Vegetarianism

[Ya Mu]

Noone's addressed them because this thread is not about you, as I have pointed out, but you've yet to grasp. Your posts are drop in the bucket, and with a unusually selective point of view of whats valid or not. (emotions not valid for addressing ethical questions, only logic valid in deciding what can be killed)

 

I agree with the boring part. Time to meditate. Love and healing.

Correct - it is not about me. But is is about experience with vegetarianism. I do have that experience.

And most of the responses that have been directed to me, including yours, were to the post I was referring back to.

[JustARandomPanda]

Buddhists avoid killing animals because its unskillful to add to you karmic debt you owe, and will have that debt to the animal through your lifetimes.

 

We owe more karmic debt to many beings than we well know. Take for example the REAL forgotten 99%

 

The hardworking invertebrates of the world who pollinate plants or do other kinds of clean up chores.

 

Here's a society - Xerces - I hope to contribute to someday that talks about the appalling lack of concern for these little Sentient Beings. Make no mistake. We all owe a karmic debt to these little beings and that debt will be paid one way or another.

 

 

 

Insects — the neglected 99 percent

 

 

This December, the Xerces Society celebrated its 40th anniversary. Not bad for a group that champions the spineless.

 

No, the Xerces Society isn't a fraternity of bank executives or mortgage lenders. It's a Portland, Oregon-based non-profit dedicated to the protection of invertebrates, animals that lack a physical (rather than metaphorical) backbone. Animals like earthworms, bumblebees, and beetles.

 

Invertebrates are the planet's soil tillers and pollen pimps, its gravediggers and stream cleaners; the animal kingdom's working class. In fact, they represent 99 percent of life on earth. So what better time than now, during "Occupy" mania, for the Xerces Society to celebrate 40 years of advocacy on behalf of invertebrates, Earth's industrious, but neglected, 99 percent?

 

Robert Michael Pyle, a scientist-poet with a weakness for butterflies, founded The Xerces Society in 1971. He named it after the Xerces blue (Glaucopsyche xerces), the first North American butterfly to go extinct due to human disturbance, in the hopes the insect would "make an apt symbol" and steel the group's resolve to prevent more species losses, says Pyle in a recent issue of Wings, the Xerces Society's biannual magazine.

 

The Society began as a small volunteer group of Lepidopterists committed to the conservation of moths and butterflies, the insect world's gentle, winged ambassadors. They created the popular Fourth of July Butterfly Count (which the North American Butterfly Association took over in 1993) and the Monarch Project, through which the Society protects the butterfly's feeding and overwintering sites along its migration route in Mexico and California.

 

But in the early 80′s, Xerces went pro, hiring a full-time staff, taking on eminent scientific advisors — including the great conservation biologist and insectophile E.O. Wilson — and broadening its focus from Lepidoptera to native pollinators, aquatic invertebrates, freshwater mussels, and endangered insects. The group's work has involved myriad western species such as the Taylor's checkerspot, a vibrant grassland butterfly from the Pacific Northwest; the Siuslaw hairy-necked tiger beetle, a rare predatory beetle that stalks Oregon's beaches for prey, and the western glacier stonefly, a glacier meltwater-dependent invertebrate known from a single area in Montana's Glacier National Park.

 

The Xerces Society was also one of the first organizations in North America to advocate for river bugs as biomonitors, stressing, with the cooperation of government agencies and other green groups, the connection between aquatic invertebrates (like the western glacier stonefly) and watershed health. And they have been instrumental in protecting native pollinators, creatures whose world economic value has been estimated at $153 billion. What's more, according to researchers with the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum's Forgotten Pollinators Campaign, pollinators make every third bite of food we eat possible. Yum, Yum, honeybee.

 

In her book Sex on Six Legs: Lessons on Life, Love, and Language from the Insect World, biologist and author Marlene Zuk mentions Xerces Society scientist Mace Vaughn and his 2006 attempt with fellow researcher John Losey to quantify the economic value of four ecological services rendered by insects, the most numerous invertebrates. The four were pollination, recreation (i.e. "the importance of bugs to hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation, including bird-watching"), dung burial, and pest control (insects play a huge role in controlling crop-pests). "The total bill?" asks Zuk — $57 billion in the U.S. alone.

 

What's more, "the sheer magnitude of insect numbers means that they could not be eliminated without leaving a hole so large…that the rest of the world's organisms would be unable to continue their lives," says Zuk. For this reason, protecting and recovering endangered invertebrate species is one the Xerces Society's top priorities.

 

But bears make better poster children than beetles.

 

Incredibly, in 1978, just a few years after the Endangered Species Act was established, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to eliminate ESA protection for all invertebrates! The Xerces Society wrote letters decrying the plan to every single member of the House. Eventually, Congress comprised, preserving ESA protection for invertebrates but limiting federal protection of "distinct population segments" to vertebrate species. Still, "the Endangered Species Act remains one of the most important environmental laws in the world for the conservation of insects and other invertebrates, and the habitat upon which they depend," says Xerces Society Executive Director, Scott Hoffman Black in testimony to the House Natural Resources Committee. No other U.S. law, he says, specifically protects invertebrates and their habitats.

 

So, the next time you're "Occupying" your local park for the good of society's working class majority, take a moment to look around you for members of the planet's 99 percent. They might not have cheeky signs or "human microphones" but, thanks to groups like the Xerces Society, their collective voice is loud and clear — even without a the clamor of a drum circle.

[JustARandomPanda]

This horrified the Dali Lama, who said "We don't kill the animals we eat! It breaks the Bodhisattva vow"

My friend said "well Who kills them?"

Dalai said "People from other religions!"

My friend said "doesnt that break the bodhisattva vow? Doesn't getting someone else to kill for you condemn them to a hell rebirth?"

 

Which Sutra teaches this specifically?

 

That killing to eat meat sends someone to a Hell Rebirth?!!

 

I used to be an AVID sport fisher and would eat the fish I caught. If this Sutra you reference really exists then I am going to HELL. For a Long Time.

 

Have you read any of the sutra descriptions of Hell Realms? Seriously. I have read a few. They could give the Christians and Muslims a hard run for their money in descriptive horrible places to be reborn into.

 

 

Seriously, I need to read it. I was under the impression Theravadins (who are NOT - I repeat - NOT Hinayana-ians ) will eat meat.

 

Seriously... I coulda sworn I read somewhere where the Buddha himself criticized the Jains for taking the 'do not eat meat' as a precept to an extreme level - to the point it had actually turned into an obstacle to achieving Enlightenment.*

 

 

In any case Precepts are meant as guidelines. Not hard and fast lines. Either you break the Precept given a set of circumstances or the Precept will break you. I think that's what Ya Mu was getting at. It is not unlike what I recall the Buddha talking about even though I know Ya Mu isn't all that intrigued with the Buddha or the Buddha's teachings. But the general idea is similar imo.

 

 

I can't speak to the bit about the Dalai Lama flying into a rage. I find that rather odd. For it would imply that Daniel Ingram has achieved a higher level of Realization than the Dalai Lama and while that very well could be the case I do find it odd that other Lamas would elevate someone to be their leader who so obviously had not passed through to at least the level Ingram has achieved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Yeah. Yeah. I know. The vast majority of Taobums believe there is no such thing as Enlightenment. I'm just referencing what I thought the Buddha said specifically. Dang I wish I could remember the name of that Sutra where he criticized the Jains for taking the 'no killing to eat' precept too far (I think it was the Jains...).

Edited March 10, 2012 by SereneBlue

[Seth Ananda]

 

And no, I am not an "overall authority". But guess what? NEITHER ARE YOU!

 

Well I admit that. But I don't need to be. The science is solid. A vegetarian meal can provide just as much of the life sustaining nutrition as a meat one. Protein, fiber, minerals, vitamins, carbs... Its all easily there.

 

Funnily I am not arguing for Vegetarianism.

 

I am simply arguing against the relatively stupid idea that many people can not live with out meat...

 

Once again, massive genetically diverse communities do just fine without meat.

 

All we have here is Yamu's 'thoughts' vs the actual reality, of many communities filled with actual people, one alone of which has 16.3 million members, who are life long Vegetarians and do just fine.

 

I am making no point other than this.

So if you wish to argue, argue something about my actual point.

[Seth Ananda]

Which Sutra teaches this specifically?

 

That killing to eat meat sends someone to a Hell Rebirth?!!

 

 

I don't know, as I don't know the sutras very well. But I have heard this exact teaching from many Tibetan Lamas... Hence they themselves never Kill, ever.

 

But they don't mind having others do it....

Edited March 10, 2012 by Seth Ananda

[JustARandomPanda]

I don't know, as I don't know the sutras very well. But I have heard this exact teaching from many Tibetan Lamas... Hence they themselves never Kill, ever.

 

But they don't mind having others do it....

 

 

Ok.

 

Well...I'll see if I can track down both Sutras. The one I seem to be recalling and the one you are referencing. Perhaps these differences might be a source of division between Theravadins and Mahayanins? *shrug*

 

Don't know.

 

I do find it odd that (if indeed it is true the Buddha himself said killing to eat meat sends one to a Hell Rebirth) having others kill for you (and thus *they* accumulate Hell karma) is not exactly a...um...rather Bodhisattva-like thing to do.

 

 

******

 

 

On another subject:

 

 

I have run real world tests on my own body specifically when it comes to eggs. Whenever I have at least 2 eggs per week my nails become thick and strong and my hair follicle produces thicker hair. Everytime I cut eggs out of my diet my nails and hair become weak and brittle again. No clue why. And it is *only* eggs that do this. Not lethicin, not the fats or whatever. Taking the components of eggs as vitamin or mineral or fats supplements does not produce the same result (much to my frustration). I'll never be a vegan.

Edited March 10, 2012 by SereneBlue

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Interesting about the no salt connection. I wonder if has something to do with having things in their natural state. To my knowledge this is why Ital Rastas do not use salt and always eat raw, following "you are what you eat" they eat things in their natural state to maintain their own connection to the land.

 

 

For the sake of adding a few talking points:

 

the reason Christians do not follow the Judaic dietary prohibitions is based on the quote "it's not what you take in, but what you put out." This occurring in the midst of obvious corruption and cold hearted intolerance by priests. There are of course parallels to modern day society here, looking at imperialist governments and fundamentalist prejudice.

 

So the point is that someone can be vegetarian but lack real spiritual actions, or eat meat and be incredibly compassionate in general (as Ya Mu has mentioned a few times).

 

However, for me, the thing about diet is making it easier for myself. It's nice to know that I'm not contributing to the demand for slaughter. Also, eating pork, in my experience of going without it, somehow seems to infuse the person with more subtle tendencies of the pig (lack of discernment and being led by desires).

 

And even though this may be mental rather than biological thing, when I stopped eating pork it was also a commitment "You stopped eating pigs, don't act like one" and this was helpful as a reminder. I think the same goes for spiritually minded vegans and vegetarians telling themselves "wait, you stopped eating meat so as to be more compassionate, so why are you acting like an animal?" I think it is a very useful TOOL to changing ones actions and emotions. Of course, just because I have a hammer doesn't make me a carpenter, and if I walk around everywhere with my hammer in my belt acting like I know shit, I'd be better to leave it a home now wouldn't I

 

Another part of the Bible that has influenced Christian diets is a part in The Bible about not refusing the food that someone puts in front of you as this would be an insult to your host. I'm pretty sure Buddhist texts say something about this as well. But more so, I would rather eat a left over piece of chicken than let it get thrown out. To me that shows more respect to the chicken which has already been slaughtered. Not to say this is the ONLY time I'll eat meat, but it bridges some of the issues without contaminating the mission, in my estimation...

[Seth Ananda]

 

I do find it odd that (if indeed it is true the Buddha himself said killing to eat meat sends one to a Hell Rebirth) having others kill for you (and thus *they* accumulate Hell karma) is not exactly a...um...rather Bodhisattva-like thing to do.

 

I think the point is about Killing full stop. Killing leads to hell realms.

Whether it is to eat or not is besides the point...

Mind you they don't see eating meat as bad, just the act of killing itself is a highly negative karmic action.

[suninmyeyes]

Here is a translation of the Karmapas speech. Karmapa is a Buddhist spiritual leader urging fellow Buddhists to go veggie.

I remeber living in a sangha in 2007 and a lot of people going veggie becouse of it.

http://sh1.webring.com/people/jk/karmakiwi108/HHVegetarianism.html

[suninmyeyes]

Interesting about the no salt connection. I wonder if has something to do with having things in their natural state. To my knowledge this is why Ital Rastas do not use salt and always eat raw, following "you are what you eat" they eat things in their natural state to maintain their own connection to the land.

 

Yeah it is interesting with the salt connection. A lot of Hindu Yogis do not eat salt at all.

I think it has to do with the damage that salt has on us. Here I am talking from personal point and not science . Very often we get cravings for certain foods because of the salt , try that food without salt and you get a different taste all together and will probably eat enough of it to satisfy your hunger and that is it.

 

So it is very addictive .

 

I was salt free for a few years . This year I started salt again and I can feel its effect working so weird in my body . It works as an some sort of irritant and is a cause for dehydration. A lot of people get ill because of dehydration and are dehydrated without even realising. Even common colds could be cut down if one keeps well hydrated.

If people were salt free they would not really have much cellulite , or swollen parts of the body - obesity would also not be as present and suffering from many diseases directly or indirectly connected to salt would be less.

 

Food and mind and body are directly connected .

[Jetsun]

Gurdjieff wrote in his first book from his observations on the human psyche that if you get two communities of people and one of them are vegetarian and the other are meat eaters the meat eaters will always end up dominating the vegetarians. For his own students he didn't recommend either way but what he would do was challenge peoples habits and beliefs around this issue, so if a vegetarian came to him he would make them eat meat and meat eaters should become vegetarians for a while in order to challenge any fixed conceptions and give them a shock which creates better conditions for self awareness, because the most important thing spiritually is to break free from the grooves and fixed patterns you are in.

[suninmyeyes]

Gurdjieff wrote in his first book from his observations on the human psyche that if you get two communities of people and one of them are vegetarian and the other are meat eaters the meat eaters will always end up dominating the vegetarians. For his own students he didn't recommend either way but what he would do was challenge peoples habits and beliefs around this issue, so if a vegetarian came to him he would make them eat meat and meat eaters should become vegetarians for a while in order to challenge any fixed conceptions and give them a shock which creates better conditions for self awareness, because the most important thing spiritually is to break free from the grooves and fixed patterns you are in.

 

hehe no teacher would ever succeed in making me eat meat for sure. I would not recommend diets to others either, but would happily share personal results to show a possibility that exists.

Talking about breaking free of fixed patterns is good and absolutely necessary, but know when and how is supremely important,and which ones at which time otherwise results could be terrible. Also replacing patterns is as important , because life goes on.

[konchog uma]

i can definitely notice a difference between the attitudes of the vegetarian proponents and the attitude of meat-eaters in this thread.

 

and ya mu, you might even be right in a factual sense, but to me your condescending attitude says more about eating flesh than your facts and statistics.

 

perhaps though, you could tell us Why some people need to eat meat, instead of just stating that they do and then mocking everyone who disagrees?

[madMUHHH]

Hi there folks,

I just wanted to add a few things to the discussion, even though I am not sure how on-topic this really is. So feel free to ignore my post.

 

First of all, let me start by saying, that I really don't want to argue for or against vegetarianism here. However, I think some arguments used in favour of veganism/vegetarianism are flawed and not completely thought through. The two main arguments I am talking about are

1. meat eating is unsustainable and takes up too much resources that could be used to feed people and

2. factory farming is cruel, therefore it is wrong to eat meat.

 

So here is why I personally think those two arguments are problematic:

 

1.) Yes, the amount of grains used to feed cattle etc. should better be used to feed people directly. But the thing is, cows really aren't supposed to eat (that much) grain in the first place. They eat grass. And you know what? That's actually a really awesome thing because

a) this makes the grass grow faster and thus is a good way to fix carbondioxide and b.) cows running around on the field with all their stomping, pooing and all that is a very good way to restore depleted soil, which is a really great and highly overlooked problem caused by modern agricultural practices (this is also a factor many people tend to overlook, that modern agriculture effectively depletes the soil, destroys ecosystems and thus also causes the death of many animals).

The story is similar for chickens and geese etc and pigs are very versatile animals anyways, there's really no need to feed them grains.

 

2.) Yes, factory farming is cruel and simply wrong, wrong, wrong. But then again, this is not an argument against meat consumption in general, but with the way, most animals are raised today. Raising animals in a way that is more in tune with their natural lifestyle is not only much healthier for everyone involved, but also less cruel.

You could certainly argue, that it is still wrong to take an animal's live and that's a valid point worthy of consideration, but if you eliminate any unnecessary cruelty, I think the whole moral issue becomes a lot harder to decide. How wrong is it really to take an animals live if it is more or less in accord with the role humans and other carnivorous/omnivorous play within an ecosystem? I really do not know. Ecosystems are in a naturally balance and predators are a part of that balance. Eliminating the top of the food chain does cause imbalances as has already been mentioned with some areas having too much deer running around and causing trouble.

So I think that the whole moral issue is a very complex one and I personally still haven't found my answer to that.

 

And to make my point clear, I don't actually want to argue for or against vegetarianism/veganism here. I think vegetarianism/veganism has a lot going for it and I might actually go for a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle in the future.

 

A little fun fact to conclude my post: As many of you may already know:,John Chang asked "God" whether it is okay to eat meat and God said that it is:

“I asked Him about hunting and killing game. I detected amusement in His voice when he answered that question, because He said: ‘You are asking Me about this because you killed a wild boar last week to eat, didn’t you? It’s okay to kill for food; all of nature is a struggle for survival. But you must never kill for sport or for pride, because all of nature belongs to God.’”

The Magus of Java, page 125

 

Personally, I have no idea what to make of that.

[Ya Mu]

Well I admit that. But I don't need to be. The science is solid. A vegetarian meal can provide just as much of the life sustaining nutrition as a meat one. Protein, fiber, minerals, vitamins, carbs... Its all easily there.

 

Funnily I am not arguing for Vegetarianism.

 

I am simply arguing against the relatively stupid idea that many people can not live with out meat...

 

Once again, massive genetically diverse communities do just fine without meat.

 

All we have here is Yamu's 'thoughts' vs the actual reality, of many communities filled with actual people, one alone of which has 16.3 million members, who are life long Vegetarians and do just fine.

 

I am making no point other than this.

So if you wish to argue, argue something about my actual point.

 

This subject appears to be something you don't understand.

What I have been referring to the whole time is reposted to below:

...

Perhaps food combining makes more difference to many people than being a vegetarian. Hmmm.

 

Meats digest well if not combined with carbs.

 

Many do extremely well on Paleo diet.

 

Perhaps eliminating grains makes more difference than being a vegetarian.

 

Some do not do well as vegetarian. Others do.

 

If one eats meat best if pasture raised (more omega 3's), best if butchered properly. Best if lean. Best if you do it yourself.

 

Whatever one eats whether meat or vegetables they should bless the food. And I don't mean petitioning some little old man in the sky, I mean really blessing it.

 

Vegetables from the grocery store? Full of pesticides and other chemicals.

 

Now, let us consider the "humane" "spiritual" aspect.

 

So, let us assume that everyone on Earth gives up meat and goes vegetarian. Now those poor cows, goats, pigs, chickens, and turkeys are free from worry about being eaten and we can pat ourselves on the back for being "spiritual" and all these animals can live out long natural free lives.

 

HA! Not so fast. Let us examine this. Take cows as our test. So now there is no reason for a rancher to feed the many cows (far too costly) and initially there will be a huge die off (yep, us "spiritual" people helped them ascend!), and perhaps bring disease to the human population. What remains will run wild and perhaps a few will live but most will not. Don't want those wild cows running in the streets so we enact laws to take them off the streets. What we gonna do with them? Kill them most likely or perhaps put them in a huge complex and pass extreme tax laws to pay for feeding them. OR they just becomes extinct.

Hmmm. Reckon this will work? What did we do? We most probably killed off a whole group or groups of animals. How "spiritual" would that make us?

 

Deer herds that are not hunted and thinned become a huge problem.

If it were not for the hunting and eating of deer then there would be extreme disease and over-competition for the natural food available and thus a huge die-off of the deer. This is a fact.

 

I didn't post this to piss off the vegetarians. I personally like to eat lots of vegetables and grow them myself and also am of the personal opinion that everyone should do so. But I am hearing a lot of "spiritual" posted here without consideration or if it is really true. Just some food for thought.

 

Also, the majority of vegetarians I have met seem to have this holier than thou attitude. And of course none of you proponents who post here have that, but it is just as bad as those who eat meat having the same attitude against vegetarians. It doesn't make one more "spiritual" to eat either way.

 

The OP asked for experiences with vegetarian diet. Full veg doesn't work well for a lot of people. If you decide to try, simply monitor your well being and don't be dumb about it if it doesn't work for you. It may work well for you or it may not.

 

So if you wish to argue these points then go ahead.

 

Your argument's above holds no water at all. You are using a community of vegetarians as proof. This is exactly like the pesticide industry regulating all the rules for clean water. You should know that.

 

Also, you failed to address the fact that you criticized the Dalai Lama for eating meat that he needed for his health because SETH THINKS he knows more than this leader's personal physician while not actually knowing a damn thing about the details of his health situation. This is really rich, seth. I have to hand it to you for creativity.

 

You also said I was lying. Calling these FACTS "Ya Mu's thoughts". This is not the case. They are facts.

What you seem to fail to realize is that, if just one case of people who do not do well eating a vegetarian diet exists, then it is ignorant of you to say that all people can eat vegetarian without problems. I have over 250 documented case studies on this, so if you want to still call me a liar, that is your problem and not mine.

 

Do you want to call mythmaker a liar as well? I have this feeling that he admitted it, even though he is a staunch vegetarian (which I do respect) based on actual experience; unlike you, who seems to make up his mind something is so, and that is the way it has to be.

No you are right it does not work for everyone.

...

 

The truth is that, in your life experience, you simply have not been put in the situation where you have seen this inability to do well on a strict vegetarian diet. Just because it works well for you and your immediate circle doesn't mean it works for everyone, and again, your example of a group of vegetarians is just that - a group of vegetarians, and proves nothing at all.

Why could you even think that I am the only one who has run across this? Many physicians would tell you the same thing. The over 250 cases I referred to were physician diagnosed cases of anemia, not diagnosed by Ya Mu. Not one of these cases were meat eaters and each one of them were fine before going an a vegetarian diet.

 

Not all people can handle a vegetarian diet. Some need to eat meat. This is simply the way it is, regardless of any particular person's emotional defending of vegetarianism or belief.

 

 

Edit: I re-read the posts and see that a part of your aggressiveness was due to that you thought a part of my first reply to you was directed at you.

I usually answer a person, then in the next paragraph address the thread. But I can see in this case that I was not clear in that. I apologize for the mis-communication. So I edited my post to reflect this.

Edited March 10, 2012 by Ya Mu

[Ya Mu]

i can definitely notice a difference between the attitudes of the vegetarian proponents and the attitude of meat-eaters in this thread.

 

and ya mu, you might even be right in a factual sense, but to me your condescending attitude says more about eating flesh than your facts and statistics.

 

perhaps though, you could tell us Why some people need to eat meat, instead of just stating that they do and then mocking everyone who disagrees?

I guess you too failed to read the whole thread. No condescending attitude. Just someone who has had a whole lot of experience in this subject. People who disagree with me love to throw such remarks in and are generally the type of people I posted about. And if you had of read what I wrote then you would know I personally do not like the taste of meat, except for fish and a small amount of venison. I am arguing for the part of the population of meat eaters that need to do so for their health. Because this part of the population is ignorantly put down as "non-spiritual" by a significant number of people. No one yet has addressed the fact that most vegetables that are eaten contain huge amounts of pesticides and are not really fresh so they hold little nutritional value, and the fact that these chemicals are bad for one's health. I argue for a person to grow their own food. Even apartment dwellers can grow a certain amount of their own food.

 

I did propose the reason I thought this was true. Try reading the thread.

[Tom Lin]

This subject appears to be something you obviously don't understand.

First off, if you had bothered reading through the thread instead of going direct to your personal aggressive style of writing, you would have seen the points I were arguing and have been referring to the whole time instead of jumping in and saying nonsense. They are repeated here since you didn't bother seeing what this was all about.

 

 

So if you wish to argue these points then go ahead.

 

Your argument's above holds no water at all. You are using a community of vegetarians as proof. This is exactly like the pesticide industry regulating all the rules for clean water. You should know that.

 

Also, you failed to address the fact that you criticized the Dalai Lama for eating meat that he needed for his health because SETH THINKS he knows more than this leader's personal physician while not actually knowing a damn thing about the details of his health situation. This is really rich, seth. I have to hand it to you for creativity.

 

You also said I was lying. Calling these FACTS "Ya Mu's thoughts". This is not the case. They are facts.

What you seem to fail to realize is that, if just one case of people who do not do well eating a vegetarian diet exists, then you cannot say, in your blazing ignorance, that all people can eat vegetarian without problems. I have over 250 documented case studies on this, so if you want to still call me a liar, that is your problem and not mine.

 

Do you want to call mythmaker a liar as well? I have this feeling that he admitted it, even though he is a staunch vegetarian (which I do respect) based on actual experience; unlike you, who seems to make up his mind something is so, and that is the way it has to be.

 

I could ask how old you are and say that you would gain more life experience after you graduated high school, and other stupid things, but it wouldn't be true. The truth is that, in your life experience, you simply have not been put in the situation where you have seen this inability to do well on a strict vegetarian diet. Just because it works well for you and your immediate circle doesn't mean it works for everyone, and again, your example of a group of vegetarians is just that - a group of vegetarians, and proves nothing at all.

Why could you even think that I am the only one who has run across this? Many physicians would tell you the same thing. The over 250 cases I referred to were physician diagnosed cases of anemia, not diagnosed by Ya Mu. Not one of these cases were meat eaters and each one of them were fine before going an a vegetarian diet.

 

Not all people can handle a vegetarian diet. Some need to eat meat. This is simply the way it is, regardless of any particular person's emotional defending of vegetarianism or belief.

 

relax man

[Ya Mu]

This horrified the Dali Lama, who said "We don't kill the animals we eat! It breaks the Bodhisattva vow"

My friend said "well Who kills them?"

Dalai said "People from other religions!"

My friend said "doesnt that break the bodhisattva vow? Doesn't getting someone else to kill for you condemn them to a hell rebirth?"

Which Sutra teaches this specifically?

 

That killing to eat meat sends someone to a Hell Rebirth?!!

 

I used to be an AVID sport fisher and would eat the fish I caught. If this Sutra you reference really exists then I am going to HELL. For a Long Time.

 

Have you read any of the sutra descriptions of Hell Realms? Seriously. I have read a few. They could give the Christians and Muslims a hard run for their money in descriptive horrible places to be reborn into.

 

 

Seriously, I need to read it. I was under the impression Theravadins (who are NOT - I repeat - NOT Hinayana-ians ) will eat meat.

 

Seriously... I coulda sworn I read somewhere where the Buddha himself criticized the Jains for taking the 'do not eat meat' as a precept to an extreme level - to the point it had actually turned into an obstacle to achieving Enlightenment.*

 

 

In any case Precepts are meant as guidelines. Not hard and fast lines. Either you break the Precept given a set of circumstances or the Precept will break you. I think that's what Ya Mu was getting at. It is not unlike what I recall the Buddha talking about even though I know Ya Mu isn't all that intrigued with the Buddha or the Buddha's teachings. But the general idea is similar imo.

 

I can't speak to the bit about the Dalai Lama flying into a rage. I find that rather odd. For it would imply that Daniel Ingram has achieved a higher level of Realization than the Dalai Lama and while that very well could be the case I do find it odd that other Lamas would elevate someone to be their leader who so obviously had not passed through to at least the level Ingram has achieved.

 

*Yeah. Yeah. I know. The vast majority of Taobums believe there is no such thing as Enlightenment. I'm just referencing what I thought the Buddha said specifically. Dang I wish I could remember the name of that Sutra where he criticized the Jains for taking the 'no killing to eat' precept too far (I think it was the Jains...).

You make some good points here.

 

even though I know Ya Mu isn't all that intrigued with the Buddha or the Buddha's teachings.

 

Not well known as I do emphasize the Taoist side of things, my Buddhist training comes from: Fu Wei Zhong, abbot of the Golden Summit Temple to Zhou Qian-Chuan to Wang Juemin to Ya Mu, in that order, these teachings are an inherent aspect of what I have been taught.

 

 

relax man

Thanks! I am relaxed. Just don't like seeing nonsense.

[Ya Mu]

Hi there folks,

I just wanted to add a few things to the discussion, even though I am nto sure how on-topic this really is. So feel free to ignore my post.

 

First of all, let me start by saying, that I really don't want to argue for or against vegeratianism here. However, I think some arguments used in favour of veganism/vegetarianism are flawed and not completely thought through. The two main arguments I am talking about are

1. meat eating is unsustainable and takes up too much resources that could be used to feed people and

2. factory farming is cruel, therefore it is wrong to eat meat.

 

So here is why I personally think those two arguments are problematic:

 

1.) Yes, the amount of grains used to feed cattle etc. should better be used to feed people directly. But the thing is, cows really aren't supposed to eat (that much) grain in the first place. They eat grass. And you know what? That's actually a really awesome thing because

a) this makes the grass grow faster and thus is a good way to fix carbondioxide and b.) cows running around on the field with all their stomping, pooing and all that is a very good way to restore depleted soil, which is a really great and highly overlooked problem caused by modern agricultural practices (this is also a factor many people tend to overlook, that modern agriculture efficitvely depletes the soil, destroys ecosystems and thus also causes the death of many animals).

The story is similar for chickens and geese etc and pigs are very versatile animals anyways, there's really no need to feed them grains.

 

2.) Yes, factory farming is cruel and simply wrong, wrong, wrong. But then again, this is not an argument against meat consumption in general, but with the way, most animals are raised today. Raising animals in a way that is more in tune with their natural lifestyle is not only much healthier for everyone involved, but also less cruel.

You could certainly argue, that it is still wrong to take an animal's live and that's a valid point worthy of consideration, but if you eliminate any unnecessary cruelty, I think the whole moral issue becomes a lot harder to decide. How wrong is it really to take an animals live if it is more or less in accord with the role humans and other carnivorous/omnivorous play within an ecosystem? I really do not know. Ecosystems are in a naturally balance and predators are a part of that balance. Eliminating the top of the food chain does cause imbalances as has already been mentioned with some areas having too much deer running around and causing trouble.

So I think that the whole moral issue is a very complex one and I personally still haven't found my answer to that.

 

And to make my point clear, I don't actually want to argue for or against vegetarianism/veganism here. I think vegetarianism/veganism has a lot going for it and I might actually go for a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle in the future.

 

A little fun fact to conclude my post: As many of you may already know:,John Chang asked "God" whether it is okay to eat meat and God said that it is:

 

The Magus of Java, page 125

 

Personally, I have no idea what to make of that.

Good points.

I especially like the fact you mention of pastured raised being natural. Although I personally don't like to eat beef, pastured beef has been proven to contain more nutrients such as omega 3's, is much more lean, and is much better for a person than grain fed beef. And my opinion is that the distorted genetically modified grains that so many in the world love to eat, are extremely bad for one's health. So it would make sense that the grain fed beef would be as well.

[Mokona]

Secret Smile time. Edited March 10, 2012 by Mokona

[mYTHmAKER]

No one yet has addressed the fact that most vegetables that are eaten contain huge amounts of pesticides and are not really fresh so they hold little nutritional value, and the fact that these chemicals are bad for one's health. I argue for a person to grow their own food. Even apartment dwellers can grow a certain amount of their own food.

 

Curious you don't mention the chemicals fed to animals to make them grow faster and to fatten them up.

Feeding animal products to cows - mad cow disease etc.

Oops left out the colorants added to meat so it no longer looks gray

and you can't tell it's real condition.

All food is screwed up these days and one has to be very careful what they are ingesting.

So why focus on wilting veges and not hormone loaded animals.

Well maybe you did i just have no patience to read every post with all the arguing back and forth of who is right and who is wrong.

This always happens whenever a vegetarian thread is started. So carry on.

Edited March 10, 2012 by mYTHmAKER

[Mokona]

Curious you don't mention the chemicals fed to animals to make them grow faster and to fatten them up.

Feeding animal products to cows - mad cow disease etc.

All food is screwed up these days and one has to be very careful what they are ingesting.

So why focus on wilting veges and not hormone loaded animals.

Well maybe you did i just have no patience to read every post with all the arguing back and forth of who is right and who is wrong.

This always happens whenever a vegetarian thread is started. So carry on.

Is it the internets fault you come across as pissed in so many of your posts. It can't be your diet, as the posts in this thread indicate it really is possible to tell who posting eats meat, or doesn't.

 

WINNING

Edited March 10, 2012 by Mokona

[mYTHmAKER]

Is it the internets fault you come across as pissed in so many of your posts. It can't be your diet, as the posts in this thread indicate it really is possible to tell who posting eats meat, or doesn't.

 

WINNING

 

Blame it on the internet

 

I'm not pissed as far as I can tell.

 

i would like others opinions on this

if this is true i would appreciate instances where this is applicable.

[Ya Mu]

Curious you don't mention the chemicals fed to animals to make them grow faster and to fatten them up.

Feeding animal products to cows - mad cow disease etc.

Oops left out the colorants added to meat so it no longer looks gray

and you can't tell it's real condition.

All food is screwed up these days and one has to be very careful what they are ingesting.

So why focus on wilting veges and not hormone loaded animals.

Well maybe you did i just have no patience to read every post with all the arguing back and forth of who is right and who is wrong.

This always happens whenever a vegetarian thread is started. So carry on.

This is a good point.

I was under the impression that I had mentioned about 15 or 20 times so far in this thread that my position is that pasture raised beef (pig, goat, chicken or whatever one eats), raised on clean pastures (no chemicals applied), is much more healthy than the grain fed meat, much leaner, much higher in omega 3's, etc. But I certainly don't mind posting it again. I go to the grocery store, look in the ground meat section occasionally just to check the status of the local supply, and see gobs of sick qi boiling out of the meat. It is more prevalent in the ground meat but also present in a fair amount of the other. Yuc! Interesting that I do not see this same sick qi in venison that I prepare myself, once a year. And to be fair, I do not see it in most other pasture raised meat products IF they have been handled properly.

Someone else posted a really good post about the pasture raised beef as well.

I also brought up that those that that eat these same genetically altered grains are exposed to chemicals and I think that this grain is one of more-contributing to health problems of foods. Right up there with sugar (well, maybe not, as sugar is bad bad bad) and fatty meat.

 

Yes, unless one raises the food themselves and knows what is in it, it is all questionable. Sucks, doesn't it?

[mYTHmAKER]

This is a good point.

I was under the impression that I had mentioned about 15 or 20 times so far in this thread that my position is that pasture raised beef (pig, goat, chicken or whatever one eats), raised on clean pastures (no chemicals applied), is much more healthy than the grain fed meat, much leaner, much higher in omega 3's, etc. But I certainly don't mind posting it again. I go to the grocery store, look in the ground meat section occasionally just to check the status of the local supply, and see gobs of sick qi boiling out of the meat. It is more prevalent in the ground meat but also present in a fair amount of the other. Yuc! Interesting that I do not see this same sick qi in venison that I prepare myself, once a year. And to be fair, I do not see it in most other pasture raised meat products IF they have been handled properly.

Someone else posted a really good post about the pasture raised beef as well.

I also brought up that those that that eat these same genetically altered grains are exposed to chemicals and I think that this grain is one of more-contributing to health problems of foods. Right up there with sugar (well, maybe not, as sugar is bad bad bad) and fatty meat.

 

Yes, unless one raises the food themselves and knows what is in it, it is all questionable. Sucks, doesn't it?

 

So I think this thread should be renamed or a new thread started something like - what's wrong with our food today or how corporations are screwing with our food or lies the FDA tells us or how to eat healthy in an unhealthy world.