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

[realitycorrodes]

http://www.all-creatures.org/letters/20070615-np.html

The Mary T. and
Frank L. Hoffman
Family Foundation
and All-Creatures.Org

Letters and Responses

An Open Letter from Norm Phelps to the Dalai Lama - 15 Jun 2007

An Open Letter to the Dalai Lama

June 15, 2007

The Dalai Lama
Thekchen Choeling
P.O. McLeod Ganj
Dharamsala H.P. 176219
India

By mail and email to: ohhdl@gov.tibet.net

Dear Sir: I am writing to you with great sadness.

By way of introduction, or actually re-introduction, I am the author of The Great Compassion: Buddhism and Animal Rights, a copy of which I sent you soon after it came out in 2004, and an additional copy of which I am enclosing with the hard copy of this letter. I have been a practicing Tibetan Buddhist for more than twenty years.

You may also recall that in November 1998 you generously granted me a private audience in Washington, D.C. for the purpose of discussing a vegetarian diet as Buddhist practice. You were very gracious in providing me an opportunity to urge you to adopt a vegetarian diet on full-time basis. You told me that because of liver damage resulting from hepatitis B, your doctors had instructed you to eat meat, and that for some years you had compromised by eating vegetarian every other day. You spoke movingly of your deep compassion for animals and your desire that as many people as possible, including Tibetans and Buddhists, adopt a vegetarian diet as an expression of Buddhist compassion for all sentient beings.

Less than three weeks after this interview, Agence France Presse (AFP) reported that at a dinner at the Elysee Palace for Nobel Peace Prize laureates, you refused the vegetarian meal that you had been served with the comment, “I’m a Tibetan monk, not a vegetarian,” and insisted on being served the same entrée that the other guests were having, which was reported to be braised calf’s cheek and vol-au-vent stuffed with shrimp. I understood that the dinner might have been held on a meat-eating day of your one-day-meat, one-day-veggies regime, but I could not understand why you would publicly go out of your way to dissociate yourself from a compassionate vegetarian diet when just days earlier you had spoken to me with such apparent conviction about the need for “everyone who can” to become vegetarian. There were no reporters present at the dinner; the AFP reporter heard the story from you the next day, which suggests that you wanted the world to know that you were not vegetarian. In other words, quite inexplicably, you apparently wanted to promote meat eating as consistent with Buddhist practice. I wrote you asking about this, but received no response.

In light of this background, I was overjoyed to read in April 2005 that you had announced to a wildlife conference in New Delhi that you had lately adopted a vegetarian diet on a full-time basis. On February 16, 2007, Rinchen Dhondrup wrote a thank-you letter on your official letterhead to Ms. Dulce Clements of La Verne, California, who had sent you a copy of a wonderful book on vegetarianism as spiritual practice, The World Peace Diet by Will Tuttle, Ph.D. In this letter, Dhondrup-la said that “His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s kitchen here in Dharamsala is now vegetarian.”

Thus, as you may imagine, I was greatly dismayed to read an article from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel dated May 15, 2007, reporting that you had attended a fund-raising luncheon on May 3, in Madison, Wisconsin for the Deer Park Buddhist Center and Monastery. According to the article, the food served included veal roast, stuffed pheasant breast, and soup made with chicken stock. The chef told the reporter that you “chowed down” on everything you were served, including the veal. Veal calves are separated from their mothers just hours after birth, confined in tiny crates too small for them to turn around in, fed an iron deficient diet that gives them severe, painful, chronic anemia, and killed while they are still small children. When you ate the veal, you lent your public support to some of the most egregious cruelty that our society is capable of.

Someone who attended a public talk that you gave in Madison around this time reports that you mentioned the vegetarian issue, saying that you had been vegetarian for two years “because the big monasteries are becoming vegetarian,” but that you had gone back to meat eating because of your health. I presume that the two years were spring, 2005 to spring, 2007. I would have expected you, as a great bodhisattva, to follow a vegetarian diet because it is the compassionate thing to do and was taught by the Lord Buddha Shakyamuni, not because it is the popular thing to do in the context of monastic politics.

Even more recently, it has been reported in the world press that on June 13, 2007 you visited a zoo created by the late television performer Steve Irwin in Beerwah, Australia. During this visit you reportedly spoke in support of a compassionate vegetarian diet while admitting that you eat meat “occasionally” for the sake of your health.

It is hard to understand how eating meat “occasionally” could benefit your health. It would seem reasonable that if your body did, in fact, require meat—which seems most unlikely—you would have to consume meat more often than “occasionally” for it to have any health effect.. And since it is easy in India and the West to eat a nutritious, high-protein diet without meat, perhaps supplemented by vitamin B12 tablets, I cannot help suspecting that this is more a question of appetite and custom than health.

It is also hard to understand why you would lend your support to a zoo, which is, after all, a prison in which animals innocent of causing any harm are incarcerated far from their natural surroundings to live out their lives in bleak, barren deprivation and hopelessness. It is especially difficult to understand why you would visit a zoo dedicated to the memory of Steve Irwin, who was world-famous for teasing and tormenting animals for the sake of television ratings, worldly fame, and money.

The lack of consistency between your public statements in support of vegetarianism and animal protection on the one hand and your personal behavior on the other is troubling, to say the least. I am afraid that it is now taken for granted in much of the Western animal protection community that you are a hypocrite who tells his audience what he believes they want to hear and then does whatever he wants to. Your moral inconsistency toward nonhuman animals has even given rise to a website called Bad Karma Lama, www.badkarmalama.com. I have no idea who created the site, but it reflects a view that is very widely held—and, I fear, with good reason. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot be seen as a protector of nonhuman animals and continue to eat meat and visit zoos. You cannot respect the Buddha nature of animals in your speech and continue to disrespect it in your conduct. That is, in fact, hypocrisy.

In The Great Compassion, I said that “Buddhism ought to be an animal rights religion par excellence” because of the Buddhadharma’s recognition that there is no intrinsic difference between humans and other animals and its insistence that the First Precept (“Do not kill.”) applies to our treatment of animals as well as our treatment of human beings. If Buddhism does not in actual practice always extend the full measure of its compassionate protection to animals, that is a failure of individual Buddhists, including I am afraid, far too many teachers; it is a violation of the teachings, not a consequence of them. The world sees you as the living embodiment of the Buddhadharma, and even those who are not Buddhist see you as a great moral leader. “Actions speak louder than words,” and when you eat meat, the public, Buddhist and non-Buddhist alike, takes that as proof that inflicting unspeakable suffering and premature death on sentient beings for the sake of appetite is morally acceptable. In that way, you contribute to the killing of the forty-eight billion land animals and uncounted billions of aquatic animals who are slaughtered every year for food.

After more than two decades of waiting for you to bring your personal regime into line with your public pronouncements—and the clear teachings of the Lord Buddha Shakyamuni in the Mahayana Scriptures—I have reluctantly concluded that you do, in fact, speak in soothing platitudes to people like me while continuing to eat the flesh of murdered mother beings, and that you have no intention of changing. I remain a firm practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism—you have broken my heart, but not my faith—but I no longer consider myself a follower of the Dalai Lama; and I will not consider myself one until your actions toward sentient beings in the animal realm reflect your teaching.

I have reached this decision only after much soul-searching and with great reluctance. I am not going to ask you to change your behavior. I’ve been there, done that. We have a saying in America that “Anybody can talk the talk. What matters is do you walk the walk.” You can talk the talk with the best of them. But after twenty years, I can no longer pretend that everything is fine while I wait for you to walk the walk

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Norm Phelps
n.phelps@myactv.net
P. O. Box 776
Funkstown, MD 21734, USA

cc: Office of Tibet, New York

[RMorgan]

Hey mate,

That´s religion...I´m not surprised at all.

I´m yet to see a religious leader that is not a hypocrite.

That´s one of the reasons I don´t follow anyone, or any religious dogma.

There´s a lot of good talkers out there, but just a few walkers.

Raf.

[realitycorrodes]

There are indeed only a few doing the walking....lol

[PathWalker]

Those who walk the way do show the way. Those who talk the way are just trying or faking.

As for being vegan. As an ideology of compassion it is not holding water. As a healthier way of leaving absolute proof.
That point taken, some people do need to consume fat and protein from animal to sustain their life, especially raw flesh.

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.

[RMorgan]

Those who walk the way do show the way. Those who talk the way are just trying or faking.

As for being vegan. As an ideology of compassion it is not holding water. As a healthier way of leaving absolute proof.
That point taken, some people do need to consume fat and protein from animal to sustain their life, especially raw flesh.

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.

Hey mate,

This isn´t about the vegan vs meat eating debate.

This is about the Dalai Lama himself not following the teachings of Buddhism, not following his own teachings...

This is serious, but nothing I haven´t seen before.

Pick any religious leader, investigate him, and you´ll see the contradictions...They´re everywhere.

Religion itself is a big contradiction, in my opinion.

Raf.

Ps: This doesn´t invalidate the teachings of Buddhism, of course, which are mostly very nice.

[Mike]

he's not a hypocrite. he's simply evolved, changed his mind.

if he continued to preach strict vegetarianism, you might have a point. but he's quite vocal about eating meat, not just "occasionally", but usually 2 times a week.

why? he had several health issues, one being hepatitis, and under instructions from his doctor began consuming meat. it's no coincidence that his health returned with the introduction of meat to his diet. some people require meat to be healthy; he's one of them. so am i. some don't need meat to be healthy and vibrant; you sound like like you fit into this category.

i don't like the cruel treatment of animals any more than you do, but i can't wait around until that changes to begin eating meat - i'd wilt. so it comes down to a very simple decision for those of us that require meat. not all of us feel good about it, ok?

to me, this is no different than a same-sex marriage or religious debate. why can't we just allow others to live their lives as they see fit and stay in our own lanes in the meantime? preaching veganism or vegetarianism as the only way to go while maligning meat-eaters is no less intolerant or dogmatic than a fundamental religionist preaching his faith as the *only* way; or a homophobe decrying gays as evil; or a racist declaring blacks to be a lesser race. when this topic arises, i'm always shocked that this isn't obvious to the few doing the preaching - they are so satiated with feelings of lofty self-righteousness that they completely and utterly lack any sense of self-awareness.

we must not get into the business of telling others how to live their lives.

[RMorgan]

we must not get into the business of telling others how to live their lives.

Mate, I think you summarized to whole religion stuff in on sentence.

These folks, who are the masters of telling people how to live their lives, very often don´t follow their own teachings.

Hey, I have nothing against people who eat meat. My best friends, my mom and the rest of my family eat meat, and I love them profoundly.

If the Dalai Lama, as an individual, wants to make barbecue in his backyard every weekend, that´s fine. But we can´t forget that he´s the supreme leader of a religion extremely centered in vegetarianism.

If he indeed has this medical problem, ok, then it´s justifiable. However, refusing to eat a vegetarian dish, made exclusively for him, just to enjoy the obviously unnecessary pleasures of eating meat in a public meeting, then it´s a completely different thing. He could have avoided it, even if it´s only for the sake of preserving his religious culture publicly.

Man, imagine if the pope supposedly had some problems with his testicles that required him to have sex a couple of times a week...Dude, it would be like World War 3 for the Catholics.

[ghostrider]

as a leader in a well-know religion , he should do or do not. no-one likes wishy washy people ...

[Mike]

ha! careful Raf, you may be giving the Pope some ideas, mate;)

maybe we need Tony here, but the Dalai Lama *is* quoted as saying that the vinaya does not prohibit meat-eating. besides, should we expect him to allow himself to deteriorate for the sake of a few sensitive buddhists?;) seriously though, should he stubbornly make a martyr of himself to highlight the misguided notion of veganism for *everybody*?

oh, and world war 3 for the Catholics might not be such a bad idea! ha!

¤=[Post Update]=¤


as a leader in a well-know religion , he should do or do not. no-one likes wishy washy people ...


i'm wishy-washy. i've still got a few friends...;)

besides, his position is clear: he eats meat a couple times a week. pretty simple.

shall we ask him to write it in blood to satisfy our need for consistency?

[DeDukshyn]

he's not a hypocrite. he's simply evolved, changed his mind.

if he continued to preach strict vegetarianism, you might have a point. but he's quite vocal about eating meat, not just "occasionally", but usually 2 times a week.

why? he had several health issues, one being hepatitis, and under instructions from his doctor began consuming meat. it's no coincidence that his health returned with the introduction of meat to his diet. some people require meat to be healthy; he's one of them. so am i. some don't need meat to be healthy and vibrant; you sound like like you fit into this category.

i don't like the cruel treatment of animals any more than you do, but i can't wait around until that changes to begin eating meat - i'd wilt. so it comes down to a very simple decision for those of us that require meat. not all of us feel good about it, ok?

to me, this is no different than a same-sex marriage or religious debate. why can't we just allow others to live their lives as they see fit and stay in our own lanes in the meantime? preaching veganism or vegetarianism as the only way to go while maligning meat-eaters is no less intolerant or dogmatic than a fundamentalist religionist preaching his faith as the *only* way; or a homophobe decrying gays as evil; or a racist declaring blacks to be a lesser race. when this topic arises, i'm always shocked that this isn't obvious to the few doing the preaching - they are so satiated with feelings of lofty self-righteousness that they completely and utterly lack any sense of self-awareness.

we must not get into the business of telling others how to live their lives.


Baseless judging is humanity's favourite pastime!! Quit ruining it!!
After all, not one single of us has been a hypocrite in our lives. It's obvious the "Lama" works for the devil to deceive us. ;) ;) (<-----Inject severe sarcasm font)

[Mike]

ha! so true DeDukshyn! i really hate it when i've senselessly made my mind up about something..and then someone has the nerve to step up and challenge me with reason and facts! damn them!;)

i'll try to tone it down, ok?

[Hip Hipnotist]

"Man, imagine if the pope supposedly had some problems with his testicles that required him to have sex a couple of times a week...Dude, it would be like World War 3 for the Catholics."

What makes you think El Popatahtah doesn't have sex a couple times a week?

From what I've been researching he could give Hugh Heffner a few lessons on how to...

Oh, wait a minute. The Hughster likes females, not adolescent boys. Never mind. ;-)

[WhiteFeather]

The pedophile priests peturbed me pretty good peeps. I believe in Jesus but not the bullsh!t baseball organization any longer. All religions are a trap. God needs MONEY!!!!!!!! If I may..i great skit by The Man.....George Carlin. LMFAO


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPOfurmrjxo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPOfurmrjxo

[bram]

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.

[Mike]

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?

[realitycorrodes]

IF one does not have to kill an animal to live - as so many thousands have demonstrated in India and China - then why would one do so? Unless of course they did not have any compassion? It seems logical to me?

Feeling compassion for an animal that is being killed unnecessarily and raising awareness about such matters is only called being "self righteous" by those who have missed the point IMHO. I guess there is no communicating with those who actively and proudly choose denial...it is amusing for us to watch though - and therein may lie a little self-righteousness...I admit. lol

[DeDukshyn]

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 ;)

[bram]

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?

I'm not saying that a meat-eating man cannot be spiritually advanced. But I dont think the Dalai Lama is spiritually advanced. I think he is clearly at war with his minders, who keep telling everybody he is vegetarian, then when he escapes into public he makes a beeline for the beef!

As for the last part of the quote above, before I answer it can you tell me what the magic ingredient is that can only be obtained from meat (especially for someone who has an entourage of chefs skilled in the arts of vegetarian cookery)?

I think the buddhists would say that judgement is unskillful behaviour (which means behaviour which does not lead towards the cessation of suffering but instead contributes to illusory thinking) so thanks for the reminder. I will shut up on this one!

Love, bram

[another bob]

A man in a dream ate a dream cow, while various dream characters offered opinions.

[DeDukshyn]

A man in a dream ate a dream cow, while various dream characters offered opinions.

Efficient!! I like that! ;)

[Mike]

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?

I'm not saying that a meat-eating man cannot be spiritually advanced. But I dont think the Dalai Lama is spiritually advanced. I think he is clearly at war with his minders, who keep telling everybody he is vegetarian, then when he escapes into public he makes a beeline for the beef!

As for the last part of the quote above, before I answer it can you tell me what the magic ingredient is that can only be obtained from meat (especially for someone who has an entourage of chefs skilled in the arts of vegetarian cookery)?

I think the buddhists would say that judgement is unskillful behaviour (which means behaviour which does not lead towards the cessation of suffering but instead contributes to illusory thinking) so thanks for the reminder. I will shut up on this one!

Love, bram


damn you Bram! you're going to make me think and do research! i have rules against that..and a lazy reputation to uphold;)

i see you've answered my question with a question of your own. clever;)

this is a slippery slope, because i believe in eating meat raw. yup, raw. the reasons are endless, but i suggest you google 'weston price' or 'aajonus vonderplanitz'. i could go on endlessly, but i think it would require a new thread, honestly. and lets face it: you're not interested anyway;) and i don't blame you...

best,
mike

[Mike]

A man in a dream ate a dream cow, while various dream characters offered opinions.


is that a Bob original?;) ha! brilliant!

[realitycorrodes]

A man in a dream anally intruded upon a dream character against his wishes - and another dream character told him..."It's just a dream - nothing to get upset about!"

So it is acceptable to behave badly! Why?

Because it's a dream!

Great logic - Aristotle would be weeping in his dream grave - no doubt!

And aren't those other character's in a dream stupid to suggest the man who was anally intruded upon might have preferred not to have been?

P.S. It would be stupid to censor or ban anyone from the Avalon Forum for stating anything offensive because....guess what...it's a dream!

http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/521717_537337369624713_1664283667_n.jpg

[Mike]

i'm still trying to reconcile Bob getting raped with your imagery here...

oh, and by the way, what Bob and i do in our free time is our business. it wasn't a dream, but it was oh so dreamy...wouldn't ya say Bob;)

[Airwooz]

Buddhism has many branches...same as Christian, they follow different doctrines...Tibetan monks can eat meat and get marry I think they believe Animals that already dead is ok to eat but you don't kill animals for food. Some of the Tibetan monks even pratice sexual ritual. Huge difference compared to Mahayana.

Buddhism from what I understand You don't set up a law to tell people not to do something , it's a free choice, once you develop to a higher consciousness level you become a vegetarian naturally, If you go above than that you can probably live without food or your physical body. But since many of us living in a solid world here, we eat animals and then we die as nutriment, it's a cycle.

[Whiskey_Mystic]

The person who wrote the letter in the op is an idiot. That is all.

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i157/SealJuice/winkdrink.jpg

[Arrowwind]

the gist of of the story goes like this:

Paramahansa Yogananda, a life long vegetarian, was once a guest at a home with his students. When they sat down to dinner with their host meat was served and Yogananda began to eat it. One of his students, shocked said something like.. Yogananda how can you?

Yogananda said we have blessed this food and I shall honor our gracious host.

[realitycorrodes]

The REAL Dalai Lama

Oq7YRg55h8A

[Bright Garlick]

I agree Pathwalker. Most critics of the Dalai Lama have never read any of his works, heard him talk at length about how he lives or heard him talk of the Buddhadharma.

If the Dalai Lama is to be judged badly on a few so called misdeeds, than all that he has done to benefit sentient beings has been a waste and we are all doomed to suffer.

Such small minds and closed hearts throwing rocks and mud.:confused:

[Mike]

The person who wrote the letter in the op is an idiot. That is all.

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i157/SealJuice/winkdrink.jpg


i was going to say a$shole, but ok..have it your way, Mystic;)

[another bob]

it wasn't a dream, but it was oh so dreamy...wouldn't ya say Bob;)


sigh . . . .

[Mike]

it wasn't a dream, but it was oh so dreamy...wouldn't ya say Bob;)


sigh . . . .


couldn't resist Bob, sorry;) i was set up perfectly; i had no choice but to hit it outta the park...

[another bob]

i had no choice but to hit it outta the park...

"Buy me some peanuts and Cracker Jack,
I don't care if we ever come back...."

[realitycorrodes]

What is presented is a logical argument.

Just because the argument presented seems to suggest one has been deceived into thinking someone is something they are not, is no reason to resort to name calling.

We all get upset when we feel we may have been lied to. No one likes to be lied to or shown that they may have been wrong.

Naming calling someone small minded and close hearted is not the answer.

Especially when the one who is being accused of being "closed hearted" is presenting a logical argument for the prevention of the unnecessary slaughter of millions of innocent sentient beings?

One is almost left speechless as a result of such an accusation?

If someone accidentally went to dinner at a pedophiles house and while eating, the pedophile confided in their pedophilia to the guest and offered a small child to rape for desert.

Does the guest when offered a small child to rape by the pedophile say yes in order to not offend the pedophile?

Which is worse...hurting someone's misguided feelings, rape, or encouraging the murder of millions of innocent sentient beings?

It is better to think for oneself than to quote from manufactured authority figures like the Dalai Lama or Yogananda.

It is not as difficult as it may seem.

I for one am losing confidence in the majority of humans to some day be able to do this.

There is nothing fundamentalist about being vegetarian - it is pure logic.

Fundamentalist are those who support causes which are not based on logic - an example of which would be Zionists.

To use the flag of the Rothschilds as an avatar in Avalon demonstrates a level of hypocrisy hither to not seen and is a measure of how low this discussion area has sunk - no wonder such a person is arguing for the slaughter of millions of innocent sentient beings - animals and humans a like.

Shame on you.

[ROMANWKT]

If you really want to know about meat eating, its covered here in this short book that may open your eyes in astonishment, meaning you better eat it or be eaten spiritually?????

regards

roman

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=19991&d=1357819061

[realitycorrodes]

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 downloaded your book. It looks entertaining - I am looking forward to reading it.

[ROMANWKT]

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 downloaded your book. It looks entertaining - I am looking forward to reading it.

This teacher explains that the whole universe is a farm for these vampirc parasites that survive on negative activities of all here on this earth and beyond, and all religious worship is directed to these parasites, they are your gods, we are their source of existence, read the short book, its worth it, there is a lot there and to the point.

Regards to you realitycorrodes

roman

[bram]

this is a slippery slope, because i believe in eating meat raw. yup, raw. the reasons are endless, but i suggest you google 'weston price' or 'aajonus vonderplanitz'. i could go on endlessly, but i think it would require a new thread, honestly. and lets face it: you're not interested anyway;) and i don't blame you...

best,
mike
Always answer a question with a question, right? but you know why I did that:p.

Anyway I googled Weston Price and found that he was a dentist who said indigenous people had better teeth than us. but they don't have as much chocolate or sugar in their coffee.

Then I googled this Aajanus guy who I've never heard of over here, and oh boy, what a can of worms!! What's going on there?? Lots of stories about fake names and qualifications (used to be an actor on General Hospital???) and stories about extortion and rotten meat diets, and people getting sick and dying from his diets. I'm guessing you're gonna tell me thats all BS.

[ThePythonicCow]

Anyway I googled weston Price and found that he was a dentist who said indigenous people had better teeth than us. but they don't have as much chocolate or sugar in their coffee.
Weston Price said a lot more than that :). He was one of the finest students of human health I know of.

[bram]

That was the results of my thirty second google exercise, but I did bookmark him to read some more. Any suggestions on where to begin?

[ThePythonicCow]

That was the results of my thirty second google exercise, but I did bookmark him to read some more. Any suggestions on where to begin?

Here's one interesting introduction to him:


http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional-diets/ancient-dietary-wisdom

Here's his primary book:




http://cb.pbsstatic.com/l/03/4203/9780916764203.jpgNutrition and Physical Degeneration


by Weston A. Price (http://amzn.com/0916764206)

[Ultima Thule]

A man in a dream ate a dream cow, while various dream characters offered opinions.



That sure sounds like the dream I am looking at just now. :confused: But if I wake up, I don´t get to dream-read the rest of the thread.
Dream on, I´ll wake up just in time to go to sleep.

UT

Add something (slightly) on topic: One day Jesus made his second coming and drove in his sedan to visit the locals of a small town. Everything wen´t okay, people were really happy and all enlightened - ready to ascend even - until old Mack asked Jesus: "Say J, you didn´t drive up here in a japanese car did you?"

[778 neighbour of some guy]

Green Pasture's, butter oil (activator X) and fermented cod liver oil are good, i use the Blue Ice Royal, recomend it.

Pete Peterson interview by Bill and Kerry is also a good one to listen or view.

[markpierre]

This guy's got a real issue with meat eaters. They won't believe what he wants them to believe, and do what he wants them to do.

That annoys me too, but it doesn't threaten my mission. I hope he's able to sleep alright. He won't stop animals from being killed,
but he can suffer every death with them, and so should you.
He needs to go back to awareness school.

Animal rights religion par excellence. How about this; If you don't want to eat meat, don't eat it. Don't kill it. Don't need to explain yourself or preach. Same thing.
Don't even think about it. Thinking about 'other guys' who kill animals is absurd. You'll be thinking about how much it anguishes you.
How you'll never stop them. How pathetic and impotent your beliefs are. They haven't saved them or you or the cows.

Think about the animal 'not' dead. Bless it, since nobody else will.

[Eram]

A man in a dream ate a dream cow, while various dream characters offered opinions.

This covers a big part of the issue of consumption of meat, but there is also the question about the dreamcows oppinion of their role in the whole of this and whether free will is in play here.
My girlfiriend, who can communicate with animals however, has been told repeatidly that the cows 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 dignety.

That being said.... we are vegetarians... mostly.... because we feel better that way.

[mosquito]

Could it be that part, a large part, of the problem is that this senior monk/politician has been placed on a massive pedestal by a lot of whingey Westerners who want to believe that all Buddhists are vegetarian and therefore super-duper "spiritual" ?

[bram]

Could it be that part, a large part, of the problem is that this senior monk/politician has been placed on a massive pedestal by a lot of whingey Westerners who want to believe that all Buddhists are vegetarian and therefore super-duper "spiritual" ?

Could be....(spoken in a whingey voice)...however, where I live, over 90% of the buddhists are vegetarian (which is very convenient for me).

[greybeard]

A man in a dream ate a dream cow, while various dream characters offered opinions.

This covers a big part of the issue of consumption of meat, but there is also the question about the dreamcows oppinion of their role in the whole of this and whether free will is in play here.
My girlfiriend, who can communicate with animals however, has been told repeatidly that the cows 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 dignety.

That being said.... we are vegetarians... mostly.... because we feel better that way.

I feel the same way.
However.
One book I read suggests that all "lower" life literally serves "higher" life as part of their evolution.
That millions of cows etc would not have the privilege of an earthly life and the chance to evolve with out meat eaters.

The Red Indians and others would spend time with the animal they had killed and respectfully thank it.
Saying Grace also boosts the energy of food-- that's a fact.

Where I do have a problem is the manner of killing.
I believe it should be done humanely as possible.
Animals are conscious beings too--they know they are going to die.
If they die in fear, their body's produce toxins which can not be healthy to the consumer.

So thats my dream thoughts on a dream situation.
We are both form and formless and neither.
You could say from a higher perspective that nothing actually happened---but---its meant to feel real.

Chris

[ulli]

This guy's got a real issue with meat eaters. They won't believe what he wants them to believe, and do what he wants them to do.

That annoys me too, but it doesn't threaten my mission. I hope he's able to sleep alright. He won't stop animals from being killed,
but he can suffer every death with them, and so should you.
He needs to go back to awareness school.

Animal rights religion par excellence. How about this; If you don't want to eat meat, don't eat it. Don't kill it. Don't need to explain yourself or preach. Same thing.
Don't even think about it. Thinking about 'other guys' who kill animals is absurd. You'll be thinking about how much it anguishes you.
How you'll never stop them. How pathetic and impotent your beliefs are. They haven't saved them or you.

Think about the animal 'not' dead. Bless it, since nobody else will.

When the illusion of power is replaced by the reality of powerlessness
that is a major breakthrough in a person's life.
Maybe the writer of that letter is close to getting there.
Also, when one discovers that leaders at the top of the pile have more in common with other leaders also at the top of their piles, than with the people they supposedly represent, and that they have become part of the media celebrity clique, who live under a different set of rules, that is a healthy eye opener. The guy who wrote that letter is about to become independent, where nothing blocks his view of his God. It's all good. Because there is still life after one has left the herd.

[RMorgan]

Hey folks,

Please, lets not convert this thread into another meat eating versus vegetarianism debate...It´s just not about it.

It´s about hypocrisy, coming from a person who isn´t supposed to be a hypocrite.

Ok, I see hypocrisy every time I look in the mirror; I´m working on it, but I still see it.

I can be hypocrite, you can be hypocrite, as long as we realize it and work hard to improve ourselves...That´s not the issue discussed here as well.

The issue is, that a guy, who is always introduced as HIS SANCTITY, should really be such a hypocrite.

I mean, are saints, I mean, real saints, not fabricated ones, really allowed to be hypocrites? Could one become a saint being a hypocrite, in the first place?

St.Francis of Assisi, as an example, was known to have serious bone disease, because his compassion was so great, that he often refused to eat even plants, so his ascetic diet mostly consisted of fruits.

Besides, as far as I know, when you have hepatitis, or other general liver disease, you should actually reduce the consumption of meat, specially read meat, not increase it. Ask any physician about it. So I´m not sure if I´m buying his justification for eating meat. Mostly probably he´s just eating meat because he likes its taste.

Raf.

PS: My definition of hypocrite is a person who don´t practice what he preaches...

[panopticon]

Sigh...
Why haven't any of the Buddhists mentioned Devadatta?

There is no reason that a Buddhist should be a vegetarian other than cultural tradition and sect dogma.
It is said that Buddha himself ruled against it.
Buddhists can not kill an animal.
Some sects teach that it was taught by Buddha that they can eat meat if the meat was not specifically killed for them, they did not witness the animal being killed or hear the animals cries from being killed.
The Dalai Lama is the head of one of those sects so he is not a hypocrite.

I'm a tad confused why I'm the one presenting this...
Apologies if I missed someone saying it earlier.

-- Pan

[greybeard]

From my point of view The Dali Lama is not a hypocrite because he has not made a secret of eating meat.
That it in a nutshell.
As far as spiritual goes I cant see that being a non vegetarian would bar a person from making spiritual progress.
As far as Saint Hood goes--- Dr David Hawkins in one of his books maintained that Neither the Pope nor the Dail Lama are enlightened as the fully enlightened state would not be compatible with running a religion. He also said that the path of Sainthood is different from the path of Enlightenment.
The enlightened are very normal, some probably eat meat, drink beer and make love.

Chris

[Ultima Thule]

One might think - doubly so, if is a member here actually - that it would be refreshing and promising to see someone in Dalai Lamas shoes not accommodating into acting out his role according to tradition, religion etc., but instead showing bit of rebellion?
Let the man rattle his cage! ;)

UT

[another bob]

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 . . .

[PathWalker]

Following this theme.
As the leader of a well-known religion. He can change the religion.
He is courageous enough to modify the religion to suit the time. And I do honor that.

[PathWalker]

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 form in one manner or another. The difference is the intention, intensity and integrity. Only pet animals and humans developed obesity. And greed.

[13th Warrior]

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.

[DeDukshyn]

A man in a dream ate a dream cow, while various dream characters offered opinions.

This covers a big part of the issue of consumption of meat, but there is also the question about the dreamcows oppinion of their role in the whole of this and whether free will is in play here.
My girlfiriend, who can communicate with animals however, has been told repeatidly that the cows 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 dignety.

That being said.... we are vegetarians... mostly.... because we feel better that way.

I feel the same way.
However.
One book I read suggests that all "lower" life literally serves "higher" life as part of their evolution.
That millions of cows etc would not have the privilege of an earthly life and the chance to evolve with out meat eaters.

The Red Indians and others would spend time with the animal they had killed and respectfully thank it.
Saying Grace also boosts the energy of food-- that's a fact.

Where I do have a problem is the manner of killing.
I believe it should be done humanely as possible.
Animals are conscious beings too--they know they are going to die.
If they die in fear, their body's produce toxins which can not be healthy to the consumer.

So thats my dream thoughts on a dream situation.
We are both form and formless and neither.
You could say from a higher perspective that nothing actually happened---but---its meant to feel real.

Chris

I think perhaps even more importantly than killing the animal in a "humane" way (that word seems to be loosing meaning these days, lol), is raising the animal in a humane way. It should have been cared for with love. This makes both better tasting meat and better meat vibrationally.

To support your point on the killing method ...
My Dad used to hunt moose and deer occasionally to help feed his family (it's Canada - we have lots of hunters and many out of necessity), and he told me it is very important to bring your hunt down with one shot, with moose this is hard, so you need a big gun. He said if you have to chase your hunt, wounded, through the woods to make the kill, your meat will be full of fear and ruined. It affects the taste of the meat as well. Natives taught my dad how to hunt ... I remember eating moose tongue sandwiches in harder times ... not bad at all actually ;)

[DeDukshyn]

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.

[13th Warrior]

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.

[DeDukshyn]

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]

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]

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]

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.



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.



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]

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]

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]

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...:scared:

Tofu - Mmm yummy...:bad:

[DeDukshyn]

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. ;-)

:confused:

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]

The 'Vegan' nightmare continues...:scared:

Tofu - Mmm yummy...:bad:


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

[Arrowwind]

" ...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. ;-)
:confused:

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

:focus:

[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

[lunaflare]

As a young child, "His Holiness" the DL was treated like a king. a god. He was raised to be superior than others. Better than. More than: wealth, good food, red carpet, gold plated ceremonies, private schooling in all subjects. He was chosen to lead and become a man of tremendous influence. I am not a smidge surprised to learn that he chowed down on calf meat-in fact, went out of his way to do so. Yes, a calf is taken from its mother. Would a cow willingly give its young to a farmer to be slaughtered? I think not. Do cows willingly choose slaughter house life? No. It is a dismal existence. Christianity teaches that humans have dominion over animals. And so we factory farm in soul-less slaughter houses; viewing them as produce and cash-crops. We do not need meat to be healthy. We have been mind-controlled to think in this way.

When are we going to realize that gurus/leaders/high religious figures are posturing little men playing the Great Wizard of Oz? They are magicians. They adhere to the paradigm of hierarchy whereby those at the top take the life force from those lower down. If the DL did not have an abundance of wealth and influence and a multitude of adoring followers; if he was a regular "guy", I would not be piping into this thread. But he does.
So, coming back to the theme of this thread. The DL-who is of god-like status-(not to me) does not lead with compassion and so I conclude that this makes him a hypocrite.

[Midnight]

I have always considered the current Dalai Lama as a spiritually enlightened being. Reading this thread, I now have some doubts about him. I don't eat the flesh of murdered animals, so this testimony has caused me to see "His Holiness" in a different light. I'm still open to some explanation as what actually transpired, but there is a shadow covering my current perception of the Dalai Lama. This shadow is limited. The light is much greater than any one person.

[Carmody]

(just reading the first page)

(Speaking on some sects that try to be vegetarian)

Contrary to popular beliefs, Buddhists can kill...AND.... eat meat.

They require extraordinary conditions, for both, though.

I mean, a given monk might really, really have a hankerin' for a 12oz ribeye steak, medium rare..but they don't go out and get one and eat it.

BUT..if someone who does not know any different..serves them up a 12oz rib-eye, they can gladly and happily dive into it. (with lots of brazed/carbonized onions and mushrooms, of course, and a little bit of a nice Bearnaise sauce...)

A blameless, innocent 'crime' one might say. The difference is in the knowing, and still following through.

Same for killing, in a similar way. If a Buddhist wishes to protect themselves in an unanticipated and intractable situation, well....then... they can make that decision for themselves.

It's chance, or similar.....vs that of intent and follow-through.

I personally do fairly well with a NEAR vegetarian diet. Ie, small amounts of chicken and fish. Then slowly winding the chicken and fish almost totally out of the diet, for short to longer bouts of veganism.

With all the vibrations of the animals OUT OF ME...my capacity to reach spiritual and combined psychic heights - - dramatically increases.

That elevation, in the end, that getting out of this place on a high note... does require that one cease eating animal flesh. At least as humans exist now, that is.