I agree—I think people should be mindful of what they consume, and its consequences. But you can use animal products without giving up concern for the suffering of animals, just as you can throw away garbage or drive a car without giving up concern over the environment.
True. But "avoiding suffering" can also embrace "a good life and a quick and painless death".
This is why I pay twice as much for my pork as I could. I can live with eating a pig that has had a good (not battery-farmed) life and then been killed quickly and humanely.
Sometimes I think people deserve the same...
Cheers,
R.
Buddhists do eat meat 😱
I do agree with your premise that being concerned for the suffering of other beings is an admirable concern. However, that doesn't mean I can't make some fun at the expense of vegans.
To be honest, I don't understand vegans. I understand and respect vegetarians, but vegans.... Well, I don't understand why you can't use the remains of already dead animals but go to your job by car - the influence of automotive traffic on the habitat of animals is huge!
These responses are really interesting. Thanks for giving me a chance to say a little more.
My post expressed admiration, and gave links to a simple, time-tested practice for enhancing one's ability to shoulder the suffering of others.
It said nothing about whether or not Buddhists eat meat or kill or whatever. It also made no comment about film, and certainly did not engage in the discussions around the hypothetical ban of it.
It's a globalizing world; there are far too many different value systems to expect consensus without repression.
We need, in my opinion, to learn how to express admiration for values held by others with which we may agree in part, yet do not wish to be compelled to accept.
The other thing that we need to do is to learn how to engage discussions about ethics without looking at them through the filter of THE LAW. Most of the people posting here respond, positively or derisively as the case may be, out of the assumption that there is/ought be a rule for conduct that should/must apply to self and others.
I think many of us are looking for some reassurance, some validation that we are not to blame. Let us try to shift the discussion from the assignation of guilt to the assumption of responsibility.
Becoming
responsible doesn't mean that we are guilty, it just means that we take it upon ourselves to respond to things in our world just as if they were our own. Response-ability grows with time and practice. We need to encourage each other and ourselves, and also to give each other a little slack.
Becoming responsible is also not simply a personal individual task, but a collective one. Especially, we need to develop *collective* models of positive refusal that are not monopolized by one state, corporation, church, party, or organization. Most issues, such as animal husbandry for instance, have become far too complicated for individuals to acquire all the information needed to make decisions. As a result, we need to share that burden collectively, through the general intellect and the hive consciousness.
BTW, I am a serious Buddhist practitioner and I occasionally and regularly eat meat. When I consume any food, I say a few lines that help me remember what kinship and interconnectedness are all about, and when I consume meat in particular, I say a few extra words that ask for blessings to be extended to all those who cared for and prepared the animals. Like Roger, I always prefer to buy free range/organic/small farm, etc. For those who insist upon having a rule yet do not want to be vegetarian, I would refer them to Thomas Jefferson's advice that meat should be used as a condiment. To forego all animal products altogether is, I think, the best, and I admire people who do that.
I too was shocked when I first found out about gelatin use in film about two years ago, and it did play a role in my decision to leave film, but I have no illusions that turning to digital somehow means the impact has been eliminated.
