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.
Forget about the skunk! The skunk is dead. No, it's not "resting", nor is it "stunned", nor is it pining for the Rockies or Yellowstone. The skunk is an ex-skunk. It is dead, deceased, gone. 'Ullo, Skunky! Silence.<LISTENS. response no>
Right. Now. Points noted.
Will not happen again.
In the Swearing thread I scolded Fiveballs for being glib, trite, dismissive, (and arrogant and plain rude).
Forget about the skunk! The skunk is dead. No, it's not "resting", nor is it "stunned", nor is it pining for the Rockies or Yellowstone. The skunk is an ex-skunk. It is dead, deceased, gone.
But making a clever and inventive (if I do say so...), light-hearted, mirthful reference to a famous comedy sketch* is not glib, trite and dismissive! You should explain a little about the hypocrisy because I'm not seeing it.
Bizarre.
I scolded Fiveballs for being glib, trite, dismissive, and so on... I chastised him/her for his/her views about no karma,no self, no killer, no-one killed...
...and I thank you for the feedback.
Maybe I should just kill you - no self, no karma for me, no harm done, no self, you haven't lost anything. Devadatta could have killed the Buddha, and no self, no harm done.
This is taking things out of context. The discussion specifically concerned the bankruptcy of the notion of karmic debt.
This is taking things out of context. The discussion specifically concerned the bankruptcy of the notion of karmic debt.
I would have preferred the term "redundancy" in place of "bankruptcy" in that sentence, but that's by the bye. Doubtless you chose that term in keeping with the financial motif, but still it seems most irregular.
In every event, there certainly is karmic debt, otherwise why do criminals have their "debt" which they owe society before they rejoin society? How is it not karmic debt.
I am raising four chickens for eggs currently... When I am ready to eat them, I will have a local butcher slaughter them for me. What are the karmonic consequences of this?
I am raising four chickens for eggs currently... When I am ready to eat them, I will have a local butcher slaughter them for me. What are the karmonic consequences of this?
"Karmic", not karmonic.
The consequences are, unless you sincerely repent in front of 84 Buddhas (symbolically), you will be reborn in hell, as a ghost, or a chicken, where you will be slaughtered and eaten by the chickens you had killed, who have been reborn as vicious, bloodthirsty humans just like you. If you kill innocent sentient beings, you will have to suffer the karmic retribution of it - there is no escaping it unless you sincerely repent for this evil and pray to 84 Buddhas for the happy destination of the chickens. Otherwise, if there were no bad karma from killing, then why shouldn't I slaughter and eat the family pet and/or the family even?
Tell me.
"Karmic", not karmonic.
The consequences are, unless you sincerely repent in front of 84 Buddhas (symbolically), you will be reborn in hell, as a ghost, or a chicken, where you will be slaughtered and eaten by the chickens you had killed, who have been reborn as vicious, bloodthirsty humans just like you. If you kill innocent sentient beings, you will have to suffer the karmic retribution of it - there is no escaping it unless you sincerely repent for this evil and pray to 84 Buddhas for the happy destination of the chickens. Otherwise, if there were no bad karma from killing, then why shouldn't I slaughter and eat the family pet?
Tell me.
Nothing is stopping you from eating my pet save for well, laws and such. If an animal needs to eat me one day to survive, I won't be mad.
Why does it matter whether the killing is direct or indirect? You are aware that trillions of things die to bring your vegetarian meal to the table, and in incredibly brutal ways. The gasses emmited in the process (production and transportation) are ultimately contributing to the death of the entire planet. Are you not "going to hell" too then?
What you're talking about is too much like Christianity to me. "Repent and you won't go to hell" ugh...
Let me ask you, will I be reborn in hell if I don't eat to avoid killing any others at ALL, but thereby kill myself?
Nothing is stopping you from eating my pet save for well, laws and such. If an animal needs to eat me one day to survive, I won't be mad.
What's the use being "mad" at an animal; it lacks the function of ethical or moral decision making.
Why does it matter whether the killing is direct or indirect?
It does matter. If I shoot you with a gun on purpose, that's 1st degree murder. If another circumstance, say we were viewing the Grand Canyon, and a huge gust of wind blew, and I flew and bumped you over the edge, it's not 1s degree murder, it's an accident, it's quite different.
You are aware that trillions of things die to bring your vegetarian meal to the table. Are you not "going to hell" too then?
Not true. The veggies and things live outside my window; I take care to flick off the slugs and bugs. I actually don't know what you're talking about really. Buddha ate vegetarian meals but he never went to hell for it.
What you're talking about is too much like Christianity to me.
That really makes no difference.
Let me ask you, will I be reborn in hell if I don't eat to avoid killing any others at ALL, but thereby kill myself?
If you are crazy enough to starve yourself to death because of an irrational response to critics of killing you most probably will yes.
What's the use being "mad" at an animal; it lacks the function of ethical or moral decision making.
I think my point just went right over your head. Don't focus too much on the word "mad."
It does matter. If I shoot you with a gun on purpose, that's 1st degree murder. If another circumstance, say we were viewin the Grand Canyon, and a huge gust of wind blew, and I flew and bumped you over the edge, it's not 1s degree murder.
You base your morals on LAWS?
So if I am knowingly indirectly killing trillions of beings and further lending to the destruction of the entire planet by buying Florida oranges when I live in Igloo Land, that is better than killing and eating a cow at the end of its life in as painless a way as possible with no indirect effects on trillions of other lifeforms and the environment itself? For example, people who literally live on entirely frozen terrain... they can't grow crops and self-sustain. If you know a gust of wind is coming and position yourself in such a way that you knock that person off the canyon...
Not true. The veggies and things live outside my window; I take care to flick off the slugs and bugs. I actually don't know what you're talking about really. Buddha ate vegetarian meals but he never went to hell for it.
The Buddha accepted alms offerings. That means meat and vegetables. Just as monks do. And they eat what they are offered. It's consired unskillful not too and leads to dukkha.
And are you really telling me you live soley off vegetables you grow outside your window?
Perhaps "the Buddha didn't go to hell" because he repented for the indirect suffering of all beings that he caused just as you described meat-eaters must do?
If you are crazy enough to starve to death because of an irrational response to critics of killing you most probably will yes.
Who is being arrogant now? You seem to think VERY highly of your own opinion. I find your response irrational, especially since you have a tendency to quote dogma.
How about, instead of being smart, you simply answer my question. My options are to have one life killed for me, to indirectly but knowingly kill billions instead, or to let myself die.
Certainly not. Because, see, I deem it immoral to slaughter animals out of greed and for the taste, but it's not illegal. And, I deem it moral to use cannabis, but it is illegal. There are 100 or more similar examples.
I think the gist of my point went quite over your head. Don't focus too much on the words "1st degree murder" and "not 1st degree murder".
So if I am knowingly indirectly killing trillions of beings and further lending to the destruction of the entire planet by buying Florida oranges when I live in Igloo Land, that is better than killing and eating a cow at the end of its life in as painless a way as possible with no indirect effects on trillions of other lifeforms and the environment itself? For example, people who literally live on entirely frozen terrain... they can't grow crops and self-sustain.
If you have a problem with the effect of those oranges, you could try growing your own oranges; it's easy, I've done it. Very easy. And it certainly is better than slaughtering animals.
If you know a gust of wind is coming and position yourself in such a way that you knock that person off the canyon...
A sudden gust of wind.
The Buddha accepted alms offerings. That means meat and vegetables. Just as monks do. And they eat what they are offered. It's consired unskillful not too and leads to dukkha.
The Buddha and the monks can pick out the meat and eat the rest. There is no suffering contingent upon doing so.
And are you really telling me you live soley off vegetables you grow outside your window?
More and less.
Perhaps "the Buddha didn't go to hell" because he repented for the indirect suffering of all beings that he caused just as you described meat-eaters must do?
Perhaps.
Who is being arrogant now?
You tell me.
You seem to think VERY highly of your own opinion.
Not at all. If I say: to me, the sky seems blue, I have no pride in that opinion; it's a reasonable inference.
I find your response irrational, especially since you have a tendency to quote dogma.
If quoting Buddhist doctrine to highlight a point is irrational, so be it.
Certainly not. Because I deem it immoral to slaughter animals out of greed and for the taste, but it's not illegal.
Now wait, you're making an assumption there and ignoring everything I said.
I did the vegetarian thing for a while. Then I started looking at it from another point of view. I don't eat it for taste... in fact half of it grosses me out these days. Admittedly I used to love it. I decided I would simply eat to be healthy and in a way that cause the least suffering which from my point of view is having one life die in as painless a way as possible than having billions die indirectly and in horrible ways. I would be mindful of all the lives that suffered and died for me to eat, whether I be eating a vegetarian meal at that moment or eating meat.
A sudden gust of wind.
But we KNOW this causes indirect deaths in the millions of billions of trillions... so it's not a sudden gust of wind.
The Buddha and the monks can pick out the meat and eat the rest. There is no suffering contingent upon doing so.
But they're taught not to. If the animal is already dead and in their bowl then it's a waste of that animal's life and pure attachment to dogma that doesn't allow them to eat it.
More and less
I truly doubt that. If so, good for you. Most people literally cannot do this. My yard is roughly 4m X 6m - I cannot sustain myself off that much land let alone a family.
Also, again, the Dalai Lama eats meat out of necessity... as in, medical condition. Would you tell him he's going to hell to?
If quoting Buddhist doctrine to highlight a point is irrational, so be it.
It's not doctrine for all, and please refer to my signature:
Now wait, you're making an assumption there and ignoring everything I said.
I did the vegetarian thing for a while. Then I started looking at it from another point of view. I don't eat it for taste... in fact half of it grosses me out these days. Admittedly I used to love it. I decided I would simply eat to be healthy and in a way that cause the least suffering which from my point of view is having one life die in as painless a way as possible than having billions die indirectly and in horrible ways. I would be mindful of all the lives that suffered and died for me to eat, whether I be eating a vegetarian meal at that moment or eating meat.
Fine. But the karma for eating meat is still there nonetheless. It's not irrational to say so, it's drawn from reasonable inference and extensive, believable scripture.
But we KNOW this causes indirect deaths in the millions of billions of trillions... so it's not a sudden gust of wind.
Are you still talking about my example of accidentally knocking you into the Grand Canyon? Not sure.
But they're taught not to. If the animal is already dead and in their bowl then it's a waste of that animal's life and pure attachment to dogma that doesn't allow them to eat it.
Maybe. Still won't make me eat it. Irrational? So be it. If it's irrational to desire that all sentient beings live out their life in peace, so be it.
I truly doubt that. If so, good for you. Most people literally cannot do this. My yard is roughly 4m X 6m - I cannot sustain myself off that much land let alone a family.
Go to a stall. You don't have to eat the Florida oranges if you are afraid of the consequences, you can get other oranges locally I'd suggest.
Fine. But the karma for eating meat is still there nonetheless. It's not irrational to say so, it's drawn from reasonable inference and extensive, believable scripture.
Buddhism teaches us that our reasons and intentions are very important in determining Karmic consequences. I do not believe that meat-eating, period, will cause me to be reborn into the realm of Hell. Even in being a vegetarian, it's inevitable that you will eat forms of animal byproduct. It's disturbing really how many things contain animal byproduct. But in any event, how is eating meat intrinsically bad and produce negative Karma?
The scripture you quoted specifically refers to those eating meat for the purpose of self-satisfaction and greed:
"strongly crave meat-food. These meat-eaters thus abandoning their desire for [its] taste will seek the Dharma for their food and enjoyment"
and "As even the sight of objective forms gives rise to the desire for tasting their delicious flavour"
But NOTHING in this Universe INHERENTLY produces bad Karma. Nor good Karma. Nor neutral Karma.
Are you still talking about my example of accidentally knocking you into the Grand Canyon? Not sure.
Yep.
Maybe. Still won't make me eat it. Irrational? So be it. If it's irrational to desire that all sentient beings live out their life in peace, so be it.
I didn't say THAT was irrational. But you just said if an animal was already dead you wouldn't even eat it, as if that would cause it suffering. Forget about the animal! The animal is dead. No, it is not "resting," nor is it "stunned," nor is it pining for the Rockies or Yellowstone. The animal is an ex-animal. It is dead, deceased, gone. Let go of attachment. And so the monks eat the meat.
Go to a stall. You don't have to eat the Florida oranges if you are afraid of the consequences, you can get other oranges locally I'd suggest.
Do you see an orange orchard nearby?
Ok, so I don't quite live that far up north, but what about those who do? They live off meat, they hunt for it themselves. They HAVE to. Are they going to hell?
Many things aren't available in Canada in certain seasons and ARE in fact imported, though. So...
If quoting Buddhist doctrine to highlight a point is irrational, so be it.
No offense, but the same text also says: "Mahamati, there was another king<SUP>1</SUP> who was carried away by his horse into a forest. After wandering about in it, he committed evil deeds with a lioness out of fear for his life, and children were born to her. Because of their descending from the union with a lioness, "
No comment on that one, but let's look at some others:
"In the same way, Mahamati, even those minute animals that are living in the air, on earth, and in water, seeing meat-eaters at a distance, will perceive in them, by their keen sense of smell"
I imagine the "minute animals" (the bugs and rodents and microscopic organisms) fear the big tractor that's coming to plow the field they live in to harvest the plants that grow there, or that machine that sprays Death Air into their lungs to intentionally kill them to get them off said plants, (i.e. the things that actually WILL kill them) a lot more than they fear a hunter with a gun (who would have to have one heck of an eye and a lot of time and dedication to get one meal's worth of meat out of some mosquitos).
"how can the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva who desires to approach all living beings as if they were himself and to practise the Buddha-truths, eat the flesh of any living being that is of the same nature as himself?"
Is that the logic here? What about those people that survived in horrible winter weather after a plane crash by (eww, admittedly) eating those who died around them. Are they generating bad Karma? If you had died, would you not have wanted those people to survive?
Your plane crashes in the middle of a frozen nowhere (see picture for visual reference). You're there for three days. No food whatsover. An animal walks by. Do you kill it and eat it to survive, or let yourself die? And once again I ask, in killing yourself, do you go to hell too?
I do not believe that meat-eating, period, will cause me to be reborn into the realm of Hell.
You can believe what you like, since it's your life. Won't make ay difference in the long run, as a mere belief like that doesn't change the underlying reality.
Even in being a vegetarian, it's inevitable that you will eat forms of animal byproduct. It's disturbing really how many things contain animal byproduct.
Personally, I'm vegan and don't use any foods or clothes that have animal products.
But in any event, how is eating meat intrinsically bad and produce negative Karma?
Because all beings love life and fear death just as you or I. Ideally, all sentient beings should be able to live out their life span in peace - this is a basic principle.
But NOTHING in this Universe INHERENTLY produces bad Karma. Nor good Karma. Nor neutral Karma.
Not true. Killing out of greed and for the taste, inherently produces bad karma, whether you like it or not.
Killing or harming a Buddha, or an arhat, inevitably brings bad karma. Causing schism in the sangha does too. Dishonouring your parents definitely bings bad karma. There are other examples.
Ok, so I don't quite live that far up north, but what about those who do? They live off meat, they hunt for it themselves. They HAVE to. Are they going to hell?
Quite possibly. Not necessarily. But that's how samsara works. A lion eats an antelope, because that's the nature of a lion. And that lion may or may not be reborn in hell - it depends on all of its karma over many lives. Same with eskimos. Its their nature to be hunter-gatherers, but the killing still represents the suffering of samsara.
I imagine the "minute animals" (the bugs and rodents and microscopic organisms) fear the big tractor that's coming to plow the field they live in to harvest the plants that grow there, or that machine that sprays Death Air into their lungs to intentionally kill them to get them off said plants, (i.e. the things that actually WILL kill them) a lot more than they fear a hunter with a gun (who would have to have one heck of an eye and a lot of time and dedication to get one meal's worth of meat out of some mosquitos).
That's why it's better to use organically produced food.
What about those people that survived in horrible winter weather after a plane crash by (eww, admittedly) eating those who died around them. Are they generating bad Karma? If you had died, would you not have wanted those people to survive?
Your plane crashes in the middle of a frozen nowhere (see picture for visual reference). You're there for three days. No food whatsover. An animal walks by. Do you kill it and eat it to survive, or let yourself die? And once again I ask, in killing yourself, do you go to hell too?
If you crash like that, and kill, that represents probably 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%, or less, of meat-eating. For the purposes of this discussion it would be as well stick to the other 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of cases.
You state unequivocally that if a person eats meat they will be reborn in a hell realm.
Then you back peddle. In response to this question from Somnilocus:
Ok, so I don't quite live that far up north, but what about those who do? They live off meat, they hunt for it themselves. They HAVE to. Are they going to hell?
You respond:
Quite possibly. Not necessarily. But that's how samsara works. A lion eats an antelope, because that's the nature of a lion. And that lion may or may not be reborn in hell - it depends on all of its karma over many lives. Same with eskimos. Its their nature to be hunter-gatherers, but the killing still represents the suffering of samsara.
The truth is you don't know what will happen in the future or where anyone will be reborn because you don't understand the intricate workings of kamma.
The Buddha ate meat, even after he achieved enlightenment.
In every event, there certainly is karmic debt, otherwise why do criminals have their "debt" which they owe society before they rejoin society? How is it not karmic debt.
That's not an argument in your favor. That appears to be a rather uninteresting pun. If you're saying certain actions tend to lead to trouble, deepen a self-concept and foster suffering, fine. But the "debt to society" borne by criminals is highly contingent on the crime being detected, the criminal lacking the political and economic resources to defend himself, etc. The notion of "karmic debt" as it was used by jhana's teacher, or at least as I read jhana's account of it, sounds like some kind of predictable judicial force imposed on the perpetrator as a direct result of killing the animal. From your subsequent responses, you seem to believe in this notion of karma, and base this belief on authoritarian recourse to the scriptures. If that's the case, I've had this argument a hundred times, and it's always useless. You are responsible for your personal beliefs, and if you want to hand that responsibility over to the centuries-dead authors of your scriptures, you have that right.
If you crash like that, and kill, that represents probably 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%, or less, of meat-eating. For the purposes of this discussion it would be as well stick to the other 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of cases.
I must say, as a mathematician, I find this shonky arithmetic rather irksome.
You can believe what you like, since it's your life. Won't make ay difference in the long run, as a mere belief like that doesn't change the underlying reality.
Are you admitting to BLINDLY following Buddhist Dogma? Guatama himself warned against that. I do not believe it because it goes against logic, it goes against all other Buddhist teachings I've ever encountered. "It" being "if you eat meat, not matter why or how or under what circumstances the animal died, you are going to hell."
Personally, I'm vegan and don't use any foods or clothes that have animal products.
I ASSURE you that even vegans will at some point inadvertantly eat animal byproduct at the very least. Do you have any idea how many bugs/insects etc. we inadvertantly and unknowingly eat in a lifetime? Well, even just one is enough for me to say "You're going to hell right along with us." Or, now, do you backpeddle and say perhaps the act of eating meat itself isn't inherently bad and won't automatically send you to hell, and reasons/situations/intents might actually play a role?
Because all beings love life and fear death just as you or I. Ideally, all sentient beings should be able to live out their life span in peace - this is a basic principle.
You aren't listening. How is EATING meat instrinsically bad? EATING it. Say, the animal is dead of natural causes. How is eating that animal causing suffering to it? Again, NOTHING is inherently bad, or good.
Not true. Killing out of greed and for the taste, inherently produces bad karma
Please read what you just said. Killing *OUT OF GREED/FOR TASTE* - that doesn't make killing inherently bad. That makes killing FOR CERTAIN REASONS bad. Sheesh!
Quite possibly. Not necessarily.
You just finished saying a million times over that eating meat is inherently bad and will send you to hell. Now you're say not necessarily? :crazy:
Perhaps if "not necessarily," you shouldn't be telling people that they're going to hell, period. Karma is a very complicated thing. Neither you nor I nor anyone can tell someone the karmic consequences of the actions, especially since we don't ever fully know another person, their motives, their logic, etc. Only a buddha can fully understand Karmic law.
That's why it's better to use organically produced food.
Is it? You realize we already can't feed all the hungry people in the world, right? And that's with genetically engineered crops that are sprayed to keep bugs off so that more is available for people. If all crops were organic we'd have even more people starving. We'd have more land being destroyed, land that used to be an animal's home, to create more crops to compensate for less yield. We'd have more and more machines harvesting said crops.
Listen: there is NO perfect answer here. Death is inevitable in any scenari. By us living, there will be death. All we can do is try our best to cause the least suffering. You have your way of doing that, I have mine. Don't assume everyone just "lusts for the taste of bloody flesh" and whatnot.
If you crash like that, and kill, that represents probably 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000001%, or less, of meat-eating. For the purposes of this discussion it would be as well stick to the other 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999% of cases.
How about we don't? Because you said, flat out, that eating flesh in INHERENTLY BAD. Now you seem to be suggesting that might not be the case. I thought the meaning of the scripture you quoted was undeniable? Did you perhaps take it too literally and not look at the context in which it spoke (killing and eating meat out of greed/for taste)?
Are you admitting to BLINDLY following Buddhist Dogma?
Not at all. It's a reasonable inference that animals suffer from being killed. As a matter of fact I was vegetarian/vegan many years before I became Buddhist, so again no.
I ASSURE you that even vegans will at some point inadvertantly eat animal byproduct at the very least.
Fine. I'll abandon veganism and eat only meat and animal products if you think that makes more sense.
NOTHING is inherently bad, or good.
Not true. That's an extraordinary claim. Practicing the eightfold path properly always brings good results; going against the eightfold path brings bad results. Taking refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha always brings good. Abandoning greed, hatred and so forth is good. Clinging to the same is not good. There are other examples. Doing good by your parents and elders will always have good results. Dishonouring your parents will surely bring bad results.
You just finished saying a million times over that eating meat is inherently bad and will send you to hell. Now you're say not necessarily? :crazy:
I am saying that. A lion for example, or a killer whale, an eagle, an anaconda or a Tyrannosaurus Rex kills because that is its nature. But because the lion, the killer whale, the eagle, the snake and the Tyrannosaurus Rex don't do the killing out of the greed or ignorance of a human being for example, the karma return is not exactly like that of the boss of McDonald's, or KFC, or Burger King who carry out mass, large scale slaughter for the sake of greed and profit. The lion, the eagle and their friends may or may not go to hell next time - it depends on the karma of many lives. It's the same with a hunter-gatherer person. Its in his or her nature to do that. Depending on all its karma from many lives, it may or may not be reborn in a certain place. You can't compare the case of hunter-gatherers catching fish to eat with the calculated entrepreneurial slaughter carried out by human corporations or indeed the greed of individual humans which may overwhelm their better judgment which would not look to consume meat.
Aslo, next: If the people left off eating meat, there would more than enough resources to feed 100 billion people organically. So don't scold me for encouraging organic produce. The resources needed to make a day's worth of McDonalds for the people of New York could feed the entire United States, organically, for a day.
You can jump through hoops and blur the debate any which way to make yourself feel better about eating meat but killing innocent sentient beings who love life and fear death just as you or I, when you are fully endowed with a clear capacity to recognise the suffering and sorrow inherent in that, is a sin and not conducive to happiness.
Also, don't say "Well, shoot. Only a Buddha could tell me if I should or should'nt eat meat." Even non-Buddhist cultures and traditions such as many branches of Hinduism and many secular movements have rationally and decisively recognised the evils inherent in the carnivorous lifestyle and the goodness inherent in a vegetarian diet.
You can employ various sophistic arguments to make yourself feel better about eating meat, while simultaneously hoping to cause an unprecedented calumny to those good, gentle folk who avoid meat-eating as if it were the flesh of their own child, but others have simply abandoned such evils and have no need to cling to such desperate excuses and justifications, and live their lives in peace, with feelings of boundless love and compassion for all sentient beings equally as if they were all an only child.
Fine. I'll abandon veganism and eat only meat and animal products if you think that makes more sense.
You know what's driving me insane? You're not a stupid person. You're intelligent. And yet you miss my point time and time again.
I will repeat my response: Listen: there is NO perfect answer here. Death is inevitable in any scenario. By us living, there will be death. All we can do is try our best to cause the least suffering. You have your way of doing that, I have mine. Don't assume everyone just "lusts for the taste of bloody flesh" and whatnot.
What you are doing is great. I don't agree that certain things you do are the BEST way to reduce suffering. You don't agree that MY ways are best. All we can do is TRY.
My point, by the comment that the above quote was in response to, was that if EATING MEAT IS INHERENTLY EVIL then YOU TOO ARE GOING TO HELL because you have INEVITABLY CONSUMED FLESH IN YOUR LIFETIME and will CONTINUE TO TO THE DAY YOU DIE. Emphasis added because I feel it's quite necessary for some odd reason.
But can you comprehend that perhaps the scripture you quoted wasn't suggesting that it's inherently evil to consume meat? I already highlighted within the Suttra that it was referring to killing and eating animals for pure greed and self-satisfaction. It is NOT inherently bad. It is not good to do it for greedy, self-satisfying reasons, correct?
Just as you said earlier, if you accidentally kill someone, you aren't going to be charged with 1st degree murder. Therefore, killing is not inherently evil. RIGHT?
You cannot say "You will go to hell if you eat meat," period, unless you are willing to admit that that means you'll be going to hell too.
Aslo, next: If the people left off eating meat, there would more than enough resources to feed 100 billion people organically. So don't scold me for encouraging organic produce. The resources needed to make a day's worth of McDonalds for the people of New York could feed the entire United States, organically, for a day.
I'm not "scolding" you for anything for goodness sake! I said that is your way of reducing suffering and good for you! My lord! But please back up the claim you just made. Because if you go do some research you'll see that organic crops yield three times less produce than others. This means we'd need x3 the land to feed the same number of people. If you'd listen, you'd hear that this would lead to even more little creatures of the microscopic variety suffering. You may see the indirect killing of billions of lifeforms in order to eat an apple as better than killing one animal near its death and feeding an entire family, but I do not. But I do not tell you you're going to hell, because it's not that simple. Yet you just told a woman who said she will eat an animal that's near the end of its life that she will. Hypocrisy. Even if you WERE right, who are you to tell someone that?
You really need to be a little more openminded and willing to consider others' views, and not be so judgemental. You are set in your ways and that's that.
Lalavajra, you seem to be very attached to your body.
I'm sure I haven't a clue what you mean.
You know what's driving me insane? You're not a stupid person. You're intelligent.
Well gosh, um, thankssss hehe.
My point, by the comment that the above quote was in response to, was that if EATING MEAT IS INHERENTLY EVIL then YOU TOO ARE GOING TO HELL because you have INEVITABLY CONSUMED FLESH IN YOUR LIFETIME and will CONTINUE TO TO THE DAY YOU DIE. Emphasis added because I feel it's quite necessary for some odd reason.
Not true. Because if you realise the folly and evil of your actions, you sincerely repent and pray for the happy bourne and welfare and happiness of all sentient beings and abandon such evils then the sin is expiated. If on the other hand you cling to such evil habits, fail to repent and so on, the sin is exacerbated.
But can you comprehend that perhaps the scripture you quoted wasn't suggesting that it's inherently evil to consume meat?
Read it and reread it, that's precisely what it is not merely suggesting but explicitly stating, almost with a hammer, to borrow Neitzsche's analogy.
I already highlighted within the Suttra that it was referring to killing and eating animals for pure greed and self-satisfaction. It is NOT inherently bad.
You should reread the quote a few more times.
It is not good to do it for greedy, self-satisfying reasons, correct?
Correct.
Just as you said earlier, if you accidentally kill someone, you aren't going to be charged with 1st degree murder. Therefore, killing is not inherently evil. RIGHT?
Correct.
organic crops yield three times less produce than others.
As I said, the resource used to feed the world on McDonald's alone for one day could sustain the entire world's population on delicious, nutritious vegetarian food for several weeks.
This means we'd need x3 the land to feed the same number of people.
Even still it would be infinitely preferable to using the resources to graze cattle and so on. Even non-organic vegetarian agriculture would be preferable to diary and meat farming.
If you'd listen, you'd hear that this would lead to even more little creatures of the microscopic variety suffering.
If you are sincerely concerned about the fate of these beings you could say a compassion or saving mantra before and/or after you eat the apple, and you could pray for their liberation and nirvana. There's nothing stopping you from doing that, if you still feel guilty about it.
You may see the indirect killing of billions of lifeforms in order to eat an apple as better than killing one animal near its death and feeding an entire family, but I do not.
Well, in reality to pick an apple or orange and eat it doesn't really have that effect; you're really laying it on a bit thick don't you think.
But I do not tell you you're going to hell, because it's not that simple. Yet you just told a woman who said she will eat an animal that's near the end of its life that she will.
Who? When.
Hypocrisy.
If it's hypocrisy to say that meat-eating is an evil vice and that abandoning meat-eating is a blessing, well, so be it.
You really need to be a little more openminded and willing to consider others' views, and not be so judgemental.
Oh but I have considered the pros and cons of meat-eating many many times, and each time I cannot find one single reason to eat meat (unless it is for the purposes of medicine as is the case in Ayurveda and Tibetan medicine in certain cases of illness).
You are set in your ways and that's that.
If the "ways" I am set in are compassion for all creatures, big and small, an acute desire for their freedom, peace to live out their lifespan, to not live in fear of slaughter, then yes, sadly, it is exactly as you say - set in my ways I am.
You know what's driving me insane? You're not a stupid person. You're intelligent. And yet you miss my point time and time again.
You can't reach an authoritarian by yelling at them, unless you're in a position to totally dominate them. Gently insisting on sticking to conclusions grounded in direct experience seems to (slowly) reach some people, sometimes. The sort of hostility you're displaying will only make lala dig his heels in harder.
It's funny, given the topic of the thread: Basically, what you're trying to do is kill his conception of himself as a doctrinally correct Buddhist. A worthy goal, which would do him a great service, but better than frontal assault is just to show a better way by your own example. Let him attack you: it's just words on a screen, after all. Just calmly point out the problems. It's what the Buddha recommended, it's way easier to implement, and it actually has a (small) chance of working.
Bhikkhus! if others should malign the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Samgha, you must not feel resentment, nor displeasure, nor anger on that account. Bhikkhus! If you feel angry or displeased when others malign the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Samgha, it will only be harmful to you (because then you will not be able to practise the dhamma).
Bhikkhus! If you feel angry or displeased when others malign the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Samgha, will you be able to discriminate their good speech from bad?
"No, indeed, Venerable Sir!" said the bhikkhus.
If others malign me or the Dhamma, or the Samgha, you should explain to them what is false as false, saying 'It is not so. It is not true. It is, indeed, not thus with us. Such fault is not to be found among us.'
Basically, what you're trying to do is kill his conception of himself as a doctrinally correct Buddhist.
Not true. As I said, the issue of eating meat is not necessarily just an issue for Buddhists. As I pointed out, I abandoned meat-eating and adopted veganism many a year before I ever heard the names of the three jewels, namely Buddha, Dharma and Sangha; so it had nothing to do with being doctrinally correct. Watch:
It's a reasonable inference that animals suffer from being killed. As a matter of fact I was vegetarian/vegan many years before I became Buddhist.
It's not strictly exclusively Buddhist to infer, reasonably, that killing causes suffering. It's a perfectly valid conclusion to draw whether you are Buddhist, secular, Hindu, or anthing else.
And, to have compassion for those creatures and to desire their welfare and peace is not necessarily a Buddhist thing either. As I noted earlier, many Hindus and many secular groups also praise the benefits of non-meat-eating. I even have a Jewish acquaintance who is staunchly vegetarian - and he has never heard so much as a single verse of the Dharma in his life. I have many friends and acquaintances who have never been Buddhist, yet still they recognise the evils of meat-eating and have abandoned it, and they have never had the conception of doing so in the interests of doctrinal correctness. They do so, as I did many years ago, out of an intuitive sensing that it's just not right to slaughter innocent creatures.
Not true. Because if you realise the folly and evil of your actions, you sinerely repent and pray for the happy bourne and welfare and happiness of all sentient beings and abandon such evils then the sin is expiated. If on the other hand you cling to such evil habits, fail to repent and so on, the sin is exacerbated.
"Habits" - we're talking about something unavoidable. You're gonna be swallowing insects to the day you die. What if you forget to repent for one of those times? :eek:
Do you really think anyone here is sitting around a campfire listening to the flesh of an endangered animal crackle in the fire while laughing maniacly?
You said a person who HAS to eat meat due to, you know, geographical restrictions (such as living in the middle of hell frozen over), isn't automatically going to go to hell for the act of eating meat to survive. Therefore, you cannot say eating meat is inherently evil.
Read it and reread it, that's precisely what it is not merely suggesting but explicitly stating, almost with a hammer to borrow Neitzsche's analogy.
Stop cutting off my quotes, please, and do yourself a favour and read the paragraph in its entirety:
"But can you comprehend that perhaps the scripture you quoted wasn't suggesting that it's inherently evil to consume meat? I already highlighted within the Suttra that it was referring to killing and eating animals for pure greed and self-satisfaction. It is NOT inherently bad. It is not good to do it for greedy, self-satisfying reasons, correct? "
"strongly crave meat-food. These meat-eaters thus abandoning their desire for [its] taste will seek the Dharma for their food and enjoyment"
and "As even the sight of objective forms gives rise to the desire for tasting their delicious flavour"
You're claiming again that it refers to anyone who eats meat, period, once again? GOOD GOD. Please show me where it states that eating meat for any reason whatsover, including unknowingly consuming it, will send you to hell.
Correct.
Holy. Crap.
As I said, the resource used to feed the world on McDonald's alone for one day could sustain the entire world's population on delicious, nutritious vegetarian food for several weeks.
I don't care if YOU said it. Show me proof. Now, let's say it's true: that will lead to the indirect killing of billions more. Who cares, though, right, as long as it's not a direct bullet to the head.
If you are sincerely concerned about the fate of these beings you could say a compassion or saving mantr before and/or after you eat the apple, and you could pray for their liberation and nirvana. There's nothing stopping you from doing that, if you still feel guilty about it.
I do do that, actually. I say a short prayer to be mindful of all the beings that directly and indirectly suffered as a result of the meal I'm eating. Thank you for the advice. Saying a prayer makes it ok to indirectly and knowingly kill billions without changing your ways? K. Saying that prayer makes it ok to kill one, too, then, right?
Well, in reality to pick an apple or orange and eat it doesn't really have that effect; you're really laying it on a bit think don't you think./QUOTE]
In reality, who in the HELL picks their own apples and oranges? If you do, by god, you're one in a million. In REALITY, very, very few people could sustain their families on food grown in their own yard. The climate alone in my country would not allow for this.
Who? When.
The consequences are, unless you sincerely repent in front of 84 Buddhas (symbolically), you will be reborn in hell, as a ghost, or a chicken, where you will be slaughtered and eaten by the chickens you had killed, who have been reborn as vicious, bloodthirsty humans just like you. If you kill innocent sentient beings, you will have to suffer the karmic retribution of it - there is no escaping it unless you sincerely repent for this evil and pray to 84 Buddhas for the happy destination of the chickens. Otherwise, if there were no bad karma from killing, then why shouldn't I slaughter and eat the family pet and/or the family even?
You went on a little Christian-inspired rant and Sambodhi, who said, she will have the chicken she raised for eggs butchered towards the end of its life. Even if you're right, again, who are you to go around pointing the finger at people and telling them they're going to hell... sheesh.
Oh but I have considered the pros and cons of meat-eating many many times, and each time I cannot find on single reason to eat meat (unless it is for the purposes of medicine as is the case in Ayurveda and Tibetan medicine in certain cases of illness).
And you just showed once again that eating meat isn't inherently evil. THINK, please.
And that's ok if YOU haven't found a single reason, but I have. And that's after being a meat-eater, and then a vegetarian, and experiencing both extremes. Follow your path and I'll follow mine. There is more than one way to be compassionate.
If the "ways" I am set in are compassion for all creatures, big and small, an acute desire for their freedom, peace to live out their lifespan, to not live in fear of slaughter, then yes - set in my ways I am.
That's nice! And if you would be so kind as to explain?
You're gonna be swallowing insects to the day you die.
Ew.
You said a person who HAS to eat meat due to, you know, geographical restrictions (such as living in the middle of hell frozen over), isn't automatically going to go to hell for the act of eating meat to survive. Therefore, you cannot say eating meat is inherently evil.
Generally speaking, it's better not to kill than to kill. A lion or a hunter-gatherer, that's their nature to kill. Such is the nature of the suffering inherent in samsara.
"But can you comprehend that perhaps the scripture you quoted wasn't suggesting that it's inherently evil to consume meat? I already highlighted within the Suttra that it was referring to killing and eating animals for pure greed and self-satisfaction. It is NOT inherently bad. It is not good to do it for greedy, self-satisfying reasons, correct? "
It's better not to kill if you can avoid it. The gist of the chapter on Meat-Eating is clearly that one should avoid meat-eating.
I do do that, actually. I say a short prayer to be mindful of all the beings that directly and indirectly suffered as a result of the meal I'm eating.
Great stuff!
Thank you for the advice.
No doubt, my dear friend.
Saying a prayer makes it ok to indirectly and knowingly kill billions without changing your ways? K. Saying that prayer makes it ok to kill one, too, then, right?
Leaving aside the billions of microscopic ants or whatever they might be, the general gist of my argument is that not eating meat is preferable to eating meat. That's the essence of it.
You went on a little Christian-inspired rant
Not a bit of it. I have never felt particularly inspired by Christianity.
and Sambodhi, who said, she will have the chicken she raised for eggs butchered towards the end of its life. Even if you're right, again, who are you to go around pointing the finger at people and telling them they're going to hell... sheesh.
Oh yes. She certainly shouldn't have it slaughtered, it ought to be able to live out it's allotted lifespan in peace. If she slaughters it, she can't hope to avoid the karmic repercussions of doing so. It's not MY finger or your finger, it's the way it is.
And you just showed once again that eating meat isn't inherently evil.
The general thrust of my argument is that abandoning killing and exercising compassion and nonviolence and so on is good, and the opposite of that is not good.
You can't reach an authoritarian by yelling at them, unless you're in a position to totally dominate them. Gently insisting on sticking to conclusions grounded in direct experience seems to (slowly) reach some people, sometimes. The sort of hostility you're displaying will only make lala dig his heels in harder.
I apologize, it wasn't meant to be said with hostility. It was just driving me nuts that he is clearly very intelligent and yet keeps missing my point... like, taking things out of context, not reading sentences in context. I don't care if he doesn't agree with me in the end.
But I've lived near the country my whole life and recognize a dead horse when I see it.
Perhaps we should eat it.
Oh yes. She certainly shouldn't have it slaughtered, it ought to be able to live out it's allotted lifespan in peace. If she slaughters it, she can't hope to avoid the karmic repercussions of doing so. It's not MY finger or your finger, it's the way it it.
Sambodhi, just in case you're reading this, know that the karmic consequences of your actions aren't painted in black and white as Lala would suggest by his pervious comment to you. Don't ask, "What are the karmic consequences of ____" - just live your life and try to cause as little suffering as possible. Let that be your motivation. That's all you can do. Lala chooses veganism in order to achieve this. This is only one path and one perspective.
I stand corrected: an ethically superior vegan, and a doctrinally correct Buddhist.
Ethics are not merely for the sake of themselves. Ethics is a word applied to a belief or actions that have certain effects. One doesn't take up a certain ethical standpoint merely for the sake of doing so; one does so for the principle behind it. For example, if I am vegan, it's not merely for the sake of being ethically superior to you; on the contrary, it's for the well-being of sentiet beings. The compassion and love and concern for sentient beings is not engendered for the mere sake of claiming ethical superiority, it is out of a genuine concern for the well-being of sentient beings.
And, as for the Buddist doctrine thing, as I mentioned, the abandoning of eating meat is not restricted to Buddhists, there are many people both secular and religious who do so, all following the same principle that it's better not to kill than to kill, generally speaking. Personally, I gave up meat-eating long before I ever became Buddhist.
Sambodhi, just in case you're reading this, know that the karmic consequences of your actions aren't painted in black and white as Lala would suggest by his pervious comment to you.
Well, just saying so doesn't make it so. Nor does my merely saying what I say make it so. But, karma works fair nonetheless. If you destroy life like that, then there will be consequences, whether one mentions about it and explains it, or denies it, or not.
...if I am vegan, it's not merely for the sake of being ethically superior to you; on the contrary, it's for the well-being of sentiet beings.
It's for both at the same time, at best. The evidence is strewn all over this thread:
You propose that my position permits killing me, and puts me on a level with Devadatta. (Did you delete this, or was it censored from above? If the former, it's further evidence for narcissism. But the quoted fragments are pretty clearly beyond the pale by the standards of this site, so it wouldn't surprise me if it was quietly zapped from above. Note to the editors: if you did it for my sake, you don't have to.) I just noticed Somnilocus also apparently citing you referring to me as revoltingly arrogant and self-centered. I have to cop to that. Thanks for pointing it out. My girlfriend thanks you, too.
You keep making assertions with no evidence to support them. (No one but you cares about your beliefs. Tell us what we can verify with our own experience. No one will be swayed by your bald opinions. But I bet it feels good to get them out here...)
Everything you say generates more conflict than understanding among the participants, including you.
These don't look like the consequences of actions principally guided by compassion for all sentient beings.
No, not at all. When I left off eating meat and adopted the vegetarian/vegan lifestyle 15 years ago, I didn't once say to myself "Aha! Now I have claimed the ethically superior ground! Now, my life has bourne fruit; now I have really achieved something in this world. How? Why, by claiming a hollow and meaningless ethical superiority!" In fact, those kind of thoughts never crossed my mind. What did cross my mind is: "Ah, this killing of sentient beings for profit and greed and so on, is a dastardly business; such bloodshed and slaughter is surely not a good thing. Why, let me abandon participation in this bloodshed; let me adopt a righteous and blameless lifestyle of nonviolence and non-killing."
Entertaining thoughts like these, never once did I suffix them with thoughts such as "Aha! And, what's more, not only will I extricate myself from the evil sins of destroying life, and maybe influence others to do the same, but lo! even more! I shall have gained a vital ethical superiority, for whatever purpose that may have!" No, friend, those kind of thoughts never occurred to me.
But the desire to free creatures from destruction and terror certainly suggested itself to me.
No, not true. However, there are times when you have to take up weapons of war in the name of righteousness. The Sea Shepherd is a good example. Does Sea Shepherd delight in battling with those who slaughter beautiful whales? I dare say he doesn't. I dare say, he doesn't do it for pleasure. Dare I say it, Sea Shepherd is genuinely concerned about those beautiful creatures, so he braves the high seas and his vicious enemies in the name of his compassionate convictions. And, the Japanese have a good many uncharitable things to say about Sea Shepherd; but after all, the uncharitable things they say about him, don't change his own motivations or reasons for doing what he does.
Not true. Actually, there are, friend, quite literally millions of people around the world who are delighted to hear about people being vegetarian/vegan and applaud those who uphold those beliefs about nonviolence.
Also, if the animals had the capacity to comprehend such things, they would be delighted to be left alone to live out their lifespan in peace, rather than being mercilessly destroyed.
Tell us what we can verify with our own experience. No one will be swayed by your bald opinions. But I bet it feels good to get them out here...
But after all, friend, fivebells, saying words like "Surely there is suffering inherent in killing" and also "Surely it's better not to kill, that to kill", don't amount to bald opinions. These are perfectly sound inferences based on reasonable, direct observation, in conjunction with believable testimony and believable scripture. There is no fault to be found in this method of inquiry.
Everything you say generates more conflict than understanding among the participants, including you.
That's not true. I understand perfectly that killing is not good, and not killing is good, and any number of statements and asserations to the contrary or in support of same don't alter my understanding so much as an iota. Also, whatever conflict there is, is still not as bad as slaughtering innocent creatures.
These don't look like the consequences of actions principally guided by compassion for all sentient beings.
Oh but they are. See, by encouraging people to abandon killing, it is in the service of the well-being of sentient beings. There is a direct correlation there, I'm sure you can see.
I take up the example of Sea Shepherd again. The Japanese whalers may well say "Oh you! You say you are compassionate, but you repeatedly ram our vessel and cause no end of chagrin and, frankly, annoyance to our crew! Such being the case, oh you! How can you say 'compassionate'?" And yet, notwithstanding such vehement disapprobation, Sea Shepherd really is motivated by compassion for living creatures.
Not true. Actually, there are, friend, quite literally millions of people around the world who are delighted to hear about people being vegetarian/vegan and applaud those who uphold those beliefs about nonviolence.
WOOSH right over your head again. He wasn't talking about that.
Why it sure does. But after all, saying "Surely there is suffering inherent in killing" and also "Surely it's better not to kill, that to kill", don't amount to bald opinions. These are perfectly sound inferences based on reasonable observation.
There is suffering inherent in everything. Just saying.
I just personally don't like being told I'm going to hell and being told I'm just greedy and whatnot when I have tried your path, and the opposite, and have come to a decission to try a middle path BECAUSE I do care about the suffering of other beings, just as you do. What we do is for the same reason: compassion.
I love animals, believe it or not. I understand that all sentient beings have just as much right to life as I do. And I would NEVER flick a slug off a plant in my garden, unlike someone I know. ;]
For instance?
Was providing a direct link to an example in the very sentence you quoted not enough?
Oh but they are. See, by encouraging people to abandon killing, it is in the service of the well-being of sentient beings. There is a direct correlation there, I'm sure you can see.
I'm sorry but stop being so bloody self-righteous. There is just too much irony in you having just finished calling another member arrogant.
Understand that there is not one single, straightforward path to Enlightenment and that compassion comes in various forms. From my point of view, your ways would lead to more death than mine. You are free to disagree. Live your own life and do the best you can and I will do the same, as I'm sure everyone else here will.
But stop lecturing everyone. You may be motivated by compassion and yet your methods are counterproductive and insulting.
When you are a buddha, you can lecture.
Then again, when you are a buddha, you won't feel the need.
Respect my method of being compassionate to all things and I will continue to respect yours.
WOOSH right over your head again. He wasn't talking about that.
Be pleased then, O Somnilocus! to enlighten me! What he was really talking about?
There is suffering inherent in everything. Just saying.
That is not grounds to inflict suffering indiscriminately. In fact, we should try and reduce suffering as much as possible, including avoiding killing animals and eating them.
I just personally don't like being told I'm going to hell and being told I'm just greedy and whatnot when I have tried your path, and the opposite, and have come to a decission to try a middle path BECAUSE I do care about the suffering of other beings, just as you do. What we do is for the same reason: compassion
Good! Good, great! It is good to have compassion! But to destroy life is not compassionate, more so when you have the faculty and ability to do otherwise.
I love animals, believe it or not. I understand that all sentient beings have just as much right to life as I do. And I would NEVER flick a slug off a plant in my garden, unlike someone I know. ;]
In the garden, the slugs infest the cabbages, principally. When harvesting the cabbage, there are many families of slugs living there. Carefully picking them all out and placing them safely elsewhere, one proceeds to cook the cabbage, or eat it raw, depending on the circumstances, or depending on one's preference. If one said "Well, I flick slugs off plants", you shouldn't take "flick" literally, you should understand it in terms of the above explanation.
Was providing a direct link to an example in the very sentence you quoted not enough?
Lost sorry.
I'm sorry but stop being so bloody self-righteous. There is just too much irony in you having just finished calling another member arrogant.
There is righteousness, and there is self-righteousness, which may be called sanctimony. The one may well call forth arrogance, the other not. To say "Ah! Friends! Observe the suffering inherent in eating animals. Why, let us abandon such actions and live a righteous and blameless lifestyle of nonviolence, for the sake of all sentient beings!" Well, what do you think. The above is really not arrogant, nor is it self-righteous, nor is it sanctimonious. On the contrary, it is recognising right from wrong and acting accordingly.
Understand that there is not one single, straightforward path to Enlightenment
True.
From my point of view, your ways would lead to more death than mine. You are free to disagree.
I take you up on that. To my way of thinking, it lacks sense to say that not killing leads to more killing than killing.
But stop lecturing everyone. You may be motivated by compassion and yet your methods are counterproductive and insulting.
You may be insulted to hear that meat-eating is a cruel sin, but really, for all you know, the wound sustained by you from such may be as nothing compared to the wholesale bloodshed of millions of innocent creatures every day.
When you are a buddha, you can lecture.
If saying "Look, friends! at the suffering caused by eating animals!" is lecturing, then fine; and even many people who are not Buddhist, have never even thought of enlightenment, lecture in just the same way; and if you were to approach them respectfully and say "Oh you! Please pipe down, and I'll thank you, sir, to not be so bloody self-righteous until you, friend, have attained perfect enlightenment!" If you said that, people would laugh heartily.
Then again, when you are a buddha, you won't feel the need.
I don't know. The Buddha was guided by compassion and preached about nonviolence and non-killing. So I have to say that you are wrong.
Respect my method of being compassionate to all things and I will continue to respect yours.
But I see the folly of your position. To slaughter and devour helpless beings is not really compassionate, so it doesn't make good sense to explain it and defend it as compassionate and on the same level as doing the opposite.
Be pleased then, O Somnilocus! to enlighten me! What he was really talking about?
I'm sorry but only you can Enlighten yourself. If you haven't figured out yet that none of us are suggesting that we don't give a rat's arse about animals and suffering and the like and that we aren't against vegetarianism/veganism at all, then I'm afraid I just can't help you. Oops, I gave you a hint.
That is not grounds to inflict suffering indiscriminately. In fact, we should try and reduce suffering as much as possible, including avoiding killing animals and eating them.
No, it isn't the grounds to inflict suffering indiscriminately. Could it be? Yes. But you'll find that people who wish to inflict suffering indiscriminately either don't care about having illusionary grounds to do so or will twist even the most compassionate of words into grounds to do so.
Thank you for Enlightening ME that we should try to reduce suffering as much as possible. I mean, I thought I already said that, but... oh wait, I did:
"Don't ask, "What are the karmic consequences of ____" - just live your life and try to cause as little suffering as possible. Let that be your motivation. That's all you can do. Lala chooses veganism in order to achieve this. This is only one path and one perspective. "
In the garden, the slugs infest the cabbages, principally. When harvesting the cabbage, there are many families of slugs living there. Carefully picking them all out and placing them safely elsewhere, one proceed to cook the cabbage, or eat it raw, depending on the circumstances. If one said "Well, I flick slugs off plants", you shouldn't take "flick" literally, you should understand in terms of the above explanation.
Do you understand what a ;] (read: wink) implies? I know you think smilies are childish, but they allow us to convey certain things in convenient ways that are generally difficult to express online due to lack of accompanied body language and all.
I take you up on that. By not killing, it lacks sense to say that this leads to more killing than killing.
Show me a picture of your crops that you supposedly live off year round. Then buy every family enough land so that they can do the same. Then I will shut up. But until then, I don't buy that you live solely off "the vegetables you grow outside your window."
IF I could live that way, I would! But right now, my yard is a few metres wide and deep and I am THIS close to being homeless. It isn't possible in any way for me. So I do what I can within my means, in my own way.
Speaking of being homeless, I wonder if you'd tell a homeless child to turn away a meal after not having eaten for days because it contains meat. Hmm.
there is righteous, and there is self-righteous. One may call forth arrogance, the other not. To say "Ah! Friends! Observe the suffering inherent in eating animals. Why, let us abandon such actions and live a righteous and blameless lifestyle of nonviolence, for the sake of al sentient beings!" Well, what do you think. The above is really not arrogant, nor is it sel-righteous. It is recognising right from wrong and acting accordingly.
It is self-righteous to say that your way of reducing death and suffering is superior to my way. Stop and read what I say, would you? You keep putting words in my and everyone else's mouth.
You may be insulted to hear that mea-eating is a cruel sin, but really the wound sustained by you from such is nothing compared to the wholesale bloodshed of millions of innocent creatures every day.
Stop saying meat-eating is INHERENTLY a "cruel sin" when you yourself have discussed numerous instances in which it is NOT. Do you agree, that if I eat an animal that died of natural causes, then it causes no suffering and isn't a "cruel sin"? That alone means you cannot fairly say "meat-eating is inherently evil." THAT is what I am insulted by. You think so black-and-white.
Make things easier on yourself and say "Slaughtering and/or eating animals for self-satisfaction and greed isn't good" or something at least, would you? Just replace your "Eating meat is cruel" catchphrase with what I suggested and everything'll be cleared up.
I don't know. The Buddha was guided by compassion and preached about nonviolence and non-killing. So I have to say you are wrong.
Yeah, your actions are totally like the Buddha's. Really? And you don't think you're self-righteous? The Buddha didn't force his opinion on anyone. He gently guided them to experience and learn it themselves. The Buddha ate meat, for compassionate reasons. Even he could see that it wasn't black-and-white.
But I see the folly of your position. To slaughter and devour helpless beings is not really compassionate, so it doesn't make good sense to explain it and defend it as compassionate and on the same level as doing the opposite.
Wow. Another instance of self-righteousness. Does it ever end?
I never said that slaughtering animals is inherently GOOD, either. Nor did I say that about eating them. I understand that there are instances where it's just pure cruelty and/or selfishness. I also understand there are instances when it is NOT. I also understand that although I wish NO creature had to die before its time, that it's LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE so long as I continue to eat, ANYTHING. Me being alive and eating INHERENTLY leads to the death of other creatures, directly and indirectly. In -my opinion-, causing indirect death doesn't make it ok if I'm aware it's happening and have another option. I simply try to cause the least suffering possible, in my own way. Deal with it.
I see follies in your perspective. But I respect what you're trying to do by your actions and wouldn't tell you to change them. Now please move on and realize that one day, I may see things your way, and/or one day, you might even see mine. Understand that we are all on a PATH. No one is perfect. And until you are, you have no right. You have no right whatsoever to say my actions aren't guided by compassion just as yours are. Thank you.
Done. Will not be responding to you on this subject anymore.
Sambodhi, just in case you're reading this, know that the karmic consequences of your actions aren't painted in black and white as Lala would suggest by his pervious comment to you. Don't ask, "What are the karmic consequences of ____" - just live your life and try to cause as little suffering as possible. Let that be your motivation. That's all you can do. Lala chooses veganism in order to achieve this. This is only one path and one perspective.
^ ^ ^ I agree. You will drive yourself absolutely crazy otherwise
That's not true, actually. The Buddha preached the Dharma and enlightened many people. That's by the bye; I wasn't in fact using the term enlighten in the Buddhist sense; but since WOOSH it went over my head, please be so kind to enlighten me about what he meant?
none of us are suggesting that we don't give a rat's arse about animals and suffering and the like and that we aren't against vegetarianism/veganism
Oh good.
you'll find that people who wish to inflict suffering indiscriminately either don't care about having illusionary grounds to do so or will twist even the most compassionate of words into grounds to do so.
I have noticed that.
Thank you for Enlightening ME that we should try to reduce suffering as much as possible. I mean, I thought I already said that, but...
Good, good.
Do you understand what a ;] (read: wink) implies?
I'm learning!
I know you think milies are childish, but they allow us to convey certain things in convenient ways that are generally difficult to express online due to lack of accompanied body language and all.
Aww...ok. Hehe.
Show me a picture of your crops that you supposedly live off year round. Then buy every family enough land so that they can do the same. Then I will shut up. But until then, I don't buy that you live solely off "the vegetables you grow outside your window."
No need. In general, as I said a couple of times, the land and resources needed to produce a day's worth of McDonalds' and Burger King burgers for the world could comfortably feed the entire world with delicious, hearty and nutritious vegetarian food for weeks on end.
It is self-righteous to say that your way of reducing death and suffering is superior to my way.
No, it's not self-righteous to say "Ah! Friends, look at the suffering caused by destroying life. Why, let us leave off this killing and adopt a lifestyle, blameless and righteous, of nonviolence." In fact, saying as much is neither self-righteous nor sanctimonious; it is recognising right from wrong and acting accordingly.
Stop and read what I say, would you? You keep putting words in my and everyone else's mouth.
No, I didn't insert words in your mouth. As you can see, every response I make is to the quotes; the quotes are there and I respond in kind.
Stop saying meat-eating is INHERENTLY a "cruel sin" when you yourself have discussed numerous instances in which it is NOT.
Generally speaking, it is better not to kill than to kill; it is better to be vegetarian than carnivorous if you can help it; this is what I am advising.
Do you agree, that if I eat an animal that died of natural causes, then it causes no suffering and isn't a "cruel sin"?
As for me, I wouldn't eat it unless it was medicine prescribed for a particular malady; it would be better to only eat animals that had died a natural death, but when we look at the vast majority of a meat-eating, the animals are farmed and then destroyed, and only the tiniest of fractions of meat-eating is of the type described by you here.
That alone means you cannot fairly say "meat-eating is inherently evil."
In general, it's better to be vegetarian, nonviolent, peaceful, and so on, than to be carnivorous, to shed blood, to slaughter and destroy life. This is a principle I uphold and am sharing with you.
Yeah, your actions are totally like the Buddha's.
I never said they are. I said that the Buddha was compassionate and taught nonviolence and non-killing; nowhere did I say "And also, next! Hear ye. My actions are totally like the Buddha's!" In fact, I didn't say anything of the sort.
Really? And you don't think you're self-righteous? The Buddha didn't force his opinion on anyone.
I say again, there is self-righteousness and righteousness. To say "Oh you! Look at the suffering from killing. Do you all now abandon violence and adopt a lifestyle, blameless, of peace and nonviolence." To say as much is not really self-righteous. It is a perfectly sound conclusion based on direct, reasonable observation in conjunction with believable testimony and believable scripture. However, you shouldn't confuse it with self-righteousness.
He gently guided them to experience and learn it themselves. The Buddha ate meat, for compassionate reasons. Even he could see that it wasn't black-and-white.
And yet, here we have a forum discussion board about Killing Animals; one person, me, argues the case for nonviolence, non-killing and vegetarianism; since this is a forum discussion board, what could be wrong with advancing a perfectly legitimate argument?
Wow. Another instance of self-righteousness. Does it ever end?
No, it's not self-righteous to say tha killing and destroying life is wrong. It's based on sound, sensible obervation and so forth. You should'nt confound it with self-righteousness.
Me being alive and eating INHERENTLY leads to the death of other creatures
True enough, but I still say that by not eating meat, then the animals don't suffer as much. For example, you buy a chicken wing - there is a chicken without a wing. You buy a drumstick, there is a chicken without a leg. This is called suffering. If you eschew buying the leg and the wing, the chicken has all of its natural limbs intact - hence, there is less suffering.
I simply try to cause the least suffering possible, in my own way.
I am exposing the folly of your position. Because if you abandoned eating meat, you would cause less suffering.
I see follies in your perspective.
Be pleased to expound upon them and I will delighted to respond to each point, methodically one by one.
Accept it and move on and realize that one day, I may see things your way, and/or one day, you might even see mine.
Oh no. I will never reounce vegetarianism and adopt a life of eating meat. Deal with it. Hehe.
Understand that we are all on a PATH.
In terms of this thread, it's about killing animals, not about paths. That's why I've been advancing a few thoughts about the pros and cons of meat-eating and vice versa.
No one is perfect.
As above, that is not the topic of the thread - the topic of the thread is about killing animals.
And until you are, you have no right.
You have no right whatsoever to say my actions aren't guided by compassion just as yours are.
What I am saying is that not killing animals is better than killing them. It has nothing to do with what path or what kind of perfection, or who has a right to say this and that. What I am claiming is that it is better not to kill than to kill.
Done. Will not be responding to you on this subject anymore.
You might share this thread with your teacher. (The whole thread.) If he's any good, the lies you're telling yourself here will be just as clear to him as they are to us, and maybe you'll listen to him/he'll know how to talk to you about them.
What you told yourself when you converted to veganism is frankly less interesting than what you're telling us. Narcissism always has a good story for itself.
Those sections of text in my last post with the funny colors are hyperlinks. If you click on them, they will take you to examples of the behavior I cite. I doubt that that could have been unclear to you if you'd really been paying attention, but that kind of blindness is one of the prices you pay for practicing this kind of willful ignorance.
You asked for an example of "Everything you say generates more conflict than understanding among the participants, including you." - you just provided another one.
Oh no. I will never reounce vegetarianism and adopt a life of eating meat. Deal with it. Hehe.
I would say the same right back at you but I'm not so ignorant as to assume my way is The Way and am open to the possibility of change, and I will always do my best to view things from THAT perspective.
I am exposing the folly of your position. Because if you abandoned eating meat, you would cause less suffering.
If I could grow my own crops and self-sustain then this statement would be true. But I can't. And due to my geographic location, I often must rely on imported goods. Therefore, this statement is not universally true.
No, it's not self-righteous to say tha killing and destroying life is wrong. It's based on sound, sensible obervation and so forth. You should'nt confound it with self-righteousness.
!!!
I didn't say that! Please stop putting words in my mouth. I said that it was self-righteous to say your ways of being compassionate are superior to mine. Simple as that.
Before I go, please understand that it's people like you who made me avoid Buddhism altogether for quite a long time. The way you present yourself, the way you put for your beliefs, has a way of turning many people away from the Dharma. Just thought you should know.
You might share this thread with your teacher. (The whole thread.) If he's any good, the lies you're telling yourself here will be just as clear to him as they are to us, and maybe you'll listen to him/he'll know how to talk to you about them.
Hey, fivebells! Which lies. Please state them all one after the other and I'll be happy to defend them.
What you told yourself when you converted to veganism is frankly less interesting than what you're telling us. Narcissism always has a good story for itself.
Oh, but explaining the reasons for being vegetarian, in a discussion about killing animals, is not narcissism. It's explaining the reasons for being vegetarian. Oh, well gosh - I am sorry your interest waned here and there in the course of the discussion.
Comments
Right. Now. Points noted.
Will not happen again.
The hypocrisy has shown itself.
Take care.
Bizarre.
Well, thanks.
*If you didn't pick the reference well...my bad
...and I thank you for the feedback.
This is taking things out of context. The discussion specifically concerned the bankruptcy of the notion of karmic debt.
I would have preferred the term "redundancy" in place of "bankruptcy" in that sentence, but that's by the bye. Doubtless you chose that term in keeping with the financial motif, but still it seems most irregular.
In every event, there certainly is karmic debt, otherwise why do criminals have their "debt" which they owe society before they rejoin society? How is it not karmic debt.
"Karmic", not karmonic.
The consequences are, unless you sincerely repent in front of 84 Buddhas (symbolically), you will be reborn in hell, as a ghost, or a chicken, where you will be slaughtered and eaten by the chickens you had killed, who have been reborn as vicious, bloodthirsty humans just like you. If you kill innocent sentient beings, you will have to suffer the karmic retribution of it - there is no escaping it unless you sincerely repent for this evil and pray to 84 Buddhas for the happy destination of the chickens. Otherwise, if there were no bad karma from killing, then why shouldn't I slaughter and eat the family pet and/or the family even?
Tell me.
Nothing is stopping you from eating my pet save for well, laws and such. If an animal needs to eat me one day to survive, I won't be mad.
Why does it matter whether the killing is direct or indirect? You are aware that trillions of things die to bring your vegetarian meal to the table, and in incredibly brutal ways. The gasses emmited in the process (production and transportation) are ultimately contributing to the death of the entire planet. Are you not "going to hell" too then?
What you're talking about is too much like Christianity to me. "Repent and you won't go to hell" ugh...
Let me ask you, will I be reborn in hell if I don't eat to avoid killing any others at ALL, but thereby kill myself?
Good heavens yes. Seek out Peta-vatthu and Vimana-vatthu; and the Divyavadana among many, many others.
It does matter. If I shoot you with a gun on purpose, that's 1st degree murder. If another circumstance, say we were viewing the Grand Canyon, and a huge gust of wind blew, and I flew and bumped you over the edge, it's not 1s degree murder, it's an accident, it's quite different.
Not true. The veggies and things live outside my window; I take care to flick off the slugs and bugs. I actually don't know what you're talking about really. Buddha ate vegetarian meals but he never went to hell for it.
That really makes no difference. If you are crazy enough to starve yourself to death because of an irrational response to critics of killing you most probably will yes.
I think my point just went right over your head. Don't focus too much on the word "mad."
You base your morals on LAWS?
So if I am knowingly indirectly killing trillions of beings and further lending to the destruction of the entire planet by buying Florida oranges when I live in Igloo Land, that is better than killing and eating a cow at the end of its life in as painless a way as possible with no indirect effects on trillions of other lifeforms and the environment itself? For example, people who literally live on entirely frozen terrain... they can't grow crops and self-sustain. If you know a gust of wind is coming and position yourself in such a way that you knock that person off the canyon...
The Buddha accepted alms offerings. That means meat and vegetables. Just as monks do. And they eat what they are offered. It's consired unskillful not too and leads to dukkha.
And are you really telling me you live soley off vegetables you grow outside your window?
Perhaps "the Buddha didn't go to hell" because he repented for the indirect suffering of all beings that he caused just as you described meat-eaters must do?
Who is being arrogant now? You seem to think VERY highly of your own opinion. I find your response irrational, especially since you have a tendency to quote dogma.
How about, instead of being smart, you simply answer my question. My options are to have one life killed for me, to indirectly but knowingly kill billions instead, or to let myself die.
Certainly not. Because, see, I deem it immoral to slaughter animals out of greed and for the taste, but it's not illegal. And, I deem it moral to use cannabis, but it is illegal. There are 100 or more similar examples.
I think the gist of my point went quite over your head. Don't focus too much on the words "1st degree murder" and "not 1st degree murder".
If you have a problem with the effect of those oranges, you could try growing your own oranges; it's easy, I've done it. Very easy. And it certainly is better than slaughtering animals. A sudden gust of wind.
The Buddha and the monks can pick out the meat and eat the rest. There is no suffering contingent upon doing so.
More and less.
Perhaps.
You tell me. Not at all. If I say: to me, the sky seems blue, I have no pride in that opinion; it's a reasonable inference. If quoting Buddhist doctrine to highlight a point is irrational, so be it.
Now wait, you're making an assumption there and ignoring everything I said.
I did the vegetarian thing for a while. Then I started looking at it from another point of view. I don't eat it for taste... in fact half of it grosses me out these days. Admittedly I used to love it. I decided I would simply eat to be healthy and in a way that cause the least suffering which from my point of view is having one life die in as painless a way as possible than having billions die indirectly and in horrible ways. I would be mindful of all the lives that suffered and died for me to eat, whether I be eating a vegetarian meal at that moment or eating meat.
But we KNOW this causes indirect deaths in the millions of billions of trillions... so it's not a sudden gust of wind.
But they're taught not to. If the animal is already dead and in their bowl then it's a waste of that animal's life and pure attachment to dogma that doesn't allow them to eat it.
I truly doubt that. If so, good for you. Most people literally cannot do this. My yard is roughly 4m X 6m - I cannot sustain myself off that much land let alone a family.
Also, again, the Dalai Lama eats meat out of necessity... as in, medical condition. Would you tell him he's going to hell to?
It's not doctrine for all, and please refer to my signature:
Are you still talking about my example of accidentally knocking you into the Grand Canyon? Not sure.
Maybe. Still won't make me eat it. Irrational? So be it. If it's irrational to desire that all sentient beings live out their life in peace, so be it.
Go to a stall. You don't have to eat the Florida oranges if you are afraid of the consequences, you can get other oranges locally I'd suggest.
Buddhism teaches us that our reasons and intentions are very important in determining Karmic consequences. I do not believe that meat-eating, period, will cause me to be reborn into the realm of Hell. Even in being a vegetarian, it's inevitable that you will eat forms of animal byproduct. It's disturbing really how many things contain animal byproduct. But in any event, how is eating meat intrinsically bad and produce negative Karma?
The scripture you quoted specifically refers to those eating meat for the purpose of self-satisfaction and greed:
"strongly crave meat-food. These meat-eaters thus abandoning their desire for [its] taste will seek the Dharma for their food and enjoyment"
and "As even the sight of objective forms gives rise to the desire for tasting their delicious flavour"
But NOTHING in this Universe INHERENTLY produces bad Karma. Nor good Karma. Nor neutral Karma.
Yep.
I didn't say THAT was irrational. But you just said if an animal was already dead you wouldn't even eat it, as if that would cause it suffering. Forget about the animal! The animal is dead. No, it is not "resting," nor is it "stunned," nor is it pining for the Rockies or Yellowstone. The animal is an ex-animal. It is dead, deceased, gone. Let go of attachment. And so the monks eat the meat.
Do you see an orange orchard nearby?
Ok, so I don't quite live that far up north, but what about those who do? They live off meat, they hunt for it themselves. They HAVE to. Are they going to hell?
Many things aren't available in Canada in certain seasons and ARE in fact imported, though. So...
No offense, but the same text also says: "Mahamati, there was another king<SUP>1</SUP> who was carried away by his horse into a forest. After wandering about in it, he committed evil deeds with a lioness out of fear for his life, and children were born to her. Because of their descending from the union with a lioness, "
No comment on that one, but let's look at some others:
"In the same way, Mahamati, even those minute animals that are living in the air, on earth, and in water, seeing meat-eaters at a distance, will perceive in them, by their keen sense of smell"
I imagine the "minute animals" (the bugs and rodents and microscopic organisms) fear the big tractor that's coming to plow the field they live in to harvest the plants that grow there, or that machine that sprays Death Air into their lungs to intentionally kill them to get them off said plants, (i.e. the things that actually WILL kill them) a lot more than they fear a hunter with a gun (who would have to have one heck of an eye and a lot of time and dedication to get one meal's worth of meat out of some mosquitos).
"how can the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva who desires to approach all living beings as if they were himself and to practise the Buddha-truths, eat the flesh of any living being that is of the same nature as himself?"
Is that the logic here? What about those people that survived in horrible winter weather after a plane crash by (eww, admittedly) eating those who died around them. Are they generating bad Karma? If you had died, would you not have wanted those people to survive?
Your plane crashes in the middle of a frozen nowhere (see picture for visual reference). You're there for three days. No food whatsover. An animal walks by. Do you kill it and eat it to survive, or let yourself die? And once again I ask, in killing yourself, do you go to hell too?
Personally, I'm vegan and don't use any foods or clothes that have animal products.
Because all beings love life and fear death just as you or I. Ideally, all sentient beings should be able to live out their life span in peace - this is a basic principle.
Not true. Killing out of greed and for the taste, inherently produces bad karma, whether you like it or not.
Killing or harming a Buddha, or an arhat, inevitably brings bad karma. Causing schism in the sangha does too. Dishonouring your parents definitely bings bad karma. There are other examples.
Quite possibly. Not necessarily. But that's how samsara works. A lion eats an antelope, because that's the nature of a lion. And that lion may or may not be reborn in hell - it depends on all of its karma over many lives. Same with eskimos. Its their nature to be hunter-gatherers, but the killing still represents the suffering of samsara.
That's why it's better to use organically produced food.
If you crash like that, and kill, that represents probably 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%, or less, of meat-eating. For the purposes of this discussion it would be as well stick to the other 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of cases.
You state unequivocally that if a person eats meat they will be reborn in a hell realm.
Then you back peddle. In response to this question from Somnilocus: You respond: The truth is you don't know what will happen in the future or where anyone will be reborn because you don't understand the intricate workings of kamma.
The Buddha ate meat, even after he achieved enlightenment.
Hmm. And what kind of pleasure is that?
I didn't use it first, jhana's teacher did:
That's not an argument in your favor. That appears to be a rather uninteresting pun.
I must say, as a mathematician, I find this shonky arithmetic rather irksome.
Are you admitting to BLINDLY following Buddhist Dogma? Guatama himself warned against that. I do not believe it because it goes against logic, it goes against all other Buddhist teachings I've ever encountered. "It" being "if you eat meat, not matter why or how or under what circumstances the animal died, you are going to hell."
I ASSURE you that even vegans will at some point inadvertantly eat animal byproduct at the very least. Do you have any idea how many bugs/insects etc. we inadvertantly and unknowingly eat in a lifetime? Well, even just one is enough for me to say "You're going to hell right along with us." Or, now, do you backpeddle and say perhaps the act of eating meat itself isn't inherently bad and won't automatically send you to hell, and reasons/situations/intents might actually play a role?
You aren't listening. How is EATING meat instrinsically bad? EATING it. Say, the animal is dead of natural causes. How is eating that animal causing suffering to it? Again, NOTHING is inherently bad, or good.
Please read what you just said. Killing *OUT OF GREED/FOR TASTE* - that doesn't make killing inherently bad. That makes killing FOR CERTAIN REASONS bad. Sheesh!
You just finished saying a million times over that eating meat is inherently bad and will send you to hell. Now you're say not necessarily? :crazy:
Perhaps if "not necessarily," you shouldn't be telling people that they're going to hell, period. Karma is a very complicated thing. Neither you nor I nor anyone can tell someone the karmic consequences of the actions, especially since we don't ever fully know another person, their motives, their logic, etc. Only a buddha can fully understand Karmic law.
Is it? You realize we already can't feed all the hungry people in the world, right? And that's with genetically engineered crops that are sprayed to keep bugs off so that more is available for people. If all crops were organic we'd have even more people starving. We'd have more land being destroyed, land that used to be an animal's home, to create more crops to compensate for less yield. We'd have more and more machines harvesting said crops.
Listen: there is NO perfect answer here. Death is inevitable in any scenari. By us living, there will be death. All we can do is try our best to cause the least suffering. You have your way of doing that, I have mine. Don't assume everyone just "lusts for the taste of bloody flesh" and whatnot.
How about we don't? Because you said, flat out, that eating flesh in INHERENTLY BAD. Now you seem to be suggesting that might not be the case. I thought the meaning of the scripture you quoted was undeniable? Did you perhaps take it too literally and not look at the context in which it spoke (killing and eating meat out of greed/for taste)?
Fine. I'll abandon veganism and eat only meat and animal products if you think that makes more sense.
Not true. That's an extraordinary claim. Practicing the eightfold path properly always brings good results; going against the eightfold path brings bad results. Taking refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha always brings good. Abandoning greed, hatred and so forth is good. Clinging to the same is not good. There are other examples. Doing good by your parents and elders will always have good results. Dishonouring your parents will surely bring bad results.
I am saying that. A lion for example, or a killer whale, an eagle, an anaconda or a Tyrannosaurus Rex kills because that is its nature. But because the lion, the killer whale, the eagle, the snake and the Tyrannosaurus Rex don't do the killing out of the greed or ignorance of a human being for example, the karma return is not exactly like that of the boss of McDonald's, or KFC, or Burger King who carry out mass, large scale slaughter for the sake of greed and profit. The lion, the eagle and their friends may or may not go to hell next time - it depends on the karma of many lives. It's the same with a hunter-gatherer person. Its in his or her nature to do that. Depending on all its karma from many lives, it may or may not be reborn in a certain place. You can't compare the case of hunter-gatherers catching fish to eat with the calculated entrepreneurial slaughter carried out by human corporations or indeed the greed of individual humans which may overwhelm their better judgment which would not look to consume meat.
Aslo, next: If the people left off eating meat, there would more than enough resources to feed 100 billion people organically. So don't scold me for encouraging organic produce. The resources needed to make a day's worth of McDonalds for the people of New York could feed the entire United States, organically, for a day.
You can jump through hoops and blur the debate any which way to make yourself feel better about eating meat but killing innocent sentient beings who love life and fear death just as you or I, when you are fully endowed with a clear capacity to recognise the suffering and sorrow inherent in that, is a sin and not conducive to happiness.
Also, don't say "Well, shoot. Only a Buddha could tell me if I should or should'nt eat meat." Even non-Buddhist cultures and traditions such as many branches of Hinduism and many secular movements have rationally and decisively recognised the evils inherent in the carnivorous lifestyle and the goodness inherent in a vegetarian diet.
You can employ various sophistic arguments to make yourself feel better about eating meat, while simultaneously hoping to cause an unprecedented calumny to those good, gentle folk who avoid meat-eating as if it were the flesh of their own child, but others have simply abandoned such evils and have no need to cling to such desperate excuses and justifications, and live their lives in peace, with feelings of boundless love and compassion for all sentient beings equally as if they were all an only child.
How do you mean, "drops dead"?
I may even get eaten
You may even get eaten?
WOOSH! Right over your head.
You know what's driving me insane? You're not a stupid person. You're intelligent. And yet you miss my point time and time again.
I will repeat my response: Listen: there is NO perfect answer here. Death is inevitable in any scenario. By us living, there will be death. All we can do is try our best to cause the least suffering. You have your way of doing that, I have mine. Don't assume everyone just "lusts for the taste of bloody flesh" and whatnot.
What you are doing is great. I don't agree that certain things you do are the BEST way to reduce suffering. You don't agree that MY ways are best. All we can do is TRY.
My point, by the comment that the above quote was in response to, was that if EATING MEAT IS INHERENTLY EVIL then YOU TOO ARE GOING TO HELL because you have INEVITABLY CONSUMED FLESH IN YOUR LIFETIME and will CONTINUE TO TO THE DAY YOU DIE. Emphasis added because I feel it's quite necessary for some odd reason.
But can you comprehend that perhaps the scripture you quoted wasn't suggesting that it's inherently evil to consume meat? I already highlighted within the Suttra that it was referring to killing and eating animals for pure greed and self-satisfaction. It is NOT inherently bad. It is not good to do it for greedy, self-satisfying reasons, correct?
Just as you said earlier, if you accidentally kill someone, you aren't going to be charged with 1st degree murder. Therefore, killing is not inherently evil. RIGHT?
You cannot say "You will go to hell if you eat meat," period, unless you are willing to admit that that means you'll be going to hell too.
I'm not "scolding" you for anything for goodness sake! I said that is your way of reducing suffering and good for you! My lord! But please back up the claim you just made. Because if you go do some research you'll see that organic crops yield three times less produce than others. This means we'd need x3 the land to feed the same number of people. If you'd listen, you'd hear that this would lead to even more little creatures of the microscopic variety suffering. You may see the indirect killing of billions of lifeforms in order to eat an apple as better than killing one animal near its death and feeding an entire family, but I do not. But I do not tell you you're going to hell, because it's not that simple. Yet you just told a woman who said she will eat an animal that's near the end of its life that she will. Hypocrisy. Even if you WERE right, who are you to tell someone that?
You really need to be a little more openminded and willing to consider others' views, and not be so judgemental. You are set in your ways and that's that.
Well gosh, um, thankssss hehe.
Not true. Because if you realise the folly and evil of your actions, you sincerely repent and pray for the happy bourne and welfare and happiness of all sentient beings and abandon such evils then the sin is expiated. If on the other hand you cling to such evil habits, fail to repent and so on, the sin is exacerbated.
Read it and reread it, that's precisely what it is not merely suggesting but explicitly stating, almost with a hammer, to borrow Neitzsche's analogy.
You should reread the quote a few more times.
Correct.
Correct.
As I said, the resource used to feed the world on McDonald's alone for one day could sustain the entire world's population on delicious, nutritious vegetarian food for several weeks.
Even still it would be infinitely preferable to using the resources to graze cattle and so on. Even non-organic vegetarian agriculture would be preferable to diary and meat farming.
If you are sincerely concerned about the fate of these beings you could say a compassion or saving mantra before and/or after you eat the apple, and you could pray for their liberation and nirvana. There's nothing stopping you from doing that, if you still feel guilty about it.
Well, in reality to pick an apple or orange and eat it doesn't really have that effect; you're really laying it on a bit thick don't you think.
Who? When. If it's hypocrisy to say that meat-eating is an evil vice and that abandoning meat-eating is a blessing, well, so be it.
Oh but I have considered the pros and cons of meat-eating many many times, and each time I cannot find one single reason to eat meat (unless it is for the purposes of medicine as is the case in Ayurveda and Tibetan medicine in certain cases of illness).
If the "ways" I am set in are compassion for all creatures, big and small, an acute desire for their freedom, peace to live out their lifespan, to not live in fear of slaughter, then yes, sadly, it is exactly as you say - set in my ways I am.
It's funny, given the topic of the thread: Basically, what you're trying to do is kill his conception of himself as a doctrinally correct Buddhist. A worthy goal, which would do him a great service, but better than frontal assault is just to show a better way by your own example. Let him attack you: it's just words on a screen, after all. Just calmly point out the problems. It's what the Buddha recommended, it's way easier to implement, and it actually has a (small) chance of working.
And, to have compassion for those creatures and to desire their welfare and peace is not necessarily a Buddhist thing either. As I noted earlier, many Hindus and many secular groups also praise the benefits of non-meat-eating. I even have a Jewish acquaintance who is staunchly vegetarian - and he has never heard so much as a single verse of the Dharma in his life. I have many friends and acquaintances who have never been Buddhist, yet still they recognise the evils of meat-eating and have abandoned it, and they have never had the conception of doing so in the interests of doctrinal correctness. They do so, as I did many years ago, out of an intuitive sensing that it's just not right to slaughter innocent creatures.
I'm not surprised.
"Habits" - we're talking about something unavoidable. You're gonna be swallowing insects to the day you die. What if you forget to repent for one of those times? :eek:
Do you really think anyone here is sitting around a campfire listening to the flesh of an endangered animal crackle in the fire while laughing maniacly?
You said a person who HAS to eat meat due to, you know, geographical restrictions (such as living in the middle of hell frozen over), isn't automatically going to go to hell for the act of eating meat to survive. Therefore, you cannot say eating meat is inherently evil.
Stop cutting off my quotes, please, and do yourself a favour and read the paragraph in its entirety:
"But can you comprehend that perhaps the scripture you quoted wasn't suggesting that it's inherently evil to consume meat? I already highlighted within the Suttra that it was referring to killing and eating animals for pure greed and self-satisfaction. It is NOT inherently bad. It is not good to do it for greedy, self-satisfying reasons, correct? "
"strongly crave meat-food. These meat-eaters thus abandoning their desire for [its] taste will seek the Dharma for their food and enjoyment"
and "As even the sight of objective forms gives rise to the desire for tasting their delicious flavour"
You're claiming again that it refers to anyone who eats meat, period, once again? GOOD GOD. Please show me where it states that eating meat for any reason whatsover, including unknowingly consuming it, will send you to hell.
Holy. Crap.
I don't care if YOU said it. Show me proof. Now, let's say it's true: that will lead to the indirect killing of billions more. Who cares, though, right, as long as it's not a direct bullet to the head.
I do do that, actually. I say a short prayer to be mindful of all the beings that directly and indirectly suffered as a result of the meal I'm eating. Thank you for the advice. Saying a prayer makes it ok to indirectly and knowingly kill billions without changing your ways? K. Saying that prayer makes it ok to kill one, too, then, right?
I stand corrected: an ethically superior vegan, and a doctrinally correct Buddhist.
Ew.
Generally speaking, it's better not to kill than to kill. A lion or a hunter-gatherer, that's their nature to kill. Such is the nature of the suffering inherent in samsara.
It's better not to kill if you can avoid it. The gist of the chapter on Meat-Eating is clearly that one should avoid meat-eating.
Great stuff!
No doubt, my dear friend.
Leaving aside the billions of microscopic ants or whatever they might be, the general gist of my argument is that not eating meat is preferable to eating meat. That's the essence of it.
Not a bit of it. I have never felt particularly inspired by Christianity.
Oh yes. She certainly shouldn't have it slaughtered, it ought to be able to live out it's allotted lifespan in peace. If she slaughters it, she can't hope to avoid the karmic repercussions of doing so. It's not MY finger or your finger, it's the way it is.
The general thrust of my argument is that abandoning killing and exercising compassion and nonviolence and so on is good, and the opposite of that is not good.
I apologize, it wasn't meant to be said with hostility. It was just driving me nuts that he is clearly very intelligent and yet keeps missing my point... like, taking things out of context, not reading sentences in context. I don't care if he doesn't agree with me in the end.
But I've lived near the country my whole life and recognize a dead horse when I see it.
Perhaps we should eat it.
Sambodhi, just in case you're reading this, know that the karmic consequences of your actions aren't painted in black and white as Lala would suggest by his pervious comment to you. Don't ask, "What are the karmic consequences of ____" - just live your life and try to cause as little suffering as possible. Let that be your motivation. That's all you can do. Lala chooses veganism in order to achieve this. This is only one path and one perspective.
Take care.
Ethics are not merely for the sake of themselves. Ethics is a word applied to a belief or actions that have certain effects. One doesn't take up a certain ethical standpoint merely for the sake of doing so; one does so for the principle behind it. For example, if I am vegan, it's not merely for the sake of being ethically superior to you; on the contrary, it's for the well-being of sentiet beings. The compassion and love and concern for sentient beings is not engendered for the mere sake of claiming ethical superiority, it is out of a genuine concern for the well-being of sentient beings.
And, as for the Buddist doctrine thing, as I mentioned, the abandoning of eating meat is not restricted to Buddhists, there are many people both secular and religious who do so, all following the same principle that it's better not to kill than to kill, generally speaking. Personally, I gave up meat-eating long before I ever became Buddhist.
Well, just saying so doesn't make it so. Nor does my merely saying what I say make it so. But, karma works fair nonetheless. If you destroy life like that, then there will be consequences, whether one mentions about it and explains it, or denies it, or not.
- You propose that my position permits killing me, and puts me on a level with Devadatta. (Did you delete this, or was it censored from above? If the former, it's further evidence for narcissism. But the quoted fragments are pretty clearly beyond the pale by the standards of this site, so it wouldn't surprise me if it was quietly zapped from above. Note to the editors: if you did it for my sake, you don't have to.) I just noticed Somnilocus also apparently citing you referring to me as revoltingly arrogant and self-centered. I have to cop to that. Thanks for pointing it out. My girlfriend thanks you, too.
- You take pleasure in this naked hostility.
- You keep making assertions with no evidence to support them. (No one but you cares about your beliefs. Tell us what we can verify with our own experience. No one will be swayed by your bald opinions. But I bet it feels good to get them out here...)
- Everything you say generates more conflict than understanding among the participants, including you.
These don't look like the consequences of actions principally guided by compassion for all sentient beings.Entertaining thoughts like these, never once did I suffix them with thoughts such as "Aha! And, what's more, not only will I extricate myself from the evil sins of destroying life, and maybe influence others to do the same, but lo! even more! I shall have gained a vital ethical superiority, for whatever purpose that may have!" No, friend, those kind of thoughts never occurred to me.
But the desire to free creatures from destruction and terror certainly suggested itself to me. No, not true. However, there are times when you have to take up weapons of war in the name of righteousness. The Sea Shepherd is a good example. Does Sea Shepherd delight in battling with those who slaughter beautiful whales? I dare say he doesn't. I dare say, he doesn't do it for pleasure. Dare I say it, Sea Shepherd is genuinely concerned about those beautiful creatures, so he braves the high seas and his vicious enemies in the name of his compassionate convictions. And, the Japanese have a good many uncharitable things to say about Sea Shepherd; but after all, the uncharitable things they say about him, don't change his own motivations or reasons for doing what he does.
For instance? Not true. Actually, there are, friend, quite literally millions of people around the world who are delighted to hear about people being vegetarian/vegan and applaud those who uphold those beliefs about nonviolence.
Also, if the animals had the capacity to comprehend such things, they would be delighted to be left alone to live out their lifespan in peace, rather than being mercilessly destroyed.
But after all, friend, fivebells, saying words like "Surely there is suffering inherent in killing" and also "Surely it's better not to kill, that to kill", don't amount to bald opinions. These are perfectly sound inferences based on reasonable, direct observation, in conjunction with believable testimony and believable scripture. There is no fault to be found in this method of inquiry.
That's not true. I understand perfectly that killing is not good, and not killing is good, and any number of statements and asserations to the contrary or in support of same don't alter my understanding so much as an iota. Also, whatever conflict there is, is still not as bad as slaughtering innocent creatures. Oh but they are. See, by encouraging people to abandon killing, it is in the service of the well-being of sentient beings. There is a direct correlation there, I'm sure you can see.
I take up the example of Sea Shepherd again. The Japanese whalers may well say "Oh you! You say you are compassionate, but you repeatedly ram our vessel and cause no end of chagrin and, frankly, annoyance to our crew! Such being the case, oh you! How can you say 'compassionate'?" And yet, notwithstanding such vehement disapprobation, Sea Shepherd really is motivated by compassion for living creatures.
WOOSH right over your head again. He wasn't talking about that.
There is suffering inherent in everything. Just saying.
I just personally don't like being told I'm going to hell and being told I'm just greedy and whatnot when I have tried your path, and the opposite, and have come to a decission to try a middle path BECAUSE I do care about the suffering of other beings, just as you do. What we do is for the same reason: compassion.
I love animals, believe it or not. I understand that all sentient beings have just as much right to life as I do. And I would NEVER flick a slug off a plant in my garden, unlike someone I know. ;]
Was providing a direct link to an example in the very sentence you quoted not enough?
I'm sorry but stop being so bloody self-righteous. There is just too much irony in you having just finished calling another member arrogant.
Understand that there is not one single, straightforward path to Enlightenment and that compassion comes in various forms. From my point of view, your ways would lead to more death than mine. You are free to disagree. Live your own life and do the best you can and I will do the same, as I'm sure everyone else here will.
But stop lecturing everyone. You may be motivated by compassion and yet your methods are counterproductive and insulting.
When you are a buddha, you can lecture.
Then again, when you are a buddha, you won't feel the need.
Respect my method of being compassionate to all things and I will continue to respect yours.
Have a good day.
That is not grounds to inflict suffering indiscriminately. In fact, we should try and reduce suffering as much as possible, including avoiding killing animals and eating them.
Good! Good, great! It is good to have compassion! But to destroy life is not compassionate, more so when you have the faculty and ability to do otherwise.
In the garden, the slugs infest the cabbages, principally. When harvesting the cabbage, there are many families of slugs living there. Carefully picking them all out and placing them safely elsewhere, one proceeds to cook the cabbage, or eat it raw, depending on the circumstances, or depending on one's preference. If one said "Well, I flick slugs off plants", you shouldn't take "flick" literally, you should understand it in terms of the above explanation.
Lost sorry.
There is righteousness, and there is self-righteousness, which may be called sanctimony. The one may well call forth arrogance, the other not. To say "Ah! Friends! Observe the suffering inherent in eating animals. Why, let us abandon such actions and live a righteous and blameless lifestyle of nonviolence, for the sake of all sentient beings!" Well, what do you think. The above is really not arrogant, nor is it self-righteous, nor is it sanctimonious. On the contrary, it is recognising right from wrong and acting accordingly.
True.
I take you up on that. To my way of thinking, it lacks sense to say that not killing leads to more killing than killing.
You may be insulted to hear that meat-eating is a cruel sin, but really, for all you know, the wound sustained by you from such may be as nothing compared to the wholesale bloodshed of millions of innocent creatures every day.
If saying "Look, friends! at the suffering caused by eating animals!" is lecturing, then fine; and even many people who are not Buddhist, have never even thought of enlightenment, lecture in just the same way; and if you were to approach them respectfully and say "Oh you! Please pipe down, and I'll thank you, sir, to not be so bloody self-righteous until you, friend, have attained perfect enlightenment!" If you said that, people would laugh heartily.
I don't know. The Buddha was guided by compassion and preached about nonviolence and non-killing. So I have to say that you are wrong.
But I see the folly of your position. To slaughter and devour helpless beings is not really compassionate, so it doesn't make good sense to explain it and defend it as compassionate and on the same level as doing the opposite.
I'm sorry but only you can Enlighten yourself. If you haven't figured out yet that none of us are suggesting that we don't give a rat's arse about animals and suffering and the like and that we aren't against vegetarianism/veganism at all, then I'm afraid I just can't help you. Oops, I gave you a hint.
No, it isn't the grounds to inflict suffering indiscriminately. Could it be? Yes. But you'll find that people who wish to inflict suffering indiscriminately either don't care about having illusionary grounds to do so or will twist even the most compassionate of words into grounds to do so.
Thank you for Enlightening ME that we should try to reduce suffering as much as possible. I mean, I thought I already said that, but... oh wait, I did:
"Don't ask, "What are the karmic consequences of ____" - just live your life and try to cause as little suffering as possible. Let that be your motivation. That's all you can do. Lala chooses veganism in order to achieve this. This is only one path and one perspective. "
Do you understand what a ;] (read: wink) implies? I know you think smilies are childish, but they allow us to convey certain things in convenient ways that are generally difficult to express online due to lack of accompanied body language and all.
Show me a picture of your crops that you supposedly live off year round. Then buy every family enough land so that they can do the same. Then I will shut up. But until then, I don't buy that you live solely off "the vegetables you grow outside your window."
IF I could live that way, I would! But right now, my yard is a few metres wide and deep and I am THIS close to being homeless. It isn't possible in any way for me. So I do what I can within my means, in my own way.
Speaking of being homeless, I wonder if you'd tell a homeless child to turn away a meal after not having eaten for days because it contains meat. Hmm.
It is self-righteous to say that your way of reducing death and suffering is superior to my way. Stop and read what I say, would you? You keep putting words in my and everyone else's mouth.
Stop saying meat-eating is INHERENTLY a "cruel sin" when you yourself have discussed numerous instances in which it is NOT. Do you agree, that if I eat an animal that died of natural causes, then it causes no suffering and isn't a "cruel sin"? That alone means you cannot fairly say "meat-eating is inherently evil." THAT is what I am insulted by. You think so black-and-white.
Make things easier on yourself and say "Slaughtering and/or eating animals for self-satisfaction and greed isn't good" or something at least, would you? Just replace your "Eating meat is cruel" catchphrase with what I suggested and everything'll be cleared up.
Yeah, your actions are totally like the Buddha's. Really? And you don't think you're self-righteous? The Buddha didn't force his opinion on anyone. He gently guided them to experience and learn it themselves. The Buddha ate meat, for compassionate reasons. Even he could see that it wasn't black-and-white.
Wow. Another instance of self-righteousness.
I never said that slaughtering animals is inherently GOOD, either. Nor did I say that about eating them. I understand that there are instances where it's just pure cruelty and/or selfishness. I also understand there are instances when it is NOT. I also understand that although I wish NO creature had to die before its time, that it's LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE so long as I continue to eat, ANYTHING. Me being alive and eating INHERENTLY leads to the death of other creatures, directly and indirectly. In -my opinion-, causing indirect death doesn't make it ok if I'm aware it's happening and have another option. I simply try to cause the least suffering possible, in my own way. Deal with it.
I see follies in your perspective. But I respect what you're trying to do by your actions and wouldn't tell you to change them. Now please move on and realize that one day, I may see things your way, and/or one day, you might even see mine. Understand that we are all on a PATH. No one is perfect. And until you are, you have no right. You have no right whatsoever to say my actions aren't guided by compassion just as yours are. Thank you.
Done. Will not be responding to you on this subject anymore.
Oh good.
I have noticed that.
Good, good.
I'm learning! Aww...ok. Hehe.
No need. In general, as I said a couple of times, the land and resources needed to produce a day's worth of McDonalds' and Burger King burgers for the world could comfortably feed the entire world with delicious, hearty and nutritious vegetarian food for weeks on end.
No, it's not self-righteous to say "Ah! Friends, look at the suffering caused by destroying life. Why, let us leave off this killing and adopt a lifestyle, blameless and righteous, of nonviolence." In fact, saying as much is neither self-righteous nor sanctimonious; it is recognising right from wrong and acting accordingly.
No, I didn't insert words in your mouth. As you can see, every response I make is to the quotes; the quotes are there and I respond in kind.
Generally speaking, it is better not to kill than to kill; it is better to be vegetarian than carnivorous if you can help it; this is what I am advising.
As for me, I wouldn't eat it unless it was medicine prescribed for a particular malady; it would be better to only eat animals that had died a natural death, but when we look at the vast majority of a meat-eating, the animals are farmed and then destroyed, and only the tiniest of fractions of meat-eating is of the type described by you here.
In general, it's better to be vegetarian, nonviolent, peaceful, and so on, than to be carnivorous, to shed blood, to slaughter and destroy life. This is a principle I uphold and am sharing with you.
I never said they are. I said that the Buddha was compassionate and taught nonviolence and non-killing; nowhere did I say "And also, next! Hear ye. My actions are totally like the Buddha's!" In fact, I didn't say anything of the sort.
I say again, there is self-righteousness and righteousness. To say "Oh you! Look at the suffering from killing. Do you all now abandon violence and adopt a lifestyle, blameless, of peace and nonviolence." To say as much is not really self-righteous. It is a perfectly sound conclusion based on direct, reasonable observation in conjunction with believable testimony and believable scripture. However, you shouldn't confuse it with self-righteousness.
And yet, here we have a forum discussion board about Killing Animals; one person, me, argues the case for nonviolence, non-killing and vegetarianism; since this is a forum discussion board, what could be wrong with advancing a perfectly legitimate argument?
No, it's not self-righteous to say tha killing and destroying life is wrong. It's based on sound, sensible obervation and so forth. You should'nt confound it with self-righteousness.
True enough, but I still say that by not eating meat, then the animals don't suffer as much. For example, you buy a chicken wing - there is a chicken without a wing. You buy a drumstick, there is a chicken without a leg. This is called suffering. If you eschew buying the leg and the wing, the chicken has all of its natural limbs intact - hence, there is less suffering.
I am exposing the folly of your position. Because if you abandoned eating meat, you would cause less suffering.
Be pleased to expound upon them and I will delighted to respond to each point, methodically one by one.
Oh no. I will never reounce vegetarianism and adopt a life of eating meat. Deal with it. Hehe.
In terms of this thread, it's about killing animals, not about paths. That's why I've been advancing a few thoughts about the pros and cons of meat-eating and vice versa.
As above, that is not the topic of the thread - the topic of the thread is about killing animals.
What I am saying is that not killing animals is better than killing them. It has nothing to do with what path or what kind of perfection, or who has a right to say this and that. What I am claiming is that it is better not to kill than to kill.
Aww...spoil sport.
What you told yourself when you converted to veganism is frankly less interesting than what you're telling us. Narcissism always has a good story for itself.
Those sections of text in my last post with the funny colors are hyperlinks. If you click on them, they will take you to examples of the behavior I cite. I doubt that that could have been unclear to you if you'd really been paying attention, but that kind of blindness is one of the prices you pay for practicing this kind of willful ignorance.
So subtle. Know that I feel the same about you.
You asked for an example of "Everything you say generates more conflict than understanding among the participants, including you." - you just provided another one.
I would say the same right back at you but I'm not so ignorant as to assume my way is The Way and am open to the possibility of change, and I will always do my best to view things from THAT perspective.
If I could grow my own crops and self-sustain then this statement would be true. But I can't. And due to my geographic location, I often must rely on imported goods. Therefore, this statement is not universally true.
!!!
I didn't say that! Please stop putting words in my mouth. I said that it was self-righteous to say your ways of being compassionate are superior to mine. Simple as that.
Before I go, please understand that it's people like you who made me avoid Buddhism altogether for quite a long time. The way you present yourself, the way you put for your beliefs, has a way of turning many people away from the Dharma. Just thought you should know.
Oh, but explaining the reasons for being vegetarian, in a discussion about killing animals, is not narcissism. It's explaining the reasons for being vegetarian. Oh, well gosh - I am sorry your interest waned here and there in the course of the discussion.
Which kind. Please tell me.