Where's the Beef?

[vajradhara]

Namaste KoI,

thank you for the post.

i think that most folks have good explanations for the various divine restrictions and so forth so i shall leave those aside.

in the Buddhist case, being a vegetarian is not required. we see the early Sangha relied upon almsfood and thus would eat what they were given, meat or veggies as the case may have been.

practicaly speaking many Buddhists and even some schools of Buddhism are vegetarians and i would suggest that this is due to the natural outgrowth of their practice and the relative ease in which vegetables are able to be cultivated.

some schools of practice are notably not vegetarian due to the climate in which they have arisen, the Tibetan and Mongolian schools, for instance, have little vegetable cultivation and include meat in their diets.

i am, personally, vegetarian due to the realizations brought about through practice.

metta,

~v

 

[InnocentOdion]

If I could, I would become vegetarian in a heartbeat.
Unfortunately, I don't have the willpower to give up meat.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

If I could, I would become vegetarian in a heartbeat.
Unfortunately, I don't have the willpower to give up meat.

Meh. I think the problem is not so much eating no meat whatsoever, but
a) eating too much of it, and
b) the industrialization of the meat industry.

I have no problem with traditional goat herders who practically live with their animals, slaughtering one of their flock from time to time to add to their diet.
My beef is with those who would submit animals to conditions that border on an "Animal Auschwitz", treating them as things rather than feeling, breathing, sentient beings.

What little meat I eat comes from animals that have been raised in more "humane" conditions, preferably out in the open, in moderate numbers, roaming free and persisting on their accustomed diet. (And it's quite telling that there isn't even an English word for the term "artgerechte Haltung", which means something along the lines of "animal husbandry based on the needs of a specific species".)

 

[PatrickofDetroit]

Meh. I think the problem is not so much eating no meat whatsoever, but
a) eating too much of it, and
b) the industrialization of the meat industry.

I have no problem with traditional goat herders who practically live with their animals, slaughtering one of their flock from time to time to add to their diet.
My beef is with those who would submit animals to conditions that border on an "Animal Auschwitz", treating them as things rather than feeling, breathing, sentient beings.

What little meat I eat comes from animals that have been raised in more "humane" conditions, preferably out in the open, in moderate numbers, roaming free and persisting on their accustomed diet. (And it's quite telling that there isn't even an English word for the term "artgerechte Haltung", which means something along the lines of "animal husbandry based on the needs of a specific species".)

I agree with this.

 

[Jersey]

Why do some religons put a band on eating certain kinds of meat?

Weather its
Pork
Beef
or all meat in genral?

It must have something to do with the animals being possessed by demons. It's superstition running amuk in religious circles.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Consumption of red meat(particularly from cows) is known to have adverse effects on the body, so why is it a big deal when a religion adopts this doctrine into their faith. Yes, cows are sacred in our faith but they are the sustainers of life, providing the milk which helps us live. Is this so wrong, or am I nieve to believe this?

 

[anatolian]

and maybe divinely inspired too...

"maybe" ?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Consumption of red meat(particularly from cows) is known to have adverse effects on the body, so why is it a big deal when a religion adopts this doctrine into their faith. Yes, cows are sacred in our faith but they are the sustainers of life, providing the milk which helps us live. Is this so wrong, or am I nieve to believe this?

Consumption of bovine milk is known to have adverse effects on the body, too. Only due to a special mutation can *some* people stomach that stuff (particularly lactose), but even these are not completely immune to potential side effects.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Consumption of bovine milk is known to have adverse effects on the body, too. Only due to a special mutation can *some* people stomach that stuff (particularly lactose), but even these are not completely immune to potential side effects.

Overconsumption of cow milk is known to have adverse side effects, and most lactose-intolerance comes from drinking pastuerized milk. Milk in India is delivered straight from the cow, as is the milk on allot of dairy farms in the US. Cows in India aren't corrupted with all the steroids and other pesticides that plague the cows of the Western world.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Overconsumption of cow milk is known to have adverse side effects, and most lactose-intolerance comes from drinking pastuerized milk. Milk in India is delivered straight from the cow, as is the milk on allot of dairy farms in the US. Cows in India aren't corrupted with all the steroids and other pesticides that plague the cows of the Western world.

Non-pasteurized milk was a primary source of Tuberculosis infections and similar pandemic diseases up to the early 20th century.
Lactose is a constituent part of milk, whether pasteurized or not, and regardless of other potential pollutants.

That said, I agree that industrialized animal husbandry affects the quality of all animal products in a negative fashion: see my other post above.
Even if it wasn't for such nasty side effects as antibiotics contamination, the mere taste and texture of the milk still suffers from too much processing.