/wiz/ - Wizardry

Losing adaptations to assimilate meat and dairies seems dangerous towards a future

When some guy came up with buddhism I doubt he/society was smart enough to think about the food chain and the indirect effect on wildlife. These are the same people who simultaneously shit and wash themselves in the ganges river

>>188305
>These are the same people who simultaneously shit and wash themselves in the ganges river
That's Hinduism

Buddhism strives to minimize the suffering of all sentient beings, from this you go on a case by case basis. Most of agriculture's produce is used to feed livestock, most of water resources goes to livestock as well, so most of the destruction you're talking about is created to feed animals for slaughter. It would seem fair then, to say Buddhists would strive to avoid eating meat altogether or the least amount that is humanly possible. It's not hypocritical to strive to minimize suffering, it is hypocritical however, to make no effort and then try to equalize everyone in that regard because everyone is causing some level of suffering. Some are causing a lot more than others, it's not all the same.

If you look up Jainism you will find peoples of the same area and time that do try to avoid killing even bugs, using a brush to clear an area before sitting. In that sense if the practice is not mentioned and ignored Buddhism probably didn’t care about it.

In practice Buddhists believe suffering is infinite and being born as a human to escape the cycle is the most important thing you can do. They minimise suffering, reduce negative intentions, and observe the actions enlightened ones say causes negative karma effects. Starving yourself only eating the little which had zero direct suffering, in Buddhas time being nuts and seeds, was not useful if it didn’t lead to enlightenment and maybe was counterproductive. This is the split from the Jain ascetics.

If possible then avoiding the suffering involved with eating plants, but the Buddha set the rules and behaviour in which enlightenment was possible. If just not eating animals knowingly and refraining from a livelihood involving meat was what Buddha said, then it’s enough. That authority exists and although you may want to take values logically further.

>>188305
I also know that veganism still has impact on the wildlife. It is impossible for humans for not have an impact on the wildlife, even in a veganist society, which still has to account for resources.

>>188307
>>188308
I also like those answers, it is a matter of reducing suffering. Intention is very important in buddhism, as I also read on the buddhist stack exchange forum. What about causing un-intentional harm? I've read somewhere on that forum that buddhists place karma as a result of intention, not action. Is that right? If so, what about being a blind monk stepping and killing bugs without being aware of that? What does buddhism think of this?

>>188302
Fanatical religious fixation on strict diets is not Buddhism. it is dietism or foodism or whatever
In other words - wrong question leads to wrong (misleading) answer.

>>188309
>Intention is very important in buddhism
"It is volition, bhikkus, that I call kamma." Buddha says in a passage from the Anguttara Nikaya. However in your example I find hard to believe a monk wouldn't know that walking around blind can cause bugs to get crushed like in the case you mentioned. You should be able to predict this. Ignorance is also one of the taints and that is one very unenlightened monk you have there.

Let's say someone pushes a baby and he hits the wall, killing a bug. In this case I assume no kamma is created. It is very hard to imagine situations where generally healthy adults are not aware of their action at some level. A driver involved in a car accident for example. The driver doesn't have the direct intent to cause the accident, but he accepts the risk when choosing to drive somewhere. I believe some kamma is created in this case.

>>188311
I was just using an example of causing harm without being aware of that. There is a story in buddhism that uses that same example. It is called "The Elder Cakkhupāla"

>>188312
"“Reverend Sir, the Elder Cakkhupāla, saying to himself, ‘I will take a walk,’ has destroyed many insects.” “But did you see him killing them?” “We did not, Reverend Sir.” “Precisely as you did not see him, so also did he not see these insects. Monks, they that are freed from the Depravities have no thought of killing.” “Reverend Sir, seeing that he was destined to become an Arahat, how was it that he became blind?” “Monks, it was by reason of his misdeed in a former existence.” “Why, Reverend Sir, what did he do?” “Well then, monks, listen.”

And then, he tells another story that explains that problem a little more.

SOURCE: https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/English-Texts/Buddhist-Legends/01-01.htm

>>188302
You eat whatever you're given. Refusing food given to you just because it's meat is disgraceful.

Let's say you're a hunter and give up hunting to become a "good Buddhist", then you are fooling yourself. If you hunt out of hatred or for another justification, then you are exacerbating those vicious conditions. If you're a hunter and can no longer kill the animal because you're killing yourself, that is Buddhism. Buddhism is just reality.

>>188302
>he only gave ad hominen arguments.
As an ex buddhist I'm less than surprised. Whenever you point out any contradiction, be either scriptural, superstition, behavioural, etc buddhists have only two answers
1. You don't know about buddhism
2. That's not real buddhism
Buddhism attracts people due to its supposed compatibility with science and atheism but it's just another superstition driven manipulative system

>>188318
Eh, that’s pretty much how it goes with everyone who gets obsessed with ideologies and labels.
>those guys aren’t real Christians/Muslims/Buddhists
>they weren’t practicing real capitalism/democracy/communism/fascism

>>188318
>Buddhism attracts people due to its supposed compatibility with science and atheism

If that's true, it's people's fault to be this ignorant about what they're attracted to. In fact it shows they're not attracted to Buddhism at all. Buddhist scripture is freely available online and in there you can clearly see it's neither atheistic or scientific and it's not trying to hide that fact either. You can't go 5 lines without having a Deva mentioned or a bhikkhu seeing into his past life.

How would anyone miss the mythical elements of Buddhism is beyond me. This is like not knowing there's a guy named Jesus in the Gospels and yet claiming to be attracted to Christianity, it's hilarious. Can't really blame Buddhism for the crass misunderstanding people have about it. If only people would actually read what they claim to be interested in you wouldn't have to lie about being an ex buddhist and OP about talking to a monk.

>>188321
The hippy peace movement fostered a lot of “spiritualists” who saw Buddhism as a peace loving religion, and as that movement started incorporating more progressive values Buddhism was marketed as “more of a philosophy than a religion”. And so it has retained that image in pop/western culture, while actual eastern Buddhism never contended with this image, and continued practicing the mythical and dogmatic parts.

>>188322
>while actual eastern Buddhism never contended with this image, and continued practicing the mythical and dogmatic parts.
I find this curious as the accusation is often the reverse: that as Buddhism was imported further east into China, Korea, and Japan many of the practices from India were lost as it became synthesized with Taoism and Confucianism.

>>188328
Just because it became synthesized with other ideologies, doesn’t mean the mystical and dogmatic things vanished. They were just replaced with the regions pre existing variants. For example japan mixed in their pre existing concepts of oni and tomato into it. Koreans and Chinese added their own. These cultures also already had similar mythos and customs because of their proximity, and so the changes were gradual as it moved.

>>188329
Lmao, tomato. I meant yokai.

>>188318
People are going to make a religion out of anything if they want one. If they have a religion but don't want the dogma, they abstract it. Certain scriptures are emphasized or minimized, interpreted this way or that, and the religion is conformed to the people that practice it.

>>188329
>Just because it became synthesized with other ideologies, doesn’t mean the mystical and dogmatic things vanished.
This depends which lineage you're writing about. If we can characterize reincarnation as a central Buddhist dogma for instance, then Zen is silent on it.

>These cultures also already had similar mythos and customs because of their proximity, and so the changes were gradual as it moved.
I wouldn't describe Taoism and Confucianism as similar to (forgive the term) Hinduism. I'm also skeptical about this gradualist narrative as, for example, there was active debate about the nature of enlightenment between the northern and southern schools in China where they came to opposite conclusions.

If you accept that Buddhism has historically synthesized local myths and dogmas, then your broader point hinges on scientism and progressivism not being modern myths and dogmas in the West.

>>188332
> If you accept that Buddhism has historically synthesized local myths and dogmas, then your broader point hinges on scientism and progressivism not being modern myths and dogmas in the West.
I mean, in the way that beliefs tend to shift and change the same way, they are functionally equivalent. My point was that Buddhism was intentionally stripped down, also the time periods for these two events are very different. Buddhism spread through asia hundreds of years ago, it spread to the west in the way I’m describing in the 60-70s.

>>188332
I think the absence of focus on rebirth and kamma is not evidence of it not being central, rather it’s accepting it without much discussion. Zen training involves reading stuff like the lotus sutra - dogen and so on speak on rebirth.

>>188333
As it was only imported en masse, perhaps with questionable cultural and political motives, 60 years ago it's likely too soon to come to any conclusions. I agree it was intentionally stripped, and it has been further stripped to become the corporate "wellness" or "mindfulness" courses we see today. This is no less an ideological process than you wrote about before, however.

If the intention here is just to document history that's fine, but it has little to do with what Buddha experienced under the bodhi tree.

>>188334
>dogen and so on speak on rebirth.
and he compares it to fire burning wood to ash, which cannot become wood again. On a surface reading this is a refutation of reincarnation. I think Dogen found this kind of speculation tiresome.

>>188335
My only intent was to explain why and how the modern perception of buddhism in the west came to be, as >>188321 brought up. I would argue that while buddhism's spread among asia could be analogous to its spread to the west, the differing time period and cultural setting make a distinct difference.

>>188318
I've approached buddhism as an western person from Brazil for different reasons. But I'm willing to know why do you think that it is superstitious and manipulative.

>>188321
I also agree with this point. I'm more interested on knowing buddhism rather than caring about what other people thinks. My question was kinda simple, let's frame it this way: if the Buddha (Siddharta Gautama) lived today, would he be advocating for veganism? Why not? Why so?

>>188322
I hate those progressive aspects on buddhism. Almost all western buddhists are contaminated by that bullshit.

Anyway, I'm still looking for answers.

>from Brazil
how surprising

Great thread, OP. I'm also curious about buddhism and have some questions about it.

Most importantly, is there some kind of relation between sexuality and buddhism? I mean, are there certain buddhist sects or schools which encourage masturbation or sex for mystical purposes? I ask this because whenever I watch porn I ALWAYS see some kind of Buddha statue or buddhist symbol in it…why? Is it just a trend or something more? As far as I know the Buddha said to one of his followers when he came to him and said he had sex that he should have put his dick into the mouth of a snake rather or something like that. Also, when I read the temptation of the buddha, when all the succubi were driven out to him to try and seduce him, I won't lie it was one of the most erotic things I've ever read, had a huge boner from it. And I also heard once about a buddhist monk who visited whores regularly…So what is the deal? Is sexuality/masturbation okay or not if you are a buddhist?

>>188364
Tantra

>>188364
sex is fine but not for monks, monks also don't masturbate

>>188364
That is just hippie bullshit. Usually hippies and lefties tend to be somewhat degenerate and they like the "peace and love" speech but forget (or don't know) that the Buddha came from a warrior cast.

> And I also heard once about a buddhist monk who visited whores regularly…So what is the deal? Is sexuality/masturbation okay or not if you are a buddhist?
The deal on sexuality diverges from school to school. Buddhism has no spinal cord like orthodox christianity nor catholicism. We are similar to protestants in terms of organization. There is a unifying canon (sutras) but no unifying doctrine.
https://studybuddhism.com/en/tibetan-buddhism/path-to-enlightenment/karma-rebirth/buddhist-sexual-ethics-main-issues
I recommend the reading on this article for further knowing on buddhist sexual conduct.
I can say to you that buddhism in some schools are not hardcore like christians are in this matter. You have to be careful with sexuality, though, because you cannot risk yourself becoming an animal. But you also can't discard sexuality just for the sake it. You have to eliminate bad karma.
You have other questions?

>>188346
>My question was kinda simple, let's frame it this way: if the Buddha (Siddharta Gautama) lived today, would he be advocating for veganism?
To me that's just an adjunct of utilitarianism, and I don't think Buddha would make utilitarian arguments about the suffering of animals. We don't have to speculate: in some Buddhist countries it's illegal to harm an animal, but they still produce and export animal products like wool.

>>188378
>>188394
>>188397
I see, it is so confusing when it comes to buddhism or other eastern religions bc there are so many schools of thought!

But I have some other questions:
1. I read both that buddhism doesn't have morals and that it is very morality-centric, this is another case of differing schools of thought? Is there "sin" in buddhism?
2. What about violence? When is it acceptable for a buddhist to use violence? What about lying for the greater good? Or stealing from a rich person if you starve?
3. What is the deal with gods? Does buddhism go along with atheism necessarily?
4. How do I become a buddhist? Do I just call myself one and read buddhist texts and that's it? Or are there some rules I must stick to always?
5. Which schools of thought you guys personally recommend?

>>188426
You're wasting time asking people who don't know anything instead of actually reading Buddhist scripture for yourself.

There https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81li_Canon start with the Pali canon. Quit being so hopelessly dense and go educate yourself instead of fucking around in this shithole.

>>188428
I'm plannig to, eventually. Still, nothing wrong with talking with others about a subject you are interested in, right?

>>188411
I also don't feel that the Buddha makes utilitarian arguments on whether less of more lives are being saved. It all comes down to intention. But I still wonder what he would say about that. Btw, what country are you talking about? Bhutan?

>>188426
1. I don't know if I got your question. I'll focus on the last question.
Sin can be translated, as Peterson put it, as missing the target. You do something, you miss God. All "sin" in buddhism is based on intent, not action. Eat meat in buddhism is forbidden because it violates the precept of not killing. But if you eat an animal that died from old age, that is acceptable because that does not violate the precept. It is all about cleaning the mind of negative intention. Not all wish/intention is bad, as the Buddha said once.
He said something like: "My students, you're all striving for getting rid of desire, right? Because desire leads to suffering. But wanting to get rid of desire is also a desire." I've saw some people interpreting this passage on the canon that is not about cleaning all intention. It's about cleaning bad intention and leaving good intention.
2. I'm not sure about lying. There is a passage in which the Buddha tells "white lies" for a man who asks whether he is close to arrive in a city or not. The Buddha knows that the man is still far away from his destination, but he keeps saying to him that he is just two miles away. He then says to Ananda something like "The mind creates obstacles for itself. If I tell this man the truth, he will never reach his destination."
Stealing is forbidden, it was not given to you. But I've heard arguments that copying is not theft. That's why you can download copies of anything you want on the internet. This precept will become clearer once 3D printing become more popular. Buddhism also strive for the concept of "ahimsa", non-violence. It is basically Miyagi-Do or Shaolin's precepts of self defence.
3 - Buddhism is non-theistic. It neither denies God nor confirms it. The Buddha only says that the "Devas" are also slaves to the wheel of time and rebirths. But the Buddha says that buddhahood is eternal.
"The Buddha siad: "O good man! There are two kinds of Buddha-body. One is Eternal,
and the other is impermanent. The latter is one manifested through expediency for saving beings.
This is to see with the eye. The Eternal refers to the emancipated body of the TathagataWorld-Honoured One! It is called one seen by the eye. It is also one seen by hearing. The
Buddha-Nature, too, has two kinds, namely: 1) visible, 2) invisible. The visible is the case
of the Bodhisattvas of the stage of the ten abodes and the All-Buddha-World-Honoured One;
unable to be seen refers to the case of beings. Seeing with the eye refers to beings’ BuddhaNature seen by the Bodhisattvas of the stage of the ten abodes and the All-Buddha-Tathagata.
Seeing by hearing refers to all beings, who hear that the Bodhisattva of the ninth abode has the
Buddha-Nature."
http://lirs.ru/do/Mahaparinirvana_Sutra,Yamamoto,Page,2007.pdf p.386
4. Follow the five precepts: abstain from killing, abstain from stealing, abstain from wrong sexual condcut, abstain from lying, abstain from drugs and alcohol (because they mess up with your consciousness)
5. I personally don't have any school of thought. I like tibetan and vajryana schools because they have a good interface with ancient magical systems.

>>188460
I see. Oh, that's quite disappointing to me. Maybe buddhism isn't for me at all. I thought it was more chill with regards to morals and all that, giving you more freedom than other religions but guess I got the wrong impression.

>>188469
I mean all religion is going to preach strong morals to you, it’s the point of the whole deal.

>>188470
What I want is more like spiritualism and a dive into mysticism, without morality and all that. I thought buddhism would be good for this, oh well.

>>188471
Become a Wiccan or something then I guess. You won’t really find an established religion for that, as like I said the point of religion is to create a moral code and instructs on how to live “properly”.

>>188469
>>188470
>>188471
Maybe it would help to recall that even the precepts of Buddha have no intrinsic self nature, and are completely empty. Following or not following the precepts expresses an attachment to only two ways.

>>188473
Yes, the left-hand path, occultism and becoming an actual wizard or warlock is probably what I'm looking for.

>>188474
What do you mean? Didn't quite understand you.

>>188496
I think he means that, unlike most religions, there isn’t much of a moral connotation to the precepts. Following or not following isn’t good or bad. Like he said in the original post your replied to, it’s more about intention than a clear dichotomy.

>>188306
Hinduism fucking sucks bros

>>188469
I don't view buddhism nor other religions as pure moral institutions. That's a very shallow comprehension on my understanding. I see them more as martial arts for the spirit. Buddhism specializes itself on the martial arts of the mind and liberation from the chains that binds you to anything, may it be biological, psychological, social or spiritual.

>>188474

Also, the Buddha himself adressed this problem. He said once something like that:
"We all strive for removing desire and attachment, right? But is'nt our strive a desire itself?"
What some people get from this passage (and so do I) is that you have to remove all bad and illusional intentions in order to give shine to your true self.

>>188496

In a way, buddhism can't be placed neither in a right nor left hand path in my opinion. When you dive deep down in it's doctrine, you see the contradictions that the Buddha himself layed out.

Buddhism for me means freedom. It also means wisdom, power and compassion. It is a doctrine that encourages it's practitioners to question it. It's like Kreia's words from KOTOR2. To believe in an ideal is to be willing to betray it. Buddhism incorporates this quote on it's very core.

>>188541
It's amazing the amount of uninformed nonsense you managed to muster in a single post, wiz. I noticed this is common about Buddhism, people never read a single sutta in their lives and built their entire idea about the religion from spurious "sayings" they find on brainyquote. >>188497 and >>188540 are also completely and utterly clueless, as many others itt but I won't bother with all of it.

Wisdom is the main tool to enlightment and the destruction of the taints, one of which is the clinging to selfhood. The idea of "giving shine to your true self" is hilarious, you didn't get a single thing right. Also, the Buddhist path to wisdom is firmly established on the three-tier structure of the Buddhist training; moral discipline functions as the basis for concentration and concentration as the basis for wisdom. Yet we have people here thinking morality is just an extra thingie you can opt out on with no consequence. In reality it's the very base of the entire system. You guys don't know even the most basic precepts, really, you don't know anything at all. The Pali Canon is available online for free, do read it, it's fascinating.

>>188579
Instead of acting like a smug arrogant person you could add something constructive to the thread or fix the mistakes made here. Come on, do it. Yes, we know we should read the Canon but why don't you tell us what is the case with morality and buddhism? If you are so smart you can surely write out a post that is about this topic.

>>188541
>KOTOR2
Great game, shame everyone prefers the first one which is quite boring in comparison.

>>188579
Cite a sutra that conflicts with it then, Mr. Buddhist pro.

>>188582
>what is the case with morality and buddhism?
I just told you what is the case. 3 out of the 8 on the Eightfold Path are stricly moral disciplines (silakkhandha): right speech, right action, and right livelihood, they are not optional. For monastics there are huge lists of strict rules of moral discipline and moral discipline is the very base of Buddhist training, aka the threefold training (moral discipline, concentration, and wisdom). I could write a post in more detail but that would be the point of the entire early Buddhist scripture, hence my advice.
>>188583
A sutta that explains the fact that finding your true self has nothing to do with Buddhism? Sure, pretty much any sutta will explain this. There isn't a true self. The sense of selfhood is a delusion built upon the five aggregrates and a subject of clinging. The whole point of Buddhist practice is to destroy clinging to the five aggregrates. The first fetter that must be destroyed once one becomes a stream-enterer is identity view. Again, it would take the entire scripture to properly explain this. But here's a few passages about it:
“Any kind of form whatsoever, monk, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—one sees all form as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
“Any kind of feeling whatsoever … Any kind of perception whatsoever … Any kind of volitional formations whatsoever . . . Any kind of consciousness whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—one sees all consciousness as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
“When one knows and sees thus, monk, then in regard to this body with consciousness and in regard to all external signs, I-making, mine-making, and the underlying tendency to conceit no longer occur within.”
SN 22: 82, 100–103, MN 109, III 15–19.

>>188579
Look I read the whole thread but if you really want to know why religion is incompatible with spirit you should start researching (with salt) Theosophy and freemasonry. The Story of Hiram Abiff is a metaphor for the creation of all religion, the reason it was to be done and the reason we are not ready for what is to come. Most of you know that the founding fathers were Freemasons. If you would like to know the direction the world will be heading a new form of Christianity that encourages a material love for what exists will emerge in this day and age, and the hard hearted will say there is no spirit because I am content. Materialism is evil. Any religion built on the rock of mineral is doomed against the spirit of the unnameable.

Buddhism sounds like one of the most overrated religion or philosophy to me. "Just don't desire things bro, just don't cause harm" lol what the fuck is there to do in life aside from causing harm to others and craving things? Life is exactly fun to some degree because of these things. It seems like buddhism preaches a very no fun allowed kind of life. I also don't understand what is the purpose of meditation, what is good about not thinking at all? Daydreaming is one of the greatest things you can do in life, why miss out on it?

>>188704
Close minded brainlet
>lol what the fuck is there to do in life aside from causing harm to others and craving things?
Doing good and creating things.
>what is the purpose of meditation, what is good about not thinking at all?
Meditation forgoes the conscious thought processes and let you see things though the subconscious "Experiencing a lucid dream while awake". Think daydreaming, but it's more random, inescapable, and things from your past you've long since forgotten can show up.

You sound like someone who daydreams exclusively about getting rich and banging succubi.

>>188705
> You sound like someone who daydreams exclusively about getting rich and banging succubi.
Surprising amount of these types lately.

>>188705
By doing good I assume you mean adhering to some morality that is socially acceptable? Good joke. About creating things, why should someone bother with it if creation is boring and painful? If you enjoy it good for you, not everyone is like that.
Oh, yeah, unlocking de secretz ov de mind, bro…Spare me. You don't do anything of the sort, you sit in your room trying not to think of anything at all. Fucking waste of time. You are better off sleeping, really.

>You sound like someone who daydreams exclusively about getting rich and banging succubi.
Projection? I never mentioned succubi and getting rich. Try harder. I just see through Buddhism, it is only a meme philosophy and religion, nothing mere. Pathetic how many people fall for this shit.

>>188302
im a 4 year vegan, and while i do it exclusively for moral reasons, the morals of veganism depress me. because, to me atleast, it seems like there is no definitive proof of the afterlife for what i would accept as being me. im not even sure i define as myself, be it my body, or my personality+memories, or my consciousness, but if there is no afterlife or some kind of afterlife justice, WHO CARES

who cares about being moral? who cares? why should anyone cares? its not that i disagree with vegan ethics. i love veganism so much, ive even protested and got fined hundreds of dollars in fines that i still have to contest in court. its just that, ultimately, if you are going to die without justice, why should anyone even care?

thats what really depresses me about morals in general. i contemplate just abandoning all morals, because if you're going to die, why should you care, if it would benefit your life to be evil? for me, i think a vegan diet is better for your health as well, so i will always be vegan, but still

i dont even necessarily believe in eastern religions, but i do believe in god. i have no idea what happens when your body dies, and i have no idea on how i would know. i just have great difficulty accepting god values everyone's well being, and cares about justice. i have so much immense difficulty putting trust in a god that's omnibenevolent, not evil. i believe in god, i just think god is evil and doesnt care. and if god doesnt care, why should i or anyone else? thats why theres i little voice in the back of my heart that says "i understand" when i see dudes doing the most licentious debauchery degeneracy imaginable. i just think to myself, "why should they even care about morals at all?"

if we want to be good people, then yes, i think we should be vegan. but i have difficulty seeing why we should value morals

>>188708
>i contemplate just abandoning all morals, because if you're going to die, why should you care, if it would benefit your life to be evil?

Brother I lived my life just like that and let me tell you it brings you NOTHING. Turn your eyes from the sins of this world and watch God

>>188708
The whole point of morals is that they are self upholding. You believe in them and act according because you think it is the correct way for a person to act. There is no further reward or reasoning, it is the simple declaration that that is the way things should be.

>>188708
Lack of an afterlife is why I think it's dumb to be a vegan but it's not dumb to care about whether the meat you eat is humanely raised and slaughtered. If a cow or a pig or something lives a perfectly happy life with zero predators and ample food because of humans and then they just get blinked out of existence by a pneumatic rod to their brain stem, then the amount of good in the world has been increased because the cow lived a happy life and we get happier from eating it.

I don't see how not having an afterlife would make acting morally any less meaningful though. You do it because you have empathy and the ability to reason. It's just an instinct that you carry out because you feel pleasure from doing so like eating when you're hungry. If you lacked empathy you wouldn't love veganism or acting morally and you could benefit from acting in selfish ways, but you probably also have guilt and conscience and shit that would stop you from feeling pleasure if you acted that way and would instead make you feel bad.

>>188708
>who cares about being moral? who cares? why should anyone cares?
Suffering does in fact exist, and although it cannot be eliminated, it can be reduced. This is such a strange viewpoint that suffering somehow doesn't matter because there's no afterlife.
>>188728
You're forgetting something: Those animals are explicitly bred into existence for purposes of our consumption. They wouldn't exist in the first place if we weren't eating them. In that sense, i'm only vegan because i'm antinatalist, although given the depths of depravity involved in modern industrial agriculture, I feel like the "humanely raised" thing is irrelevant anyway. Nobodies buying their meat from wholesome reddit karma local farms. They walk into the supermarket and buy some random brand. That or they walk into their local KFC lol.

>>188739
>This is such a strange viewpoint that suffering somehow doesn't matter because there's no afterlife.

why should someone else's suffering matter to me? if it benefits me to hurt them? thats what i mean. even if i agree with you its wrong and its hypocritical and i would not be okay with that happening to me. even if i concede on all moral grounds, tell me, if there is no ultimate justice, why should i or anyone even care?

>>188728
>I don't see how not having an afterlife would make acting morally any less meaningful though
because then justice would come into fruition. evil would get punished and the good rewarded, as it ought to, if there was justice

>You do it because you have empathy and the ability to reason
its reasonable to abandon all morals if you will die permanently. why should you care? the only thing you can care about is yourself while you are still alive. being good gets you nowhere, and then you die permanently. if you care about yourself, which is logically impossibly not to, then its only reasonable to do what's best for you

>If you lacked empathy you wouldn't love veganism
probably. but i think ill be one forever, because i love the community because of how well they treated me throughout the years, and all they asked was i dont betray them. not to mention i think its healthier, and i function better in life when im healthier

>>189129
i would rather have my throat slit than be stuck in those stalls all day long

>>189129
>because i love the community because of how well they treated me throughout the years
lol
this is par for the course as most people follow these movements mainly for social reasons, but still this is rather pathetic to see it laid out like this

>all they asked was i dont betray them
wtf does that mean lol

>>189129
>why should i or anyone even care?
Wrong question. You can't decide to care or not care.

>>189129
>if there is no ultimate justice, why should i or anyone even care?
I dunno, I can't make you or anyone else care. Personally, i'm just a slave to negative utilitarianism. I value that even above my own ego, which I consider to be an obstacle, and an irrational distraction.

>>189136
>You can't decide to care or not care.
some people can. when i cured my autism i lost ALL care for morals, i hated morals. i have a choice, to care about morals or not, and i make my choices with reason. and i feel abandoned by god an i dont see a reason to think god will bring ultimate justice, so why should i care? if theres no punishment for it, and it greatly benefits me, why should i care? im going to die one day, you know

>>189131
yeah…. people are so brutal towards animals. i hate normies because how delusional they are. they moralfag about dogs, yet laugh at pigs. cognitive dissonance times a million. the amount of suffering these pigs endure is unreal. its not even like most people are sadists either; they wouldnt be down to torture and kill a pig slowly for pleasure

>>189138
>I can't make you or anyone else care
sure you can, if you can provide a justification for believing in ultimate justice. if you can reason your way into a justification for a believe in afterlife justice, then i'd care for morals. just that simple

>>189134
>wtf does that mean lol
to betray a the vegan movement is to abandon your diet and lifestyle, and go back to eating animals. even if i lose all my care for morals, i love this community so much, that i dont even want to do them dirty

>>189144
>sure you can, if you can provide a justification for believing in ultimate justice
ultimate justice doesn't exist, so i'm afraid i cannot.

>>189144
oh you're that canadian faggot that castrated itself right?


>to betray a the vegan movement is to abandon your diet and lifestyle, and go back to eating animals. even if i lose all my care for morals, i love this community so much, that i dont even want to do them dirty
lmao why would they even care? is this some kind of cult or secret society? and what kind of community is it anyway? you are not eating animal products. big fucking deal.

the "vegan community" is one of the silliest thing ive read… but everything's a community these days. i am a proud member of the coffee drinking community and would never betray it by switching to tea or cocoa :^)

>>188302
>>188309
From a utilitarian perspective, why not just only eat beef/dairy instead of going vegan entirely? It would be 99% as good as veganism. Since cows are big, you need fewer animals per unit of meat compared to smaller animals like chickens or fish.

https://reducing-suffering.org/how-much-direct-suffering-is-caused-by-various-animal-foods/

I arrived at the teachings of buddhism through egoism and amoralism. I feel like I came a full circle. I went from some asshole to someone caring about others. Strange. Or maybe I was like this all along and only forced this cruel persona unto myself?

>>188579
Buddhism believes in something akin to a spiritual self. This is a misconception created by the poor translations of the pali canon you've just described. Its the same misconception that leads some people to think that buddhism is an atheist religion/philosophy.
Let me ask you something, if there is no ture self, if there is an absolute nothingness, so why the hell do we practice the Dharma is it is nothing as well and bound to the chains of time and space? Why is there a "Great Vehicle" like Mahayana, if there is no passenger at all? Why bother with temples, images and rituals if there is nothing at the bottom of things? Why practice buddhism if everything is nothing? And what about the Pure Land buddhists who says that we can reborn on the Pure Land? What does reborn there? Nothing? And who the Budda reffers when he says thathagata? A nothing that goes on to eternity and blissful? You're just reading the texts without careful reflection or you are not reading them at all. Because you should know very well that buddhism talks about the "True Self."

Shunya, which is the backbone of the concept of Anatta, means non-substantiality, and not non-essensiality. If you know anything about basic philosophy you know very well the difference between the two. So I'm not talking about substance, I'm talking about essence. Buddhism says that there is nothing that exists on itself, it needs other stuff for it to exist.

> "of those who are mortal, there is no Self/Soul", (anatma
hi martyah, [SB., II. 2. 2. 3]). [KN J-1441] “The Soul is the refuge
that I have gone unto”. For anatta is not said of the Self/Soul but
what it is not. There is never a ‘doctrine of no-Soul’, but a doctrine
of what the Soul is not (form is anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.).


"How can the Tathagata be one eternal and unchanging?" O Kasyapa! One who reproaches me thus commits slander, which is wrong. O Kasyapa! You must not entertain such
a notion and say that the nature of the Tathagata perishes. O Kasyapa! We do not place the
annihilation of illusion in the category of matter [rupa]. Why not? Because of the fact of the
ultimacy of Eternity. Hence, we say Eternal. [Nirvanic] quietude has nothing to supercede it.
All phenomenal existences are done away with, with nothing remaining. This indicates what is
fresh, clear, eternal, and unretrogressive. That is why we say that Nirvana is eternal. It is the
same with the Tathagata. He is eternal, with no change. "Stars sweep". This refers to illusion.
Once swept, all is gone and no trace remains of any existence. This indicates that all Tathagatas
are those who have done away with illusion and are no longer in the five realms. This means
that the Tathagata is one eternal and that there is no change [with him]. Also next, O Kasyapa!
It is the Dharma which is the teacher of all Buddhas. Hence, the Tathagata respectfully makes
offerings. As the Dharma is eternal, so too are all Buddhas eternal."
– http://lirs.ru/do/Mahaparinirvana_Sutra,Yamamoto,Page,2007.pdf

Bodhisattva Kasyapa said to the Buddha: "O World-Honoured One! Really, there cannot
be any case in which there is Self. Why not? When a child is born, it knows nothing. If there is a
Self, the child would have to have knowledge when it is born into the world. Hence we can know
that there is no Self. If a Self definitely existed, there could not be any loss of knowing. If it
were true that all beings eternally possessed Buddha-Nature, there could be no breaking away.
If there is no destruction, how can there be the differences of Kshatriya, Brahmin, Vaishya,
Sudra, candala, and animals? Now, the effects of karma are various, and differences exist in life.
If there definitely is a Self, there cannot be any victory or defeat with beings. From this, we can
definitely know that the Buddha-Nature is eternal Dharma.
http://lirs.ru/do/Mahaparinirvana_Sutra,Yamamoto,Page,2007.pdf

"“The True Self of the Buddha-Nature is like the diamond, which
cannot be crushed”
http://lirs.ru/do/Mahaparinirvana_Sutra,Yamamoto,Page,2007.pdf

I suggest that you also search about the concepts of greater and lesser self in buddhism.

The same "true self" is also mentioned 14 times in that same text.

>>189328
>>189328
Correction: buddhism says that SUBSTANCE depends on other SUBSTANCE to exist. The only thing that is eternal is buddhahood.
(And there is also some talks about God in buddhism, which is called Isvara. Buddhist teachings are non-theistic.)

>>189144
>factory farm
Do you not have locally-owned farms where you live? I buy meat from a nearby farmer that doesn't do this. The chicken is expensive this way, but beef and pork are not bad. It's more expensive than the cheapest factory meat at the grocery store, but cheaper than the meat marketed there as healthy/sustainable. This also applies market pressure towards a more decentralized food supply chain. When I was younger I was sickly and had nutrition problems (supplements, which were plant-based, did not help), but I improved by eating a lot of meat cooked on a cast-iron skillet. Consequently, forgoing meat entirely has never struck me as a reasonable solution to reducing/removing reliance on factory farming.