An irony within vegetarianism - need advice!

[QUOTE=AmirMourad;62103]The level of wakefulness in the animals which are being killed in the factories is much more so than that of an insect, and that is why the kind of suffering that they experience is far more overwhelming. What Hitler has done to the Jews in the concentration camps is nothing in comparison to the kind of activities that go on in the animal factories day by day, where animals will be killed in what is basically a slow and agonizing torture. [/QUOTE]

Well, actually what Hitler did was worse because of what you just said, the level of consciousness and wakefulness of the people being killed in his gas chambers.

Don’t get me wrong, I think that we can definitely compare the two and in sheer numbers the meat industry is surpassing the nazis by far. It’s not an invalid discussion, I just don’t agree with you on this specific point.

I’d rephrase it as what the meat industry is doing to animals is roughly on the same level as what the nazis did to humans.

[QUOTE=dharmakarma;62059]This is an excerpt from the book, Ayurveda and the Mind. Now to give a little background, I’ve been a vegetarian for a few weeks now and I am absolutely loving it! There is only one problem, my mother doesn’t support it whatsoever and thinks there is absolutely no way to remain in healthy condition when you’ve eliminated meat from your diet. I obviously for my own reasons disagree. Today, she brought up her issues with my diet and stated that she “doesn’t understanding my reasoning because the vegetables that I get from the grocery store were grown on land that involved tilling which inevitably kills insects and other creatures in the ground.” So in this case, is there a difference between the two (killing of livestock for meat and killing of insects)? Is the karma the same? Is the motivation the same? And is there a possible way to avoid the killing of insects during the process of agriculture?
I’m looking forward to hearing your replies!
Namaste.[/QUOTE]

I don’t know how old you are but somehow I get the impression that you’re pretty young. If that’s correct then your mom is missing out on a great opportunity. When I went vegetarian I was roughly 16 and didn’t know much about cooking. My mom saw her chance and supported my new ideologies by giving me recepie books and books on how to live a healthy life as a vegetarian.

Sure, she had nothing whatsoever against it, her own grandma was a big fan of raw food (although she never converted to it completely she always liked it) and she thought that as long as I took an interest in what I was eating that was much better than not knowing and not caring.

Now as I’ve gone vegan my mom still takes that as a posivitve challange. “OK, you can’t have dairy anymore… let’s see if I can’t make a cake for you anyway”, and then she tries a vegan version of her cake and often likes it herself.

As far as your question I think it’s been answered already. Yes, there is a difference in why you kill, how you kill and what you kill. And yes, by not eating animals you are also indirectly eating less plants and using less farm land and killing less insects. You’re on the right path.

Terje,

Well, actually what Hitler did was worse because of what you just said, the level of consciousness and wakefulness of the people being killed in his gas chambers.

It is not even one and the same, it far exceeds what has happened with Hitler in Germany. And it seems you have misunderstood my statements. The animals that are in the factories may not possess such a sophisticated intellect like you, nor are they capable of something like self-inquiry, reading a book, solving algebra, or meditation. But as far as their instincts are concerned, their instincts are more sharp than yours, in some cases as well as their intuition. If animals in the wild are in the middle of a forest and a storm is coming, even days before its arrival, they are able to detect it. If you are put in the middle of a forest, you will not even be able to tell whether a storm is coming or even perhaps what time of day it is, unless of course you have lived integrated in nature for some time, then there may be a possibility of awakening such intuition. And there are in fact many things which animals are capable of perceiving which you are not because your senses are not as well equipped. Dogs can hear many frequencies which extend well beyond the human ear, in such a way that if any human were capable of the same, he would be declared as having superhuman capabilities. But the problem is right now that still somewhere in your mind, you believe yourself to be superior than the other animals just simply because you have a more developed intellect, there is still a certain inner prejudice behind your statements.

As far as things like pain, fear, and physical suffering is concerned - these are not things which require tremendous intelligence, they happen at a gut-level. And the kind of physical suffering that you experience, which is basically animal nature, and the kind of physical suffering that the animals experience are not different. Man himself has evolved out of the other animals, and his ancient instincts are basically inherited from them. Yes, in other ways he is more awake and sensitive, but his instinct for survival is basically out of his animal nature.

Amir, for no other reason than curiosity, do you eat any fish, birds, amphibians, marsupials or mammals?

ray,

No, I am vegetarian. If I will ever eat meat, then perhaps once in a while I will eat fish, but very rarely.

[QUOTE=AmirMourad;62327]Terje,

Well, actually what Hitler did was worse because of what you just said, the level of consciousness and wakefulness of the people being killed in his gas chambers.

It is not even one and the same, it far exceeds what has happened with Hitler in Germany. And it seems you have misunderstood my statements. The animals that are in the factories may not possess such a sophisticated intellect like you, nor are they capable of something like self-inquiry, reading a book, solving algebra, or meditation. But as far as their instincts are concerned, their instincts are more sharp than yours, in some cases as well as their intuition. If animals in the wild are in the middle of a forest and a storm is coming, even days before its arrival, they are able to detect it. If you are put in the middle of a forest, you will not even be able to tell whether a storm is coming or even perhaps what time of day it is, unless of course you have lived integrated in nature for some time, then there may be a possibility of awakening such intuition. And there are in fact many things which animals are capable of perceiving which you are not because your senses are not as well equipped. Dogs can hear many frequencies which extend well beyond the human ear, in such a way that if any human were capable of the same, he would be declared as having superhuman capabilities. But the problem is right now that still somewhere in your mind, you believe yourself to be superior than the other animals just simply because you have a more developed intellect, there is still a certain inner prejudice behind your statements.

As far as things like pain, fear, and physical suffering is concerned - these are not things which require tremendous intelligence, they happen at a gut-level. And the kind of physical suffering that you experience, which is basically animal nature, and the kind of physical suffering that the animals experience are not different. Man himself has evolved out of the other animals, and his ancient instincts are basically inherited from them. Yes, in other ways he is more awake and sensitive, but his instinct for survival is basically out of his animal nature.[/QUOTE]

OK, I’m not trying to start a war with you on this. I have a tendency to come off as pretty aggressive in internet debates, I really hop eyou won’t take any of the following that way. English is not my mother tounge and I do get carried away.

Basically we agree on a lot of this. I am prepared to compare the nazi crimes on humanity with humanity’s crimes on animals. However, I do see a big difference. At least it’s big to me. We not only kill and torture other species, we kill and torture each other. And that’s one of the points which makes Hitler a lot worse than your average factory farm owner.

Another point of difference is the intention. Even though it’s not something I agree with I can still see that many who raise and slaughter animals do it with the supposedly good intention of selling food to other people. Hitler killed to kill, although as I’m writing this I can’t help but wonder if I’m about to say that him being a canibal would have made it better somehow.

Anyway, killing and torturing animals is really bad, killing and torturing humans is a step further down in hell (at least if you are human yourself), that’s the way I see it. But yes, once again, what we’re doing to animals can and perhaps even should be compared to what Hitler did, if not for anything else but to serve as a wake-up call.

However, I do see a big difference. At least it's big to me. We not only kill and torture other species, we kill and torture each other.

Why do you see make this discrimination between torturing animals and torturing each other ? If you really do not see them as separate, then whether you torture an animal or a human being, you are torturing each other - it makes no difference. There is another dimension that is involved, because even if you insist that it is different - it still does not remove the fact that just by being violent towards others, you are strengthening the tendency of the mind to be violent. Whether you are violent to a worm, a plant, or a human being - violence is violence. The object of violence does not matter. In the first place, it is impossible to be violent towards others unless you are first violent with yourself, just as it is impossible to love others unless you first love yourself. And if you have a violent mind - then it will seek many ways to express itself, not just one. Its ways of expression will be almost inexhaustible.

[QUOTE=AmirMourad;62410]Why do you see make this discrimination between torturing animals and torturing each other ?[/QUOTE]

Becasue I think there is a difference, and while both are really bad one is worse. If you don’t see it that way then you just don’t and we should perhaps leave it at that.

Recognizing that when one eats higher forms of life suffering occurs; therefore red meat was eliminated from my diet, now poultry, still have occasional fish (small amounts of sushi), of course a lot more beans and tofu and I?m rationalizing unfertilized eggs is a source of food that does not cause suffering? Also I?m questioning; I live in a rural area outside Allentown Pa, every morning within a 15 mile radius I estimate at least 5 deer per day killed by cars, with proper permits you are allowed to pick up road-kill deer for consumption. They were killed by accident; any thoughts on letting the meat go to waste or butchering and freezing a few road-kills for the year?

Terje,

Becasue I think there is a difference, and while both are really bad one is worse. If you don't see it that way

Yes, for you one may be worse than another. But for another, he may have absolutely different standards. For yet another, his standards may be absolutely different. And if all three are thinking that what they are saying is absolutely right, that they are all being tremendously rational, then probably all three are being irrational.

[QUOTE=AmirMourad;64387]Terje,

Becasue I think there is a difference, and while both are really bad one is worse. If you don't see it that way

Yes, for you one may be worse than another. But for another, he may have absolutely different standards. For yet another, his standards may be absolutely different. And if all three are thinking that what they are saying is absolutely right, that they are all being tremendously rational, then probably all three are being irrational.[/QUOTE]

What exactly are you trying to say here? I don’t follow you.

[QUOTE=bondo;62282]I believe that our biology is based on the consumption of protein sources from beyond vegetable matter otherwise we would not have canine teeth. Also the design of our molars are the same as animals that are purely carnivores for tearing masticating meat. Most all herbivores have flat molars for grinding grass or grains which is not what we are equipped with. Since we do posses one of the largest brains in the animal kingdom we have the ability to make choices about the sources of nutriment that we intake, wise or unwise. I know that different body types respond to different food sources differently so to make flat declarations that all sources of nutrition should come from vegetable matter in not historically accurate, but really a matter of personal preference or needs. I say that as enlightened individuals that we allow those that wish to consume animal protean continue to do so as a matter of personal preference and not get degrade ourselves with matters that are not our own. What happens to them as a result of their choices are their own responsibility. To allow oneself to believe that an individual choice is superior to another choice is not the path to enlightenment.

JMTCW,
bondo[/QUOTE]

Hi, I have to agree to disagree with you about our teeth Bondo. I believe that our physiology is more herbivore not carnivore. I eat mostly vegetables, but I do drink milk and eat eggs and fish sparingly.

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/09/are-humans-carnivores-or-herbivores-2/

http://www.tierversuchsgegner.org/wiki/index.php?title=Taxonomy

That being said, I’m not against eating meat. I believe it is more important to be conscious of how our food is grown, what the animals we eat are fed and that our food is grown sustainably. Choose organic, free range and local.

Lakshmi

Yoga is a holistic thought. Picking up one element of it will never deliver conclusive and irrefutable answer. Yama of ‘ahimsa’ is one of the yamas and yama itself is one of the eight limbs. It is hard to imagine that the enlightened Sage did not see the apparent conflicts in applying yamas in real life or saw the conflicts but chose to deliver a defective doctrine.

What one sees lying on the ground is different from how one sees the same ground from an airplane, vastly different from a spacecraft and unimaginable from the space. Yoga doesn’t provide answers, it transforms questions until they disintegrate and the process itself becomes an answer.

If raja yoga is all about mind, it is more likely that the Sage is referring to “an intent to kill/hurt” rather than the act of killing. Intent brings the intending individual in the focus and not “what” is killed. Any distinction of “what is killed” on obvious basis of plants vs meat or profound basis of greater or lesser consciousness then becomes irrelevant.

Yoga is a process of cleansing, purification and unlearning. It also subscribes to the law of karma, cause and effect. If restraining the mind modifications is the aim, all learning that conditions, all waste that creates impurity and all desires that create causes have to be consciously eliminated. Each of us is born with a body-mind that looks similar but carries different legacies of earlier lives and possess different constitutions. All the intake into this body-mind system provides energy and creates waste.

Realistically, food is not our only intake. Thoughts have existence too. We excrete thoughts and intake from others. Food comes at the end of a chain and carries thoughts of pain and sufferings that tax our metabolic process. Intent to kill creates a cause that brings home its due effect sooner or later. As long as that requires cleansing, mind modifications continue keeping us away from Yoga goal. The choice is ours. That’s all that the Sage appears to say.

My experience with the concept of ahimsa in buddhism, which probably is closer to traditional yoga than modern, western interpretations of the same concept, is that it’s much more concrete and direct than we often think. It’s worse to kill than to accept what’s been killed for you, it’s worse to kill than to think about it, or even wish it, it’s worse to be the butcher than to own the slaughter house. Why? Because the act of killing does something to us on a deep emotional level that being legally and morally responsible doesn’t necessarily do. It’s worse to be the soldier than to order soldiers out to war. The effect on the individual is much worse and the way back to a normal life is much longer.

[QUOTE=Terence;62064][B]The aim is to be as least violent as possible.
[/B]
Some vegetarians drink milk, some go further and eliminate all animal products. There are some sects which will only consume what has fallen from trees.

What constitutes being as least violent as possible and maintenance of good health, is subject to personal interpretation. The diet advocated by the Yogis is an excellent balance between the two.[/QUOTE]

this is it in a “nutshell” (appropriate for vegetarians and vegans alike)

this pseudo-philosophical line about killing insects during the farming process is a big stretch.

it’s about limiting the pain and suffering, there is a scale. If not, I couldn’t even drive my car b/c I occasionally smash insects with my windshield or grill.

aim to be as non-violent as possible, in action and thought, even if someone is a pescatarian it’s better and less suffering than if he/she were a full on carnivore.

[QUOTE=bondo;62282]I believe that our biology is based on the consumption of protein sources from beyond vegetable matter otherwise we would not have canine teeth. Also the design of our molars are the same as animals that are purely carnivores for tearing masticating meat. Most all herbivores have flat molars for grinding grass or grains which is not what we are equipped with. Since we do posses one of the largest brains in the animal kingdom we have the ability to make choices about the sources of nutriment that we intake, wise or unwise. I know that different body types respond to different food sources differently so to make flat declarations that all sources of nutrition should come from vegetable matter in not historically accurate, but really a matter of personal preference or needs. I say that as enlightened individuals that we allow those that wish to consume animal protean continue to do so as a matter of personal preference and not get degrade ourselves with matters that are not our own. What happens to them as a result of their choices are their own responsibility. To allow oneself to believe that an individual choice is superior to another choice is not the path to enlightenment.

JMTCW,
bondo[/QUOTE]

we don’t have canine teeth, at least not like a tiger or lion do. Because [I]one pair of teeth[/I] superficially resembles the shape of true canine teeth doesn’t make us carnivores. Our teeth are almost exclusively uniformly blunt and dull, b/c 2% of our teeth have a somewhat pointed look to them doesn’t qualify for meat eating.

and what about intestine length? all true carnivores have very short intestine length so as to eliminate animal flesh quickly due to the rotting process. Ours are not. We have different bacteria in our intestines and they are designed for foods that give up nutrients slowly.

if you further would like to talk biology then why don’t we have retractable claws like many carnivores?

carnivores jaws move up and down to rip large chunks of flesh to gulp down but not for chewing, vegetarian animals all have jaws that allow for slight lateral movement , thus facilitating the chewing process. We have such a jaw. And our saliva contains the ferment ptyalin which aids in pre-digestion, carnivores lack this.

Mammalian carnivores don’t sweat thru their skin but pant, vegetarian animals all sweat. Do you sweat?

Carnivores lap water with their tongues, vegetarian animals suck up water with their lips pursed.

Hydrochloric acid - carnivores secrete 10x’s as much as we do, this helps to break down bones in the digestive tract.

Kidneys - carnivores kidneys can convert uric acid into allantoin , humans and apes cannot. Uric acid is a poison to us, it leads to gout, arthritis, rheumatism and fibrositis.

if it’s so natural to eat meat why cook it to disguise it? why not just eat things raw?

at best you could say, looking at our biology, that we are in between the grass and meat eaters, pretty much like all the great apes and monkeys, in between but certainly not designed to eat copious amounts of meat, certainly not like we’ve been programmed to by corporate media.

the strongest animals on the planet are all herbavors. Elephants, Oxen, the like. Gorillas and moneys are 99% similar to us but many times stronger.

protein is not built in the body from eating protein but from the amino acids in food. Even if you eat animal protein it first must be broken down into amino acids. The real measure of a food should be it’s AA composition, not it’s protein component.

Plants synthesize amino acids from air, earth, water, but animals, including us, need plant protein – either directly by eating plants, or by eating an animal that’s eaten a plant. There are no “essential” amino acids in flesh that the animal did not derive from plants, and that humans cannot also derive from plants. This is why the elephant has all the muscle it needs, it builds it from the amino acids they get from plants.

this is why carnivores generally don’t eat other carnivores.

throw in the fact that protein may be the single most overrated part of any Americans diet, in terms of quantity needed, where it can come from, harmful effects of too much (gout, uric acid build up, kidney problems) and you could at best argue for small infrequent servings (a serving of mean is what fits into the palm or your hand or the size of a deck of cards) of meat.

A good article why humans might be omnivores:

w w w.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

(I can’t post links, as I don’t have 15 posts yet.)

[QUOTE=trivia;65804]A good article why humans might be omnivores:

w w w.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

(I can’t post links, as I don’t have 15 posts yet.)[/QUOTE]

No need to go to the link, of course we are omnivores! In fact that’s exactly what we are, capable of surviving on just about any diet, at least long enough to reproduce (which is all that matters from an evolutionary point of view). And because we are omnivores we will always have this debate over which is the ideal diet. If we were herbivores or carnivores there’d be nothing to talk about. We’d have a few things we could eat and that’d be all. But we’re not like that, we can eat leaves, fruits, nuts, monkey brains and snails and goats and all kinds of things. Some are good for us, some not so good and probably the best is a mix of everything, at least from a health perspective. However, there is more at stake here. With the situation we are facing today I feel that a vegan diet is the only way left for us to go, for moral reasons, for health reasons and for ecological reasons.

[QUOTE=Terje;65834] With the situation we are facing today I feel that a vegan diet is the only way left for us to go, for moral reasons, [B]for health reasons [/B]and for ecological reasons.[/QUOTE]

I don’t eat meat for almost 20 years and dairy, but…

  1. I eat eggs - I don’t think this harms the chicken, and can’t think of any reason why we shouldn’t eat eggs.
  2. I eat fish - it harms the fish, [I]and I feel guilty[/I]… but it is so healthy for humans to eat moderate amounts of oily fish.

I haven’t made my mind up yet about eating fish, and would be interested to hear opinions about.

[QUOTE=trivia;65835]I don’t eat meat for almost 20 years and dairy, but…

  1. I eat eggs - I don’t think this harms the chicken, and can’t think of any reason why we shouldn’t eat eggs.
  2. I eat fish - it harms the fish, [I]and I feel guilty[/I]… but it is so healthy for humans to eat moderate amounts of oily fish.

I haven’t made my mind up yet about eating fish, and would be interested to hear opinions about.[/QUOTE]

From a moral and environmental standpoint neither are ok IMO. For purely physical health reasons I’d say both are ok, in moderation.

Eggs - if we were talking about taking the unfertilized eggs from your own hen, then maybe it would be ok. The egg industry however is hell on earth and while I’ve had the same standpoint as you have now there’s no way I’m going back to eating eggs under the current conditions. These animals are tortured to death, it’s not worth it.

Fish - again if we’re talking about fish you catch and kill yourself then it’s at least environmentally not that bad but the act of killing the fish is not ok for me so I won’t do it. While it may be healthy it’s not impossible to get some of those oils, if not all of them, from plants. The fish you buy is in more or less 100% of the cases an example of animal torture and environmental destruction. The fish industry is quickly destroying our oceans.