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.
@ethera... I have known good hearted people who eat meat, and corrupt people who are vegetarian.... A vegetarian moral superiority that casts a pall over non-vegetrians for their general impurity is not a part of Buddhism IMHO.
Defining/Identifying ourselves with our habits or is not very free indeed. as in "I'm a vegetarian" "I'm an artist" "I'm a doctor" "I'm a guy" "I'm a buddhist" etc...
using labels to describe ourselves or our habits/actions is perfectly fine however.
now back to the subject
Agree! I don't tell people I am a buddhist as it is just another label IMO.
What about the animals that die in the process of planting, harvest and processing corn, vegetables and fruits? Those ain't friends?
Those aren't killed intentionally. But in any case, Buddhism is all about the middle path - one can't just give up eating altogether because some sentient being may be unintentionally harmed, just like how one shouldn't just eat every animal possible.
But Vegetarism or Veganism not a declared Buddhist practice.
It is to some schools of Buddhism (mainly Chinese and Vietnamese I've noticed), based on their interpretations of sutras.
Isn't it funny, in a weird creepy kind or way, that someone won't eat a shark or lion because they are their "friends," even though the shark or lion would eat them, yet this same person will eat all manner of living things from a less related kingdom, the plant kingdom, even though a sprout would never do them harm. Plants are the enemy? lol
Not really. Plants just don't scream out in pain when you cut them with a knife. As plants are not considered "sentient beings". Additionally, if you did not eat anything from the animal kingdom or the plant kingdom, you would most likely be committing suicide because you would probably die of starvation thereby violating the first precept against killing by killing yourself.
What about the animals that die in the process of planting, harvest and processing corn, vegetables and fruits? Those ain't friends?
Vegetarism or Veganism is not bad. But Vegetarism or Veganism not a declared Buddhist practice.
Have a good look at the Jīvakasuttaṃ, Majjhima Nikaya 55.
Metta&Peace, MIrco
Yes they are friends. However, please see the above comment about suicide. There is a big difference between unintended killing and intended killing. This is the reason why business in meat is considered "wrong livelihood" in the Pali Canon and business in corn, vegetables, etc. is not.
As far as vegetarianism not being declared a Buddhist practice. That depends entirely on what kind of Buddhism you are talking about. For many Mahayana sects, it is very much a declared practice and it is expressly forbidden to eat meat. It is considered to be a precepts violation. It is a violation of the 3rd of the 48 secondary precepts listed in the Brama Net Sutra.
3. On Eating Meat
A disciple of the Buddha must not deliberately eat meat. He should not eat the flesh of any sentient being. The meat-eater forfeits the seed of Great Compassion, severs the seed of the Buddha Nature and causes [animals and transcendental] beings to avoid him. Those who do so are guilty of countless offenses. Therefore, Bodhisattvas should not eat the flesh of any sentient beings whatsoever. If instead, he deliberately eats meat, he commits a secondary offense.http://www.ymba.org/bns/bnsframe.htm
It is also listed as a wrong act in the nirvana Sutra.
"One who eats meat kills the seed of great compassion... O Kasyapa! I, from now on, tell my disciples to refrain from eating any kind of meat. O Kasyapa! When one eats meat, this gives out the smell of meat while one is walking, standing, sitting or reclining. People smell this and become fearful. This is as when one comes near a lion. One sees and smells the lion, and fear arises. O good man! When one eats garlic, the dirty smell is unbearable. Other people notice it. They smell the bad smell. They leave that person and go away. Even from far off, people hate to see such a person. They will not come near him. It is the same with one who eats meat. It is a similar situation with all people who, on smelling the meat, become afraid and entertain the thought of death. All living things in the water, on land and in the sky desert such a person and run away. They say that this person is their enemy. Hence the Bodhisattva does not eat meat."
This is why millions of monks in China, Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, etc. and the temples they belong to are all expressly vegetarian. Monks in most of these traditions are required to decline an offering of meat if someone offered it to them. (which they don't because most everyone knows they are vegetarian already, but anyway) Even bringing meat onto the grounds of a Korean temple is expressly forbidden.
This Buddhist is concerned with the well-being of the individual animal. That's fine, but this is not the same thing as being concerned with the well-being of an entire ecosystem, and in fact the health of a natural system often demands individual animals must suffer, including ourselves.
Sometimes this is a self-defeating limitation. An example. There is a lake in Tibet where last year and at the direction of one of their famous Lamas, a million or so fish were "rescued" from the market and released into this lake. It was celebrated as a great act of compassion because of the many fish lives they had saved. Ecologists tried to point out this would have a devastating effect on the lake's ecology since it couldn't support such a population in the system and the attitude was, the individual animal's lives were more important than the health of the lake. http://thelostyak.com/2012/01/07/fish-liberation/
This attitude extends to ecological efforts to restore balance in other ecosystems. In Florida, pythons released or escaped from their owners are decimating the everglades. Do we consider them all our friends and let them wipe out all the native species? As far as food goes, if people all stopped eating beef, would that help out the cows? Without a market, millions of cows would be slaughtered. Turning them loose would decimate the remaining grasslands since the vast plains that once supported Buffalo by the millions are now paved over. How's that for a moral dilemma?
But suppose we try a hard and fast rule that the health of the system always trumps the life of the individual? That way leads to eugenics and forced sterilization and in China, they were slammed for trying to force people to have less babies. So we gotta be careful there, too.
No real side here for me to come down on. Just lots of issues to wrestle with.
I think there is just a disconnect between what people mean as friends. I love animals, I treat them with kindness and respect whenever possible. If I can, I try to save them from harm. I enjoy seeing them, I talk kindly to them, I give them their space. But to say I am friends with them is different to me. Friends are people (and in some cases animals, like our dog) I spent time with, where there is mutual sharing of...something, whether it be time, feelings, whatever. Not necessarily equal, but mutual. Spending time with wild animals who need their space gets you, and most likely them, in trouble.
This is how I see it (which is very different than how others do, no doubt): A person who treats animals kindly, even equally, and respects them, runs into a bear or wolf in the woods. This is where you stop, stand back, watch and give the animal it's space to carry on it's wild ways. When I think of someone who is a friend of all animals, I see them trying to offer food to the animal, approach it, etc. As someone else said, this causes more harm to many animals than it does good. Often it seems like the best thing to do to feed them. i struggle with this every fall when food is short. However, I also know feeding wild animals (of certain types) conditions them to trust people for food, and then they approach the wrong person, or too many people, and they are killed. It is them my fault that animal died because I trained it to go to people for food. Not a good thing. Being a friend of the animals and the wilderness means knowing the risks and not just doing what makes you feel good. Sometimes doing the right/best thing for them, is the hardest thing to do for yourself-leave them alone.
This Buddhist is concerned with the well-being of the individual animal. That's fine, but this is not the same thing as being concerned with the well-being of an entire ecosystem, and in fact the health of a natural system often demands individual animals must suffer, including ourselves.
Sometimes this is a self-defeating limitation. An example. There is a lake in Tibet where last year and at the direction of one of their famous Lamas, a million or so fish were "rescued" from the market and released into this lake. It was celebrated as a great act of compassion because of the many fish lives they had saved. Ecologists tried to point out this would have a devastating effect on the lake's ecology since it couldn't support such a population in the system and the attitude was, the individual animal's lives were more important than the health of the lake. http://thelostyak.com/2012/01/07/fish-liberation/
This attitude extends to ecological efforts to restore balance in other ecosystems. In Florida, pythons released or escaped from their owners are decimating the everglades. Do we consider them all our friends and let them wipe out all the native species? As far as food goes, if people all stopped eating beef, would that help out the cows? Without a market, millions of cows would be slaughtered. Turning them loose would decimate the remaining grasslands since the vast plains that once supported Buffalo by the millions are now paved over. How's that for a moral dilemma?
But suppose we try a hard and fast rule that the health of the system always trumps the life of the individual? That way leads to eugenics and forced sterilization and in China, they were slammed for trying to force people to have less babies. So we gotta be careful there, too.
No real side here for me to come down on. Just lots of issues to wrestle with.
Good post and one of the few in this thread that has tried to look at the various issues critically.
Of course, one can use wide variety of definitions for "friend", but I settle on the definition of "a person whom one knows and with whom one has a bond of mutual affection". With the exception of my parrots (and not all of them), a couple of cats when I was young, and an occasional dog, most animals don't fit that definition. The vast majority of people don't fit that definition. I don't think the friend comment is a valid reason to be, or not be a vegetarian.
That's not to say that being a vegetarian is not a good thing. It's up to the individual and the way that the mindful individual sees the issues.
The few on this forum who constantly harp on this issue...well, you are just attempting to force your moral views on others...you know...sort of like evangelical Christians.
Isn't it funny, in a weird creepy kind or way, that someone won't eat a shark or lion because they are their "friends," even though the shark or lion would eat them, yet this same person will eat all manner of living things from a less related kingdom, the plant kingdom, even though a sprout would never do them harm. Plants are the enemy? lol
Not really. Plants just don't scream out in pain when you cut them with a knife. As plants are not considered "sentient beings". Additionally, if you did not eat anything from the animal kingdom or the plant kingdom, you would most likely be committing suicide because you would probably die of starvation thereby violating the first precept against killing by killing yourself.
Not criticizing vegetarianism, as many have pointed out there are a lot of good reasons for being vegetarian. It's just that saying you're vegetarian because you don't eat your friends is rather lame. It's really just as base as eating flesh simply because you like the taste of it, if not more so. Consider that plants are living things and they struggle for survival just as we do. Yes, they don't scream or think like we do but why should that matter? Is it that they are not our "friends" because they are not enough like us and animals are our friends because we are in the same kingdom?
There is that video on youtube I still have not watched of "Dalai Lama kills mosquito"... I kind of steered away ever clicking on that as I get the sense that the only reason someone would put something like that up online if it did happen in the video is to make him look bad.
You'll be happy to know the Dalai Lama does not kill a mosquito in this video - there's no mosquito in the video, and it's pretty clear he refers to flicking a mosquito away, not killing it.
He says that if a mosquito lands on his arm, if he's feeling patient he lets it stay there for a while to have some of his blood. If the mosquito comes back a second time, he might [demonstrates blowing air on it ] to get it to leave. If the mosquito comes back a third time, he might [demonstrates flicking it away].
Isn't it funny, in a weird creepy kind or way, that someone won't eat a shark or lion because they are their "friends," even though the shark or lion would eat them, yet this same person will eat all manner of living things from a less related kingdom, the plant kingdom, even though a sprout would never do them harm. Plants are the enemy? lol
Not really. Plants just don't scream out in pain when you cut them with a knife. As plants are not considered "sentient beings". Additionally, if you did not eat anything from the animal kingdom or the plant kingdom, you would most likely be committing suicide because you would probably die of starvation thereby violating the first precept against killing by killing yourself.
Not criticizing vegetarianism, as many have pointed out there are a lot of good reasons for being vegetarian. It's just that saying you're vegetarian because you don't eat your friends is rather lame. It's really just as base as eating flesh simply because you like the taste of it, if not more so.
My opinion on that. Nothing could be further from the truth. Killing a carrot to eat it, is not a precepts violation, violating the precept against non-killing. The same can not be said for a pig or a cow. Killing a cow to eat it, is a precepts violation, violating the precept against non-killing. Even Theravada monks, who are not even required to be vegetarians, are forbidden from killing a pig or cow (or any other animal) to eat it. They are even forbidden from accepting or eating meat when it is "known, heard or suspected" that it was killed for them. They are only permitted to eat meat when it is "not known, not heard or not suspected" that the animal was killed for them. There are no such restrictions for plants. There is a reason for this!
From the perspective of Buddhist teachings, in nearly every school of Buddhism that has ever existed, killing a carrot is VERY different from killing cow or some other animal. To say they are the same thing is contrary to the majority, if not all, Buddhist teachings on the subject. Of course you can believe whatever you want, but this is what Buddhism teaches.
Isn't it funny, in a weird creepy kind or way, that someone won't eat a shark or lion because they are their "friends," even though the shark or lion would eat them, yet this same person will eat all manner of living things from a less related kingdom, the plant kingdom, even though a sprout would never do them harm. Plants are the enemy? lol
Not really. Plants just don't scream out in pain when you cut them with a knife. As plants are not considered "sentient beings". Additionally, if you did not eat anything from the animal kingdom or the plant kingdom, you would most likely be committing suicide because you would probably die of starvation thereby violating the first precept against killing by killing yourself.
Not criticizing vegetarianism, as many have pointed out there are a lot of good reasons for being vegetarian. It's just that saying you're vegetarian because you don't eat your friends is rather lame. It's really just as base as eating flesh simply because you like the taste of it, if not more so.
My opinion on that. Nothing could be further from the truth. Killing a carrot to eat it, is not a precepts violation, violating the precept against non-killing. The same can not be said for a pig or a cow. Killing a cow to eat it, is a precepts violation, violating the precept against non-killing. Even Theravada monks, who are not even required to be vegetarians, are forbidden from killing a pig or cow (or any other animal) to eat it. They are even forbidden from accepting or eating meat when it is "known, heard or suspected" that it was killed for them. They are only permitted to eat meat when it is "not known, not heard or not suspected" that the animal was killed for them. There are no such restrictions for plants. There is a reason for this!
From the perspective of Buddhist teachings, in nearly every school of Buddhism that has ever existed, killing a carrot is VERY different from killing cow or some other animal. To say they are the same thing is contrary to the majority, if not all, Buddhist teachings on the subject. Of course you can believe whatever you want, but this is what Buddhism teaches.
I'm not making myself clear apparently. My criticism only concerns the 'reasoning' that someone's a vegetarian because they don't eat their friends.
I'm not making myself clear apparently. My criticism only concerns the 'reasoning' that someone's a vegetarian because they don't eat their friends.
It's not based on "reasoning",
Agreed.
it's based on compassion, sympathy and empathy for fellow sentient beings who suffer.
And because other living things are too different, call them the 'non-sentients', they are not friends and we can kill them without hesitation, aye? Truth is our compassion, sympathy and empathy can extend to the plant kingdom, and even beyond that, if not limited to our "friends."
So, to feeling fine with what you kill and eat, is better no consider any other living being that could be dangerous like a friend?
It may be wise to not consider dangerous beings as friends, yes, because they are dangerous. Would you leave a small child alone with a hungry wolf pack? Probably not, right?
What do you think makes a friend a friend and an enemy an enemy? A good part of it has to do with how related we are, and that's why Palmo considers animals friends, and apparently considers plants enemies. Animals are a closer relation, apparently.
Other human also can hurt me or kill me. So we can eat other humans? That sound creepiest to me.
Yes, that is very creepy.
If we follow that reasoning then never will make any friend, human included. Human is the most dangerous animal IMHO.
I'm not making myself clear apparently. My criticism only concerns the 'reasoning' that someone's a vegetarian because they don't eat their friends.
It's not based on "reasoning",
Agreed.
it's based on compassion, sympathy and empathy for fellow sentient beings who suffer.
And because other living things are too different, call them the 'non-sentients', they are not friends and we can kill them without hesitation, aye? Truth is our compassion, sympathy and empathy can extend to the plant kingdom, and even beyond that, if not limited to our "friends."
Please see the earlier suicide comments. Not eating plants is completely and totally nonsensical. Plants are friends too, but do you really think it's appropriate to commit suicide by not eating them? Come on man! Be reasonable! As soon as you hear a carrot scream out in pain, or see a potato running for it's life, then I will take the comparison seriously. Because, to be honest, it's completely and totally unreasonable. It's downright ridiculous even!
that said, plants actually can, and do communicate. I'm not in any way saying we shouldn't eat anything, of course. Just sayin', more and more evidence abounds that plants communicate with each other. Just because we don't understand their communication doesn't mean they don't do it. And sometimes they are just reacting to the world around them out of necessity. A pea vine curls around my finger the same way a bird's talons do. Again, not comparing the 2 things, I just find it interesting to learn more about plants.
Yep, plants are not only a resource to spend. Also are living beings and deserve some respect. But we need survive. So what we do is try to make the less damage posible, we try to be friendly with other living beings. We don't eat animals so less plants are destroyed. Is try to do the best without sacrifice ourself.
One meaning of friendship is: "The tendency to desire what is best for the other." That is why we said that others living beings are our friends, because we feel compassion for them.
It may be wise to not consider dangerous beings as friends, yes, because they are dangerous. Would you leave a small child alone with a hungry wolf pack? Probably not, right?
We can love a hungry tiger, but we’d better love it from a safe distance. That’s a quote that stuck with me. I believe it is from Ajahn Brahm.
I don’t think it’s easy to explain. I suppose love (or friendship) is not a sentimental thing, not at stupid and self-destructive crucify me. Love can be more realistic. For instance, I love my partner but that doesn’t mean I think she’s always making the right decisions or something, I don’t think she’s perfect in that sense. But she’s perfect the way she is.
It also helps in a discussion when you talk about things that are actually relevant to it. But, I guess that why they call it "trolling". You should stop trolling now. Really
It also helps in a discussion when you talk about things that are actually relevant to it. But, I guess that why they call it "trolling". You should stop trolling now. Really
Alright, let try reason and logic. Didn't you say plants are not sentient? If they're not sentient how can you have a friendship with them? Is the computer your using right now, which is not sentient, also your friend? or is it that everything is your friend?
You don't seem very friendly towards me, by the way, accusing me of trolling when I'm just kidding around a little.
Try not eating plant or animals for about 2 weeks. Let us know how it works out! Sounds pretty reasonable... Like I said, please stop trolling the thread now.
Try not eating plant or animals for about 2 weeks. Let us know how it works out! Sounds pretty reasonable... Like I said, please stop trolling the thread now.
If you don't want to discuss it further that's fine, Seeker. There's no need to get defensive and accusatory. We're all friends here.
It gets old hearing the "kidding around" for the 1,000th time... Especially when it takes the thread completely off topic, as it always does. It's really not appreciated. If you would like to discuss not eating plants, you are free to make a new discussion about it! This discussion is not about that.
When someone says they "don't eat their friends" I just assume they are just trying to encourage people to look at what they eat. There is no attempt to define what is a friend or what isn't because that isn't really the point. Someone is just trying to get folks to be compassionate about their choices and at least here it got some air time..
quick comment on the idea of trolling: the idea of trolling is essentially that a troll is hiding under a bridge and will jump out to hassle you and not let you get where you want to go, right so far? Here's the problem with that as far as both Buddhism and the internet go: there is no space under the bridge to jump out from under and there is no troll either.... because its ALL bridge, really. you funny little bridges.....
When someone says they "don't eat their friends" I just assume they are just trying to encourage people to look at what they eat.
Yes of course, like something an ad agency would put out. Well, not all ad campaigns are winners and if whoever came up with that slogan was serious maybe they should have hired an agency.
When someone says they "don't eat their friends" I just assume they are just trying to encourage people to look at what they eat.
Yes of course, like something an ad agency would put out. Well, not all ad campaigns are winners and if whoever came up with that slogan was serious maybe they should have hired an agency.
Any ad agency would look at the results of the OP and say that they were spectacular. An ad does not have to work on everyone to be successful. It simply has to attract an audience and some percentage will buy the product. So far this OP has kept your interest for several days and along with many others has made it one of the most frequented threads this week.
When someone says they "don't eat their friends" I just assume they are just trying to encourage people to look at what they eat.
Yes of course, like something an ad agency would put out. Well, not all ad campaigns are winners and if whoever came up with that slogan was serious maybe they should have hired an agency.
Any ad agency would look at the results of the OP and say that they were spectacular. An ad does not have to work on everyone to be successful. It simply has to attract an audience and some percentage will buy the product. So far this OP has kept your interest for several days and along with many others has made it one of the most frequented threads this week.
Hi Robot,
An agency measures success by sales or other means depending on the intended purpose for the campaign. For instance, if the purpose for a campaign like this were to increase vegetarianism a decrease in the sale of meat products would be a desirable outcome and could indicate success. A few people discussing the campaign in an online forum only shows that its received some attention. Getting attention does not necessarily support the desired outcome of an ad campaign. A poorly conceived campaign may only serve to make those responsible for it appear less credible.
True, but so far the respondents who hold the view that the OP is unsuccessful are in the minority.(you)
Hold on, I don't know if the intended purpose is successful or not. I assume that the purpose is generally to promote vegetarianism, which I believe is a good purpose, btw, but I don't even know if that's the real purpose.
I believe the tactic is poorly conceived and ultimately not influential, if only because it is so obviously a tactic. Just like someone who puts on a fake smile and pretends to be your friend. The insincerity of it is off-putting. Things like that can't be faked and the result is a feeling of distrust.
But what about you? If you weren't already a vegetarian did this influence you to become vegetarian?
No, it did not. I kill fish for a living. They are my friends. I need them and hope for their success. I am their enemy. If I drown, some of them will feast on my corpse. But I agree with the sentiment, in that it will undoubtedly resonate with some people and help them to overcome what they may see as a problem of craving for meat. Have you ever talked to a Jehova's Witness? Or read their material? That stuff doesn't work for me, but they have had success with it for a hundred years. And many have had better lives for it. Same with AA. Not for everyone but you can't argue with it's success.
But I agree with the sentiment, in that it will undoubtedly resonate with some people and help them to overcome what they may see as a problem of craving for meat.
Or maybe it's poorly conceived and has little if any real influential capacity. Perhaps a more honest approach would be more effective, aye?
But I agree with the sentiment, in that it will undoubtedly resonate with some people and help them to overcome what they may see as a problem of craving for meat.
Or maybe it's poorly conceived and has little if any real influential capacity. Perhaps a more honest approach would be more effective, aye?
Sure. A different approach will work for some people. Different strokes. That's why the Buddha made 80,000 teachings.
Comments
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.063.than.html
Vegetarism or Veganism is not bad.
But Vegetarism or Veganism not a declared Buddhist practice.
Have a good look at the Jīvakasuttaṃ, Majjhima Nikaya 55.
Metta&Peace,
MIrco
As far as vegetarianism not being declared a Buddhist practice. That depends entirely on what kind of Buddhism you are talking about. For many Mahayana sects, it is very much a declared practice and it is expressly forbidden to eat meat. It is considered to be a precepts violation. It is a violation of the 3rd of the 48 secondary precepts listed in the Brama Net Sutra.
3. On Eating Meat
A disciple of the Buddha must not deliberately eat meat. He should not eat the flesh of any sentient being. The meat-eater forfeits the seed of Great Compassion, severs the seed of the Buddha Nature and causes [animals and transcendental] beings to avoid him. Those who do so are guilty of countless offenses. Therefore, Bodhisattvas should not eat the flesh of any sentient beings whatsoever. If instead, he deliberately eats meat, he commits a secondary offense.http://www.ymba.org/bns/bnsframe.htm
It is also listed as a wrong act in the nirvana Sutra.
"One who eats meat kills the seed of great compassion... O Kasyapa! I, from now on, tell my disciples to refrain from eating any kind of meat. O Kasyapa! When one eats meat, this gives out the smell of meat while one is walking, standing, sitting or reclining. People smell this and become fearful. This is as when one comes near a lion. One sees and smells the lion, and fear arises. O good man! When one eats garlic, the dirty smell is unbearable. Other people notice it. They smell the bad smell. They leave that person and go away. Even from far off, people hate to see such a person. They will not come near him. It is the same with one who eats meat. It is a similar situation with all people who, on smelling the meat, become afraid and entertain the thought of death. All living things in the water, on land and in the sky desert such a person and run away. They say that this person is their enemy. Hence the Bodhisattva does not eat meat."
This is why millions of monks in China, Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, etc. and the temples they belong to are all expressly vegetarian. Monks in most of these traditions are required to decline an offering of meat if someone offered it to them. (which they don't because most everyone knows they are vegetarian already, but anyway) Even bringing meat onto the grounds of a Korean temple is expressly forbidden.
Theravada obviously has a different view.
Sometimes this is a self-defeating limitation. An example. There is a lake in Tibet where last year and at the direction of one of their famous Lamas, a million or so fish were "rescued" from the market and released into this lake. It was celebrated as a great act of compassion because of the many fish lives they had saved. Ecologists tried to point out this would have a devastating effect on the lake's ecology since it couldn't support such a population in the system and the attitude was, the individual animal's lives were more important than the health of the lake. http://thelostyak.com/2012/01/07/fish-liberation/
This attitude extends to ecological efforts to restore balance in other ecosystems. In Florida, pythons released or escaped from their owners are decimating the everglades. Do we consider them all our friends and let them wipe out all the native species? As far as food goes, if people all stopped eating beef, would that help out the cows? Without a market, millions of cows would be slaughtered. Turning them loose would decimate the remaining grasslands since the vast plains that once supported Buffalo by the millions are now paved over. How's that for a moral dilemma?
But suppose we try a hard and fast rule that the health of the system always trumps the life of the individual? That way leads to eugenics and forced sterilization and in China, they were slammed for trying to force people to have less babies. So we gotta be careful there, too.
No real side here for me to come down on. Just lots of issues to wrestle with.
This is how I see it (which is very different than how others do, no doubt): A person who treats animals kindly, even equally, and respects them, runs into a bear or wolf in the woods. This is where you stop, stand back, watch and give the animal it's space to carry on it's wild ways. When I think of someone who is a friend of all animals, I see them trying to offer food to the animal, approach it, etc. As someone else said, this causes more harm to many animals than it does good. Often it seems like the best thing to do to feed them. i struggle with this every fall when food is short. However, I also know feeding wild animals (of certain types) conditions them to trust people for food, and then they approach the wrong person, or too many people, and they are killed. It is them my fault that animal died because I trained it to go to people for food. Not a good thing. Being a friend of the animals and the wilderness means knowing the risks and not just doing what makes you feel good. Sometimes doing the right/best thing for them, is the hardest thing to do for yourself-leave them alone.
Of course, one can use wide variety of definitions for "friend", but I settle on the definition of "a person whom one knows and with whom one has a bond of mutual affection". With the exception of my parrots (and not all of them), a couple of cats when I was young, and an occasional dog, most animals don't fit that definition. The vast majority of people don't fit that definition. I don't think the friend comment is a valid reason to be, or not be a vegetarian.
That's not to say that being a vegetarian is not a good thing. It's up to the individual and the way that the mindful individual sees the issues.
The few on this forum who constantly harp on this issue...well, you are just attempting to force your moral views on others...you know...sort of like evangelical Christians.
He says that if a mosquito lands on his arm, if he's feeling patient he lets it stay there for a while to have some of his blood. If the mosquito comes back a second time, he might [demonstrates blowing air on it ] to get it to leave. If the mosquito comes back a third time, he might [demonstrates flicking it away].
From the perspective of Buddhist teachings, in nearly every school of Buddhism that has ever existed, killing a carrot is VERY different from killing cow or some other animal. To say they are the same thing is contrary to the majority, if not all, Buddhist teachings on the subject. Of course you can believe whatever you want, but this is what Buddhism teaches.
And the only enemy is oneself.
that said, plants actually can, and do communicate. I'm not in any way saying we shouldn't eat anything, of course. Just sayin', more and more evidence abounds that plants communicate with each other. Just because we don't understand their communication doesn't mean they don't do it. And sometimes they are just reacting to the world around them out of necessity. A pea vine curls around my finger the same way a bird's talons do. Again, not comparing the 2 things, I just find it interesting to learn more about plants.
But we need survive. So what we do is try to make the less damage posible, we try to be friendly with other living beings. We don't eat animals so less plants are destroyed. Is try to do the best without sacrifice ourself.
One meaning of friendship is: "The tendency to desire what is best for the other."
That is why we said that others living beings are our friends, because we feel compassion for them.
I don’t think it’s easy to explain.
I suppose love (or friendship) is not a sentimental thing, not at stupid and self-destructive crucify me. Love can be more realistic. For instance, I love my partner but that doesn’t mean I think she’s always making the right decisions or something, I don’t think she’s perfect in that sense. But she’s perfect the way she is.
Life is complicated.
Oh you misunderstood.
The honour was make happy a friend
You don't seem very friendly towards me, by the way, accusing me of trolling when I'm just kidding around a little.
There is no attempt to define what is a friend or what isn't because that isn't really the point. Someone is just trying to get folks to be compassionate about their choices and at least here it got some air time..
the idea of trolling is essentially that a troll is hiding under a bridge and will jump out to hassle you and not let you get where you want to go, right so far? Here's the problem with that as far as both Buddhism and the internet go: there is no space under the bridge to jump out from under and there is no troll either.... because its ALL bridge, really. you funny little bridges.....
An agency measures success by sales or other means depending on the intended purpose for the campaign. For instance, if the purpose for a campaign like this were to increase vegetarianism a decrease in the sale of meat products would be a desirable outcome and could indicate success. A few people discussing the campaign in an online forum only shows that its received some attention. Getting attention does not necessarily support the desired outcome of an ad campaign. A poorly conceived campaign may only serve to make those responsible for it appear less credible.
I believe the tactic is poorly conceived and ultimately not influential, if only because it is so obviously a tactic. Just like someone who puts on a fake smile and pretends to be your friend. The insincerity of it is off-putting. Things like that can't be faked and the result is a feeling of distrust.
But what about you? If you weren't already a vegetarian did this influence you to become vegetarian?
But I agree with the sentiment, in that it will undoubtedly resonate with some people and help them to overcome what they may see as a problem of craving for meat.
Have you ever talked to a Jehova's Witness? Or read their material?
That stuff doesn't work for me, but they have had success with it for a hundred years. And many have had better lives for it.
Same with AA. Not for everyone but you can't argue with it's success.
That's why the Buddha made 80,000 teachings.