I'd opt for the light of survival instead.
the great vegetarian debate
Re: the great vegetarian debate
The majority of people would.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17190
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: the great vegetarian debate
thepea,
All of your discussion about meat being food is mostly moot. Most vegetarians don't have any argument with that. Perhaps some vegan-extremists might say that meat is not food and not fit for human consumption, but they are in the minority view.
Meat is food for carnivores and omnivores. There are many vegetarian animals (herbivores, frugivores) that do not eat any meat at all and if they did, it would be very unhealthy for them. There are people who have lived over 100 on a vegetarian diet and also on a non-vegetarian diet. Clearly humans have been able to adapt and eat a well-balanced diet; both those who are vegetarian and those who are not vegetarian.
From the Buddhist pov, it is not about what is food, but is there killing to acquire the food? A Buddhist cannot kill an animal, even to eat food when hungry.
All of your discussion about meat being food is mostly moot. Most vegetarians don't have any argument with that. Perhaps some vegan-extremists might say that meat is not food and not fit for human consumption, but they are in the minority view.
Meat is food for carnivores and omnivores. There are many vegetarian animals (herbivores, frugivores) that do not eat any meat at all and if they did, it would be very unhealthy for them. There are people who have lived over 100 on a vegetarian diet and also on a non-vegetarian diet. Clearly humans have been able to adapt and eat a well-balanced diet; both those who are vegetarian and those who are not vegetarian.
From the Buddhist pov, it is not about what is food, but is there killing to acquire the food? A Buddhist cannot kill an animal, even to eat food when hungry.
Re: the great vegetarian debate
If one believes that plants live then that may appear "true".
I think eating animal flesh (cooked with expertise) is more satisfying.
Personal taste, money available, moral beliefs etc may vary. But if it comes to mere survival individuals usually are less picky.
Bread is vegan.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
Re: the great vegetarian debate
That's the wisdom of the majority which some call "common sense".
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17190
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: the great vegetarian debate
Yes, according to Jainism. For Buddhism, plants are one-facultied, but not sentient beings who undergo samsaric rebirth. For Buddhism, one should avoid harming plants as much as possible. For animals, it's an absolute no killing.
Re: the great vegetarian debate
Common sense can have you believe the world is flat.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: the great vegetarian debate
No. You are once again committing an etymological fallacy. This is a fact. Your fact is a non-fact, i.e. a fantasy. I feel no need to entertain your fantasies.thepea wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:33 pmIt is a fact, meat is food.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:19 pm That is a very antiquated and recherché usage. You can refer to the typically-eaten section of an apple as "the meat of the apple" as opposed to "the seeds of the apple," but this is an antiquarian usage of the term. We can also say "the meat of the matter" and we're not referring to food at all necessarily.
A vegan does not eat animals. A vegan does eat meat, every living thing consumes meat.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: the great vegetarian debate
Not at present but in ancient times. But you are wrong equating "common sense" with belief-conditioned rational thinking exclusively because it is strongly dominated by the instincts inherent in the functioning of the brain. And when it comes to survival your statement "In light of kamma and rebirth it would be better to starve to death than to intentionally kill to eat." is irrelevant which is why I responded "I''d opt for the light of survival instead"
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: the great vegetarian debate
the great pyramid is a scale model of the northern hemisphere
Re: the great vegetarian debate
What? Maybe you are willing to eleborate on your statement?
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: the great vegetarian debate
I’m not forcing you to.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:33 pmNo. You are once again committing an etymological fallacy. This is a fact. Your fact is a non-fact, i.e. a fantasy. I feel no need to entertain your fantasies.thepea wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:33 pmIt is a fact, meat is food.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:19 pm That is a very antiquated and recherché usage. You can refer to the typically-eaten section of an apple as "the meat of the apple" as opposed to "the seeds of the apple," but this is an antiquarian usage of the term. We can also say "the meat of the matter" and we're not referring to food at all necessarily.
A vegan does not eat animals. A vegan does eat meat, every living thing consumes meat.
I’m simply saying according to definition, meat is food to sustain life.
Thus vegans and vegetarians eat meat, but they do not eat animals and vegans do not use animal products to the best of their ability according to the definition I have read.
Commonly we call our offspring kids, but formally this is untrue. Kids are young goats.
Meat is commonly referred to as animal flesh but the dhamma is not a common practice it is formal and should be studied as such.
Re: the great vegetarian debate
Sorry but youtube is blocked.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact: