I think Jews shouldn't consume animals.

ok, well, i can't speak for your studies, because i don't know how they're conducted and, sadly, i am sure that in some cases, you are correct and in those cases, of course we should try and take action, but that requires knowing precisely which hechshers and supply chains we need to be concerned about. of course, one of the reasons these guys will be saying that they're only concerned with the shechita is precisely because they don't want to give people who are opposed to any shechita at all (of whom there are plenty) an excuse or any kind of statement on which to build a case. but like i said, shechita SHOULD embrace humane slaughter for HALAKHIC reasons, as we both agree, so the humane considerations should ALREADY be covered. if they are not, that is a HALAKHIC issue and should be addressed as such.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
Namaste and shalom,

not to detract from the conversation however Buddha Dharma does not require one to be a vegetarian. the Buddha Shakyamuni's last meal was something known as "pigs delight" in the Pali pankrit. given such a description it's hard to know what the meal actually consisted of... truffles perhaps? the Suttas do not offer any insight into this.

metta,

~v
 
Vajradhara said:
Namaste and shalom,

not to detract from the conversation however Buddha Dharma does not require one to be a vegetarian. the Buddha Shakyamuni's last meal was something known as "pigs delight" in the Pali pankrit. given such a description it's hard to know what the meal actually consisted of... truffles perhaps? the Suttas do not offer any insight into this.

metta,

~v
Click to expand...

So, what exactly is the relationship between Buddhism and veganism(the meat industry foisted the word vegetarian on us)? Why did I get the impression that Buddhists were associated with veganism?
While we're at it, what about Hindus?

Thanks,
Leonard
 
LAGoff, are you thinking of Jainism? They're pretty hardcore in that regard.
 
Some Buddhists are hardcore vegans also. Not in Tibet, where scrub grass is mostly all that grows (a very little barley) so if they didn't eat yak meat they'd all starve; but several Chinese and Japanese sects will not touch meat.
 
The tenacity and intelligence of the swine meant it was the last of the three mammalian groups to come under the thumb of our husbandry. Keeping them captive was no easy matter, if you have ever reared pigs you will know what I mean.But pork meat is without doubt the tastiest, sweetest meat of all. Thus it was hunted virtually to extinction wherever large human populations grew. Thus polito/religious elites forbade its consumption for the 'masses'. Of course so they could dine on it themselves.

As agriculture replaced our former hunter/gatherer societies and allowed population expansion what little available meat to be found in the wild became increasingly valuable. So a pecking order emerged according to wealth and status. But man is an omnivore that simply loves meat. So all the social constraints that evolved that appear to limit its consumption are not anything to do with what we are as animals. They are social limitations not natural animalistic ones.


Mmmmmmmmmm bacon n egg sandwich beckons ;)
 
if i understand you correctly, tao, i think i might even agree. actually i would be inclined to suggest that one of the reasons G!D might even have chosen to prohibit pork is because of its sophistication, high intelligence and general similarity to humans - perhaps it was too much like cannibalism which is why it would be classed as abomination? i don't really know. it's quite interesting when you consider that xenotransplants from pigs are often likely to be particularly successful - and that the halakhah wholeheartedly approves of this, there's no squeamishness about the fact that the organ is from a prohibited animal...

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
bananabrain said:
if i understand you correctly, tao, i think i might even agree. actually i would be inclined to suggest that one of the reasons G!D might even have chosen to prohibit pork is because of its sophistication, high intelligence and general similarity to humans - perhaps it was too much like cannibalism which is why it would be classed as abomination? i don't really know. it's quite interesting when you consider that xenotransplants from pigs are often likely to be particularly successful - and that the halakhah wholeheartedly approves of this, there's no squeamishness about the fact that the organ is from a prohibited animal...

b'shalom

bananabrain
Click to expand...

What I was trying to say is that the consumption of meat, and I used pork as an example for obvious reasons, is natural. I find cultural/religious taboo's about it only linked to social engineering and not what is good or bad. The only criteria that are important are (a) is it sustainably available and (b) do you like to eat it. I find any religion that tries to impose a blanket morality of eating meat has descended into contemptible pettiness.

tao
 
Tao_Equus said:
But man is an omnivore that simply loves meat.
Click to expand...

Yes, Man is an omnivore and so can eat all things, dependent on local conditions. What individuals love to eat is learned; from parents, peers and culture (including advertising). At least that's why I think Western children soon grow to love the G*lden Arches. And why the "West" is hurtling towards pandemic obesity on junk food whilst the "developing" world lives on in the face of starvation.

s.
 
Tao_Equus said:
The only criteria that are important are (a) is it sustainably available and (b) do you like to eat it.
Click to expand...

As a vegetarian clearly I would have to disagree on this. And you don't have to introduce "religion" to the debate. Concern for the lives of other sentient creatures, rather than just selfish pleasure, for instance IMO.

When you say "sustainably available" on what scale do you mean? The more of the world's population that eats meat, the less people the world can comfortably support and the conditions for farm animals are remorsely driven down to meet the increasing demand.

s.
 
Vajradhara said:
the Buddha Shakyamuni's last meal was something known as "pigs delight" in the Pali pankrit. given such a description it's hard to know what the meal actually consisted of... truffles perhaps?
Click to expand...

I think we can safely say it wasn't a nut roast in the shape of a pig :p

s.
 
LAGoff said:
So, what exactly is the relationship between Buddhism and veganism
Click to expand...

Some Buddhists eat meat. Some Buddhists don't. You work out the relationship! Country, culture, sect, availability, personal choice...


(the meat industry foisted the word vegetarian on us)?
Click to expand...
It did? :eek: When was that?

Why did I get the impression that Buddhists were associated with veganism?
Click to expand...
I don't know, I wasn't with you when you formed the impression. :)
Perhaps it's because some Buddhists are vegans.

But then some eat meat. Bit off topic aren't we?

Buddhism is not a monlithic body. There is no central, single authority. When you ask a question like "Do Buddhists rest on a Wednesday?" you may need to say which Buddhists, which tradition, which school... And even then they won't agree. They can be right buggers. The Buddha refused to name a "successor", he wanted no cult of personality and he advised people to study themselves and be guided by the light of truth, not dogma.

s.
 
Snoopy said:
Yes, Man is an omnivore and so can eat all things, dependent on local conditions. What individuals love to eat is learned; from parents, peers and culture (including advertising). At least that's why I think Western children soon grow to love the G*lden Arches. And why the "West" is hurtling towards pandemic obesity on junk food whilst the "developing" world lives on in the face of starvation.

s.
Click to expand...

Wait. Have I been lied to? I was told by the veg. books I read that 1. the carnivore intestine is shorter than ours and herbivores so that the meat can move through faster;2. that the carnivore's stomach acid is much stronger than ours and herbivores in order to break down the meat faster;3. that the carnivore's teeth are much sharper than ours and herbivores(obviously true). 4. that cats can be seen to "lick their chops" when spotting prey. 5. does a human really crave a raw piece of meat, let alone crave a live animal(I'm not talkin bout sexually)? 6. I know a great dog who is on a vegan diet; the owner said that even a cat can be on one too, but maybe it would need a little Taurine.
 
well...

go look in a mirror and look at your teeth!

at the front you have incisors for tearing flesh and at the sides you have molars for grinding vegetable matter...

if you have a cat PLEASE do not put it on a vegetarian diet, it is harmful. Cats are carnivores. I think dogs can do OK on a veggie diet but I'm not completely sure on that.

btw, cats lick their lips when they are frightened as well ...

s.
 
The dog gets considered a hunter... the role and title of Scavanger is more fitting... Yes dogs can do fine on Veggies.... My dizzy who is stronger than an ox... :) Seriously lol.... Full of muscle healthy and an amazing coat... Teeth whiter than mine.... Sure she eats meat what dog wouldn't but her main joy actually comes from eating veggies... Sprouts in particular... The majroity of her diet is vegtable....Yes... She sometimes gets some fowl smelling wind.... lol...
 
LAGoff,

you may find this link informative: The Relevance of Comparative Anatomy and Physiology "Proofs"

The author's a vegetarian who dislikes the dishonesty of the myths that continue to be regurgitated by the veg*n community. As a vegan, I find the misrepresentation in the community problematic too. That whole site is essays on similar subjects.
 
dauer said:
LAGoff,

you may find this link informative: The Relevance of Comparative Anatomy and Physiology "Proofs"

The author's a vegetarian who dislikes the dishonesty of the myths that continue to be regurgitated by the veg*n community. As a vegan, I find the misrepresentation in the community problematic too. That whole site is essays on similar subjects.
Click to expand...

Why do you have to spoil it and start bringing facts in???!!!

s.


SYNOPSIS OF THE PRIMARY EVIDENCE (CONCLUSIONS)

Humans can be regarded as natural omnivores, so long as one uses the common definition of the term: a natural diet that includes significant amounts of both plant and animal foods.

Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top