I do not think it is practical, but it would be nice if one wants to eat something that they were required to kill it.  Perhaps bare handed, to make it fair for the animal.  At least it would burn calories, and maybe start a new trend , MMA, Mixed Martial Animals.

I agree with you, Psi. My initial feelings about hunting were only upheld by a lack of questioning. Though it is outlawed in the Buddhist precepts (written far before mass meat production) I think it would be most ethical if one were to come upon an animal in the woods and just kill it quickly by battering it with a rock, or else just shooting it in the head from behind so that it doesn't suffer long. It sounds radical but I believe it would actually cause much less harm than store bought meat or vegetables from organic farms driven across the country.

See, I look at that T-bone and I see a cow standing in a lake of poop...

re: Andreas (3/19/15 9:26 AM as a reply to Piers M.)

"…Also we learn more and more about the drawback of eating soy..."

1) General comment on human consumption of soy products:

I've seen respectible research (actually survey of much research) that demonstrates that soy bean, per se, is indigestible for humans. Notice that traditional nutritional uses of soy products virtually all involve preparation,f ermentation or other transformation before being eaten. E.g. tofu (Chinese dofu), miso, soy sauce, tempe, etc. It's like yogurt is no longer milk, because the yogurt bacteria has converted the milk fat to itself. Likewise, traditional, generally considered relatively healthy uses of soy are in a form already pre-digested, so to speak, by some other organism or transformational process.

On the other hand, there's a huge agricultural industry producing soy beans, 99% of which traditionally for use as live-stock fodder. Those animals CAN digest it. BUT, in recent times, agra-industry has discovered that selling soy beans for human consumption can be more lucrative than as cattle feed. And they cash-in on the vegan/vegetarian movements need to find protein sources, and "buy" scientific studies to prove it's ok for people. (In case no one has notices, 90+% of "science" these days is bought.)

Also, there's growing evidence that all that processed but essentially still raw soy product added as "protein" filler to processed foods, is yet another contributing factor to the growing pandemic of increasingly serious digestive and metabolic disease. So this not only happens to further enhance the profit margins of the agri-industrial complex, but just happens to add handsomely to the profit margins in the other major predatory enterprise of this age – the medical-industrial complex. In both areas, "health" is not a consideration, behind the PR. Business is business, after all. (Actually no fault here, no conspiracy theory; giving the benefit of the doubt, that most individuals are well-intentioned; it's just that, as we know, greed is somewhat blinding (delusional).)

2) eating and harming, killing, etc. (no strong belief here pro or con)

In light of various evidence as to the history of human meat consumption, it's benefits, drawbacks, etc., I'm reminded of a perspective voiced by a former teacher of mine, named "Sun Bear", who was ½ Chippawa-Cree (NativeAmerican); he used to teach:
"On Mother Earth, all living beings give their lives so that other beings may live."

Grains die to feed various animals, who feed on each other, up the food chain; and at all levels, and even the top, we ultimately all give the left-overs of our bodies to feed worms, who then enrich the earth, to feed grains, etc. And a pervasive characteristic in nature is to over-produce to help others – oak trees produce hundreds of percent more acorns than needed to carry-on the species, and they give their excess "offspring" to feed the squirrels and others, who in turn help others who help the trees, round and round.

And there are those counter arguments to anti-harm fanatics like the fact that we all are constantly "killing" gazillions of living beings when we walk on grass, when we use soaps and disinfectants, when we do garden or lawn work, etc.. As a species, we're wiping-out virtually most other species by the side-effects of the "civilized" and industrialized apparatus that we all are responsible for, whether we are willing to admit it or not.

My sense is that the Buddhist precept against harming or killing is intended to operate at the level of conditioning the intention to avoid the causing of suffering where ever possible. G. Buddha was, as we all know, a consumate pragmatist, and knew better than to proscribe impossibly rigid perfectionist rules (at least in practical matters). This is documented in suttas and commentaries. E.g. the story of some naïve monks running to G.Buddha to acuse some supposed arahant of being a fraud because he wasn't watching where he walked and was killing the ants (violating the precept). GB pointed out that that particular monk was blind, didn't have the intention of harming the ants, wasn't violating the precept.

(The precepts then, might be seen as phenomenological rather than strictly ontological?)

I'd like to add my experience as a datapoint to this discussion.

I grew up on a farm and have personally killed many animals.  It was a normal and practical thing to do.  I've also killed animals while hunting, and this was a normal thing to do in a rural area.  So, my experience may be a little different than most, having had direct experience with killing animals.  I was taught killing by my father.  In non industrial societies, it is my understanding that children often have a natural aversion to killing animals, and must be taught its place in the normal course of their lives.  I remember having an aversion to killing when I was very young, but that was overcome.

There is a disconnect between buying a shrink wrapped piece of meat in the grocery store, or a nice picture of a cooked steak, and how that piece of meat got there in the first place.  I agree with Psi that it would be a good idea for people to have to kill their own food.  At the very least, it would lead to more thoughtful consideration of the full extent of their actions, and would likely lead to a lot more vegetarians.

A long time ago, when at a yoga retreat, the instructor told us, that when you meditate, things come up, it's like peeling the layers of an onion.  At that time I wasn't really meditating much, but the memory of that teaching stuck with me.  

So, what came up for me in the initial years of meditation were the memories of my participation in the killing of animals.  Normally I'm not a very emotional person, I've gone through many years of only crying in conditions of extreme loss, such as the death of a loved one, or the break up of a close relationship.  But with the recollection of my killing of animals as a teenager, there arose extremely strong feelings of sadness, regret, anguish and compassion.  Many times I wept like a small child.  These episodes came up once in a while for a couple of years, and still do occasionally.

In addition to this type of experience, I've had to take long time family pets to be euthanized.  As a result of these experiences, I became a vegetarian.  I can no longer eat meat without thinking about the killing of the animal.

I'm not at all a militant vegetarian.  My adult children eat meat.  I'll freely talk about my reasons for being a vegetarian if asked.   Living in an urban Canadian center, it is very easy for me to eat well while being a vegetarian.  If I found myself living in conditions where it was difficult to get protein without eating meat, I would likely eat meat.

For me, following the Buddha's precept of not killing arose very naturally from my meditation practice.  I suppose this is due to my direct experience of actually killing animals.

I have strongly considered going vegan after being vegetarian for a little over year now, and have had a few burgers in that time span. I had a two burgers a few days ago and the meat itself didn't taste great, it had little flavor, but the flavor it did have was weird and tasted strange. Last night I was up until 3am watching this youtube channel about become vegan, making these incredible health claims all supported by scientific evidence. Combine that with how fucked up animals are treated in the meat and dairy industries, there is no legitimate reason for me not to go vegan. 

I am not posting to debate but posting because I find this thread interesting combined with the relevance to my current life situation. I am curious to see how becoming vegan plays out.

C P M, I can relate to everything you just said.  I grew up in rural Minnesota.  Everyone I knew was hunting and fishing, and my parents raised animals for food.  I never learned how to kill, though.  I had to deal with a lot of shame because my dad and my friends would give me a hard time about it.  I killed a duck once and decided not to do it ever again.  I spent a lot of time sabotaging mouse traps as a kid, too.

I think a lot of it comes down to your opinion on the nature of reality.  If you play Dungeons and Dragons, do you then start bemoaning the endangered species status of the dragon your teammate is about to skewer with a sword?  No you don't, because your view of that world is that it is primarily a game, it's not the real you and that dragon body is just a concept in someone's mind that will not die even if the dragon 'dies' in that world.   Does something really die when the cow dies?  How real is the body of the cow?  Why is this world designed as it is where all creatures exist by recycling and eating the bodies of others?  Why is it that historically, vegetarianism was not even a healthy option for most peoples, especially those not in the tropics?  Grain does not have the needed nutrients and fruits are not available as a constant source in most places.  Most vegetables do not have much fat and only a few of a decent amount of calories.  It's only recently with fast transportation and refrigerators and vitamin pills that it is possible for a large percentage of the population to do it safely with enough variety, still get sufficient B vitamins, etc.  The Earth was designed this way but why?  If eating meat was wrong, then why was Earth designed so we had to do it for millions of years? 

Personally, I do think the desire to kill is probably not the kind of energy that Buddha would promote, but yet he was not against eating meat in general apparently, he was just against the intent to kill.  You have to admit, it feels different just eating a steak or going out there with a knife with intent to kill a cow, it's a different energy.  But eat meat or not, I also think self righteous indignation is probably not the kind of energy the Buddha would promote.
-Eva 

Its intersting to note that its mentioned the buddha ate one time meat in the suttas (and possibly in another time but it seems the other time is a later addtion to the scripts) and that by that time he
"ate out of pity" - and that  97% of his mentioned meals were vegeterian  - 74% vegan

Link : http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Diet_of_Buddha

IF you eat well as a vegan the only pill you will need is B12 and even that is just to make sure you get it - cause lots of fortifed foods contain it - but its true that you do need to do some resarch on the start - to be sure you get all the nutritions - if your a vegeterian and you eat well you wont miss a thing - and you need just a little bit of resarch when you start

Some native american trive in north america were complelty vegeterian - if i remember correctly i might be wrong - its a cold enviorment i belive - but they grow agricaultre   ........    Not that it matters at all cause whats important is that now we can eat vegan

The thing im talking about our mind making excuses is - if the cow is not real than - what makes your sence of taste any realer ?
why can you decide that something is more real than the other - and notice that what people tend to think is real is the"greed" defilment - and greedy thoughts

This is a strange argument, Eva.  I think you've misunderstood the concept of dependent origination.  Just because a cow is made of the grass it eats and the air it breathes doesn't negate the fact that the cow exists.  It's the same with your own existance.

Given that B12 defiency causes severe brain damage one has to wonder if lot of the Buddhist writing is caused by a malfunctioning brain =).
Dont think they ate much seaweed in northen India.
Also I think alot of vegans have a protein defiency. Why? Because allmost all vegans books and sites sucks.
Then theres iron defiency, lack of intake of fatty acids like omega-3 and what not. 
Ive seen some vegan sites say you only need 0.36g protein per pound bodyweight. Idiots. So many idiots.
I havent even seen any sites taht tell you how to combine your protein sources to get all the required amino acids etc.
Just because you eat enough protein in grams doesnt mean you get all the right types of protein. You can eat your 120g of protein per day and still be protein deficient.

Scott Jurek , Vegan , 100 mile Badwater Run 15 hours 36 minutes, 

http://scottjurek.com/


Vegan Strength

http://www.greatveganathletes.com/strength


Good Vegan book, from a vegan Ironman triathlete

http://www.amazon.com/Thrive-Nutrition-Optimal-Performance-Sports/dp/0738212547

Vegan B-12 Myth, just another look at this, this seems to be a problem, or is it, besides the liver stores a five year supply, and there are vegan multivitamins.  I think it is possibly deficient because B-12 sources is bacterial, and we wash all the food and sterilize the water, which in the past we probably ingested a little dirt and poo along with our food and water, and as such also Vitamin B12...

http://www.roylretreat.com/articles/b12.html


Happy Hunting

Psi


P.S. I am not Vegan, or Vegetarian, but have been, and am about 80-90 percent meat free, but I do not really think about it much, probably because I am suffering from delusion

Here is a paper analyzing over 100 scientific studies about B12. The conclusion seems to be that B12 derived from non animal sources is not able to be used by the body. Vegans have actually killed their babies through malnutrition, i.e their breast milk did not contain the nutrients needed to survive. Is that more ethical? I doubt it, but to each their own. Anyways...    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/263626.php

B12 deficiency is also associated with moodiness, which may be partially to blame for the way that vegetarians and vegans often come across. 

Fortification is similar to a vitamin pill, both are synthetic vitamins that are added to real food to try to prevent deficiencies.  I personally would not rely on fortification because most fortified food is processed food like cereal created with high heat and pressure that actually can alter proteins to be less bioavailable as well as just being an unhealthy food in general.  (you can find some good info on how high heat and pressure denatures proteins in various livestock feed research where bioavailability determines rate of growth and hence income, whereas for humans, I could not find any research in this area, apparently there money does not go in that direction..)
I would love to here of any specific tribes that were totally vegetarian, never heard of it and I live in an area with a lot of native americans and knowledge and once worked in an trading post store where I learned about a lot of different tribes.  One of my x boyfriends also studied north and south American tribes as an archeologist.  I would be rather shocked if there were any fully vegetarian tribes.  Sure there are a number of tribes that ate a high percentage of vegetable matter.  Tribes ate what was available to find and develop in their area, whatever that was.  But yet to my knowledge there are no known, now or in the past, fully vegetarian human tribes.  Even the great apes are sometimes canabalistic!  (not that I am recommending it or anything). 
I am not saying any is more real than another, I suspect it is all equally not very real, at least not real in the way that many assume it is.  I am saying what is the nature of reality and why is this world designed as it is that creatures all feed on one another?  Yet if there is life after death anyway, then what is death anyway?  You may call that an excuse, what I call it is a question.  I like to look at things from different perspectives.  I don't consider an alternative perspective to be an excuse.  In fact, for a time I ate very little meat and didn't miss it much, I actually really prefer carbohydrates and sugar the most if we are talking about taste buds, so kindly do not place on me the assumption that I am only making excuses to eat what I like, in fact I rarely eat what I like best because I was not very healthy when I used to eat that way.  If I could be healthy on breakfast cereal, pasta, PBJ sandwiches, chocolate etc, I'd be first in line to trade in meat for those instead, but my system increasingly does not care for processed foods it seems. 

Anyway, all things, come and go, live and die.  Every day, cells in my body are killed by other cells, bacteria in my body are killed by other bacteria, super tiny insects under my feet are killed as I move, cats kill mice, dogs kill cats, some cultures eat dog, tigers eat humans,  I ate a plant fetus for dinner (potatoes..).  Is the tiger evil for eating a human?  We all kill all the time.  WHy is one bad and another just natural?  Who gets to decide where the line is?  Is a dog bad for killing and eating a bird even though it is a omnivore and could probably live OK as a vegetarian if it got supplements?  Do we then have a responsibility to our dogs to convert them to vegetarianism even if a few get a bit sickly?  Should we try to convert cats even if more get sick and many go blind?  What do we do when the mice population gets out of control because the predators are not eating them?  What do we do when the deer population gets out of control because we took out all the wolves?  It is OK for wolves to kill deer but not for humans to kill deer in an even more swift and painless way?  Who gets to pick who is allowed to kill what?  If you say it's Buddha, then why did he refuse to create a vegetarian society?  Any assumption is a guess because we cannot ask him personally (and I am also not of the belief that every thing he said was perfectly accurately written down hundreds of years after his death so you won't see me hanging on every tiny nuance of a sentence in an ancient text either) but the fact is he apparently did not do it.  Personally, I am rather curious why myself too though.  Seems to me he could easily have made it a big thing to not eat meat but he chose against it.

Anyway, getting back to the original question, Tibetan monks are not vegetarian and might be safe to assume at least a few of them have become enlightened and even after enlightenment, they did not make vegetarianism a requirement, so apparently vegetarianism is not ESSENTIAL for enlightenment, whatever else you might want to argue, essential it is not. 
-Eva

Eva: Wow. What an intelligent response, backed with actual verifiable knowledge rather than biased, emotional opinionating. Edifying to read, and befitting the complexity of the subject. Nice!

Actually, I don't think you got what I was saying.  I was not speaking specifically about dependent origination.  But if my existence does not end with my 'death' then why would my death be bad?  If in buddhism, there is life after death, then is there really death?  If no death, then what is life here?  If you want to negate part of Buddhism and say there is no life after death, then does it make sense to still cling to other parts of Buddhism and use them as arguments for how others should live their live?  Is it a good idea to pick and choose only the parts you agree with?  

What I see is that people like to live with one foot firmly planted in the common belief system of society, whatever that may be at the time, but some still try to have the other foot firmly planted in an alternate belief system.  To do that effectively, to have one foot in one place and another in another place but still not get dizzy, one must then defend against noticing where the two systems conflict with each other.  IMO, Buddhism seems to have a different view of the nature of reality than does the average walking around American. And if you go to some ancient Amazonian tribe, they probably have a whole 'nother view.  One interesting question is how do those assumptions differ and how do you know which is right?  How do your now your view is more accurate than say some guy 1000 years ago living on the arctic tundra?  How do you know that native American shaman is wrong when he/she says that life is like a dream?  
-Eva       

No info on those pages just promotion of various people. Who might be genetic freaks for all we know. Or might have defiencies as well. We cant tell.


Based on the reviews it looks like crap. Mostly book is based on anecdotal evidence. Again dude might be genetic freak.


Well it can run out in under a year or last decades. It depends on your genetic makeup. And because its found in dirt, water etc does not mean its in a form that humans use.
Low levels of B12 is found with most groups, and the older you get the more at risk you are.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23356638
Its corrolated with various forms of deceases that is, vegetarians are more at risk to get the decease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19676146


http://www.dsm.com/campaigns/talkingnutrition/en_US/talkingnutrition-dsm-com/2011/12/20111214-b12.html

Tibetans and mongolians also practices sky burial. You give your body back to nature by being chopped up and fed to vultures and other animals. So the whole circle of life is built into the tibetan practices. Though some monks have practiced buying animals that is meant for slaughter to prevent them from being slaughtered. No clue what happended to the animals afterwords though. Doubt the monks kept all the animals in herds. And releasing a domesticated pig into the wild feels a little cruel.

About B 12 - i didnt say you can trust 100% fortified food - but it does have its effect -  but as i said you take vitamin B12 just to make sure you get it to not take a risk - i would reccomend vegans get a blood test to check B12 levels and also take it here and there maybe once a week to be safe

i have seen in two different places on the web that vegans actually have less cases of B12 difincey because they are aware of this problem unlike meat eaters who are sure they get all their b12

by the way run to this in a vegan forum :


You can say you eat vegetiabls and fruits as a meat eater true - but when your a vegeterian or vegan you tend to eat more of them - there are healthy and unhealthy diets vegan, vegeterian or meat eating ...  but in general the diet does push you to eat more fruit and vegetables 

BUT i really dont think this thread should be about the health issue of vegeterianism  - i just counter the claims made 


I know i am vegan and I am healthy and i have done blood tests to make sure i was and they were perefect tests - if anyone wants to be vegan make sure you read about it and cover the B12 thing - but i really dont think this thread should be about health only about the moral side of things  cause health talks can take a lot more space each claim here can carry a whole theread by itself and resarches on health are as many as their are soy meat egg comapnies in the market

i can claim that vegeanism is not healtheir than other diets if people want  - maybe its true i went vegan when i belived its a very bad diet i was sure i can only eat fake meat soy products and i wont have iron and calcium and that i will grow huge man boobs plus i thought its "hippish" and uncool  ... BUT i still did it cause of moral issues


About native americans see this youtube video :


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX6Wegv6qv0

On why the buddha didnt make a vegeterian soceity you can ask why did the buddha make certin rules - why he didnt create a socity where woman and man monks are equal ?  there are also rules the buddha has changed  if iremember correctly and i might be wrong

and again there is a big  difference between a monk and a lay person !

so again this thread isnt about wheter vegeterianism (not veganism by the way)  is healthy or not but about the moral aspect of things

i belive a monk can eat only meat and gain enlightenment - can a lay person do it - im not sure - can a lay person advance will still eating meat - i belive yes - can avoiding eating meat help his practice i belive it can

Actually they go feral quite quickly, even start growing hair and tusks

so again this thread isnt about wheter vegeterianism (not veganism by the way)  is healthy or not but about the moral aspect of things 

Respecting your human biology in a compassionate way by giving it what is most optimal is a moral issue. It has to do with compassion and respect. If you are dead, or your baby is dead, because you made what you perceived to be a compassionate choice, you won't be able to make any other compassionate choices as you will be dead.

As for B12, please read the study summaries I posted above. It actually does not seem to have an effect.

Comparing standard american diet to vegan diet is not useful as no one here is advocating SAD. You are making a lot of generalizations about others without the actual knowledge, for ex. you know how much vegetables the people on this thread eat, you know that they won't become vegan just because they like the taste of meat too much, etc.

First if your a breastfeeding mother you do have responsibilty to eat helathy and test yourself - i know for instance natly portman who is vegan decided to be non-vegan while pregnant for example - Or someone could stay vegan and do blood tastes and make sure she eats healthy ect   although that might be a suggestion to non-vegan moms as well


plenty of since birth vegans who have lived very long and didnt die young  - and as a vegan i said my blood tastes were always perfect  without making to much effort to eat healthy and of course you should reasarch things - if you only eat bread and tofu you will be an unhelathy vegan and die 

but there were and there are vegan communitys that live and prospure without problems  I didnt generalize anyone i am trying to avoid refering to this stuff you are saying on me but its untrue

firstly i never pretended to be perfect - i do belive veganism is a moral choice  

I am talking about the way the mind works and how people (that includes myself) are more easily attached to ideas that give them an excuse to do stuff they like (like tasty food) much more easliy than ideas that support hard moral choices  - so the mind would attach to a fact veganism isnt morally needed more easliy than that it is morally needed (my mind like everyone else also works this way)   i didnt say i know how much vegetables people eat but people who go vegan tend to eat more vegetables 

by the way taking blood test is something usful to all people and doing some resarch about nutrition is also good  for everyone vegan or not i didnt die yet after 8 years of veganism (like i said more or less lol) there are certain communitys worldwide who eat vegan food and dont die also and live pretty good life - and if they can i believe all people can (and for removing further argument you can remove pregnenat woman, monks ,tibetians , only meat available for purchase areas ect)

About optimal diet - that as i said can be talked about for pages and pages and is not a fact but opinion  - and your mind will be heavily leaning towards evidnce that veganism isnt healthy  

So again im not saying your mind or his mind is like that - im saying the mind in general is like that - i say it from the dhamma aspect of things not in general  

B12 comes from dirt, then passed through the dirt eating animals, we just wash our food differently than from the more natural past,one could simply eat a vitamin supplement, so B12 deficiency is a non issue.

http://www.peacefuldumpling.com/vitamin-b12-eat-your-dirt

Atherosclerosis comes from meat eating not from having enough Vitamin B12

http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/what-is-atherosclerosis


So are you proposing eating bacon and hamburger is better and healthier than apples and potatoes? Apples have all the other Vitamin B's and Potatoes alot of vitamin C.   Meat has zero Vitamin C, and Humans are the only animal that do not produce their own Vitamin C, we HAVE to get it from fruits and veggies.

Meat also has ZERO fiber...  Same with Cheese, and both are linked with Cancer.

Besides, I eat some meat, as I said before, I suffer from delusion.  And take vitamins, etc.

Also, I am not here to judge anyone, just to objectively present facts.  If one eats alot of meat and becomes Vitamin C deficient, or only feeds their kids hot dogs and Koolaid and turns them into fart expelling oompa loompas, that is just as insane as causing a child to be deficient in Vitamin B12.

It is all about common sense, of which you have.  I am not really in a debate hear, I just like to present other sides of issues to balance things out.

Peace

Psi

One could eat yogurt, it has 50 percent B12 per 8 ounces.


http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/vitamin-b12-yogurt-7448.html



One could even have a Ribeye Steak topped with yogurt, that should do it!!    Or even better a Ribeye Smoothie,,  Mmmmm  Mmmmm....


Psi

Andreas, if Humans are born to be natural meat eaters, then do you eat meat raw?   Do you have fangs and a short carnivorous intestinal tract?

You know it is just fun to give you crap?  Can you see both sides of each and every argument?  Why cling to any view?

Psi

Eva, the argument you were making was that the cow was an illusion - like a dragion in a game. You said if my friend kills a pretend dragon, I won't think much about it because it isn't real. Then you asked if a cow really dies - if its body is real. I was saying that, yes, it's obviously real, and killing a cow is different from pretending to kill an imaginary dragon. I'm not going to base my ethics on the world being imaginary, since that would mean I am also imaginary, and I wouldn't be here to practice ethics. I don't think your argument makes much sense, regardless of whether it's Buddhist or not. I'm not vegetarian because the Buddha said I should be - it just makes the most sense ethically to me.  (BTW, I'm not a Buddhist, and I don't believe in reincarnation.)

You asked who gets to decide where the line is. YOU get to decide where the line is every time you eat, every time you buy clothes, every time you take a step, drive your car, get angry, get frustrated, become happy, etc. It isn't about creating one catch all understanding of the world and then forgetting about it, it's about mindfully attending to all that you do, and making a compassionate and thoughtful decision each time.

EDIT: I'm not sure why you guys are arguing about B12.  Milk and eggs both have B12, and it's possible to get both from local farms that treat animals well.

EDIT2: Well, this thread is going weird places, so I think I'll step out here...

To all,

The argument on B-12 is because of the difference between Vegan and Vegetarian,  Vegan excludes all animal products, even eggs , honey, milk , and Leather.  But, one cn just take a vitamin, so it is a non issue.  Not like the issue of increased colon cancer risk and atherosclerosis risks inherent in meat eating, which can  not be fixed with a multi-vitamin.

And, true , I think the problem with the eating of animal flesh is that people are removed from and do not become involved in the killing of animals, so indeed, it is imaginary for them, but it is a reality.  People like to Ignore reality, in order to not be responsible.  There is also a level of Indifference involved, when one says it is just an animal, but that is not Equanimity, that is just an I do not care unsympathetic non compassionate attitude.  I am aware of this within myself, when I eat meat, it is something I have to work on.

If one thinks they are not craving and clinging to the eating of meat, and thinks it is not standing in the way of Enlightenment, then quit eating Meat for 30 days, see if you have aeven an inkling of craving and clinging within you.  If you do , crave meat, the taste of meat, have irrational fear of not having meat, cling to the idea of eating meat, give up and say this is dumb, then you will be forced to face your own cravings and clingings, which stand it the way of your own Enlightenment, whether you ignore your craving and clinging , or do anything about it is up to each individual.  This is all a do it yourself project.  This isn't a holier than thou issue, it is just mind training, tough issues, tough cravings, instincts.

Also, try to kill animal, notice the mind while killing, notice the fear in the animal, notice the violent lashing and thrashing in the animal, the screams, fangs, and the animal's will to survive.  Animals do not die easily, you may have to continuously beat, bludgeon and slash at the animal for a long time until it finallly dies.  There will be alot of blood.  Notice if the mind remains peaceful in the act of killing.  Then pull the skin, fur and hide off of the animal.  Notice, how even with pliers, the skin and fur needs to be violently pulled off with great force, or even a fish, how the skin hangs on.  Notice when cleaning a fish, the amount of guts, and even the fish eggs that will never hatch.  Notice the fish head, notice how hard it is to cut off the head.  Notice how you have to hold down the fish against it's will to survive. Look into the eyes.  Slice out the Spine, notice how even the spine of a fish resembles a human spine, the eyes of a Cow, the blinking.  Who is behind the eyes of an animal, Who is behind our eyes?  

Think of the role reversal, Giant Alien Fish with arms, dragging us into the water, pulling off our skin with pliers, cutting off our feet and hands, throwing away the heads, pulling out the guts.  All the while saying to each other, "It's just a human, an animal, it feels pain, but it doesn't really know it is alive anyway."  "Hey, throw on some potatoes." "Hey, don't throw away the Ears and Eyes!  Dummy, that the good part!"

What exactly is Compassion?  What is Indifference?  What is Equanimity?

Weird places indeed... 

Psi

Ive been vegetarian, Ive given up all grains etc as well. Ive been on low calory diet as well (prolonged fasting for a month or two). etc etc. Done that for several weeks. I didnt crave during those periods and I dont crave now.
When I have been depressed eating meat felt like cannibalism. but I moved past it. Repulsiveness is just another form of clinging. When you are at a state of eat meat not eat meat no difference in emotional response, then you are no longer clinging or craving. But if you are repulsed etc then you are still clinging to concepts and what not. At least that is how I view things.
Ramana Maharashi said doesnt really matter but going vegetarian shows a commitment and strength, being able to change ones behavior,  that is usefull on the path. (or something like that)


From what I know wolves, tigers and what not still eat humans if given a chance. But I hope the fish shoots us in the head first otherwise its just cruel. But then that is nature, torturing the prey to death. We humans in the west at least knocks the animal unconssiouss quickly. We humans are very compassionate. We can save an animal that is trapped one day but then eat it another day. Most dont care for needless suffering such that is done with halal and kosher slaughter.

"Obvious" is not a valid argument in my book.  The world is obviously flat.  The cow is obviously solid, etc.  Lots of things that seem obvious are not true.  In fact, the cow is made of a few molecules (which apparently also are not solid) mixed in with large areas of open space.  Nobody even yet understands how things in this reality seems to be solid when in fact they are all mostly open space inside: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/09/27/this-is-the-world-of-quantum-physics-nothing-is-solid-and-everything-is-energy/ . 
You are basing  your argument from your perspective of the nature of reality.  From that perspective, your argument is logical.  However, I am saying what if you adopted for a minute a different view of the nature of reality.  If you did that, then what is 'obvious' also changes.  If this world were a dream where people came and left all the time, if it was like a video game, there would be no true death. You would be just visiting and leaving, an adventure of sorts, if you looked at it from that perspective, then your opinions on 'death' would probably also be different yes?    It can be interesting to consider alternate viewpoints from time to time, it's not like you have to permanently accept a viewpoint even if you try it on for size occasionally. 
"Imaginary" is not my favorite word for it, but there seems to be no really good fitting words.  But yes, this is a good question, what is the nature of the concept of "I."  Where does it come from?   How real is it?  Can you find the source of it?  Can you point at it?  If you can't find your self for yourself, then can the cow for itself?  Can the blade of grass?  Where is the source of all that stuff if solid matter does not exist and it's all apparently energy? 
Ah well if we are not talking buddhist concepts, then I'll stick with the quantum physics concepts.  ;-P  I do not consider myself Buddhist or any religion either, but I do think the Buddhist may be closer to how it works than most other religions.   Ethics are also an interesting topic though.  In a world completely designed for all creatures to live on the corpses of others, how does it become unethical to do exactly that?  You will notice some ethics tend to come and go with various cultures and other ethics seem to have more univeral appeal across time and space.  Not causing suffering seems to a more common one (and I agree most current animal husbandry practices are deplorable) but the idea that eating other animals that are killed cleanly and quickly could be bad has not been historically a common one and in most areas is not even reasonable to the circumstances.  Humans are designed as omnivores and usually our environment dictates that we eat as designed, why would we be designed as something that was unethical?  Why would we condemn it in man but not in a tiger?     
Yes I agree but if that were all it was, then we would not be discussing it.  If meat eaters did not think they could tell vegans what to do and if vegans did not think they should tell meat eaters what to do, there would be far fewer arguments.  I do think vegetarianism if done carefully will typically be heathier than the average standard American diet of burgers and fries, but another argument is do the vegetarians have a right to point at me and say I am unethical when the world is designed that way?  I do understand that animals are cute and fuzzy and can be the sweetest little things ever.  Emotionally one might be tempted to want them to live forever.  But logically, the world is made for both life AND death.  Death is natural and essential to the currrent Earth system and so is animals eating other animals.  I think if we want to not have that anymore then we would be looking at what happens after death. 
Eggs are chicken fetuses, a lot of vegetarians don't eat them.  For milk, approx 75% of the world population is lactose intolerant.  For others, milk causes acne and sinus infections.  Of course hard to say how much of that last is due to currrent unnatural husbandry practices.   But drinking milk after weaning and from nonhuman animals was not historically a common food source for the majority of the population and most genetics have not adapted to it, making it unhealthy for most people. 
-Eva

Do some reading on life quality of most animals in the "industry" -   and death of an animal is not as fast as some think - and when the killing is on massive scale you get "mistakes" like forgeting to knock an animal unconssiouss or not managing to do so casue of the speed you get new animals to stun or like bad cuts which keeps the animals alive - the more animals you kill the more mistakes you get (mistakes of humans and also machines)

Stuff are not simple as they might seem - for instance a chicken who lay eggs -

*live in a tiny cage *fights with other chickens in the cage *cause of fights they cut their beaks * standing on metal cage injures their legs *  scratching the metal of the side of the cage means that many chickens have their bones exposedd to the air *the male chickens are killed * the chickens are all distorted genetically so they get many disseses *their eggs are taken from them and i believe the chickens care about that (i know for instance that if you take a chicken egg from her when she sees the egg is considered not kosher cause of moral issues in judaism)  *laying so much eggs cause them problems in the "laying area" * laying eggs all day mean they have low levels of calcium in their body which means they have lots of bone problem  - Free range is usually better - but still many of the flaws i mentioned above remain 

Emotionally one might be tempted to want to eat meat , but logically it includes in it the killing of another being indirectly

when you do bad deeds bad stuff follow like a cart to an ox and good deeds get good results  -  the killing is true as it gets - the deciding to buy meat at the supermarket is as real as it gets and avoiding to buy it is a good deed - the buddha did teach about wholsome and unwholsome kamma ( i use good and bad the same as wholsome and unwholsome )     do good avoid the bad and purify the mind - that is the teaching of all the buddhas (not only purify the mind)

In the ultimate reality the buying of meat exists  and its more real than the taste of the meat - and is more real than the health concerns or the concerns you dont want to feel like a hippy ect ect

Most people dont want things to be that way and are appalled by it when they learn. That things are done badly does not mean that people are not compassionate and want needless suffering.
I live in the country with the most strict animal breeding rules in the world from what Ive learnt. Here tons of farmers are converting to ecological/organic farming due to the high demand. If you want a ecological christmas ham you need to book it at least 6 months in advance. This consumer demand is rapidly changing how farmers are doing their business. Same goes with egg farms etc. I eat eggs from ecological producer with outdoor freeranging and few chickens per m2.
Personally I hope these changes also lessens the use of the whole broiler stuff. Stop eating chickens altogether or sparingly, same with piglets and calves.
We can have more ethical farming but public demand and regulation is required.

This video says that some tribes ate a lot of plant matter and only a little bit of meat.  The correct term for that is 'omnivore.'
-Eva

Yes I agree, an important issue.  That is why I prefer to buy eggs from truly free range chickens that are actually outside living a normal life (the word 'free range' on the package is not enough to guarantee this) and I prefer meat from truly 100% free range cows.  Conditions for food animals need to be improved by a large degree, current conditions are deplorable in most situations, as I've already said.  Animals pumped with hormones and in unnatural conditions also are not as healthy for us to eat either.   

I am talking about the way the mind works and how people (that includes myself) are more easily attached to ideas that give them an excuse to do stuff they like (like tasty food) much more easliy than ideas that support hard moral choices  -water drop

You keep talking about how good meat tastes. I don't know if it's really that great, but I think it is healthy. If you like it so much, just chill out, go have a burger, recognize that life and death are intertwined and look for certified humane farms in your area, and be thankful for the life given to you. I assure you the shipped vegetables you buy at a grocer are worse on so many levels. I think the hard moral choice would be for you to examine if what you were doing was actually the least harmful and most beneficial for the planet as a whole. I think you are probably more attached to the idea of feeling morally superior in this area than eating meat so I imagine you will stay the course.


i didnt die yet after 8 years of veganism (like i said more or less lol) there are certain communitys worldwide who eat vegan food and dont die also and live pretty good life - and if they can i believe all people can

You did't die yet. I am also curious about these communities. Your sources so far haven't back up your assertions so please provide information from an actual source, not veganisbetter.com

About optimal diet - that as i said can be talked about for pages and pages and is not a fact but opinion  - and your mind will be heavily leaning towards evidnce that veganism isnt healthy   

I will remind you again, I had given up meat. I was vegetarian. I read Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma", and became curious about food ethics, so I researched. I went back to eating meat as a result of research. The main takeaway from that research aside from the nourishing effects of meat, was that I could no longer believe my current (at that time) way of eating was better or more compassionate and it caused far more damage than my current practice of shopping from local farms. I live in a moderately agricultural community on the coast so there are plenty of farms.


So are you proposing eating bacon and hamburger is better and healthier than apples and potatoes? -PSI

I think they're both healthy, and both contain different useful nutrients.

 Meat has zero Vitamin C, and Humans are the only animal that do not produce their own Vitamin C, we HAVE to get it from fruits and veggies.

Beef liver has four times the vitamin c of an apple. Look up the nutritional content for beef liver and show me a food that surpasses for nourishment. I am serious. If there is one, I want to know. That's interesting though about humans being the only ones not producing their own vit c. I did not know that.

One could eat yogurt, it has 50 percent B12 per 8 ounces.

I also didn't know that. Thanks. That would exclude vegans though.

If one thinks they are not craving and clinging to the eating of meat, and thinks it is not standing in the way of Enlightenment, then quit eating Meat for 30 days, see if you have aeven an inkling of craving and clinging within you.

This would happen if the body were nutrient deficient in any way. If it were carbs the body would start to crave carbs. This is not spiritual but biological. Also, I welcome your point of view and know you are open minded and kind in your presentation so no need to alert you are not being argumnetative. We're good.

Emotionally one might be tempted to want to eat meat , but logically it includes in it the killing of another being indirectly-Water Drop

Again with the emotionally wanting to eat meat. If you drive your car you kill another being. If you walk on grass you kill another being. If you buy vegetables the process of growing the vegetables killed a lot of beings. You only haven't taken it that far yet for reasons you can't explain besides to say you're not perfect except for in the area of knowing what is acceptable morally when it comes to food choices.

when you do bad deeds bad stuff follow like a cart to an ox and good deeds get good results  -  the killing is true as it gets - the deciding to buy meat at the supermarket is as real as it gets and avoiding to buy it is a good deed - the buddha did teach about wholsome and unwholsome kamma ( i use good and bad the same as wholsome and unwholsome ) - This is such a simplistic way of looking at the world. What if the food you purchase the meat with goes to provide food for the farmer's family, and allows that family to continue a way of life that alllows them an opportunity for happiness for generations. Then the action is wholesome. If you spend time to buy more expensive but more humanely raised meats that is an action of sacrifice springing from compassion. Also wholesome.

This video says that some tribes ate a lot of plant matter and only a little bit of meat.  The correct term for that is 'omnivore.'
-Eva

Water drop: If you really feel like this is the right thing why do you have to continiously throw out untrue sources and facts to back up your opinions. That would concern me if I were a person concerned with the truth.

How so? I am genuinely curious.

Bill you keep misunderstanding what i write again and again

first you say ikeep talking about the taste  - when i clearly gave three examples

1 . taste 2 .health 3 .self image    And notice the very important ect ect   you keep ignoring what i write and misinterpreting it

this is what iw wrote :

 
Would like to mention i was wrong about hitler .. also notice the i might be wrong in bold - notice if i remember correctly -  i saw that video a long time ago - i didnt watch it this time - i didnt post it as info i just gave a link for people to judge by themselvs what i saw - and why ?  cause like i said from the start that in the buttom line it dosnt really matter what they ate !

some stuff i said and you completly ignored the logic of what i said and what im trying to get at

so im out  of this thread this time for good -    but  i will repeat  :  If your in the super market and you avoid buying meat you avoid creating unwholsome kamma - in an ultimate sense - and you create wholsome kamma in an ultimate sense - you "gain" lots of good qualitys by doing that action

This is a key thing i evaluate stuff in my life : Whats better to be wrong about ? is it better to eat meat and contribute to animal abuse - or to take the effort to avoid meat and not have any good effect  ?

- this is not about whats precived as good or bad socially - this is not an emotianl issue - this is not about being morall or feeling like it - or about is veganism healthy or not - or who was and wasnt vegan or how hard it was for some people in the past to be vegan ect ect

its purly dhammatic  - if your now at the shop and you avoid buying meat you do something that will advance you along the path - and if you buy it it will slow your progress how much i dont know  but it will have an effect for better or for worse -  this is my intelctual understanding from all my reading and mindful observation in my daily life 

They're grown in fields worked mostly by barely paid illegal immigrants, numberless animals/insects killed in making the field habitable for crops and then keeping animals away from crops, further environmental damange through the use of pesticide as well as the environmental costs of transporting products long distances. It's put much more eloquently in the following article copied from the NeW York Times, dated April 2012:


As a vegetarian who returned to meat-eating, I find the question ‘‘Is meat-eating ethical’’ one that is in my head and heart constantly. The reasons I became a vegetarian, then a vegan, and then again a conscientious meat-eater were all ethical. The ethical reasons of why NOT to eat meat are obvious: animals are raised and killed in cruel conditions; grain that could feed hungry people is fed to animals; the need for pasture fuels deforestation; and by eating meat one is implicated in the killing of a sentient being.
Except for the last reason, however, none of these aspects of eating meat are implicit in eating meat, yet they are exactly what make eating some meat unethical. Which leads to my main argument: eating meat raised in specific circumstances is ethical; eating meat raised in other circumstances is unethical. Just as eating vegetables, tofu or grain raised in certain circumstances is ethical and those produced in other ways in unethical.
What are these "right" and "wrong" ways of producing both meat and plant foods? For me, they are most succinctly summed up in Aldo Leopold’s land ethic: "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." While studying agroecology at Prescott College in Arizona, I was convinced that if what you are trying to achieve with an "ethical" diet is least destructive impact on life as a whole on this planet, then in some circumstances, like living among dry, scrubby grasslands in Arizona, eating meat, is, in fact, the most ethical thing you can do other than subsist on wild game, tepary beans and pinyon nuts.
A well-managed, free-ranged cow is able to turn the sunlight captured by plants into condensed calories and protein with the aid of the microorganisms in its gut. Sun > diverse plants > cow > human. This in a larger ethical view looks much cleaner than the fossil-fuel-soaked scheme of tractor tilled field > irrigated soy monoculture > tractor harvest > processing > tofu > shipping > human.While most present-day meat production is an ecologically foolish and ethically wrong endeavor, happily this is changing, and there are abundant examples of ecologically beneficial, pasture-based systems. The fact is that most agroecologists agree that animals are integral parts of truly sustainable agricultural systems. They are able to cycle nutrients, aid in land management and convert sun to food in ways that are nearly impossible for us to do without fossil fuel.
If "ethical" is defined as living in the most ecologically benign way, then in fairly specific circumstances, of which each eater must educate himself, eating meat is ethical, in fact NOT eating meat may be arguably unethical.
The issue of killing of a sentient being, however, lingers. To which each individual human being must react by asking: Am I willing to divide the world into that which I have deemed is worthy of being spared the inevitable and that which is not worthy? Or is such a division hopelessly artificial? A poem of Wislawa Szymborska’s, "In Praise of Self-Deprecation," comes to mind. It ends:
There is nothing more animal
like than a clear conscience
on the third planet of the Sun.
For me, eating meat is ethical when one does three things. First, you accept the biological reality that death begets life on this planet and that all life (including us!) is really just solar energy temporarily stored in an impermanent form. Second, you combine this realization with that cherished human trait of compassion and choose ethically raised food, vegetable, grain and/or meat. And third, you give thanks.

And the following: 

In 1989, I decided that I could no longer justify the slaughter of animals on my behalf. A precocious 7-year-old and fervent animal lover, I told my folks that I’d stick to grilled-cheese sandwiches and breakfast cereal, thank you very much. They humored me, and being a vegetarian quickly became part of my identity. It was so easy that I eventually didn’t have to think about the choice much at all; not eating meat was just part of who I was.
More than two decades later, I became interested in growing vegetables and found myself apprenticing on a farm in Massachusetts. Still a vegetarian, I was surprised to learn that we amended soil fertility by applying bone and blood meal, both slaughterhouse byproducts, and we regularly dipped young transplants in fish emulsion. I realized then what farmers have known forever: the domestication of animals and the cultivation of vegetables go hand in hand.
Growing vegetables is an inherently extractive process, removing nutrients from the soil, so a sustainable system requires other inputs to replace them. Every backyard gardener knows that animal manure enriches the soil, so it should come as little surprise that the animal-vegetable connection is so basic that it’s built into the words themselves: the word ‘‘manure’’ is rooted in the Latin manuopera, meaning manual work.
Through my first season on the farm, I gradually came to terms with the idea that using animal byproducts made good sense, especially in contrast to the alternative of synthetic chemical fertilizers.Our food system is based on arrangements between the grower and the cultivated species. For plants and animals alike, we have selected for characteristics like flavor, rapid maturation and disease resistance, often at the expense of traits that would allow the organism to survive on its own, especially in climates that might not naturally support it. In many cases, the plants and animals that we grow and eat bear only a passing resemblance to their wild ancestors.
The deal is simple: we humans create an environment in which the plant or animal can thrive, we encourage reproduction and, in exchange, we harvest a portion of the crop. Just as I must weed out more aggressive plants to ensure the success of my ill-equipped tomatoes, I, as a farmer and caretaker of hapless chickens, have a responsibility to keep them fed, watered and safe from the countless predators lurking in the nearby tree line.
This relationship addresses the foundation of the ethical question of eating meat. While it’s fair to acknowledge a difference between plants and animals, they are part of the same system, feeding each other and guaranteeing the ongoing survival of all parties involved. A sustainable system requires interdependence and balance.Merely understanding these relationships does not provide a sound ethical defense of meat-eating, however.
Animals play an essential role in our food system, yet it is undeniable that much of our production has fallen out of balance. It’s not enough to simply ensure the safety and survival of my animals. As fellow sentient creatures with whom I am engaged in a partnership, I have a responsibility to show both respect and benevolence, in life and in death. I can’t think of a moral justification for the industrial-scaled confinement operations that fail to uphold our side of the bargain.Almost 25 years after deciding it was wrong to eat animals, I now realize that it’s not that simple. There is an ethical option — a responsibility, even — for eating animals that are raised within a sustainable farm system and slaughtered with the compassion necessitated by our relationship. That, in essence, is the deal.

Thanks Bill. Very interesting.

You're welcome. No prob.

so im out  of this thread this time for good -    but  i will repeat  :  If your in the super market and you avoid buying meat you avoid creating unwholsome kamma - in an ultimate sense - and you create wholsome kamma in an ultimate sense - you "gain" lots of good qualitys by doing that action 

This is a key thing i evaluate stuff in my life : Whats better to be wrong about ? is it better to eat meat and contribute to animal abuse - or to take the effort to avoid meat and not have any good effect  ? 

This is overly simplistic. Eating meat always means an animal had to die. If death is animal abuse then ok, but that is your own definition and is by no means universal. Your viewpoint is so simple that it must block out lots of other information in order to maintain its energy. It deals only with the immediate occurence of what you see (i.e you do not see animal products in your fridge, or on your plate), and it's not particulalry better than people who never think about it at all, simply because they do not see it, it being in this case the conditions on factory farms. You can cause a great deal of harm by buying food that is not itself animal product. You can cause deaths of other beings by buying food that is not itself meat. The nature of food production is not as black and white as you are portraying it, so even in avoiding meat you can be causing lots of harm through your food choice so the argument is null as it does not take into account the broad spectrum of food production which goes beyond what you can visibly see on your plate.

Actually, humans are not the only animal that doesn't produce vitamin C.  All the simians and tarsiers, some birds and a number of rodents like capybara and guinea pigs, and most species of bats cannot produce vit C.  Some of these species, including humans, have an alternate ability to recycle oxidised vit C and hence recycle it in our system, thus drastically reducing the amount we would otherwise need to produce ourselves or
intake daily.  As for dietary vitamin C, the inuit used to get their vit C from caribou liver, kelp, whale skin, and seal brain.  Personally I prefer oranges though!  ;-P 
Some good points, when I was looking into if there were any south American tribes that were vegetarian, I came on some articles about how traditional agriculture there is responsible for much of the clearing of the rainforest.  What they do is burn down sections of rainforest to clear it and then the ashes from the burnt foliage fertilizes the soil which otherwise can't sustain regular crops.  Only the wild plants can live in the poor soil, the industrial crops can't so much.  But after a few years of planting, the nutrients from the ashes are used up and so they need to burn down a new section of forest.  Because plants need fertiliser and so something must be killed to grow the plants (or you could use animal poop but alas that is not what they use)  This was not a big deal when there were few humans but that method is a big problem now.  Alternatively, in some areas that have insufficient soil or water to grow crops, hooved animals like cattle can be grazed and then eaten for food without major damage to the environs.  Since crops can't be economically grown in those regions, that area would otherwise not be able to produce food for humans.   My take away from this is we all need to have a better and more detailed understanding of how to do things in a way that is better for the environment as well as for ourselves.  The world is a cycle of plants and animals, life and death.  The animals need the plants and the plants need the animals.  The current industrial system of GMO and synthesized chemical fertiliser and pesticides liberally applied and slave labor type conditions for most of the workers may keep the cost of plant food down for now but long time it is also neither ethical or sustainable.  Nor is it healthy!
-Eva  

Interesting. Thanks for the info, Eva. And everybody.

If I ever reach a place in my own mind where I can happily chop off my own leg and eat it, then I will see no problem with eating meat.  I doubt that day will come, though. So, in the meantime, while I dwell deluded in this imaginary world, I have to realize that I do have a hierarchy of life in my mind and I have to use logic to back up that hierarchy.

BTW, does anyone really decide to be a vegetarian for environmental reasons?  I've never met anyone who said that was their reason.

Well said and I agree. If anyone has not seen the documentary Earthlings, it is available for free online and is the most eye / mind opening thing I have ever seen. 

Time for some metta...

That trailer is terribly sad. I don't think I can watch the whole movie.

To all, 

Okay, so today I had a gluten free pizza pocket that had pepperoni in it, and a can of tuna, that was the meat intake for the day.  I felt zero remorse or guilt, the animals involved really did not arise in the mind, no compassion, no wondering if the animal suffered.  The mind just recognized the food as food.  Guess I am just deluded, ignorant, indifferent, non-compassionate, alexythemic, or perhaps just equanimous.  I will add though, that a few years back the food and where it came from issue was a HUGE deal for me.  It really bugged me, I thought, "was I a part in all this killing?" and such kinds of thoughts.  Now, nope.  Save the world thoughts?  Yeah right, good luck with that.  Saving the Planet is like trying to stop an Ocean Wave with your hands. But I know we have to do our best. And I do minimize the meat intake, and somedays are meat free, just the way it is.  Cooking is a pain, and time consuming, easier to grab a couple of apples and some peanut butter.

Just eating while eating.  But am I mindful or mindless?

So, here I am, devourer of worlds...

Psi

Not Tao did mention a good point about the ecology issues surrounding meat.

For example, the grain that is fed to livestock in the U.S. could feed 800 million people, meat eating seems very inefficient, especially considering about 24,000 people die everyday from starvation.  Hey, maybe there is a sliver of Compassion within me!    


http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat


Thanks out to all, lots of cool info brought to the table

Can't guarantee what their initial motivation for choosing veganism is but there is this group on Facebook that I am aware of:

https://www.facebook.com/ClimateVegan

I might be wrong but I think they grew from some of the people from the Toronto Cow Save and Pig Save etc who bear witness at the entrance to slaughterhouses

I didn't see the trailer but I forced myself to watch the entire thing last night. It is depressing and cruel but it is the harsh reality of the world we live in. It covers how we exploit animals for pets, food, entertainment, clothing, and for science / medicine. It makes you think why things are the way they are.

These days why do humans need to wear animal skin and animal fur? We have cotton, hemp, other materials that are much stronger and don't require poison and chemicals in order to keep the flesh from decaying. Not to mention the human workers get sick and die from administering these chemicals. Not to mention the animals suffering, locked in cages, malnourished, having their skin ripped off while they are still conscious. Its all for profit.

These days why do humans need animals for entertainment, elephants and lions, bullriding, horseracing, when we have telivision, video games, skydiving, literally anything else, cliffjumping, skateboarding, sports? No animals need to be enslaved, taken prisoner, tortured, just for our entertainment. Its all for profit.

The documentary is mind opening. Makes you question lots of things. Makes you not want to support any of these industries. Another one I recommend is Blackfish, this one is on Netflix as well. It's about the mistreatment of Killer Whales at SeaWorld and how their behavior is fucked up because they are driven insane due to captivity. In Earthlings you see the same exact thing, animals driven mad by captivity, running in circles and bobbing their heads because they require space to walk around and run and play.

What does Vipassana mean again? To see things clearly, to see things as they are? I never imaged this path would lead me down roads such as this one. I am slowly awakening to the disturbing reality of the world, and this is only animal suffering.

Dont be foolish, you are a part of the killing but not directly. You are supporting it by every purchase you make and everything you buy. Whether it be shoes, food, video games, a new computer, a meditation retreat, when you buy these products it shows the company or it shows the organization that you are willing to pay for these things. Make a choice and stop supporting these industries that mistreat animals and destroy the oceans.

I agree though and I don't mean to attack you Psi. It does seem like we are trying to stop an ocean wave with our hands. That is the wrong way of looking at it though. The more choices you make every day to support businesses that do not rape and kill animals for profit the better. It is a slow process but over time, more and more people will awaken to the truth to things and decide not to take part in it. More and more people will realize how wrong it is, and when they are hanging out with their friends, and their friends say "lets go get some wings, its 10 wings for $1 special tonight!" and you say no, and they ask why,  you do your best to explain to them why you don't choose to support that fucked up industry. Maybe they call you an idiot, maybe they agree, who knows. Either way, you planted a seed and demonstrated another way of looking and thinking about things.

Thats how I see it. Maybe im an optimist and maybe you dont see it that way, but does that not make sense?


Maybe its my pre-path ignorance, but I think you are looking at this too much through a meditative perspective. The mind is objective by nature right? Does that mean it can see right from wrong, good from bad? When no compassion arose or thoughts of suffering, you can blame  the industries from hiding the truth from us, just for profit.

Not trying to start a flame war or anything, and not saying I am right by any means. 

i know is said i wont comment and i wont i will just add this video link - another video i didnt watch just bits of it and by what i saw it talks about meat eating from a moral not health prespective and it has monks in it even from tibet 


   it showed on my youtube recomended probobly cause i looked for the native american video  so i just post the link and bye

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0MWAAykFuc#t=923     titled "animals and the buddha"

Edit : watched it its very good

Yes, I completely agree with you, I know I should probably feel some emotional response for eating meat, of which , as I said before , I do try to minimize.  So, I agree, I do need to develop more compassion.  As to killing directly and intentionally, I have not even killed a bug , an animal, a spider for several years now, I just can not do it.  Spiders and bugs I find in the house I catch and release with a bunch of tissue papaer and try not to harm them.  I guess my point is that the mind does not see directly the suffering that goes into a can of tuna, thus the delusion that I have to work with.

Maybe it is time to bring the game to the next level, and abandon any craving and clinging attached to the invovlement of any needless killing and harming of anything, plant or animal, I mean, that is all we can do , our best.  Perhaps in that way, harmonious living will not leave even a trace of defilements in the mind and through right action and right livelihood we can even purify down into the subconscious and unconscious realms.
I will strive to undertake the training in the non harming of plants and animals from this point forward, knowing in advance if I fail or slip up, that I can again start over and undertake the training from that moment forward, until it becomes a natural wholesome habitual way of living.

That is the way it must be, perhaps this is what holds back the mind from liberation, we shall see.

Many Blessings Jake, we are all in this boat together.  And I agree, since we are a part of the universe, any suffering we add , adds to the total of suffering in the universe.  And visa versa, any cessation of suffering we do, adds to the total of the cessation of suffering.  Regardless of what anyone else thinks or not.

Psi

P.S.  I have found some excellent Vegan Protein powders, with the complete mix of amino acids and such, there are lots to choose from and if you can find it for about a dollar per 20- 25 grams of protein, it is as cheap a source as chicken.  For all those excercisers out there...

I am going to try this one, it is on sale, and I like Cacao

http://www.vitaminshoppe.com/p/garden-of-life-raw-protein-chocolate-cacao-650-g-powder/gu-7031#.VRLNQ1X3-ix

Beautiful response Psi. I can feel the compassion and understanding in your response. We are all in this together

Also, as an avid weightlifter, I usually make a protein shake after I workout. I add a few cups of almond milk, a banana, some peanut butter, then vegan protein powder. I have a vitamix and it completely obliterates all the stuff I add into it and makes the silkiest most delicious shake ever. It takes like dessert.

Anyway, if you are on the market for some protein power, I use this stuff and love it: http://www.amazon.com/Sunwarrior-Warrior-Blend-Protein-Chocolate/dp/B005XA4FQW

The one you linked is half price so I would definitely get that one. My friend that doesn't have a blender used the stuff I have and said it tasted kind of gritty and chalky. He used regular cows milk and a blender bottle so it didn't mix very well. For best results, I suggest blending it with some other stuff. For starters, try a banana and some peanut butter. SO FREAKIN GOOOD!

Jake, that video is really horrible...  I'm going to have to rethink eating cheese.  I have been ignorant about they way they treat dairy cows.  I thought it was enough to avoid stuff treated with rbst, but I guess whenever you have the mass scale exploitation of animals there are going to be mistakes and abuse.

I'm going to try to get my family to watch Earthlings.  Maybe they'll stop acting like I'm weird.

Yeah, it is horrible. I went vegetarian for a while under the assumption that eating cheese was less cruel than eating meat because no animals had to die. At the time I had no idea the way dairy cows were treated and I didn't consider the consequences of keeping them alive and suffering for so long.

Having a cow chilling on a farm eating grass with his family and squeezing her udders to get some milk is one thing I suppose. Raping a cow, tearing her baby away, then hooking her up to some device to suck her dry is another.

I will show my family as well, but I want them to see it all at once in the same room. I think that would be the best way to see it. Isn't it funny the ridicule you get for this kind of thing? My family doesn't get it either. 

I'm going to try to get my family to watch Earthlings.  Maybe they'll stop acting like I'm weird.-Not tao

Probably not.

I will show my family as well, but I want them to see it all at once in the same room. I think that would be the best way to see it. Isn't it funny the ridicule you get for this kind of thing? My family doesn't get it either.-Jake WM

I do hope you will both report how this goes.

Jake: While vegan can be better I would spend some time inevstigating the roots of your vegan food. It may surpise you. I would be glad to hear what you find, or thoughts on the article I previously posted. I really don't know what you eat so or to what extent you've inevstigated so I'm not making any presumptions.-Bill300

When I lived in Rhode Island last year I was a part of a Veggie Box program which consisted of a huge box of fruit and vegetables are delivered to me on a biweekly basis. All produce is sourced locally and the exact farms are listed on the website for that week's box. This means all produce has to be in season. Other than that, I ate oats, nuts, some junk food like chips here and there.

As of 2 months ago I live in MA. I get all my produce and groceries from the supermarket. No idea where this stuff comes from and I am not too sure how to check or where to get started. If you have any ideas, that would be great. 

Buying local and buying in season is the way to go in my opinion. As for the articles you posted, both are very interesting and present information that I had no idea about. I really like the conclusion of the first article:

"For me, eating meat is ethical when one does three things. First, you accept the biological reality that death begets life on this planet and that all life (including us!) is really just solar energy temporarily stored in an impermanent form. Second, you combine this realization with that cherished human trait of compassion and choose ethically raised food, vegetable, grain and/or meat. And third, you give thanks."

Disregarding the fact that I would want to kill the animal myself, and to be honest I probably wouldn't be able to do it, I still don't think I would eat meat based on health risks and taste. This is based on what I currently know and I plan on doing more research as time goes on. 

As far as dietary preferences and liftsyles go and the health benefits and risks associated, I have only just fallen into the rabbit hole. Those are great articles Bill, thanks again for sharing.

No problem. I would check out the app buycott. That's a good place to get started. Good sharing and learning with ya.

by the way about the insects i edited my reply and than saw your remarke in the post after me - i dont ignore you i actually wrote a long reply and than remembered i answered you allready about this a day or two ago (same question different cases)

You are avoiding. It was a different question with an answer that would not be applicable in this case, which you answered indirectly in the third person in that case. How do our compassionate ideas line up with our actions? It is an important question. I can't make you answer it but I think your repeated evasion of such questions is telling.

you really seem to have an anti for me or my ideas -  try to understand me instead of trying to find where im wrong  

I read you as being arrogant, judgmental, hypocritical and moralistic. I do not believe you are in the position of moral authority you believe you are, or that your vision of what is right and wrong is to be trusted. Trying to understand you seems foolish as your arguments thus far have been flimsily supported, and your inabilitity to acknowledge that harm connected to decisisons you make while telling others how they should live is off putting and makes it difficult to take you seriously. The more you talk about your ideas the less appealing they seem. To put it bluntly: You don't seem to know what you're talking about and you seem to think it's appropriate to assert your ideas with poor evidence to back them up. You also don't seem willing to take yourself to task for the things you would like to take others to task for. You have responded to almost none of what I've brought up. I just want to acknowledge that ethics are complex, but as soon as I try to take it there and point out contradictions in your opnions, you just check out. I believe it is willful. 

About the monks imagine monks not accepting food for health reasons  ect    (plus some monk rules might be wrong who knows - did you know nuns are not equal to monks in some cases)  
Yeah they might be. But then why did you rely on blatantly Buddhist jargon like "right compassion" to foster your opinion.

Once more, if it is appropriate for the buddha to accept food because he pities the provider of the meat why is it wrong for me to do the same in order to support factory farmers and their families? 

Grass fed cows do not eat grain, only intensive feed lot fed cows eat grain.  The natural way for grass fed cows, and how it's still done in many other countries, is lifestock eat natural forage of the land in places that are often not suitable for crops in the first place.  In wintery areas, dry grasses from fields are cut down and saved in the barn to feed the livestock until spring brings new growth.  If you are worried about the grain cows eat, then eat cows that don't eat grain.

Anyway, if there is truly a grain shortage, then why are we using grain in our gas tanks?  But the grain shortage in not in this country, we do give some away some food for free to other countries (usually in exchange for other favors from them) but the problem with starvation is a lot about getting the food to the locations that need it despite various crooked governments and whatnot.  We could grow more grain here if we wanted, in fact farmers are currently often paid to leave croplands fallow in order to maintain prices.  But even if we had more grain, that would still not help the places that need it most because the problem has a lot to do with distribution.  SOme one over here eating one less burger is not going to do diddly for someone starving in Africa. What needs to happen is we (America and various global economic powerhouses) need to help those other countries get their crap together, instead of us economically putting our foot on their necks and keeping them down and out of competition as a global power so that we can more easily reign supreme. 
-Eva 

Trouble is compared to industrially farmed grass fed/free range consume more resources, land, water etc, the effect on a wider area of wildlife as forests etc are cleared and predators hunted. Also grass fed produce more methane ( a very potent greenhouse gas, maybe 30 times moreso than CO2) and livestock in general are a major contributor to greenhouse gases.

Grain used for fuel - quicker and easier profit maybe?

This is a good watch/read
http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/

imagine the amount of methane expelled from 7 billion vegan/grain fed humans!

i tried no carb, lo carb, vegetarian and vegan. vegan and vegetarian shot my digestive system to pieces. too much gas. no carbs was the most comfortable producing almost zilch gas. 

the best for my system is half no carbs, half carbs (fruit n veg and very little to no grain).  

Japanese and Chinese only started growing taller when they started eating more protein. same happens to the immune system, it gets stronger, immunoglobins (proteins) fight pathogens easier. healing and muscle repair is faster. infant mortality goes down. life span lengthens. research the stats

For this reason the demand for protein is becoming unsustainable and in 20 years will probably be mostly laboratory grown meat.   

Does grain give you gas? Not me!

I think there is something about the way that grass is digested that creates the huge amount of methane. I tend not to eat grass

Personally I have not felt as could as when I went on a VLCD diet and also doing LCHF. Doing LCHF did wonders for the quality of my poop, sleep etc etc. Ive been integrating more vegan/vegetarian meels and the beens etc does not work well with my poop. hehe. Also on the veggie days I dont sleep as good. I cant eat much soy due to the hormons, Grains work badly with my system so does beens. Not sure about lentils though. They might work better.


And laboratory meat. Yup Ive been a evangelist for that for like 15 years. And just think on the medical benefits of growing new limbs, muscletissue etc. Its fucking stupid that it has taken this long to get a $200k burger.

THis is really could video on viewing agriculture from a plants view.

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_pollan_gives_a_plant_s_eye_view

I like this part the most.

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_pollan_gives_a_plant_s_eye_view/transcript?language=en#t-631180

cool   i sure grokked this; 

"We have this intellectual, this Darwinian revolution in which, thanks to Darwin, we figured out we are just one species among many; evolution is working on us the same way it's working on all the others; we are acted upon as well as acting; we are really in the fiber, the fabric of life. But the weird thing is, we have not absorbed this lesson 150 years later; none of us really believes this. We are still Cartesians -- the children of Descartes -- who believe that subjectivity, consciousness, sets us apart;that the world is divided into subjects and objects; that there is nature on one side, culture on another. As soon as you start seeing things from the plant's point of view or the animal's point of view, you realize that the real literary conceit is that -- is the idea that nature is opposed to culture, the idea that consciousness is everything -- and that's another very important thing it does."

"Looking at the world from other species' points of view is a cure for the disease of human self-importance. You suddenly realize that consciousness -- which we value and we consider the crowning achievement of nature, human consciousness -- is really just another set of tools for getting along in the world. And it's kind of natural that we would think it was the best tool. But, you know, there's a comedian who said, "Well, who's telling me that consciousness is so good and so important? Well, consciousness." So when you look at the plants, you realize that there are other tools and they're just as interesting." 

[quote=Psi

]Maybe it is time to bring the game to the next level, and abandon any craving and clinging attached to the invovlement of any needless killing and harming of anything, plant or animal, I mean, that is all we can do , our best.  Perhaps in that way, harmonious living will not leave even a trace of defilements in the mind and through right action and right livelihood we can even purify down into the subconscious and unconscious realms.
I will strive to undertake the training in the non harming of plants and animals from this point forward, knowing in advance if I fail or slip up, that I can again start over and undertake the training from that moment forward, until it becomes a natural wholesome habitual way of living.Intellectual Honesty, I have put sardines in the diet since last week, I know the sardines have to die, but I am unsure about the research pros and cons of having and not having omega 3 in the diet, I have also added Veggie pizza on Mondays, and it has dairy cheese.  This post may seem stupid to some, but I do not want to deceive or lie about anything I say, so, it is what it is, it is like I have to disclose this, sorry.

Psi 

Thats cool Psi

I also needed for instantse to see this video     :    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0MWAAykFuc#t=923    

to  get confidenet about what buddhism thinks about meat - so like you its not a one time decision and thats it    -   when i started by the way i was a "fish eating vegan" for some years 3 more or less  - so to eat some sardines and some dairy on the start is no big deal  - and i also "sliped" and ate meat many times 

The problem is that many videos are made with an agenda.  For instance, one might decide meat eating is bad and hence the video one produces is designed to ONLY show evidence that supports that preconceived idea and leaves out all contradictory evidence.  It would be nice if more educational videos were truly designed to show a balanced portrayal of all relevent evidence.  For instance, if you take worse case scenario industrialized beef production and take those statistics and apply it to all beef production, you get a different set of numbers than if you took a more balanced approach.  Some areas are not suitable for farming, the soil is poor and there isn't much water.  In those areas, cows can graze o the very poor existing vegetation.  The cows are able to walk to natural water sources and/or well water is pumped up for them in some cases.  Vast areas of the desert south west are like that.  Not only would it be economically unfeasable to farm those areas, but attempts at farming would require flattening and removal of all native vegetation and environment.  Farming requires destruction of the habitat, grazing much less so.  Currrent farming also involves mass hoards of chemicals that seep into our water supply, grazing much less so.  Yes, those cows require much largers areas of land to develop, but in many cases, that area is not suitable for crops, which is exactly why it goes to cows instead.  A lot of the problem is when those cows after growing up on the range, are taken to feed lots to 'finish' them, ie fatten them up with intensive amounts of corn which cows are not designed to eat, and which makes them become sick and need large amounts of medications to keep them alive.  However, the feed lot part of the story is not required for meat production, it's more of an economic thing to make the cows heavier and fattier for sale.  Those with anticow sentiments tend to simplify the issue, but in many cases, cows are grazed on land not suitable for crops and hence do not compete for space with crops.  If cows are not 'finished' with grains, but are instead allowed to grown naturaly, such as in the case of free range cows, then they can be a supplemental food source that does not lessen other food production.  Of course it's not always that way, but it can be.  

Keep in mind that crop growing has it's own set of terrible environmental consequences, the complete removal of all natural habitat, the draining of the soil of existing nutrients, and huge amounts of chemicals sprayed into air and water.  Water sources downstream of crops are famously unhealthful.  THe labor required to work the field is often slavelike in nature or with illegal workers. 

As for ethanol, ask any mechanic what kind of damage it does to your engine with contaminant accumulation.  A plan for higher ethanol content here in California has prompted many car manufacturers to assert that using such gas will void all car warranties due to potential engine damage.  That stuff is bad for any engine.  However, corn growers love it because it keeps the cost of their crops up and any politician based out of the corn belt must make that lobby happy or lose his office.  There are other ways to make cleaner emissions than by contaminating one's engine with expensive corn, but ethanol puts money in the pocket of some groups that are powerful in government so that's why we have it instead of other alternatives.
-Eva