Hen eggs are 99.99% not alive

[Sekha]

For those who are keen on destroying as little animal life a possible for the sake of their food, it may be useful to know that by consuming eggs they have 99.99% chance not to encourage anyone to destroy life.

[David N. Snyder]

Hi Sekha,

Is it your point that it is 'good' to eat eggs since they are not alive (unfertilized eggs)? There are however, other issues, such as:

* Are the hens grain fed or free range? (if grain fed, then crops still need to be harvested, insects, other 'collateral' damage will occur)
* When more hens are bred to make more egg-producing birds, what happens to the males born? (usually they are ground up for chicken meat parts, chicken nuggets, hot dogs, pet food, etc.)

If your point is to inflict the least amount of violence, I agree, but we need to also keep in mind the issues above, i.e., it may not be that non-violent after all.

[hanzze_]

You know, actually all life dies and there is plenty of food as long there is place for live, but we don't like ugly food, death things and we have much fear that it might not die. So most killing comes form fear, for storage, from making food looking beautiful. That goes on, as long as we look for "good" food, we force killing even or ideas are well meant but do not see the whole.
Could an industry be able to provide in such ways, if we would not have a refrigerator fist. What are the things which make those ways possible, where did we step into the trap?

Was it the egg with chicken droppings on the eggshell some thirty years ago? Or was it the bad egg falling on your nice food some twenty years ago?

[Sekha]

@ David: my position is that I do what I myself can do to minimize violence on animals. But I don't pretend eating violence-free food and I don't consider myself responsible for what the food industry does. If they had the same line of conduct, there wouldn't be any problem. The solutions lie in their hands, not mine. All I can do is try to choose the brand that has the highest standard on respecting animal life. I can't stop eating!

Of course if I have the choice, I will eat only rice and lentils (the easiest to cook : P). But if I occasionally choose to eat an egg, I do not consider myself as breaking the moral line I chose for myself.

[dragonwarrior]

Right Livelihood, samma ajiva
Abstention from making a living that harms others, including trading weapons, trading in human beings (such as slavery), intoxicating drinks, narcotics, poisons, handling animal flesh such as a butcher, or killing animals.

I wonder if selling eggs or egg-based products considered as killing/wrong livelihood?

Metta,
Winny

[daverupa]

They aren't fertilized eggs, at least in grocery stores in the West, so it does not apply. It would take a chicken version of "every sperm is sacred" to make the opposing argument.

The more complex issue revolves around the conditions those animals live in, as stated above.

[Hanzze]

Right Livelihood, samma ajiva
Abstention from making a living that harms others, including trading weapons, trading in human beings (such as slavery), intoxicating drinks, narcotics, poisons, handling animal flesh such as a butcher, or killing animals.

I wonder if selling eggs or egg-based products considered as killing/wrong livelihood?

Metta,
Winny

If your chicken has two eggs and not fertilized, you might not eat them and you sell or exchange them, I guess there would be problem. Even if you have 20 chicken, I guess it would be no problem.
But I guess it is different if you like to have an egg, as the demand is ruling the marked or let me say, mind is the forunner, for good as well as for bad. One can rule the world which taking care of his own mind.

[DAWN]

Eating eggs is encourage slavery

[Hanzze]

Who says? Eating it self does not have anything to do with what was before the egg was on the table. Wanting an egg and do not care about where it comes from and how it comes on the table might be a different thing.

A fertilized egg even freely given a perfect present, it might even taken release the hen form the illusion to have a task to sit on it.

[DAWN]

Who says? Eating it self does not have anything to do with what was before the egg was on the table. Wanting an egg and do not care about where it comes from and how it comes on the table might be a different thing.

A fertilized egg even freely given a perfect present, it might even taken release the hen form the illusion to have a task to sit on it.

Human is primate, primate lives on the tree, tree make a fruit. If we would not eat fruit in past, we would not have to klimb a tree, we would not have a thumb, and we would not have the posibility to handle objects, we would not have a such develop reflection, such develop brain.
So eating meat, eating eggs, it's not natural for us.
If we are that we are, thats because we dont make a choice to eat meat, but eat fruit.

So wanting an egg is not natural, it dont goes with the nature of our body, it not goes with the dhamma of body, so it's not goes with The Dhamma.

And also, that concerning "99,99%", when you dont sure for 100% that you will not transgress your vow, it's better to not to do at all. So even if here is 99,999...9999 % it's not good to do.

PS sorry for this off topic, just some logic.

PSS Actualy i dont fully understand your position in this message, so i dont know if a my answer is apropriated

With Metta

[daverupa]

So eating meat, eating eggs, it's not natural for us.

Well...



...humans are omnivores. Eggs and meats are quite natural for humans to eat, since we've been doing so for hundreds of thousands of years. The move from herbivorous to omnivorous diets, plus the invention of cooking by (probably) homo erectus, allowed for the explosion in brain mass that partially characterizes homo sapiens.

The fact that there are humans with brains that allow them to ask "why" and learn the Dhamma is due to such things.

[Hanzze]

...

Dear DAWN,

where did your thoughts come from? They do not really seem to be logical at all. Even if one thinks that human have been better beings in the past, intention is how ever what makes the different and not the appearence of this or that food.
One thinking that this or that food would be an hint to wholesome or unwholesome intentions might be shocked if hearing that primate even eat primates, not to speak about eggs or meat.
So I guess the construct that you have build up in judging eating is not very save and maybe you like to think one more time about taken and given. The fruits by cutting the tree, the picked fruit from the platage, the picked fuit form a tree anywhere, the fallen fruit taken from the ground, the expected received given fruit, the unexpected received given fruit, the unexpected received given fruit already prepared to eat.

You can put any other food instead of the fruit.

If you are interested, give this a criotical read: Buddha Dharma and Food - consider food as path to liberation

[DAWN]

Our body is not made for klling. Humin cant kill a cow olny with his body, human cant kill a pig only with his body. Body is not made to kill, if it is be made fot it, our body and it phisical capasity will be different
If we give to one little baby a poult and an apple, instanctively, he will eat an apple and play with poult. Our mind is not made to kill.

i will not continue this discussion because those who killing others to survive will not stop killing others to survive, and those who can living without killing others will not become a killer. So i prefere still here.

Metta

[Hanzze]

Our body is not made for klling. Humin cant kill a cow olny with his body, human cant kill a pig only with his body. Body is not made to kill, if it is be made fot it, our body and it phisical capasity will be different
If we give to one little baby a poult and an apple, instanctively, he will eat an apple and play with poult. Our mind is not made to kill.

i will not continue this discussion because those who killing others to survive will not stop killing others to survive, and those who can living without killing others will not become a killer. So i prefere still here.

Metta

We do not talk about killing but we are talking about eating. Be mindfull! You are blaming your self. Becoming requires the destruction, that is the wheel we like to escape. Look at the flesh of the son

How ever, if it comes that you will be given an unfertilized egg without expecting anything in return, you will not need to have the slightest thought of having caused a killing neither you will kill if you eat it.

Its good to understand why Bhikkhus are simply begger without begging.

[DAWN]

When the one is bhikkhu, the one is bhikkhu, and he eat that is given.
When the one is lay man, the one is not bhikkhu, and he have a responsability of what he eating. By buying a food and clothes, he oncourage the production of this food or this clothes, he pay peoples for that they do this food or clothes. If they have not money by doing this food or clothes, they will not do it.

I'am vegan one meal a day, and i do not any effort to not eat meat, eggs, honey, milk and others produts of suffering and slavery, but when i will eat that is given, i wll eat that is given.

The Bouddha have not forbid this kind of prducts, but he said that :

The Great Standards
The Lord Buddha also left us a set of principles that can still be used as a standard to judge new circumstances. These are known as 'The Great Standards.' Properly used they should protect against a wholesale dilution of the Rule.

This is how the Great Standards are formulated:

"Bhikkhus, whatever I have not objected to, saying, 'This is not allowable,' if it fits in with what is not allowable, if it goes against what is allowable, that is not allowable for you.

"Whatever I have not objected to, saying, 'This is not allowable,' if it fits in with what is allowable, if it goes against what is not allowable, that is allowable for you.

"And whatever I have not permitted, saying, 'This is allowable,' if it fits in with what is not allowable, if it goes against what is allowable, that is not allowable for you.

"And whatever I have not permitted, saying, 'This is allowable,' if it fits in with what is allowable, if it goes against what is not allowable, that is allowable for you." (BMC p.27; see also EV, II, p170)


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... tml#modern

Metta

[Hanzze]

Its not wise to argue a laymans life with Bhikkhus rules, it even closes the door to Bhikkhuhood. It is great that you like to be responsible, but unfurtenly it mostly runs out into delusion or let me say grasping of views which is one of the conter aspect of right intention "freedom of ill-will".

It is not easy to understand (because one still craves for many) that there is no way to generalize eating while using matters as an object to observe. The path to wholesome actions is not the clincing to ideas but the honest observing of intentions.

Today there is a great force of "Buddhists the better eater" with ideas of what should be eaten, but if one gets aware how much suffering such generalizations are causing, one would let go of it. Buddha was not anly aware of the bad intention of Devadata but also of the danger that such genralization would close the path and give foolish discrimination its going on. I really suggess you to read those even poor words: Buddha Dharma and Food - consider food as path to liberation (maybe in some days if it absets you to much which is understandable but not for the bad)

If there is a layman able to nourish on food that is not causing killing and ! not causing taking, that it can be maked that be is very lucky or better has done much merits in the past but he will be one under million.

Doing good and doing wholesome is very differnt and needs time and much appamada to be understood.

[DAWN]

Its not wise to argue a laymans life with Bhikkhus rules,

It's true. Thats why i said that a lay man have a responsability of his food and clothes.

it even closes the door to Bhikkhuhood.

It's true. But there is no rule about vegan practice, so until the one is not bhikkhu, he do that he wants. And when the one is bikkhu, he eat what is given.

It is not easy to understand (because one still craves for many) that there is no way to generalize eating while using matters as an object to observe. The path to wholesome actions is not the clincing to ideas but the honest observing of intentions.

It's true. Thats why when the one know how his food is made, he cant say that he dont know it now, he cant still ignorant about this, so the one reject it. The one calm off his craving about meat.

Today there is a great force of "Buddhists the better eater" with ideas of what should be eaten, but if one gets aware how much suffering such generalizations are causing, one would let go of it. Buddha was not anly aware of the bad intention of Devadata but also of the danger that such genralization would close the path and give foolish discrimination its going on.

I'am sorry, i dont understand what is means by "generalization" ? Generalization between what?

I really suggess you to read those even poor words: Buddha Dharma and Food - consider food as path to liberation (maybe in some days if it absets you to much which is understandable but not for the bad)

I take a note. Thanks you, i will read it.

If there is a layman able to nourish on food that is not causing killing and ! not causing taking, that it can be maked that be is very lucky or better has done much merits in the past but he will be one under million.

If the one dont think that his taste pleasure is more important that a life of an living creature, that feel pain, suffer, dream, feel emotions, enjoiy, so the one can do it wihout any effort.

Doing good and doing wholesome is very differnt and needs time and much appamada to be understood.

I hope that the one will not create a barrier thinking that is hard, it's in unattainable, not for this life...
So for what life? Future life?
He dont remember his past life, so the one cant be sure that he dont said this justification of his craving in last time, so he must start now, even it's unattainable.

Buddha hood is unattaineble, it's cant be attain, it's only can be not-attain,
We cant come to it, we can only stop in it.