Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Vegetarianism and Ahimsa

Re: Vegetarianism and Ahimsa
April 12, 2009, 05:40:04 AM
I think some of you might be assigning too much philosophy to this. There is nothing wrong with eating meat in my assumption, only the way the animals are raised do you enter into the morality of it all.

Re: Vegetarianism and Ahimsa
April 12, 2009, 08:12:45 PM
since rearing livestock will not be a sustainable option.

That is a moral opinion.

Sustainable at what standard and for whom?

Yeah, you got me there, I should have said ethics instead of morality.

The way I see it, meat "production" is useless baggage on a planet already straining under the stress of human desires, and in our lifetimes we will see a gradual phasing out of it, since the negative aspects of animal farming will become more evident with the rising (former) 3rd world economies, e.g the Chinese middle class all hungry for things that they were "denied" before.

Just my badly constructed 0,02

Re: Vegetarianism and Ahimsa
April 13, 2009, 02:17:07 AM
I've been Vegan myself for about 5 years now. I do not necessarily like animals, but I respect them, and do not see the point in using them for food, when there is already so much food available to me. Nutritionally one can get all the nourishment they need from plant sources.

B12 in its active form is the only vitamin that has to be obtained synthetic sources.

Plant foods are a much more efficient use of land and resources, and cutting back on meat would at least be part of a solution to the over population problem seeing that so much land must be used to raise animal foods.

I never bought into the moral or ethical reasons for not eating animals, and often find myself at odds with other Vegans and Vegetarians on the subject.

If my only means of survival were to obtain food form animal sources, I would eat whatever would keep me alive, including animals.

ken

Re: Vegetarianism and Ahimsa
April 13, 2009, 06:39:57 AM
since rearing livestock will not be a sustainable option.

That is a moral opinion.

Sustainable at what standard and for whom?

If you want to end unnecessary suffering... end overpopulation, so that species can continue to exist. In contrast to that task, vegetarianism is a paltry substitute and a surrogate activity that takes the place of real action.

outside of a major change in the foundations of our civilization such as a drastic reduction of our population, eating meat will further perpetuate the ecological crisis. check our history, note the pattern, study how much rice you can grow on a field compared to the kilograms of meat you can farm. results can be scientifically proven yet often times the individual will choose the most emotionally appealing of evidence- think of passive smoking. also, in my city veganism in young people is almost always tied to advocation of a plethora of ethical commitments, most of which i assume would also be advocated here such as animal rights, organic(animal) farming, endangered species protection, enviroment protection, human health.

the first fallacy is that you(appear to) claim depopulation is possible.

if this were true and more so it were imminent, at first i would agree that more effort should be put into the depopulation task as opposed to vegetariansim, as i agree that the 'unnecessary suffering' (i will assume can refer to human suffering, non-human or animal suffering or both) that will end with depopulation will end much more suffering than the suffering inflicted upon an individual eating animals.

which brings us to the second fallacy, which is that vegetarianism is an activity which can take the place of 'real action', which is in this case ending overpopulation.

vegetarianism cant be a surrogate activity because it isnt an activity. its simply a diet.

therefore one could practice veganism(a lifestyle excluding animals or animal products for food or clothing or any other purpose) whilst at the same time advocating depopulation.

our future and future itself is inherently uncertain. depopulation can be contrasted with a plethora of modern utopianist ideologies: communism, anarchism, stormfront fascism, 'anus ideology', neo-luddism, green anarchy, liberalism, we could have a nuclear apocalypse or alien invasion.



what is certain is that in this present time, eating a Big-Mac or organic beef is supporting deforestation and the destruction of our enviroment. its playing your part as one of six billion that have brought earth to its current state. this isnt an ethical concern, this has nothing to do with a moral crusade. stripped bare this is one thing- it is science, it is truth.

Re: Vegetarianism and Ahimsa
April 15, 2009, 11:30:17 PM
"The meat of other animals is like the flesh of one's son. That foolish person, stupefied by folly, who eats meat is regarded as the vilest of human beings."

This quote is partially correct, but marred by reactionary moralism. Eating the flesh of an animal IS exactly like eating the flesh of your son, or your father, or your daughter, or yourself. And it is good and right that it should be so. It is good and right, because that cruel, harsh, apparently "evil" truth is part of a much greater pattern - a pattern which is at its root an expression of love/virtue/excellence/beauty. Death Metal Black Metal is right - nature is horror and light.... and even putting it this way is slightly erroneous at the highest level, as it implies that there is some distinction between the two at all.

Most authentic religions throughout the world express, either explicitly or in a playful, roundabout way, the understanding that there is really no sin except for ignorance. No particular action has any inherent value, no matter how cruel or benevolent. The goodness or lack thereof of an act has everything to do with the inner reality of which it is an expression, and nothing to do with the exterior reality of morals and consequences. That which is authentically good/holy/virtuous is that which is an expression of understanding/love of reality. That which is sinful is that which is done in ignorance/reaction-to/contempt-for reality. Fully grasping this concept, and also grasping the essentially good/excellent/beautiful nature of the world of natural phenomenon, with all of its blood and guts and terror and glory, one should be able to understand that the truly sinful attitude here is that which is expressed in the Ahimsa quote, and not that of the flesh-eater (at least not inherently).

Actually no religion accepts and reveres reality the way Hinduism does. Acceptance of reality is not justification for living the life of a wild animal. Talk of the beauty/excellence/goodness/holiness/virtousness of the terrors and horrors of natural phenomenon is fantastic until your sister gets raped.

Simple common sense dictates that we cannot organize society based on the values you propound.

Re: Vegetarianism and Ahimsa
April 17, 2009, 06:03:53 AM
"The meat of other animals is like the flesh of one's son. That foolish person, stupefied by folly, who eats meat is regarded as the vilest of human beings."

This quote is partially correct, but marred by reactionary moralism. Eating the flesh of an animal IS exactly like eating the flesh of your son, or your father, or your daughter, or yourself. And it is good and right that it should be so. It is good and right, because that cruel, harsh, apparently "evil" truth is part of a much greater pattern - a pattern which is at its root an expression of love/virtue/excellence/beauty. Death Metal Black Metal is right - nature is horror and light.... and even putting it this way is slightly erroneous at the highest level, as it implies that there is some distinction between the two at all.

Most authentic religions throughout the world express, either explicitly or in a playful, roundabout way, the understanding that there is really no sin except for ignorance. No particular action has any inherent value, no matter how cruel or benevolent. The goodness or lack thereof of an act has everything to do with the inner reality of which it is an expression, and nothing to do with the exterior reality of morals and consequences. That which is authentically good/holy/virtuous is that which is an expression of understanding/love of reality. That which is sinful is that which is done in ignorance/reaction-to/contempt-for reality. Fully grasping this concept, and also grasping the essentially good/excellent/beautiful nature of the world of natural phenomenon, with all of its blood and guts and terror and glory, one should be able to understand that the truly sinful attitude here is that which is expressed in the Ahimsa quote, and not that of the flesh-eater (at least not inherently).

Actually no religion accepts and reveres reality the way Hinduism does. Acceptance of reality is not justification for living the life of a wild animal. Talk of the beauty/excellence/goodness/holiness/virtousness of the terrors and horrors of natural phenomenon is fantastic until your sister gets raped.

Simple common sense dictates that we cannot organize society based on the values you propound.
Perhaps you misinterpreted the ideas presented? If one were to accept the negative aspects of life in this manner, as far as I have read into it, one would need to accept the positive aspects as well. It is a reverence for the struggle between the negative and positive as movement, a supplier of goals, living, and thus moves your spirit towards your place within that struggle.

Re: Vegetarianism and Ahimsa
April 19, 2009, 11:02:24 PM
Many who try on the "embrace the pleasure and the pain" suit are really just doing that -- putting on a show, thinking that it will lead them to even greater happiness than the "embrace the pleasure only" suit they normally wear. Error.

They misunderstand because they haven't taken the time to actually live and become this view, this truth. The point is not to become a passive admirer of the pains of life, and sit idle while watching your sister being raped. The point is to "amor fati", to accept the overall picture, and to act wisely. If this means beheading the son of a bitch, so be it.

In this view, the gazelle gives thanks to the cheetah as it tears into its flesh. This does not mean that the gazelle did not run as best as she could, that she did not fear for her life and for her offspring and fellow gazelle. This does not mean that she wished the cheetah would grow tired and that she would be spared another day. What it means is something much deeper.

Would the deer be free from the "tyranny" of the wolf if there were no more wolves? Perhaps, but then at the price of deer overpopulation, causing a loss of biodiversity elsewhere and a rise in deer starvation.

Indeed, this is very hard to grasp and live with, especially by those who are without time for reflection and meditation, brainwashed by overload of modern information.