the great vegetarian debate

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Spiny Norman » Sat May 03, 2014 12:39 pm

TheNoBSBuddhist wrote:But being a vegetarian is most certainly a 'dietary preference'.


I agree. And so is eating meat.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2939
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Sat May 03, 2014 2:22 pm

NoBS..."being a vegetarian is having certain culinary preferences, and shunning others, on health, taste or moral grounds."


Add to this medical / psychological reasons to prefer a diet primarily of vegetables, fruits and nuts, such as cardio-vascular diseases, various cancers, animal protein phobias, or being a zoo-o-phile. :reading:
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby David N. Snyder » Sat May 03, 2014 5:48 pm

TheNoBSBuddhist wrote:being a vegetarian is having certain culinary preferences, and shunning others, on health, taste or moral grounds.


Huh? Shunning others? That is not the definition. Sure, some vegetarians shun others; and also some omnivores shun others, but I don't think it qualifies as a definition of vegetarian; perhaps the definition of 'vegan-nazi' in the urban dictionary sense, but not the traditional definition of vegetarian.
User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8217
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby David N. Snyder » Sat May 03, 2014 5:52 pm

Ron-The-Elder wrote: or being a zoo-o-phile. :reading:


I hope that is some kind of joke?
User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8217
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby TheNoBSBuddhist » Sat May 03, 2014 8:49 pm

David N. Snyder wrote:
TheNoBSBuddhist wrote:being a vegetarian is having certain culinary preferences, and shunning others, on health, taste or moral grounds.


Huh? Shunning others? That is not the definition. Sure, some vegetarians shun others; and also some omnivores shun others, but I don't think it qualifies as a definition of vegetarian; perhaps the definition of 'vegan-nazi' in the urban dictionary sense, but not the traditional definition of vegetarian.


I meant shunning other foods, not shunning other people.
:namaste:

You will not be punished FOR your 'emotions'; you will be punished BY your 'emotions'.



Image

Pay attention, simplify, and (Meditation instruction in a nutshell) "Mind - the Gap."
‘Absit invidia verbo’ - may ill-will be absent from the word. And mindful of that, if I don't respond, this may be why....
User avatar
TheNoBSBuddhist
 
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:06 pm
Location: Loch Lomond, via the High AND Low road....

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby David N. Snyder » Sat May 03, 2014 9:03 pm

TheNoBSBuddhist wrote:I meant shunning other foods, not shunning other people.


:oops: thanks for the clarification; guess I am too used to hearing that vegetarians supposedly shun other people, so thought it was that. :mrgreen:
User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8217
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby seeker242 » Sat May 03, 2014 10:35 pm

I think technically, vegetarianism is a "dietary preference" according to the dictionary. But when people say it's not just a dietary preference, what I think they are trying to say is that it's about much more than just "my personal preferences". Or, it's not about me and it's not for me. It's not about what I want or don't want. It's not a self centered preference about "my food". Something like that I think.

:smile:
User avatar
seeker242
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby lyndon taylor » Sat May 03, 2014 10:40 pm

my "dietary preference" would probably be to eat some meat, but my moral preference is to not eat any animals, sort of a difference.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community that has so generously given me so much, sincerely former monk John
User avatar
lyndon taylor
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby waterchan » Sat May 03, 2014 10:56 pm

lyndon taylor wrote:my "dietary preference" would probably be to eat some meat, but my moral preference is to not eat any animals, sort of a difference.


In rural India, if you go to the market to buy chicken, they take a live one and slit its throat in front of you while holding down the struggling, writhing animal in its death throes.

Gives you an overwhelming moral reason not to buy chicken.
quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur
(Anything in Latin sounds profound.)
User avatar
waterchan
 
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 7:17 pm
Location: Sereitei

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby chownah » Sun May 04, 2014 2:32 am

waterchan wrote:
lyndon taylor wrote:my "dietary preference" would probably be to eat some meat, but my moral preference is to not eat any animals, sort of a difference.


In rural India, if you go to the market to buy chicken, they take a live one and slit its throat in front of you while holding down the struggling, writhing animal in its death throes.

Gives you an overwhelming moral reason not to buy chicken.

I guess it must not be overwhelming for a lot of people.....if it was overwhelming for everyone then no one would buy chicken......and yet people do......
Maybe the chicken's death could be used to study ones own aversions and help in the development of equanimity......I guess......don't know for sure.......
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2946
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby TheNoBSBuddhist » Sun May 04, 2014 7:22 am

David N. Snyder wrote:
TheNoBSBuddhist wrote:I meant shunning other foods, not shunning other people.


:oops: thanks for the clarification; guess I am too used to hearing that vegetarians supposedly shun other people, so thought it was that. :mrgreen:


I know; and is it not a shame?

I did point out earlier* that I am in fact a vegetarian, but the kinds of people I shun, are the kinds of people who shun people!

I am a vegetarian, but refuse to be divisive.

:namaste:

(* It could have been in the 'alcohol in cooking' thread....)
:namaste:

You will not be punished FOR your 'emotions'; you will be punished BY your 'emotions'.



Image

Pay attention, simplify, and (Meditation instruction in a nutshell) "Mind - the Gap."
‘Absit invidia verbo’ - may ill-will be absent from the word. And mindful of that, if I don't respond, this may be why....
User avatar
TheNoBSBuddhist
 
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:06 pm
Location: Loch Lomond, via the High AND Low road....

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Spiny Norman » Sun May 04, 2014 9:16 am

TheNoBSBuddhist wrote:I did point out earlier* that I am in fact a vegetarian, but the kinds of people I shun, are the kinds of people who shun people!


In my experience vegetarians like both people and animals. ;)
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2939
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Mkoll » Sun May 04, 2014 10:29 am

It's kinda OT but it's wise to shun certain people. The people you're around influence you. The Buddha said fellowship with fools is painful and friendship with the wise is the heart of the holy life. He was pretty clear about shunning fools.

Nothing to do with vegetarianism so :focus:
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 3842
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby beeblebrox » Sun May 04, 2014 11:39 am

chownah wrote:
waterchan wrote:In rural India, if you go to the market to buy chicken, they take a live one and slit its throat in front of you while holding down the struggling, writhing animal in its death throes.

Gives you an overwhelming moral reason not to buy chicken.

I guess it must not be overwhelming for a lot of people.....if it was overwhelming for everyone then no one would buy chicken......and yet people do......
Maybe the chicken's death could be used to study ones own aversions and help in the development of equanimity......I guess......don't know for sure.......
chownah


I think that's perverse.

People who are not turned off by the act of killing is simply because of their kamma. I'd be cautious in trying to train my kamma like that.

There is a quote from Dhammapada about paying attention to the dripping of poison in a jar.

:anjali:
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Sun May 04, 2014 12:40 pm

David N. Snyder wrote:
Ron-The-Elder wrote: or being a zoo-o-phile. :reading:


I hope that is some kind of joke?


Hi, Dave. Not a joke. Most plants like light, are attracted to light, literally need light, because that is where they get the photon energy necessary to thrive and conduct their metabolic processes, such as photosynthesis. They are therefore called "photo-philes".


Carnivores cannot manufacture their own nutrients as can plants, and as a result "are attracted dietarily to animals", usually herbivores, lower order carnivores, carion, and logically from a dietary perspective can properly be called zoo-o-philes, because that is how they prefer to gather their nutrients, by eating animals to get the energy necessary to thrive and conduct their metabolic processes.

Herbivores are animals that prefer plants and can logically, therefore, be labled as "herb-o-philes". Lovers of plants. People, who love plants for their esthetics, can also be called herb-o-philes, but this has nothing to do with dietary preferences. Vegetarians are in the dietary sense herb-o-philes. In the social justice sense some could be called "zoo-o-philes", because of their love and respect for animals and would avoid eating them, given a choice.

Omnivores (pigs :pig: , many fish, dogs and bears,like us humans and other higher order primates for example) are attracted dietarily to both plant and animal forms of nutrients, and can use either effectively to thrive. It seems to me that they (we humans) are the only creatures in samsara, which have a true choice, as the term "phile" is the case of nutrient preference and energy gathering equals an attachment. The rest is dictated by nutrient type availability. In the tundra and Arctic Biomes, there is little plant-life availability. So, to survive, we may have to rip out the throat of a baby seal, or penguin, unless we can find a frozen carcas and have the means to thaw it out.

All of us have a need to consume life in order to live. It seems only omnivores truly have a choice as to what they consume given that both forms of nutrients are present from which to choose.

Hope this clears thing up! :coffee:
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby chownah » Sun May 04, 2014 1:44 pm

beeblebrox wrote:
chownah wrote:
waterchan wrote:In rural India, if you go to the market to buy chicken, they take a live one and slit its throat in front of you while holding down the struggling, writhing animal in its death throes.

Gives you an overwhelming moral reason not to buy chicken.

I guess it must not be overwhelming for a lot of people.....if it was overwhelming for everyone then no one would buy chicken......and yet people do......
Maybe the chicken's death could be used to study ones own aversions and help in the development of equanimity......I guess......don't know for sure.......
chownah


I think that's perverse.

People who are not turned off by the act of killing is simply because of their kamma. I'd be cautious in trying to train my kamma like that.

There is a quote from Dhammapada about paying attention to the dripping of poison in a jar.

:anjali:

Are you saying that if one witnesses a chicken's death that if one uses this experience to study one's aversions that this is perverse or are you saying that maintaining equanimity even when a chicken dies is perverse?.........or both?......or something else?
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2946
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby David N. Snyder » Sun May 04, 2014 4:31 pm

Ron-The-Elder wrote:In the social justice sense some could be called "zoo-o-philes", because of their love and respect for animals and would avoid eating them, given a choice.

Hope this clears thing up! :coffee:


Okay, if you are using that definition. When I saw the term it sounded like something else, so looked it up to be certain and sure enough, this came up:
zoophilia (ˌzəʊəˈfɪlɪə)

— n
a morbid condition in which a person has a sexual attraction to animals; bestiality


One of the myths of animal rights activists is that they love animals. It is true that they like and respect animals and want them not to suffer or be killed. But most animal rights activists do not even have pets; some PETA members even feel that pet ownership is not good, subjugating them for our own personal use and desires; declawing them, clipping their ears, etc.
User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8217
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby waterchan » Sun May 04, 2014 4:36 pm

David N. Snyder wrote:One of the myths of animal rights activists is that they love animals. It is true that they like and respect animals and want them not to suffer or be killed. But most animal rights activists do not even have pets; some PETA members even feel that pet ownership is not good, subjugating them for our own personal use and desires; declawing them, clipping their ears, etc.


Could that not be considered a valid way of loving animals?
quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur
(Anything in Latin sounds profound.)
User avatar
waterchan
 
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 7:17 pm
Location: Sereitei

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby David N. Snyder » Sun May 04, 2014 4:44 pm

waterchan wrote:Could that not be considered a valid way of loving animals?


Yes, I think so, the higher altruistic, metta, karuna, and mudita love.
User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8217
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Sun May 04, 2014 5:21 pm

Hi, Dave.

Yes. There are those folks that have a sexual interest in animals, also called zoophiles :oops: , but the variety of folks that I am referencing are "non-sexual zoophiles":

Individuals with a strong affinity for animals but without a sexual interest can be described as "non-sexual" (or "emotional") zoophiles, but may object to the zoophile label. They are commonly called animal lovers instead.

Non-sexual zoophilia, as with animal love generally, is generally accepted in society, and although sometimes ridiculed, it is usually respected or tolerated. Examples of non-sexual zoophilia can be found on animal memorial pages such as petloss.com, in-memory-of-pets.com (memorial, tribute and support sites), by googling "pet memorials", or on sites such as MarryYourPet.com and other pet marriage sites.


source: http://www.reference.com/browse/Zoophilia

What I was trying to frame with the term was the concept of :quote: dietary preference :quote: or nutritional need due to biological disposition.

My apologies for any lexical ambiguity. :jawdrop:
Last edited by Ron-The-Elder on Sun May 04, 2014 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Slapsko, Yahoo [Bot] and 19 guests