this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2024
22 points (80.6% liked)

Vegan

866 readers
1 users here now

A community to discuss anything related to veganism.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Aux@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Except that a strict Buddhist diet is not vegan. Somehow traditional religions always realised that humans need animal protein.

[–] BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Why am i still alive and healthy when we need animal proteins so bad?

[–] Aux@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] anticarnist@vegantheoryclub.org 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Real productive arguing whether a faceless stranger online is healthy.

You can be both healthy and unhealthy without animal products just the same as you can be consuming them. Organic and GMO foods aren’t limited to vegan and non-vegan diets, and processed food is readily available for both.

For me personally, it’s about not paying someone to kill an animal that did nothing to deserve being confined and slaughtered. I’m passing all my physicals and check-ins with flying colors, so I’ll continue not scarfing down dead animals down my throat.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

Good luck to you!

[–] AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Would you care to elaborate on these "strict buddhists"? Provide sources please.

The myth of people needing animal proteins has been so thoroughly debunked for so long now that anyone still making that claim should not be providing dietary advice without getting properly informed.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DMwf_9wqWY0&pp=ygUqZXZlcnl0aGluZyB5b3Uga25vdyBhYm91dCBwcm90ZWluIGlzIHdyb25n

[–] Aux@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDC6Q5upKPE

Also the interview you've posted is a complete unscientific lunacy and propaganda.

[–] AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The wikipedia article on Buddhist vegetarianism covers everything here. You can see from some writings that Buddha had made some concessions of eating animal flesh for members of the sangha, but that was only because of their specific context, where they were operating outside the normal economy and relying on receiving alms. Another passage sets further restrictions on monastics:

"… meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten."

Another text further declares that there are five type of livelihood that the lay follower should not engage in - one of them is the selling of animal flesh.

So to situate these requirements in a modern context, it would be like a person living a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle to the best of their ability - but also accepting whatever the food pantry has to offer, or possibly going dumpster diving and eating whatever they find. The point is to seek to do the best we can, as much as our circumstances allow.

In Mahayana the injunctions against consuming animals only gets more direct and unequivocal. And in general Buddhist ethics are naturally very aligned with at least the reduction of suffering side of vegan ethics.

The example in your video sounds like it was largely a socioeconomic matter - they do what they can, with what they have. Of course it could also be, at least to some extent, that they haven't engaged with the matter enough to move away from oyster consumption. They might not have a central nervous system, but things are not so cut and dry.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_vegetarianism

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zvE7W1l8wfY

I'm sorry, but if the insights of a respected and accomplished Standford scientist, who routinely contributes original science on the relevant subject matter, is spreading unscientific lunacy - then what exactly counts as good science to you?

[–] Aux@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Well, as we can see, Buddhists are ok with meat. That's the whole point! The same is true for Hindus, etc.

As for "scientist" - https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat

The industry is still quietly sponsoring fake studies to push their agenda. The whole modern veganism is their invention. Every time you see a pro vegan study without any sponsors (which rarely happens in real science) you know it's 100% fake shit. Especially when it goes against multiple other valid studies.

[–] AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 months ago

Some Buddhists are okay with meat, but clearly Siddhartha Gautama himself was absolutely not.

That article quotes Marion Nestle, someone who has been interviewed on Plant Chompers before. Sorry, but you really just sound like a conspiracy theorist - the bottom line is that the full volume of evidence in nutritional science leans way more in favor of plant-dominant diets than anything else.