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
So a culture like the US that is consumer driven, striving to make a handful rich on the backs of others is better off because in theory, most people have the option to be vegetarian? In comparison, the world we live in today is better than the world the Native Americans lived in 500 years ago where they killed their own animals, solely because we have more options now? More options doesn't make the situation a better one.
Also, yes, the way we eat meat is unsustainable in it's current form. But so is our entire agricultural/food structure because of the damage that is being done to bees specifically. The vast majority of seeds are coated with the exact product that is killing the bees. Yes, organic is an option, but organic farms are continually contaminated by nearby non-organic farms, and because of the increased space required to farm organically, it is not sustainable to feed the planet in it's current population state.
You are willing to blame cultures like the Inuit and the Tibetans and many others who live in areas that do not sustain vegetarian lifestyles for not being more like the western world where everyone buys discount Amy's organic pizzas at Walmart? That doesn't make much sense.
I often wonder if this isn't another us and "them" problem... If the world acted as a united country, sharing freely and using borders strictly for political preference, I don't think a region would have to deal with a lack of anything except by choice.
Yeah, but since we're talking about Tibet... .......China.
No, they eat it, actually. It's part of what's called "tsok". Alcohol is also consumed on occaision.
Fair enough if you haven't got easy access to a non-meat diet. Though I found the attitude of some UK Tibetan Buddhists somewhat dubious. They'd say things like "Oh well, it's OK for me to eat meat because I'm a Tibetan Buddhist and in Tibet it's difficult to grow grain and stuff." And I'd say "Yes, but we're in England and there's a supermarket round the corner with a full range of non-meat products"....
Actually I think they felt a bit guilty about eating meat and were trying to rationalise it.
Not at all. What I'm saying is that most of us have a choice about what food we buy.
And then we untwist our panties and live and let live, everyone with their own personal choices.
According to one of the photos in this post, even some rock has live. So it is not just eating moving animals we need to question our moral values.
We also need to check carefully whenever we step on rocks.
http://news.distractify.com/geek/science/incredible-natural-phenomenon/?v=1
What I'm doing instead is backing up this thread to this morning before @ourself came in here and started talking like a jerk and you got into a tit-for-tat with him. A whole day's worth of poking and needling, all gone in a few clicks. There's a lesson about impermanence here. Or something.
Carry on.
A lot of people have a problem with that when those personal choices violate the "harm principal". The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to the extent of preventing harm to others. It states that once a person's action begin to violate the rights of another, they then lose the right to engage in that behavior.
How far does one take the "live and let live" philosophy? How far is too far? How much is not enough? For example, lets say some company wants to hire 10 yr old kids to work and pay them $0.50 an hour. Does one still say "live and let live"? Or, say a person likes to drive drunk, does one still say "live and let live" to that? Where is the line drawn? Seems to me there has to be a line drawn somewhere.
This has been anticipated - and the 8FP is a prescription or a guide as to how to act.
Reasonableness comes to mind. We all know meat eating hurts animals. Everyone knows this. There isn't anyone who doesn't know this (expect young children who are not old enough to comprehend). But everyone makes choices in their life based on many, MANY factors, and no one should be able to tell someone else "Since I can walk around the corner and buy vegetarian options, so can you, and therefore, you should, and if you aren't, you are in the wrong." So much more goes into it than simply the choice while standing in the aisle between real chicken and fake chicken. Things like living with others who have other dietary preferences, cost, availability, health concerns, individual constitution, and so on.
Yes, the line of harm is a pretty good place. With Buddhists (and others) it gets fuzzier because of the moral implications of meat eating and the first precept (even though not everyone takes precepts...). But not everyone is on the same page with what constitutes a sentient being. Even if they are, not everyone is at a place in their life, or their practice, that they are able, or simply willing, to give up meat eating. Whatever the case may be, there is literally no one here who doesn't know meat eating kills animals. They simply make their choices to the best of their abilities considering all the factors in their life. To some, their Buddhist practice is the main consideration. For others of us, it is not because either we are not there yet, or it simply cannot work that way. Just because YOU can do it, doesn't mean everyone can despite your insistence that they can.
Our grocery budget is about $200 a week. In the summer, despite our budget, we spend closer to $250 or so a week (because all the kids are home instead of eating at school). We have one income. We have 5 people in the house, including a 17 year old who eats 3000 calories a day. If I were to decide tomorrow to become vegetarian, the other 4 people in my house would not. Our budget would remain the same. To make meals for the other 4 people PLUS new meals for me would impact our budget too much to make it feasible. Not to mention, we do not have the time to make separate meals or the space in the kitchen for 2 people to cook at the same time. My husband does 95% of the cooking. I make changes where I can, like not eating meatballs when we have spaghetti and meatballs. In the summer I might cut salad from the garden instead of having hamburgers off the grill. But outside of those smaller changes, the ability to make a huge impactful change to my diet simply does not work. As things in life change, I revisit areas and see what I can do, along with where I am on my path. But I still have to operate within the parameters of successfully running our household. Also, keep in mind we live in a small town with high grocery costs and no discount stores within about 50 miles.
Sounds like they need to get used to disappointment.
Where did the Buddha teach that?
He didn't.
Its the invention of the English philosopher John Stuart Mill ( 1806-1873 ) which is ascribed to by certain Animal Rights activists.
Buddhadharma does not need accretions brought in through the back door whatever the motivation may be.
The Buddha teaches something far more pragmatic..ie the need to transcend, not fix , Samsara.
He gives us a path to the exit, he does not expect us to polish the ties on the path.
Well put as always @karasti..always one of the voices of reason on the forum.
Kia Ora,
Agree to disagree...
"East is East and West is West and never the twain shall
..
meatmeet !" .Metta Shoshin
Karasti appears to be saying that people "draw the line" in different places. Which of course I agree with because that's true. However, if one is really going to be consistent with the live and let live philosophy, one must also say "live and let live" to people who draw the line in a different place from oneself. If one is really going to be consistent with that philosophy, one must also say "live and let live" to people who don't practice a live and let live philosophy to begin with. Telling those kinds of people that they should live by that philosophy, is itself contradictory to that philosophy. The assertion that people should live by that philosophy, is a direct contradiction of that philosophy. I'm wondering if people who insist everyone should live by a live and let live philosophy, recognize that they are violating their own philosophy by saying that?
I think that it indicates that a philosophy can at best only be a guideline.
And that life is a messy curvy thing..it is not made up of straight lines.
It was precisely in recognition of this that the Buddha left various areas fuzzy..even for monks.
In dietary matters for example. And for lay people he left no direct guidance in that area at all.
And his wisdom is made clear in every Buddhist website..
If you look at any of them a too large proportion of the content is around not core meditation practices, not the Brahma Viharas, not social engagement, not Buddhist ecumenicism, not Buddhist psychology..no. A too large emphasis is on...lunch.
I am old school, literally and metaphorically.
I had been a Buddhist for 20 years before I heard anyone even talk about what to have for lunch, and telling others what they should not have.
It simply didn't feature in those days. Just as it still doesn't among the majority of Thai, Burmese, Korean, Japanese and Tibetan Buddhists who take their lead on the subject from Shakyamuni.
He didn't address the issue at all for laymen.
For monastics he said its OK to eat meat as long as it hasn't been killed specially for you, and it hasn't been killed in front of you. He was pragmatic about the issue.
Well personally I follow that old time religion..its good enough for me.
If anyone wants to go further and not eat meat...then good for you. Its not my business.
And thats all I have to say on the matter. Thats me done on this thread.
_/_
@mmo I would never step on that rock. That rock looks like it would grab my ankle and scurry down to the netherworld with me in tow.
Sure. And the consequences of those choices
@zombiegirl
Sorry to post these photos. They look weird indeed.
Humorous interlude:
Why don't vegetarian women scream during orgasms?
They refuse to admit that a piece of meat gives them pleasure!
Sorry, where were we. ... \lol / ...
So inappropriate here.
But it made me laugh out loud!
This thread is obviously done too.