Why Veganism/Vegetarianism Is Always An Aspiration That Cannot Be Fully Realised.
Citta
Veteran
Why ?
Nematodes.
First a look at sentience..sentience is generally characterised as being possessed by animals ( so not plants ) which reproduce sexually..which excludes bacteria and yeasts etc . And who avoid painful stimuli.
Meet Mr and Mrs Nematode.
Nematodes are small animals that look like worms , but are in fact a separate phylum.
They reproduce sexually. They avoid pain. The larger species are easily visible to the naked eye.
They share most of the characteristics of earthworms.. which most Buddhists would avoid impaling on a fishing hook.
And they live in ALL living tissue.
Every apple, every orange, every cabbage, every bean, every grain of rice, every stalk of wheat.
One Professor of Biology talking about their ubiquitousness said that if you imagine an orchard, and remove all of the vegetable matter the shape of that orchard would remain like a ghost formed from the shapes of the nematodes that inhabit the trees , leaves, and fruit.
If you cook vegetables or rice, the nematodes die. If you eat raw fruit or vegetables the nematodes die under your teeth or in your stomach acid..
So. a diet which does not involve the death directly of sentient beings is not an option.
All we can do is make an individual decision concerning which sentient beings form part of our diet..and which do not.
Which is why Shakyamuni Buddha did not make a non- vegetarian diet a deal breaker.
Comments
Noooooooo!!! Oh well thanks for that dream squash
No I can imagine you could take anything to the extreme to refute it.
seems like that happens a lot here with all these educated folks! It's great.
And in mountainous regions like Tibet , I don't see vast fertile pastures are an option for them.
It then comes down to the individual, if your intentions are pure then.
Thanks @Citta
Exactly so @Earthninja.
All we can do is our best, according to our consciences after reflection.
The Buddha in his wisdom refused to be drawn to the dietary practices of his contemporary Mahavira, the founder of Jainism.
The point of the thread is not to suggest to a committed vegetarian or vegan that they should proceed to their nearest McDonalds..
Its to point out that causing harm by diet is not an absolute, its a spectrum, and a spectrum whose lower end does not start at nought..
Though the 3-fold rule was clearly aimed at preventing the unecessary slaughter of animals, and the spirit of the rule is clearly about minimising harm. It's the same spirit involved in developing Right Intention.
But of course we all do we what can. I think sometimes people rationalise meat-eating because they are actually quite attached to it and really don't want to give it up.
I can only take responsibilty for my own decisions Norman, and respect that others are making theirs in good faith.
I've read somewhere, it is better to eat meat and be aware than to eat vegetables and be lost in thought.
OK, but how is that relevant to the discussion?
I would think that it is absolutely central to the discussion. Its the whole point of the thread.
Though that begs the question, if one were really aware would one be eating meat?
Whatever we do has a consequence:
Perhaps looking through these words, may help....
We can of course, add our own...
Not long ago I sat in the same room as HH the Dalai Lama while he tucked into a chicken leg.
Of course his criteria and yours about awareness might differ.
Veganism: noun "a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose."
If you don't change the definition of veganism to something that it isn't, then it easily can be fully realized.
But of course, if you change the definition to something impossible and then argue that it can't be accomplished. That is by definition called "making a strawman"
You need to read the thread title again. It clearly states that veganism can never be more than an aspiration.
" As far as possible and practicable " is aspirational.
The fact that can never be more than what is 'possible and practicable ' does not deny its validity as an aspiration.
Actually, I read the title. The title is based on an incorrect definition of veganism to begin with. Veganism does not mean "100% no harm" and it never did to begin with. To try to imply that veganism means "100% no harm" is an incorrect implication.
It clearly is using a wrong definition as the basis for the statement.
Read it again. It contains no definition of Veganism.
You introduced that. In order to oppose a definition that no one else had referenced.
I know! That's the problem with it... It clearly says "veganism can not be fully realized." Using the correct definition of veganism, yes, it can.
No it doesn't . Read it again.
It says that the aspiration cannot be fully realised.. not the same thing at all.
I spend some of my working month most months preparing documents that are scrutinised during court procedures in response for requests for Mental Health assessments.
I have learned to be very precise in my use of words.
You are producing a definition of Veganism which no one asked for, and which ironically also sees Veganism as an aspiration rather than as an absolute just as my OP does..
And you risk being hoist with your own petard by using a modern secular definition, gleaned presumably from a Vegan online source, in response to Hsuan Hua's highly NON secular interpretation of a ' Sutra ' of doubtful provenance which speaks in terms of absolutes.
Eating and killing nematodes is already 100% vegan to begin with. So, it is an aspiration that can be fully realized. The full realization of the aspiration of veganism happens simultaneously along with the activity of eating and killing nematodes. The existence of nematodes everywhere does not produce a situation where the "aspiration cannot be fully realized". Why? Because eating and killing nematodes is already 100% vegan to begin with.
Hang on... killing nematodes , which are sentient beings which avoid pain ( and so have a nervous system of some kind ) and which reproduce sexually, thus fulfilling two of the criteria which defines sentient life is VEGAN ?
In that case so are shrimps. The definition of sentience does not include ubiquitousness.
So shrimps are vegan if nematodes are.
Yes! Because it's impossible to avoid. Since veganism means "doing what is possible", yes, killing and eating nematodes is 100% vegan.
But no, eating shrimp is not vegan because it's possible to avoid eating shrimp.
seeker242 " Doing what is possible " is aspirational..
Which is what I said some posts back.
Doing what is possible is both aspirational and sensible.
Although eating nematodes is certainly not Vegan, they are animals.
So the most we can say is that eating some animals is consistent with some definitions of Veganism.
But that is not what Master Hua is saying...he is saying, and you have quoted it yourself..that eating meat leads to hell states. No ifs, no buts, no discussion of what is ' possible.'
You are conflating a secular and a 'religious' argument. The first definition deals with what is pragmatic. The second with absolutes.
Exactly the same two views present themselves when talking of a response to infestation.
There is probably no apple which is free of nematodes.
There were probably no old large decrepit houses in the UK at an affordable price which were free of rats.
Why, those sneaky bastards, eh?
This place is starting to piss me off, lol!
Not this forum, the universe as a whole.
Saw this on the news this morning:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/governments-kill-of-4-million-animals-seen-as-an-overstep/2014/06/06/1de0c550-ecc4-11e3-b98c-72cef4a00499_story.html
For those of us in the US, it seems that this is also on our hands, for no doubt purchasing items from these farmers and ranchers and for which they want the animals killed to protect their profit (that we provide). Unless of course you are lucky enough to be able to provide 100% of your own food. I wish!
It IS Samsara after all @ourself..
Yes it is! The only way it wouldn't be is if veganism is some kind of extreme absolute. Which, by it's own definition, isn't.
I have to agree with @seeker242 here. If the definition of veganism is to reasonably avoid eating living organisms, and yet we know every food item basically includes organisms, the only option for a vegan would be to starve to death...which of course is not reasonable.
My point is as stated in the OP that as it is impossible to avoid eating animals, the only option left to us is to decide which animals we eat and which not.
It is not an option to eat none.
Nematodes are not simply organisms like bacteria or yeasts.
They are animals.
That being the case it behoves us to use our own judgement in the matter.
A Jain-like ' purity ' is not an option.
Not even for Jains, it transpires. Although they did not know that when their dietary rules were formulated.
We are all thrown together in Samsara, doing the best we can.
If...that is one modern definition.
What do you mean by that?
There you go again, debating how to debate. It adds nothing to your position.
I can't really think of many things that have ONLY 1 precise definition. That's not the way language works. I just looked up veganism + definition and found a dozen definitions, all similar, but most distinctly different. Language is about human interpretation. And different people and different cultures define terms differently.
Darn!
I prefer to use the definition from the UK Vegan society, those are the people who literally invented the word to begin with. The people who invented the word, get to say what the definition is.
Like I said before, addressing faulty reasoning...is how you debate! It's not supposed to "add to my position". It's a pointing out of faulty reasoning of the other.
BUT THIS ISN'T A DEBATE!!
"Why Veganism/Vegetarianism Is Always An Aspiration That Cannot Be Fully Realised."
It's a discursive thread on how difficult it is to define veganism! A debate has neither been invited, nor suggested!
It's not difficult to define! It written in black and white right on the website of the UK vegan society. It means exactly what it says.
This was the OP. Nothing to do with definitions of veganism.
The point was the literal impossibility of considering ourselves to be 'pure' and free from the interdependent nature of Samsara.
Which does not mean that we shouldnt do what we can to lessen the harm that we do.
Oh I think @Citta, if you are going to use a word like Veganism, there must be a definition one can refer to...
... \ lol / ...
Well believe or not @anataman when I launched my humble musings onto the ether I didn't expect WW3..
Montaigne said that words belong half to the speaker and half to the hearer.
...and providing everyone accepts that every speaker and every hearer will say or interpret things differently, that's ok.
I try to strike a common sense balance, and figure to me, Vegan is a person who strives to remove or at least greatly lessen the intentional and informed use of foods and products made by or from animals.
I understand that the definition provided was from the UK Vegan society (or whichever the exact name was) but as I am not a Brit, if I were a Vegan, would it be the most likely source for me to go to?
As is everything related to what we put into, or do, with our bodies, it's an extremely individual thing, and literally impossible to come to a consensus on what it means for the entirely of the human race.
I don't disagree with any of that @karasti.
It wasn't what I posted about, but that's what the discussion became.
I have always found nematodes disturbing. When you see them crawling in the flesh of another - yes it can be very disturbing indeed, only seen it a couple of times mind you, but that was enough; stomach churning. Eating them! - I'm going to be an ascetic from now on (gag reflex kicking in!), flushing toilet!
@Citta
Why Veganism/Vegetarianism Is Always An Aspiration That Cannot Be Fully Realised.
Because they are a journey, not a destination.
I don't agree with the central premise. Nematodes, though highly proliferative, do not exist in ALL living tissue.
One of the signs that Buddhism is in the age of decline.
.
.
.
Buddhists being evangelically adversarial to other Buddhists over food purity.
I'll have a side order of nematodes with my nematodes.
Nvm I need to read more and type less.
I hope nobody will use this as an excuse to eat whatever meat they want... Buddhism doesn't exactly teach to watch your step for every ant that crosses below you, but if you can, try not to kill it.
Yeah cause that stuff ain't even food at all
...