Dalai Lama is a hypocrite when it comes to eating meat!

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by 13th Warrior (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by 13th Warrior (here)

Posted by PathWalker (here)

Posted by realitycorrodes (here)
It is about compassion - not about health - health is the poor excuse to cover up a lack of compassion.

Spiritually is a belief as is being eaten spiritually.

It is my experience when it comes to discussing spirituality there is generally no hard evidence that can be produced - usually only subjective opinions - which pretty much lends itself to a conversation that goes in circles.

I hope you mean what you wrote, because plants are living things as well. Many scientific experiments proved that.
The point is that we are flesh, therefore consume other life. All life forms consume other life from in one manner or another. The difference is the intention, intensity and integrity. Only pet animals and humans developed obesity. And greed.

I was right with you on this statement up until this point "Only pet animals and humans developed obesity. And greed"

Animals do not behave the way many seem to be projecting them to be; they are not these perfect little darling creatures that Walt Disney portrays.

Don't dismiss "The Human Condition" --- a destructive force of ego that directs the mind to undesirable outcomes (like obesity). Animals don't have that problem, except domesticated ones. It is through the process of "domestication" that this begins to occur. Humans are a "domesticated animal" --- there is no question about this.

Obesity probably isn't the correct term for "wildlife" but, there certainly are plenty of creatures in the wild that could be classified as fat/obese.

Nope. There are some fatter animals than others, and many animals fatten themselves a little before winter. But there are no wild animals who are so obese that affect their ability to live and enjoy life. (I'll give one rare possible exception and that is physical disease that may cause that condition).

Humanity has a disease of the mind due to it's domestication, one that can cause a person to turn himself into an immobile blob of flesh with no quality of life, and then hate himself for doing it. There's none of these in nature. Zero. It is a disease of the worst kind and humans believe this is "normal" because we have no memory or history of living without that disease (well, we actually do, but the "domesticators of humans" try their best to destroy it and/or keep it from us).


My 2 cents

[13th Warrior]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by 13th Warrior (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by 13th Warrior (here)

Posted by PathWalker (here)

Posted by realitycorrodes (here)
It is about compassion - not about health - health is the poor excuse to cover up a lack of compassion.

Spiritually is a belief as is being eaten spiritually.

It is my experience when it comes to discussing spirituality there is generally no hard evidence that can be produced - usually only subjective opinions - which pretty much lends itself to a conversation that goes in circles.

I hope you mean what you wrote, because plants are living things as well. Many scientific experiments proved that.
The point is that we are flesh, therefore consume other life. All life forms consume other life from in one manner or another. The difference is the intention, intensity and integrity. Only pet animals and humans developed obesity. And greed.

I was right with you on this statement up until this point "Only pet animals and humans developed obesity. And greed"

Animals do not behave the way many seem to be projecting them to be; they are not these perfect little darling creatures that Walt Disney portrays.

Don't dismiss "The Human Condition" --- a destructive force of ego that directs the mind to undesirable outcomes (like obesity). Animals don't have that problem, except domesticated ones. It is through the process of "domestication" that this begins to occur. Humans are a "domesticated animal" --- there is no question about this.

Obesity probably isn't the correct term for "wildlife" but, there certainly are plenty of creatures in the wild that could be classified as fat/obese.

Nope. There are some fatter animals than others, and many animals fatten themselves a little before winter. But there are no wild animals who are so obese that affect their ability to live and enjoy life. (I'll give one rare possible exception and that is physical disease that may cause that condition).

Humanity has a disease of the mind due to it's domestication, one that can cause a person to turn himself into an immobile blob of flesh with no quality of life, and then hate himself for doing it. There's none of these in nature. Zero. It is a disease of the worst kind and humans believe this is "normal" because we have no memory or history of living without that disease (well, we actually do, but the "domesticators of humans" try their best to destroy it and/or keep it from us).


My 2 cents

But there are no wild animals who are so obese that affect their ability to live and enjoy life.

There are very few human that would fit this category as well.

Society doesn't follow the laws of nature. Nature favors survival of the fittest.

Society supports those who could not survive on their own...

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by realitycorrodes (here)
So it is acceptable to behave badly! Why?

"Behave badly"? We are talking about eating meat and the judgements for human fun. If God didn't want me to eat meat, I wouldn't have meat cutting teeth in my mouth. Last I checked, humans were omnivores. And if Darwin was right, eating meat would be natural ... no?

Isn't it so easy to make the discussion about something, into something else, so that they level of judgment and condemnation feels more appropriate?
This is an example of reactions to feelings, and then using found words to express that already existent feeling, rather than looking at something for what it is, and judging it on its own merits. I could care less who eats meat and who doesn't -- we could judge and discuss that all day while our world slips out from under our feet because we got caught up in finger pointing games.

BTW I like you milk drinking cartoon (even if completely out of context) -- something that always grossed me out. I'm sure it came out of necessity during some hard times, then someone decided to make a buck off of it when times got better, and here we are. My 2 cents

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by 13th Warrior (here)
There are very few human that would fit this category as well.

I beg to differ: http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html by the time you meet criteria for "obese" you quality of life has certainly been affected.

Posted by 13th Warrior (here)
Society doesn't follow the laws of nature. Nature favors survival of the fittest.

I fully agree here -- there is certainly nothing natural about what we call "society" -- rather my point actually.

Posted by 13th Warrior (here)
Society supports those who could not survive on their own...

I see this as a separate issue, that has to do more with health complications. People who are obese and grossly out of shape are not necessarily in the same category as "cannot survive on their own", but rather, the human mind disease is the causal factor (along with some environmental issues that are also human made).

My 2 cents again! Maybe my last on this thread as this topic is beginning to bore me

[13th Warrior]

Animal Obesity

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by 13th Warrior (here)
Animal Obesity

Zoo pics? Hippos and seals are fat by design - to help them in their natural habitat -- water. A squirrel in a human park? and a pregnant bear?

Try getting out into nature yourself, the contrast to "Societal" ways is grand and energizing.

[13th Warrior]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by 13th Warrior (here)
Animal Obesity

Zoo pics? Hippos and seals are fat by design - to help them in their natural habitat -- water. A squirrel in a human park? and a pregnant bear?

Try getting out into nature yourself, the contrast to "Societal" ways is grand and energizing.

Lol! I've spent countless hours in the wild and have seen first hand fat animals...

[Hip Hipnotist]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by Chinaski (here)

Posted by bram (here)

Posted by PathWalker (here)

The letter above is an example for a fanatic measuring others for his standards of fanaticisms.
I wish to remind all the essence of Buddhism is to reduce suffering.

The essence of buddhism is to follow the eightfold path laid down by Buddha, which leads to the elimination of suffering through awakening. In order to follow this path all buddhists (including lay buddhists) have to first follow the five precepts, the first of which is that you refrain from killing. For most buddhists, this precept prohibits them from killing any sentient being, which of course includes meat, chicken and fish along with insects and the mosquitoes that bite them.

It doesn't cut to say he needs to eat meat on doctor's advice. Not for an advanced spiritual being.

Given that if I pay you to bump off my ex-wife, I am deemed to be guilty of murder, then similarly if I pay you for a bucket of chicken wings I am similarly guilty of the murder of the said chicken(s), as you have had to kill them on my behalf.

I have for a long time been troubled by the behaviour of DL XIV, who seems to spend most of his time swanning around doing ceremonial duties and limits his worldly involvement to winding up China. He is an obvious phoney, and all his books and notable sayings are clearly ghost written. Despite being the most influential buddhist in the world, he has not spoken out about the pogroms being carried out by buddhists, including monks, against muslims in Myanmar and Sri lankar, and he seems to be positively encouraging self immolations in Tibet for his own political ends.

This guy is the elephant in the room when it comes to the problems faced by Tibetan Buddhists.

shall we lock up lions for killing zebra's to survive? is the lion as guilty as the human in this hypothetical scenario of yours? their needs are the same, no?

silly, you say? maybe not quite as silly as the arrogance demonstrated in your statement suggesting a meat-eating man cannot be spiritually advanced. i dunno, mate: i'm was raised Catholic; i'm not sure what the Buddhists say about judgement....

i don't want to pick a fight with you Bram, but please answer this question: if your health, and maybe even your life depended on you consuming meat, would you eat it?

Those lion's are going straight to hell ... you better believe it!!
Me too, I eat meat, and I say people should eat less, maybe less than me. Damn hypocrite!

Let's get back to bringing something positive to the world before we lose our perspective on reality for the judgements of a single human being. Plank or a speck? Seriously.

If you are vegetarioan or vegan, Yay! If you eat meat, Yay! Just try to bring some positiveness to the world, and if you have to eat animals, eat ones that lived a good life, and give your damn respects. My 2 cents

" ...and if you have to eat animals, eat ones that lived a good life, and give your damn respects. My 2 cents "

For the record, I am a vegan. I have no quarrell with anyone who chooses, for whatever reason, to consume meat ( or even say they don't but actually do ). Heck, everytime I pass by a barbecue with a pound of beef sizzling on the grill you could collect the drool off my shoes with bucket. Hmmm, I'm getting hungry already.

But if someone, preferably DeDukshyn, could tell me how you know that the specific piece of meat ( animal ) you're consuming actually 'lived a good life' I'd like very much to know that.

Would it be, say, a chicken that was raised cage free, grain fed, no added hormones/preservatives, slept on a Posturepedic pillow top king-sized heated bed the night before he/she was taken out back and had his/her head wacked off?

Or a cow that was... ;-(

Not pickin' a fight, just curious. ;-)

[jackovesk]

The 'Vegan' nightmare continues...

Tofu - Mmm yummy...

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Hip Hipnotist (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by Chinaski (here)

Posted by bram (here)

Posted by PathWalker (here)

The letter above is an example for a fanatic measuring others for his standards of fanaticisms.
I wish to remind all the essence of Buddhism is to reduce suffering.

The essence of buddhism is to follow the eightfold path laid down by Buddha, which leads to the elimination of suffering through awakening. In order to follow this path all buddhists (including lay buddhists) have to first follow the five precepts, the first of which is that you refrain from killing. For most buddhists, this precept prohibits them from killing any sentient being, which of course includes meat, chicken and fish along with insects and the mosquitoes that bite them.

It doesn't cut to say he needs to eat meat on doctor's advice. Not for an advanced spiritual being.

Given that if I pay you to bump off my ex-wife, I am deemed to be guilty of murder, then similarly if I pay you for a bucket of chicken wings I am similarly guilty of the murder of the said chicken(s), as you have had to kill them on my behalf.

I have for a long time been troubled by the behaviour of DL XIV, who seems to spend most of his time swanning around doing ceremonial duties and limits his worldly involvement to winding up China. He is an obvious phoney, and all his books and notable sayings are clearly ghost written. Despite being the most influential buddhist in the world, he has not spoken out about the pogroms being carried out by buddhists, including monks, against muslims in Myanmar and Sri lankar, and he seems to be positively encouraging self immolations in Tibet for his own political ends.

This guy is the elephant in the room when it comes to the problems faced by Tibetan Buddhists.

shall we lock up lions for killing zebra's to survive? is the lion as guilty as the human in this hypothetical scenario of yours? their needs are the same, no?

silly, you say? maybe not quite as silly as the arrogance demonstrated in your statement suggesting a meat-eating man cannot be spiritually advanced. i dunno, mate: i'm was raised Catholic; i'm not sure what the Buddhists say about judgement....

i don't want to pick a fight with you Bram, but please answer this question: if your health, and maybe even your life depended on you consuming meat, would you eat it?

Those lion's are going straight to hell ... you better believe it!!
Me too, I eat meat, and I say people should eat less, maybe less than me. Damn hypocrite!

Let's get back to bringing something positive to the world before we lose our perspective on reality for the judgements of a single human being. Plank or a speck? Seriously.

If you are vegetarioan or vegan, Yay! If you eat meat, Yay! Just try to bring some positiveness to the world, and if you have to eat animals, eat ones that lived a good life, and give your damn respects. My 2 cents

" ...and if you have to eat animals, eat ones that lived a good life, and give your damn respects. My 2 cents "

For the record, I am a vegan. I have no quarrell with anyone who chooses, for whatever reason, to consume meat ( or even say they don't but actually do ). Heck, everytime I pass by a barbecue with a pound of beef sizzling on the grill you could collect the drool off my shoes with bucket. Hmmm, I'm getting hungry already.

But if someone, preferably DeDukshyn, could tell me how you know that the specific piece of meat ( animal ) you're consuming actually 'lived a good life' I'd like very much to know that.

Would it be, say, a chicken that was raised cage free, grain fed, no added hormones/preservatives, slept on a Posturepedic pillow top king-sized heated bed the night before he/she was taken out back and had his/her head wacked off?

Or a cow that was... ;-(

Not pickin' a fight, just curious. ;-)

An animal who is confined to a cage in the dark the size of its body and force fed drugs and hormones so it grows so fast it's legs break under its weight before a ruthless and cruel slaughter, as opposed to a an animal that had a vast roaming range and natural foods to eat and places to explore, animals loved by their keepers, like the ranches my parents used to try to get their meat from.

You are consuming what the animal was -- physically and energetically. Have you been drinking?

[Arrowwind]

Posted by jackovesk (here)
The 'Vegan' nightmare continues...

Tofu - Mmm yummy...

Mmmm gmo tofu at that... promotes cellular adaption for slave mentality

[Arrowwind]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
" ...and if you have to eat animals, eat ones that lived a good life, and give your damn respects. My 2 cents "

But if someone, preferably DeDukshyn, could tell me how you know that the specific piece of meat ( animal ) you're consuming actually 'lived a good life' I'd like very much to know that.

Would it be, say, a chicken that was raised cage free, grain fed, no added hormones/preservatives, slept on a Posturepedic pillow top king-sized heated bed the night before he/she was taken out back and had his/her head wacked off?

Or a cow that was... ;-(

Not pickin' a fight, just curious. ;-)

An animal who is confined to a cage in the dark the size of its body and force fed drugs and hormones so it grows so fast it's legs break under its weight before a ruthless and cruel slaughter, as opposed to a an animal that had a vast roaming range and natural foods to eat and places to explore, animals loved by their keepers, like the ranches my parents used to try to get their meat from.

You are consuming what the animal was -- physically and energetically. Have you been drinking? [/QUOTE]

I know where my meat comes from because I have made a point to do so.

Actually meat chickens have a lift span of 7 to 8 weeks, if they are permitted to live longer they will die of heart issues in short order due to their weight. No hormones are requried in raising them. They can live outside quite well, pasture raised. No hormones required. They are not GMO but are hybrid to grow fast and large. We purchase them organic from our neighbors, organic. Life is short and sweet for them.

[Whiskey_Mystic]

This entire thread is ridiculous. Buddhism has no rules to break. It is a practice, not a list of dogmas to adhere to.

The Dalai Lama is a man. He feels anger, lust, jealousy, and all the rest. He has said so. He has made no claim to perfection, so why try to tear him down for such?

Folly and foolishness of the greatest sort. Frankly, I have enough on my plate trying to manage my own life without worrying about whether or not the Dalai Lama ever ate a cheeseburger. Next we will be critiquing his fondness for old Tarzan movies.

[yuhui]

Such a game played on Dualistic mind....

[realitycorrodes]

One cannot prove there is a god - so it becomes very difficult to prove that a God has decided that humans should murder animals unnecessarily to eat.

The very fact one uses the word God to justify anything should be a red flag to any intelligent being.

I can just picture the Palestinians when the criminal group called the Israeli Zionists informed then they had just made up a new God who had decided that their land was theirs and that they were given a god given right to slaughter all Palestinians who did not give up their land.

I thought this forum was about exposing such ill-logic?

Even if one's teeth is designed for eating flesh (and I believe that is open to debate) it does not change the point - that man with evolved intelligence is able to choose to use such intelligence to work out that he does not need to murder animals to live a healthy life.

This is called compassion.

Something the Dalai Lama is supposed to be a reincarnated God of (Compassion).

It is not about Buddhism in so far as it is about Compassion - Buddhism I think teaches compassion however so it is related to Buddhism.

And as stated the penultimate form of Compassion... incarnated in a human body in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition is I believe the Dalai Lama.

If one cannot see the contradiction of the Dalai lama encouraging people to kill animals by him choosing to eat them - especially when it is not necessary for the Dalai Lama to do so in order to live a healthy life - then we are attempting to communicate with a person who has chosen to be ill-logical in order to provide a justification to themselves in order for them to continue behaving in an un-compassionate fashion towards animals.

Being compassionate towards a special group - humans - is egotistical and narrow minded.

Just because a lion eats meat does not mean a human has to.

Humans with their advanced intelligence has devised other ways to feed themselves healthyly without lowering themselves to slaughter animals unnecessarily.

The lion analogy is like saying:

"Hey, look at that stupid person over there - they do not have much intelligence - look how stupidly they are behaving!

I am going to behave just as stupidly as them and use their stupid behavior to justify my own stupid behavior!

Aren't I clever? Not

My girlfriend, who can communicate with new born babies before they could speak, however, has been told repeatedly that the new born babies don't mind ending up on our diner plate.

The only thing that they would like though, is to be treated with some more respect and dignity.

What? Sounds ridiculous right? New born babies don't mind ending up on our dinner plate?

How would we scientifically demonstrate that this is absolutely unprovable and completely irrational?

I don't remember the last time I saw a cow willingly choosing to be confined in a milking bay. It kinda looked like they just want to be left alone - almost like they don't need or want anything to do with humans? Like they would be truly free in a way humans can never know - if only humans would stop unnecessarily slaughtering them.

But now I am being told they actually go seeking humans out in order to be slaughtered so that we can eat them?

How can one argue with someone who thinks the above irrational comments are worthy of taking seriously?

One can't!

A father's daughter was raped before his eyes while he was held down against his will.

The father when asked by the judge "Who is to blamed for this?" pointed to a person seated in the court room.

The judge replied:
"The guilt & blame game is a favorite human activity, employed as a classic strategy to avoid dealing with one's own boredom, doubt, and discomfort. We are addicted to judging each other and prescribing how others should live, so as to never have to look closely in our own mirror. Gossip is the flip side of celebrity worship, enabling fidgety folk to pass some time while waiting in the check-out line at the supermarket, but it rather leaves an "off" taste on the palate, eh . . ."

Not a very compassionate judge?

Plants are indeed living as well. Lets not add two UN-compassionate acts to our list - we out of necessity do have to eat plants, but we do not out of necessity have to slaughter animals.

Peace

[realitycorrodes]

Cognitive Dissonance

Is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously.

E.g. Animal rights activists, eating meat or wearing fur.

Dissonance can also lead to

seeking information from biased sources
denial of contradictory evidence
and many other ego defense mechanisms

-----------------------------------------------------------

What puts me in awe is some people on this thread seem to have such cognitive dissonance!

I am left not knowing what to do?

One cannot communicate with a mind actively working to keep itself closed - my personal feeling is there is some kind of rancid fear rotting such peoples brains away?

And I dislike giving good people bad news!

Rather than love,
than money,
than fame,
give me truth!
Henry David Thoreau





Illustrating how humans are behaving cruelly to innocent beings (animals) is not misanthropic talk. It is talk designed to enlighten such humans so they can behave more compassionately and as such is done as love to see such humans improve in their behavior.

This is ironically a perfect example of dissonance.

Avoiding paying for the slaughter of another being (animals) is not about gaining favor with some human made "god" or "alien".

Talk about missing the point??? Cognitive Dissonance again

Its about letting another being live who does not need to be slaughtered - this is known as "compassion".

Why would one wish to be compassionate?
One wishes to be compassionate, so that when other(s) (beings or nature herself) who are in a position to be compassionate towards us, may be inspired by our compassion and continue through with such compassion towards us.

When one is compassionate towards others...it is actually about being compassionate towards oneself - there is a slightly bigger picture at play here - if only one could expand their awareness to see how it is all connected. Killing others that do not need to be killed in order for one to enjoy the taste of blood in one's mouth is like killing oneself. This somehow has to be experienced for oneself....I guess?? One can only point the way?

Being compassionate is a way of being harmonic! And in certain ways sustainable!

What ultimately matters is more fully understanding who we truly are.

One is very far away from understanding themselves when they have no compassion for other living beings (animals).

Tigers kill and eat meat and in the most "inhuman" ways I might add. So do wolves and bears, etc.

This is were the cognitive dissonance seeks biased or illogical information to support the "UN-compassionate" behavior.

Just because someone else is behaving badly who does not have the faculties to reason/or create a more compassionate way of living does not mean that humans must imitate their behavior like "mindless sheep"?

There are many behaviors that make one compassionate.

Mother Teresa I am told was a compassionate lady, so perhaps was Gandhi.

How much more compassionate would she have been if she did not slaughter other beings (animals) or pay others to slaughter animals - especially when it is obvious that humans do not need to slaughter animals to live!!!

But it is not about Mother Teresa or Gandhi - it is about us!!! Time to take responsibility - we are all waiting and rooting for us!

Let us drop the cognitive dissonance and denial and expand our compassion to other beings who perhaps we did not realize were sentient beings very similar to ourselves.

Lets face it - we don't want to be slaughtered - it is kind of like having double standards?

And finally, do we really think we would be personally happy with being butchered just because someone told us it was going to be done in a "halal" way (ritually significant manner to a bunch of "brainwashed" religious fanatics)???? Like that really makes a difference. Come on??

One day when we awaken to our-self we also will see how ludicrous our denial and cognitive dissonance really was.

P.S. It really does not matter if someone who is arguing for what is the truth is succumbing to "righteous indignation" that is their problem - it does not mean the truth that they are presenting is in anyway incorrect. That is called character assassination, a technique commonly used by our governments to control our minds.

As much as I intuitively suspect I am not a fan of Winston Churchill I tend to agree with his statement below:

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.
Winston Churchill

[Ultima Thule]

Realitycorrodes - can you entertain the possibility that your point of view is just as skewed and not an iota more correct than of the ones that see eating meat as okay, and even to some individuals physiology eating meat as a prerequisite for a healthy body?

This is propably beginning to be out of the spectrum of the thread, but you are so certain of your point of view as others may be of the opposite view. A person whose physiology thrives on vegetarian quisine cannot usually understand how anyone would need meat in their menu, as they tend to generalize their experience of their physiology to cover whole of humanity, which is just as common with meat eaters - they tend to generalize their thriving with meat to cover all of humanity as well.

There is no one solution to this matter, there is no black or white - we are a species that has a multitude of adaptations to different kinds of foods. More or less the only sort of generalization I´ve managed to come up with after trying to research the subject and finding out that there are original people that have been doing very well on almost 100% meat and fat based foods and also tribes that have done marvelously well with over 80% of energy coming from carbohydrates is the following: refined food is bad for you. Eating substances in their original, unrefined form that are suitable for your individual physiology is good.

An example of the variety from my own family is that I have blood type O, which I knew even before I ever had it tested, I do very well on meat and was miserable when trying to be vegetarian for a year or so. My wife is blood type A and does great on vegetarian menu and feels miserable after red meat. This is just a tip of the iceberg when considering the variety. This is no simple matter at all and should not be treated as such, there is no black or white solution, which makes any attempt to paint it so, futile, and the discussion can wade on forever, due to the generalizations.

Live and let live, or live and let eat killed meat or anything in between.

UT

[greybeard]

I could not kill an animal or watch an animal being killed.
That's the way I am.
I try not to judge others.
I can see the opening post point of view that a person in the kind of position that the Dalai Lama is in should set an example of compassion to all life.
However strictly speaking I don’t think he is being a hypocrite if only because he admits to eating meat.
Chris

[Shade]

The Gyuto Monks used to come to my shire every year and stay for two weeks. My friends and I would go and hang out there everyday listening to their talks and doing the workshops. They would do a sand mandala every year, one of the big ones. The Dalai Lama is a Gyuto monk as far as I know. We asked them about meat eating. They said that they ate meat. Up where they came from there is very little else to eat but yak. So they eat yak.

[realitycorrodes]

If peace on this planet was guaranteed on condition that humans would stop slaughtering and eating animals...

Which would we choose?

A. The Guaranteed PEACE - on condition that humans stop slaughtering and eating animals

or

B. The continued slaughter and eating of animals by humans plus the continued slaughter and mistreatment of humans (in manufactured wars and manipulated economies) by their overlords