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.
Why Veganism/Vegetarianism Is Always An Aspiration That Cannot Be Fully Realised.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I'm sure I've probably already posted most of this here at some point, but I thought I'd share (or reshare) some of my thoughts on this topic for whomever may be interested.
In Theravada, vegetarianism isn't a requirement. The Buddha himself rejected Devadatta's demand to institute vegetarianism as a requirement. Moreover, he never said that simply eating meat in and of itself is unwholesome (akusala). However, one of the underlying questions that I think is so hotly being debated is, Does that mean that purchasing meat is the same as purchasing produce? My answer is no.
Essentially, the meat that one purchases from the grocery store must come from an animal that's been deliberately killed by someone. whereas the same cannot be said about the fruits and vegetables that one purchases from the grocery store. Fruits and vegetables aren't sentient beings, and harvesting them doesn't automatically entail the intentional killing of any sentient beings. If any sentient beings are killed in the harvesting of a fruit or vegetable, it's conceivable that it was accidental rather than deliberate.
In the case of meat, that's not the case. The animal must almost always be deliberately killed by someone. It's true that purchasing meat from the grocery store doesn't entail the kamma of killing for the purchaser; however, a well-informed practitioner should be aware that an animal has to be deliberately killed at some point for that meat to be available. Abstaining from eating meat doesn't free one from the web of killing and death, but it's hard to argue against the fact that doing so would at least help by not directly contributing to the meat industry that's built around the raising and killing of animals specifically for their flesh.
The way I see it, no source of food is 100% free from harming sentient beings, but the consumer does have the power to limit the amount of harm done. This can be achieved in many ways, e.g., not buying meat or at least buying meat from farmers and companies who treat their animals more humanely, buying eggs from farmers and companies who allow their hens to roam freely, buying produce from farmers and companies who don't use any pesticides, etc. So the consumer isn't entirely powerless. They can have an effect on how many animals are killed, the manner of their deaths, and/or how they're treated in general, as well as the amount of pesticide-free produce that are sold, etc.
When going to the super market, for example, that particular store most likely keeps a record of all purchases and uses that information towards influencing store policy. Theoretically, if the the majority of consumers cease buying meat, the demand for meat will go down and less animals will need to be killed in order to meet the demand. In addition, if the majority of consumers who do purchase meat and dairy products purchase them from farmers and companies who treat and kill the animals in a more humane fashion, other companies will naturally follow suit due to the potential profit of such business practices. The same holds true for the kind of produce we buy. In a capitalist society, money is the greatest impetus for change pure and simple.
All of this ties into to the idea of personal responsibility and how far we, as individuals, wish to be socially active in regard to our Buddhist beliefs and practices. It's a personal choice that we each must make. For some, purchasing meat is perfectly acceptable to them since they know that the animal has been killed by another person. But for others, the purchasing of meat might not seem so acceptable when they consider things such as what meat is and how it gets to the store.
Therefore, while I completely agree that in regard to the first precept the Buddha taught about personal responsibility in the form of regulating our own actions of body, speech, and mind, that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to where our food comes from. Doesn't that also fall within the realm of personal responsibility? Hence, while I agree that vegetarianism isn't a requirement, I do think that it's at least a compassionate option for Buddhists to adopt, and one that I encourage even though there's nothing in Theravada that states this lifestyle choice is necessary or even preferred.
Just to be clear, however, I am not trying to demonize meat eating or the meat industry because that's a pointless crusade. As I said, abstaining from eating meat doesn't free one from the web of killing and death, even though it may admittedly lessen the demand for the former. Killing and death are awful facts of samsara that have the potential to arise because there are sentient beings whose minds are defiled by greed, hatred, and delusion, and the fact that all beings subsist on food. Besides purifying our minds and removing ourselves from the cycle of birth and death altogether, there are worldly solutions to these problems, but these solutions can merely limit the potential harm to other sentient beings at best.
In essence, besides escaping samsara, there are no perfect solutions. On top of that, condemning or demonizing another for their complicity means that we should also condemn and demonize ourselves as well. If we want to, we can find reasons to demonize internet usage. I doubt that most people are aware of how many birds are killed each year by microwave towers, but one could reason that every person who surfs the web or sends out an e-mail contributes to those deaths. Shall we cease to use the internet then?
My point is that choosing to be more socially active in our respective practices is an admirable thing to do. Nevertheless, we should never forget the very nature of samsara. In his introduction to The Four Nutriments of Life: An Anthology of Buddhist Texts, Nyanaponika Thera echoes:
As for myself, I've ran the gamut. I used to just eat whatever. Then I became a strict vegetarian for a short time for ethical/personal reasons. Afterwards I practiced eating meat only when offered by others for much the same reasons as given in this story offered by Phra Dhammanando on DhammaWheel. Nowadays, I'm back to being a vegetarian due to ethical reasons and a promise I made to myself after my mom became ill.
Yes, there's a moral element to this, and I think it's worth being conscious of the fact that we, as a society, intentionally harm countless other beings for our sustenance, even when other options are available. But my choice to not eat meat isn't meant as an attack on those who do. I don't think my vegetarianism makes me a better Buddhist than others, for instance, although I do find that it lightens my own mind whenever I reflect on the fact that I strive to practice ahimsa (harmelessness) as broadly as possible. Ultimately, though, more important than what we eat is how we eat, I think. The goal of the holy life is to free ourselves from greed, hatred, and delusion, after all; it's not meant for us to cling to one particular practice over another. Our choices, no matter what they are, should be carefully guiding us towards liberation. But in my experience, that's often easier said than done.
There have been times, for example, where I'd eat whatever, thinking I was being dispassionate about food, but realizing later that I really enjoyed eating meat and I wasn't truly being dispassionate about what I was eating but simply being less strict with my vegetarianism so I could eat a steak or some sushi every now and then. At the time, of course, I thought my intentions were purely wholesome; but later I noticed my wholesome intentions were being overshadowed by my craving. It was a good lesson about how easy it is for me to deceive myself about my intentions, though, which is why I think the Buddha stressed honesty so much.
I still struggle with that kind of honesty in all aspects of my life, but I've found that it's at least gotten easier for me to notice when I'm trying to fool myself. I'm not saying everyone who eats meat or whatever is fooling themselves, only that I found my desire for meat to be a good teacher about how my own mind works.
Like I said before, it probably falls under the fallacy of relevance, one of the three main groupings of logical fallacies, probably the fallacy of assumption as well. Here's a rephrase,
The assertion that "since there is no way to exist without hurting something, we can then morally be absolved in killing (and eat according to what is culturally comfortable for us.)"
This is a real argument @chaz, a very common one and you know it. In fact, it may be implied by the op in this very thread. It is obviously fallacious because at it's base it assumes that some amount of negative being inevitable somehow negates any effort to minimize what can be minimized...and again, I can't reiterate this enough, this is a very very common argument, one worth addressing, especially in a thread where it is basically the topic.
Is this making sense to anyone or do I need to break it down even more?
All I'm saying is, when it comes down to it, most common arguments for being carnivorous are based at their core on very spurious reasoning. As a matter of fact, there is really only one worthwhile avenue to argue the morality of human meat eating: and that is to assert that animals are too stupid to feel much pain and loss from torture and imminent death. And of course that route of argument is also fraught with peril, as one will find if they choose to pursue it with me.
It would be interesting to find the root cause of such widespread hysterical delusion (in reference to irrational arguments regarding moral impunity regarding harm to living beings). Perhaps it would shed light on people's justifications for other immoral activities, such as: "well people get raped all the time, so it's ok if I rape people" and the classic " disease and natural disaster kills lots of people so it's totally cool to go ahead and kill a few folks" and finally, " there's a bunch of trash on the side of the road, and my little bit of trash won't be distinguished as separate from it, so what the hell, I guess that makes it ok, I'll just toss it out the window".
Yes but you cannot survive without some kind of food. So even eating vegetables you are causing harm.
So rape is not a good example, because you don't have to rape anyone whatsoever whereas you do have to harm sentient beings in order to eat. I'm curious, but do vegetarians wear leather clothing? Just curious on that matter.
You know what? I actually do....Shoes, handbags... (Being Italian, that is in and of itself, certainly not rare....)
I'm not sure what to say about that....
Yeah I wear leather also. Shoes and belts.
But it still falls within the fallacy of of Straw Man, wherein you appear to be creating an argument for the sole purpose of supporting your asserion.
I don't believe anyone in the discussion is making that specific argument. That's different that some unknown persons making the argument. The latter is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
You also present a moral component that may not be shared by everyone and in so doing, condemn those who do not share your opinion as immoral. Again this is irrelevant, not to mention unfair and could be viewed as a speccies of of the appeal to authority argument although you present no bonafide authorty to rest you argument upon.
See how much fun debate is? ;-)
That assumes an imperative that doesn't truly exist. There is nothing incumbent on us to act on any moral cunundrum.
IOW, I don't have to do anything with regards to the suffering of beings. In addition I can choose my actions based on whatever criteria suits me, and not yours.
Yes, I think you are trying to impose a moral standard.
It makes sense. That doesn't mean it's a valid position.
Again,, you pass judgement on those who don't share your reasoning.
Is that your intention?
I don't think anyone's making that argument, so that, too is a strawman.
>
I don't really care what route of argument is adopted; if by 'fraught with peril' you mean you intend to elevate the argument to a position of hostility, you will get very short shrift from me whether I happen to agree with you or not.
You can take whatever stance you want. But step out of line and start throwing your weight about, and you'll find yourself on the front porch with your coat and a sleeping bag and the front door slammed behind you.
I personally don't eat meat with any sort of moral argument set in my mind. I know it causes harm. I do my best to reduce the harm to what degree I can, and I accept any and all responsibility for my karma as a result. There are a lot of reasons for my choice, and I certainly don't feel a need to justify my choice every minute of the day. You are free to disagree with my choices without knowing myself, my family, what meat we eat or where we get it from or why. But I am also free to disagree with your choice to purchase Morningstar Farms fake meat products from Walmart due to their business practices and the energy that goes into making and transporting morningstar products. Not to mention Morningstar is owned by Kellogg company who certainly as a company does not practice ethical practices or farming, either. So, every choice has a cost. Which is why it's up to each of us to determine which ones are acceptable to us.
I think this is a very important point.
More important than the "moral" consequences of diet choice is the karmic ones.
We do what we can. We do it within a framework of karmic disposition. We can't do much about that, but we can realize it, and accept our responsibility.
I have no illusions that my next life will be anything but that of an intestinal parasite. I'm ok with that. I'm at peace with why that is. I have a prolem with being told, even indirectly, that my life is immoral soley because of what I choose to eat. I've done FAR worse things.....
I would say 'care to share'.... but this is a family show....!
.
@Jason summed up most of my feelings on the topic more eloquently (and better referenced) than I could ever dream to. Being 100% serious here, Jason, have you ever thought about writing a book? Books written by monks are great, but I do sometimes feel that the lay life can be much more challenging to fit Buddhist ideals into. It's a great perspective that I think a lot of people struggle with and your insight is usually invaluable on this board. If you ever chose to, I would definitely buy your book.
Thanks, @zombiegirl. I appreciate the kind words, but I'm not sure I'm up to writing a book of any sort. And even if I did, I doubt many people would bother to read it. I probably even wouldn't.
I like the idea of a book written from the perspective of lay life, though. Maybe that's something a bunch of us could do together, writing a chapter or two about the practice of Buddhism from our own experience.
Now there's an idea.... from the little acorn.....
It may be inferred by the reader of the OP but it was not implied @oceancaldera207.
The op's implication was that in this sphere..and in many others all we can do is be aware of nuances.
That Right Action may not have its basis in absolutes.
That in samsara, absolute purity is a pursuit that we can leave to the Jains and Hindus.
That the object of Buddhadharma is to transcend samsara..not to "cure" it.
Today, FB suggested a group to me. It's open, so I looked at it. YIKES. Even as lively as our Buddhist discussions get on this topic, it's nothing like what you'll see on the "Vegans vs Meat Eaters Open Debate" Facebook group. Wowza. We do pretty well staying civil in comparison
It became a banned topic on E Sangha @karasti..along with the " Real Karmapa " debate.
And that was a forum which normally encouraged a dust-up.
Even on Dhamma Wheel some of the mods move pretty quickly when the usual suspects start in.
No names, no pack drill.. as my ancient and venerable Papa used to say.
There was a maniac poster on Dhamma Wheel recently - a rabid carnivore, who blamed every vegetarian on the planet for every ill that has befallen mankind since records began.
Funny guy.... If only he had made a modicum of sense, members might have taken him more seriously.
As it was, he was (as you might imagine) really torn into.... by both Vegies and omnies, I might add.
Tru dat and for good reason.
I don't think I've ever seen a discussion like this ever truly get anywhere. They invariably fall into a question of morality and that spells the end.
Better I think to never go that road, even if there has to a rule prohibiting such discussions.
@karasti,
I think a lot of confusion in this thread is due to misunderstanding what we mean by "moral argument", and this has made participating in this thread really frustrating for me (remind myself to stay out of these threads, as I usually do). When you say that you do your best to reduce the harm, for me that IS a moral argument, and it's a valid thing to say in this discussion. So it's quite likely that we actually agree. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that it's okay to slap people around the face with moral arguments, that was not my intention (although it can happen, because it's a sensitive subject, and it's also frustrating for me that so few people feel motivated to end factory farming. I know I can't change them, and like I said, I usually don't participate in these discussions at all, and I will probably abstain for the next years again).
Now that I'm venting my frustration a bit anyway, it's also frustrating that when someone misunderstands me, they suggest that perhaps I believe that meat eaters are immoral. I know you don't do this on purpose, and I hope you don't see this as an attack on you (it's not), but I would appreciate if people would give me the benefit of the doubt and ask me a bit more what I mean before making such a suggestion. Many of my friends eat meat, and more than one has told me they were surprised that I was never negative towards them about it. It's because I don't see them as different as me. The difference in choice is really a superficial one, not one rooted in having a deeply different mindset, or being on different levels of compassion. In fact, I have often wondered how it can be that many people who I consider to be much more compassionate then I am, can tell me that they think that not eating meat is admirable, yet don't make the choice to not eat meat. I'm sure that if they visited a factory farm, they would not be able to eat meat for at least a week, because of their compassion.
I think, certainly on your final sentence, regarding 'factory farming' that you have a valid point.
Two things:
My parents, when they lived in Italy, (my father has since died, as many of you know) used to employ a lovely woman who came and 'did' for them... cleaner-cum-housekeeper, and she became a very good friend. My parents helped the whole family adjust to life in Italy (they were Hungarian) and their 3 children went on to do amazing things, study-wise.
Their middle son took up a part-time job one summer, and went to work in an abattoir.
He lasted a week and became a steadfast vegetarian as a result.
This was 10 years ago, and he still speaks of the experience, with aversion.
Second point: I actually believe that if we really did have to find, hunt, catch, and kill all our own food, people would be far more conscientious about what they eat, how often and what their relationship with food would be....
When a misunderstanding occurs, it's often a problem caused by both the speaker and the listener to varying degrees.
I always said that if I had to kill an animal with my own hands in order to get fed, I'd rather feed myself on grass.
It mostly certainly does give a different perspective. I grew up trapping, fishing and hunting to help my dad support our family in times he was laid off from his job (sometimes over the course of a few years at a time). So despite the disconnection with meat at a store, I know what it is to take a life to feed myself and others. It is why I am cautious of where the meat we do buy comes from. I would not hesitate to do it again if it meant feeding my children. I am grateful to have learned the skills necessary to do so, regardless of what it might mean for my karma. My 2 older kids know where food comes from. They fish and have hunted. It makes them uncomfortable. the discomfort keeps them real with regards to what it takes to feed them. They also help with the garden and know just how much space and food is required to can, freeze and dehydrate to help feed the family over the rest of the year. It's a lot. We don't have near enough space to store that much food, at least not at this point. Hopefully in time.
This is one of the better vegetarian threads. Maybe threads like this don't get anywhere, or change anyone's mind, but I for one have enjoyed reading the different perspectives. Interesting that the thread's original premise, that nematodes are practically everywhere and in every stalk of wheat, is completely wrong, yet the discussion that followed is of generally pretty high caliber.
I'm mostly but not entirely vegetarian. When I eat meat it's almost always in a social circumstance, whether out or at home with my family (happy omnivores all). My reasons for limiting meat (and leaning toward limiting it even more) are mostly related to my feelings toward hurting and killing animals, but there are also health, environmental, and economic benefits to vegetarianism, with inconvenience being the only significant downside. By the logic that eating meat is bad mostly because it's abusive to the animal, I have also steadily reduced the amount of leather. I stopped wearing leather shoes and belts. I got a neoprene guitar strap.
Although my avoidance of meat is primarily moral, that certainly does not mean that I am criticizing the morals of carnivores. I'm making a choice based on MY morals. I am not making a statement about any one else's. So although it does come down to moral choices, the choices are for me. I don't campaign about any of these things. I don't tell anyone, even my family, that they shouldn't eat meat or buy leather. The choices I make, I make for me.
I'm particularly intrigued by the comments about Morning Star. I'd had no idea, so now I'll have to do some reading. But it shouldn't surprise me -- I'm old enough to be cynical.
I am a vegetarian and long ago I have been confronted with the idea that it doesn't completely prevent the death and suffering of animals, not even veganism. I think this is good to humble people and also to show that taking things to the point of sacrificing health is not wise or profitable. And sometimes there is a tendency to think that if you are a vegan you reached the stage of moral perfection, which besides not being true can hinder personal improvement. Nevertheless I believe that even restraining on consuming meat and animal protein is already a very meritous effort that greatly contributes not only to avoid animal suffering but also for ecological and social economical improvement.
I agree, and I'd feel like a hypocrite buying meat because I'd be expecting somebody else to break the first precept, do wrong livehood, etc.
The discussion here essentially is about the ethics of Buddhist practice - do you really think such discussions should be banned?
As far as changing anyone's mind, I find it's impossible to know if threads like this change anyone's mind. In Internet culture, there is this thing called "the 1% rule". The 1% rule is a rule of thumb pertaining to participation in an internet community, stating that only 1% of the users of a website actively create new content, while the other 99% of the participants only lurk. The 1% rule states that the number of people who create content on the Internet represents approximately 1% (or less) of the people actually viewing that content. For example, for every person who posts on a forum, generally about 99 other people are viewing that forum but not posting.
Given that, it's near impossible to know if anyone's mind is changed or not!
I actually agree with that @seeker242. Before people become vegetarians at some point they must think of it and weigh the pros and cons.
Yes
Any topic with such a track record with dividing people for no useful purpose should be banned.
We piss and moan endlessly about Right Speech, but confidently ignore admonitions regarding dividing the sangha.
I doubt people change their mind based on posts in a single forum, however. But to turn that around, is it worth it to risk offending a number of the people who are reading along who are meat eaters, or aren't sure how they feel, and see how rabid these discussions can get? If we allow that some people have become vegetarian solely because of posts in this forum, then we have to allow that people shut out Buddhism all together because of the attitudes present in certain discussions as well. I find that to be a shame, considering this is a Buddhist website, not a vegetarian website.
Edit: this is not to say I support banning the topic, or any other. Just that maybe it's good to think about how both sides of a discussion see our words, and not just the side we are hoping to push over the fence onto one side or the others with our "encouragement."
Come on people. If we can't discuss our dietary choices civilly, what hope do we have of discussing anything here? We run the risk of offending someone when we talk about anything as there's always going to be someone who doesn't agree with us or our point of view. Sure, some people are vegetarian for reasons that have nothing to do with Buddhism. But some people are vegetarian for ethical reason stemming from their approach to the first precept and the Buddha's teachings on ahimsa, while other traditions have texts which make vegetarianism specifically part of their practice (e.g., the Nirvana Sutra and Angulimaliya Sutra), therefore I see no reason to institute some kind of blanket ban on the topic. As with everything else, the prime directive still stands: Whatever your view, just don't be a jerk about expressing it. If that's too hard to do, then it's not going to matter what the topic is.
The object of the OP was Not to change anyone's mind...that was rather the point.
It was a to discuss core issues and leave everything else to the individual.
I think that the purpose of a forum is to present facts..not to change minds.
I wouldn't presume.
I am at peace with whatever choices others make about diet.
The 1% rule is a rule of thumb pertaining to participation in an internet community, stating that only 1% of the users of a website actively create new content, while the other 99% of the participants only lurk. The 1% rule states that the number of people who create content on the Internet represents approximately 1% (or less) of the people actually viewing that content.
>
It seems more reasonable that content creation is more cyclic. The 1% is going to be a different 1% depending on the topic. It is likely we will see an exchange of minds with compromises in viewpoint accounting for a slow evolution of ideas as opposed to a sudden paradigm shift. This would account for why you will rarely see anyone declare they are wrong. After all if everyone is right to begin with the level of active discourse drop to zero.
Many subject are also wishy washy, with no right or wrong answers and no polar opposites. A changed mind is arguably slight and imperceptible, depending upon what we mean by 'changed', not something tangible that we are suddenly cognizant of. Viewpoints are often loaded with assumptions that, when unchecked, stifle the flow of exchange. This could the relationship between nouns (name words) and adjectives (descriptive words). EG: When is a door not a door? When it's ajar! A silly example perhaps but we have to be on the same page knowing what we're talking about. If we conflate two distinct objects then the descriptions are going to differ. Saying there is one true rock is like saying there's one true god. If god is a discrete object or entity then everything else is not god, just like one true rock and a bunch of other fake rocks (Metaphorically speaking).
But following your logic we would have to ban any discussion of rebirth, and any number of other controversial topics.
The challenge we all face is to debate in a civil way without recourse to personal attacks and petty point scoring.
^^ Yes. If I'm going to be true to my own logic then yes. Controversial topics that serve no purpose than divide the sang ha should be banned. Forums do this all the time. Pointless topics regardless of how "interesting" or "informative" some may find it are still pointless a and the bad blood far outweighs all other considerations.
We all fail.
It's a decision for the management here, so let's leave it to them.
Personally, I think the purpose of a forum is to present opinions also. What one person may think is a fact, another may think is an opinion. As for the OP, the idea that veganism cannot be fully realized, because of nematodes, etc. I see that as being your opinion. Obviously, one I disagree with! I think this is very far from being a fact. In my opinion!
And one that you are completely free to hold.
I have no need for you to think like me.
To be honest I'm still not sure what the point of the OP was, it seemed quite muddled to me. Vegetarianism can never be fully realised, so we just should just eat what we like? Or vegetarianism can never be fully realised, but we should still try to minimise the harm that we do? Or expressing concern about the ethics of meat-eating is "judgemental" and shouldn't be allowed? Or something else??
I find it a bit odd, myself.
In this day and age we know we can go without killing and farming other animals and we also know it hurts them.
Why is eating a cow different than eating a human?
Ok, ok... I know your answer... I was talking to Bessy.
Not everyone lives in the same culture with the same year-round availability as everywhere else. It's not really fair to say "today, there is no reason anyone needs to eat meat" because you don't know everyone and their living situations to be able to say so.
Forums do indeed ban topics, but, If we banned the hottest topics, we'd have hardly nothing to talk about every week. Plus, it's not the topics that causes the problem. It's the attitudes of some people towards people who feel differently. They can't let it go.
This was posted on a FB yoga group after there were some ruffled feathers about the proper way to do something. The few that held that "It has to be this way, and if you aren't doing it this way, you are just wrong" left because they felt the page no longer met their needs. Anyhow, it's always worth keeping in mind.
"I'd also like to reinforce that this forum was created to uplift others not bring people down so remember kindness matters. And I don't care if you can do handstand, I care if you can bring kindness, respect, compassion, generosity, and integrity off your mat and into your daily life even when you might disagree with someone. Cause whose to say that your perspective in the only right one?"
People can always not post in said topics or distance themself from what is being said.
Dietary choices do serve a purpose though. A lot of the discussion here revolves around the Buddhist perspective and since this is a Buddhist forum, this is highly relevant. If this topic comes up frequently, it is only because people are still trying to work it out for themselves. Imo, this hasn't been an inflammatory discussion and has remained pretty civil. This is relevant because on this board, rather than banning blanket topics, we have great moderators that opt to close threads only if they get out of hand.
Sorry but it's quite fair and true to boot. I'm not talking about just anyone, I'm talking about the species as a whole.
To quote you have to quote the actual text and not just what you assume is meant. The quote was "In this day and age we know we can go without killing and farming other animals and we also know it hurts them." It is not meant as a critique of the individual that has no choice but the culture that leaves them with none.
Actually the discussions here revolve around individual perspectives. The fact that for any given question we can have a dozen or more different viewpoints makes the idea that we discuss anything from a single viewpoint, whether it be Buddhist or something else, is almost laughable.
I don't see anything wrong with that, either, but I think we should be honest.
Personal choice is a matter of karma and not the moral or ethical confusion we invariably weave around it.
And we offer them guilt trips - we tell them how immoral or unethical people who eat meat are.
That, I believe, is a matter of perspective.
And these topics are invariably locked, because the invariably get out of hand.
@Chaz
Like @Jeffrey said, if you do not like this topic, you may choose not to post. I spoke my view, and you are free to your own perspective on the topic, but I have no wish to derail discussion by arguing about whether or not the discussion is inflammatory. I think this has become the real dividing dialogue in this post and I regret my response.
Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I heard somewhere that Tibetans (despite being overwhelmingly Buddhist) typically eat meat for this very reason. Scarce vegetation and all that.
Plus many Vajrayana schools use meat in their puja rituals.
Really? In what way do they use meat? Typical offering on their shrines or what? I know nothing about Puja Rituals.