if i wanted too. Doesn't make it right, but at least I'm half way there to being a vegetarian. Small simple steps is what it takes to get there. I haven't ate land meat in over 4 months now, which is the longest in my life!
I have a pug which actually motivates me in his own little ways to stay away from meat. I herd somewhere that pigs are more intelligent than dogs, and I wouldn't like my puggy to be eaten! So I wouldn't like animals either.
Yes I got that. Please be concrete. Eat what exactly?
No offense taken and I understand what you're getting at. But the fact that different being have different capacity to suffer, feel emotion, form complex emotional relationships with their experience is a fact. Beings have different brains, drastically different neurophysiology. Don't get me wrong, I in no way mean this as the lower beings are somehow less valuable... I'm just saying that the suffering of a bug is not the same as a cow, etc, so it should not be viewed as the same.
Objectively there is no value difference. That is Anatta.
Subjectively seen from human perspective what you say might be true. But how do you think the cow feels about it? If somebody told you Wolfgang Amadeus had a different capacity to suffer, feel emotion, form complex emotional relationships with his experience than you. Because he is a more refined human specimen. And therefore his suffering is not comparable to your own? What would you say?
I don't mean the difficulty in taking life itself, I mean the difficulty in being able to discern which would be 'worse' to kill. You would not have the same difficulty killing a bug as you would a human.
I see. Sorry I misunderstood. I think being more specific will put the light on the crux.
killing a ladybug vs killing HHDL.
killing a ladybug vs killing a maffia boss.
I would feel much worse killing a bug than executing an evil man.
Now take killing a ladybug vs killing a random man.
How do I know what he is? A HHDL or a mafia boss?
If I only cared for myself and the decision did not effect me then there would be no difference killing a bug vs killing a human.
Only subjectivley in relation what it is worth to oneself can we say that it is easier to kill a bug compared to killing a human being.
There is no value other than that humans assign to things. That too is Anatta.
The argument was never valid to begin with. It never did hold and still doesn't.
YES IT DOES!
Nope, it is possible to know this. A modern day meat diet is the most costly.
Alright. Lets see you prove it!
You think there is no difference between tending and harvesting a grain field and operating a slaughterhouse? The Buddha says they are different and you say they aren't? Come on now. Why is business in meat wrong livelihood and business in grains and vegetables not wrong livelihood? The answer: They aren't the same thing, not even close.
I really have no idea what you are going on about. I have never said being a buther is equal to being a grainfarmer in Buddhism. I have never said the Buddha did not teach this difference.
And although Buddha made this difference he did eat meat. You know that dont you?
Do you know why? How do you explain that?
Ditto
Snappy comeback!
Yes, I repeat myself because you conveniently and repeatedly ignore what is reasonable, without even addressing the fact that you are making a strawman.
How exactly would you know since you can not even identify what is reasonable?
We are Borg, Resistance is Futile, You will be assimilated. /Victor
Nonsensical rubbish.
Not at all that is what the Borg say right before they assimalate lower lifeforms into their collective.
The argument was never valid to begin with. It never did hold and still doesn't.
YES IT DOES!
NO IT DOESN'T!
Nope, it is possible to know this. A modern day meat diet is the most costly.
Alright. Lets see you prove it!
You made the claim that vegetarians are hypocrites. This is what I'm responding to. The burden of proof is on you and you have failed in showing that. The idea that vegetarians are hypocrites is complete and total nonsense. I have already explained why, but you refuse to acknowledge it. How convenient that is for you...
You think there is no difference between tending and harvesting a grain field and operating a slaughterhouse? The Buddha says they are different and you say they aren't? Come on now. Why is business in meat wrong livelihood and business in grains and vegetables not wrong livelihood? The answer: They aren't the same thing, not even close.
I really have no idea what you are going on about.
Seems to be a reoccurring trend here. That is correct. You have no idea what I'm talking about.
I have never said being a buther is equal to being a grainfarmer in Buddhism. I have never said the Buddha did not teach this difference.
Yet you keep asking what is the difference between grain diet and meat diet as if there is no difference, which there clearly is. The fact that business in meat is wrong livelihood is proof of this. Business in meat is unethical. Business in grains is not.
Ditto
Snappy comeback!
Thanks!
Yes, I repeat myself because you conveniently and repeatedly ignore what is reasonable, without even addressing the fact that you are making a strawman.
How exactly would you know since you can not even identify what is reasonable?
I identify your argument that vegetarians are hypocrites to be unreasonable and I am correct. That idea is nothing but nonsensical rubbish.
We are Borg, Resistance is Futile, You will be assimilated. /Victor
Nonsensical rubbish.
Not at all that is what the Borg say right before they assimalate lower lifeforms into their collective.
.
Yes, too bad you have already been assimilated in to the collective. And it's too bad the collective has an IQ 40 points below average.
If somebody told you Wolfgang Amadeus had a different capacity to suffer, feel emotion, form complex emotional relationships with his experience than you.
Because he is a more refined human specimen. And therefore his suffering is not comparable to your own? What would you say?
i dont think this is an accurate comparison to use because mozart is a human and other than some areas in whatever 'music' centers are in the brain, his brain and basic capacity for experience of reality are no different than mine. you're talking about the ability to refine an already existing area of experience. what im talking about is completely different capacity for experiences, not different experiences within the same capacity.
i understand the value in and appreciate what you're saying, especially about anatta. i'm not necessarily talking about assigning some dogmatic system of value to nonhuman beings, but more the idea of the karmic impact being skillful or unskillful.
I would feel much worse killing a bug than executing an evil man.
i could be wrong, but i think upon execution you would feel differently about this.
a human being cant float through existence with a completely objective view on everything, especially the gradation that is inherent on moral issues. my understanding is that in the Buddha's explanation of karma gradation does exist and is relevant.
philosophical intricacies aside, i think what this boils down to is:
for a householder who has the reasonable ability to do so, its is the better choice from the Buddhist perspective to eat a vegetarian diet.
I can't see anything wrong with eating meat. It's part of the natural order of things. Animals eat other animals to survive. More so then that, our bodies are designed to be omnivorous. We need essential nutrients we get only from meat based sources.
That being said I think it is very important to consider where your meat comes from. Person is extremely right when talking about the terrible conditions that most modern factory farms have. I would suggest just trying to buy organic wherever possible if you can. You can even research the company that you bought it from to see if they truly do respect they're product. The internet is an amazing thing!
Lastly I think Jeffrey's mention of taking a day or week or what have you to devote to mindfully consider the idea of vegetarianism is a great idea! I had never heard of or considered this before, but I think I may work it in to my practice to take a day or so out and meditate on how thankful I am to our animal friends for allowing me to go on living.
It may be natural for animals to eat each other, but humans (who I don't consider animals) have the ability to overcome ignorance and are not bound by instincts, so we are able to prevent, or at least minimize the suffering of other beings. A human can get all the vitamins, minerals and amino acids he requires from plant based sources. It is true that plants are living things and we must at least take their lives if we want to survive, but I don't believe that they can feel pain. It's possible that they could, but to me abstaining from meat greatly reduces the amount of suffering that I cause to other beings.
With love
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
...but I don't believe that they can feel pain.
Do you mean physical pain or emotional pain? Stick a knife in a pitbull's hindquarters and see what happens. If you mean emotional I think it varies upon the species. Anyone who has a dog or cat can tell you that they have emotions.
Do you mean physical pain or emotional pain? Stick a knife in a pitbull's hindquarters and see what happens. If you mean emotional I think it varies upon the species. Anyone who has a dog or cat can tell you that they have emotions.
Sorry I suppose I was unclear in my post. I was referring to plants when I said I don't believe they can feel pain. I don't have any doubt that animals feel pain
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
...but I don't believe that they can feel pain.
Do you mean physical pain or emotional pain? Stick a knife in a pitbull's hindquarters and see what happens. If you mean emotional I think it varies upon the species. Anyone who has a dog or cat can tell you that they have emotions.
Sorry I suppose I was unclear in my post. I was referring to plants when I said I don't believe they can feel pain. I don't have any doubt that animals feel pain
Oh sorry, no I think I'm the one who misunderstood looking back on your post now.
I was doing a little research on the topic today for a research paper I'm writing. Vegetarianism is obviously not required to practice Buddhism, but I have come to the conclusion that it is necessary to attain enlightenment. Here's a site I found that has some good info, great quotes from the man himself
Ive been vegan for awhile. Not because of my practice mandates it, but because animals dont belong in cages. period. There are alot of misconceptions and lies generated about the woes of not eating meat. I suggest you research the topic before making any decisions. And remember when reading "studies and research", follow where the money leads. Ask yourself "who benifits from this?" If its not you, and its a corporation, I would be cautious about that information. Look at the demographics when it comes to heart desease, and cancer compared to the demographics of eating meat.
I would suggest just trying to buy organic wherever possible if you can.
There is overwelming evidence in the US that this is a VERY poorly regulated system.
Exactly this. I'm vegan and it's one of the best things I ever did. And while I'm not vegan because of Buddhism, how much good karma does it generate contributing to an industry which normalises cruelty and violence? Think about it.
Ive been vegan for awhile. Not because of my practice mandates it, but because animals dont belong in cages. period. There are alot of misconceptions and lies generated about the woes of not eating meat. I suggest you research the topic before making any decisions. And remember when reading "studies and research", follow where the money leads. Ask yourself "who benifits from this?" If its not you, and its a corporation, I would be cautious about that information. Look at the demographics when it comes to heart desease, and cancer compared to the demographics of eating meat.
I would suggest just trying to buy organic wherever possible if you can.
There is overwelming evidence in the US that this is a VERY poorly regulated system.
Exactly this. I'm vegan and it's one of the best things I ever did. And while I'm not vegan because of Buddhism, how much good karma does it generate contributing to an industry which normalises cruelty and violence? Think about it.
"As long as you think about being paid for being good, that is not good... goodness doesn't pay." - D.T. Suzuki
Most Buddhists who eat meat don't see the butcher as falling under this rule because the specific animal has not been killed specifically for you. Or more correctly, because you have not asked specifically for that animal to be killed. I, however, find this to be an incorrect interpretation and kind of along the lines of having a mercenary murder someone and thinking you are not guilty of murder ... Kind of a 'loop-hole' that has opened up in light of a system of food distribution that did not exist in the Buddhas time.
the way I view it is that the animal was killed, specifically for the 'consuming public'... and you, by purchasing, make yourself part of that consuming public therefor directly contributing to the death of animals. the animal was not slaughtered specifically for you by name, but it was slaughtered specifically for you as a consumer who is choosing to buy the meat. therefor I would assume that buying meat in a market does make it 'suspected to have been killed on purpose for you'.
I agree with your reasoning here. If we buy meat in a supermarket we are causing more animals to be killed to satisfy our demand. It's also worth observing that trade in animals and butchery are considered to be wrong livelihood, so if we buy meat we are expecting somebody else to break precepts which as Buddhists we presumably consider to be important.
And again you understand that myriads of living beings occupy the land the farmer runs his plough through? From Mice to rats to insects and worms and microbs? You do understand that disregarding microbes millions of living beings are killed throught the process of preperation of the land to the harvets of the crop? not to talk about the pestisied needed and used even on ecological farms?
Now the error you are making is that you thing a Cows life is worth more than a bugs.
Yes, growing crops destroys life. But feeding those crops to animals and then killing those animals for food detroys even more life - and is also a very inefficient way of feeding people.
So eating meat means killing more creatures and it means more starving people.
Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
(verse 1 of the Dhammapada)
In Buddhism, the "rightness" of an action is defined by the mindstates that are involved. If you kill an insect by accident, for example by stepping on it, this is not a negative action. Because there was no intention of "killing".
Killing is not considered immoral in Buddhism because of the physical act of killing or because of the suffering of the victim, but because of the mindstate that is involved in the act. The negative intention is what will lead to suffering for the killer. So accidently killing insects when harvesting crops is in no way immoral. The same goes for indirectly causing starvation by your eating habits... In these cases there is no harmful intention involved.
In the same way, eating meat in itself is not an "evil" action. It is the mindstates involved in intentionally killing beings, desiring for meat, or indulging in food, that are immoral.
But probably not all Buddhists will agree with this...
Comments
Saying you are compassionate to all beings, and then paying some guy to kill one for you, in a manner where it suffers greatly, so you can eat it's dead body, "cause it taste good", is what is hypocrisy!
You do understand where potatoes comes from? No seeker not from the grocerystore try again.
You do understand that Farmers Farm the land that used to be habitat for other living beings? Robbing them and from it and maybe even killing of a large number of them?
And again you understand that myriads of living beings occupy the land the farmer runs his plough through? From Mice to rats to insects and worms and microbs? You do understand that disregarding microbes millions of living beings are killed throught the process of preperation of the land to the harvets of the crop? not to talk about the pestisied needed and used even on ecological farms?
Have you considered how the fertilizers end up in streams and lakes and seriously change and harm the ecology there? killing and harming living beings in the process
Have you considered the transports of grain and how they harm our global ecology? killing and harming living beings in the process
Now the error you are making is that you thing a Cows life is worth more than a bugs.
You might think that and the cow might think that but certainly not the bug and most definately not me.
Typical western arrogance.
Mind you I am not saying it is better to kill a cow. But I am not closing my eyes on the fact that all food production causes pain in living beings and kills living beings. And I do not persume to know so much about other beings perspective to judge who is worse off.
Cheers
/Victor
It's about what is skillful. Is it more skillful to kill 2000 mice (in a 10 times larger grain field), then feed the grains to a cow, and then kill the cow so that the taste of meat can be enjoyed, or more skillful to kill 200 mice in a grain field and then eat the grain?
You haven't lived until you have grilled up some 'meat' grown in a laboratory!
Sounds like a valid point...but of course the Cow does not eat grain exclusiveley but is fed on grass too. I do not know but i imagine they are mostly fed on grass? I guess some of them are fed exclusively on organic grass and hay.
So according to your reasoning it would be better to eat the meat of a cow grown on organic grass than eat grain from a field where thousands/millions of bugs were chemically killed?
Is it the number of killed beings that is important according to you?
How do you recon? and how do you count the lives forfeit to raise an elk or raindeer?
The reality is much more complex than statistics. And any ho that was not really my point.
To me the value of my child is worth more than the lifes of countless others.
All beings want to live. When trying to survive we will inadvertantly kill and harm other living creatures. How can we say it is ok to ignore the pain of even one idividual that gets hurt by us? Thats what I mean by "Tell it to the mice".
How do we measure the impact of our actions and say it is better to kill this living being than that one? Or this one living being than those ten thousand?
Is it even possible?
/Victor
If you raise cattle and are a buddhist you are the cows only connection to the dharma and think how wonderful it is if you can care for the cow, well carefully.
Not if you eat the raindeer.
How so? You do not think the farmer applying pesticides know he is killing the bugs? Or you think it is ok because you let someone else do the killing for you? Still the mice die and you know the mice are going to die because you buy grain.
You think the mice is going to feel better about it because you did not mean to kill them. Repeatedly every time you do your shopping? And the same applies to buying potatoes. You give someone money to kill the mice for you. What exactly is the difference?
Hrm. Tell me seeker how is it that you know what people think?
Do you know what "repeating youself like a broken record" is? If you do not then do not bother to look it up just go back and examine your posts because that is what you have being doing the last few of them.
/Victor
Instead of pondering over this type of question, I think it makes more sense to realize that we don't want other beings to suffer. Then, if not eating meat is a small effort that avoids a lot of suffering, you just act in accordance to this wish.
Your reasoning implied that not mine. So I feel a bit confused now.
Should I not choose the path inflicting least pain and suffering to the fewest possible living beings? I thinks that was the meaning of your example?
/Victor
/Victor
for the beings involved but moreso for oneself karmically. that really is the issue here, is eating meat from a modern meat production system going to go against the intrinsic moral laws of the universe and accumulate unskillful karma that is going to make our progress towards liberation more difficult.
forgetting karma, even if just viewed from the point of how much suffering you are causing a living being to experience... the argument still holds.
I think it is better to argue for Vegitarianism out of a global perspective saying that ecologically and energyconservatively it is better to choose a veg diet. Look here, I think these are pretty convincing arguments:
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/meat-and-environment.aspx You mean that it is less horrible that mice get killed by poisen or traps than this handeling? Or that bugs gets killed in traps that slowly kills them.
Just because people do not make a youtube movie of them dying?
Again probably because people like cows better than bugs.
I think your reasoning thus far is so far removed from the concept of logic that I really do not think you know the meaning of the word or its application.
I am always resonable and logical. I am sorry for you that you lack the ability to see it.
Think of it this way. If my use of reasoning or logic or both is flawed then it should be pretty easy to refute what I am saying. But so far you have failed.
Instead you just go on and on about the Strawman and in the process making one yourself. Did you get that turn?
We are Borg, Resistance is Futile, You will be assimilated.
/Victor
Again how do you weigh that? That is the question I am asking in my previous posts.
/Victor
I think also something that keeps coming up is that beings suffer equally, and I don't believe this is true. There is a certain order to beings, and their capacity to suffer. Simple differences in the brain, emotions, consciousness etc make for a drastically different interpretation and relationship to things like physical pain and emotional pain. Poisoning a bug is not the same as keeping a cow alive for years on end in some horrendous situation. a bugs capacity to suffer is different than a mouses capacity is different than a cows capacity is different than a humans capacity.
I've heard the 'equalness of beings' argument made before and I think most people play that simply as a devils advocate. if you had a bug, mouse, cow and human lines up and were forced to kill one... the decision would not be very difficult.
This is what I call human arrogance. No offence meant. But I get really angry when I hear this kind of reasoning. It is IMO made by people who shy away from reality because they are too afraid too see the truth. I am sorry that you feel that way. Because the decision of taking a life should always be difficult.
/Victor
No offense taken and I understand what you're getting at. But the fact that different being have different capacity to suffer, feel emotion, form complex emotional relationships with their experience is a fact. Beings have different brains, drastically different neurophysiology. Don't get me wrong, I in no way mean this as the lower beings are somehow less valuable... I'm just saying that the suffering of a bug is not the same as a cow, etc, so it should not be viewed as the same.
I don't mean the difficulty in taking life itself, I mean the difficulty in being able to discern which would be 'worse' to kill. You would not have the same difficulty killing a bug as you would a human.
I have a pug which actually motivates me in his own little ways to stay away from meat. I herd somewhere that pigs are more intelligent than dogs, and I wouldn't like my puggy to be eaten! So I wouldn't like animals either.
Objectively there is no value difference. That is Anatta.
Subjectively seen from human perspective what you say might be true. But how do you think the cow feels about it? If somebody told you Wolfgang Amadeus had a different capacity to suffer, feel emotion, form complex emotional relationships with his experience than you. Because he is a more refined human specimen. And therefore his suffering is not comparable to your own? What would you say? I see. Sorry I misunderstood. I think being more specific will put the light on the crux.
killing a ladybug vs killing HHDL.
killing a ladybug vs killing a maffia boss.
I would feel much worse killing a bug than executing an evil man.
Now take killing a ladybug vs killing a random man.
How do I know what he is? A HHDL or a mafia boss?
If I only cared for myself and the decision did not effect me then there would be no difference killing a bug vs killing a human.
Only subjectivley in relation what it is worth to oneself can we say that it is easier to kill a bug compared to killing a human being.
There is no value other than that humans assign to things. That too is Anatta.
/Victor
Alright. Lets see you prove it! I really have no idea what you are going on about.
I have never said being a buther is equal to being a grainfarmer in Buddhism.
I have never said the Buddha did not teach this difference.
And although Buddha made this difference he did eat meat. You know that dont you?
Do you know why? How do you explain that?
Snappy comeback! How exactly would you know since you can not even identify what is reasonable?
/Victor
i dont think this is an accurate comparison to use because mozart is a human and other than some areas in whatever 'music' centers are in the brain, his brain and basic capacity for experience of reality are no different than mine. you're talking about the ability to refine an already existing area of experience. what im talking about is completely different capacity for experiences, not different experiences within the same capacity.
i understand the value in and appreciate what you're saying, especially about anatta. i'm not necessarily talking about assigning some dogmatic system of value to nonhuman beings, but more the idea of the karmic impact being skillful or unskillful.
i could be wrong, but i think upon execution you would feel differently about this.
a human being cant float through existence with a completely objective view on everything, especially the gradation that is inherent on moral issues. my understanding is that in the Buddha's explanation of karma gradation does exist and is relevant.
philosophical intricacies aside, i think what this boils down to is:
for a householder who has the reasonable ability to do so, its is the better choice from the Buddhist perspective to eat a vegetarian diet.
With love
http://moonpointer.com/essays/vege.htm
With love
It's also worth observing that trade in animals and butchery are considered to be wrong livelihood, so if we buy meat we are expecting somebody else to break precepts which as Buddhists we presumably consider to be important.
So eating meat means killing more creatures and it means more starving people.
In Buddhism, the "rightness" of an action is defined by the mindstates that are involved. If you kill an insect by accident, for example by stepping on it, this is not a negative action. Because there was no intention of "killing".
Killing is not considered immoral in Buddhism because of the physical act of killing or because of the suffering of the victim, but because of the mindstate that is involved in the act. The negative intention is what will lead to suffering for the killer. So accidently killing insects when harvesting crops is in no way immoral. The same goes for indirectly causing starvation by your eating habits... In these cases there is no harmful intention involved.
In the same way, eating meat in itself is not an "evil" action. It is the mindstates involved in intentionally killing beings, desiring for meat, or indulging in food, that are immoral.
But probably not all Buddhists will agree with this...