The Case for Eating Meat

[Shadowraix]

5 hours ago, Cudin said:

Yes and no. No other mammal cook their food. No other mammal also shoots heroin. I know the natural / artificial boundary is blurry (non-existent, really), but try to read what I am trying to convey, not what you want to debunk.

I am trying but my perspective doesn't see humans veering off from general nature tendencies to be something that should be avoided or used as an arguing point. 

Seems to me we just evolved at a much faster rate. Creatures like dolphins are probably 2nd in line if they haven't become as smart already. 

[alankrillin]

There's also that spiritual insight. 

As a human you can choose to be: 

1) a locust,  a pest that devours everything in its path. Note the locust is not evil per se.

2) a bee, a loving creature that helps plants pollinate  and makes sweet beautiful honey. 

Ignorant humans become locust like. 

Loving humans become bee like. 

Edited January 28, 2019 by alankrillin

[Matt8800]

24 minutes ago, Girzo said:

They are less moral than someone who doesn't eat meat. Enlightenment doesn't make your human persona perfect.

Applying a non-dual perspective to relative problems is a definition of devilry. You can justify anything that way.

Can I cut your head off? I promise I will do it swiftly and you won't suffer. Your belief that humans are higher then other animals is an ungrounded assumption. 

To be clear, I am not against eating meat. I am against stupid arguments for it. 

My argument for eating meat is that you should do it if you feel more healthy and the animal doesnt suffer. Labeling it stupid is simply your subjective opinion. 

Regarding cutting my head off:

1. I havent had a sense of self for over two years. Not only do I have absolutely zero fear death, I am fascinated and excited about the idea of my own release into the next realm.

2. I have a strong sense that everything happens the way it should its own time. If The Source is done with my body, then so am I...have at it. Ill put my neck on the chopping block for you

3. I believe humans are capable of enlightenment and animals are not. If you can explain no-self, impermanence and unsatisfactoriness to a chicken and get them to comprehend it, then I suppose you would make your point and prove me wrong

[alankrillin]

7 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

 

1. I havent had a sense of self for over two years. Not only do I have absolutely zero fear death, I am fascinated and excited about the idea of my own release into the next realm.

2. I have a strong sense that everything happens the way it should its own time. If The Source is done with my body, then so am I...have at it. Ill put my neck on the chopping block for you

You talk a lot of bull. 

If your that excited then go on do it instead. 

This is clearly Pathological lying. 

 

[Matt8800]

33 minutes ago, alankrillin said:

It's simple it's better to eat things that dont value their lives as a sentient being, chickens value their life they will run and fight to save their lives. 

Apply the same principles on yourself then and just kill yourself. From my perspective it's much better if you die and in the process the 10,000 animals you will eat in your life span either didn't exist merely to be food in cages or die to carnivores instead if they were wild. 

A lion eating meat is fine because it will die otherwise, a human on the other hand wont die but decides to be a glutton and devour many animals on pleasure eating.

So if there is no wrong or right,  good or bad then I take that principle to the extreme and say that we should just kill humans who eat meat , it doesn't matter if they value their lives, only stupid humans anyway and we'll give them a quick death. 

Please if we were to kill you right now as a real scenario you'd cry and beg for your life. 

So tell why are you so bias when it comes to your own life. But so selfish when it's not your life on the line.

This is this exactly how the selfish ego works. 

If you could take both perspectives of you and the chicken at the same time you wouldn't kill yourself if you had options. 

But if you knew that one of you must die then you'd sacrifice the weaker self for the stronger self. 

That is an assumption that I would have any concern about someone killing me. I havent had a sense of self for over two years and have zero fear of death. If The Source is done with my body, I will be very happy to transition to the next realm. This obsessive concern for the survival of the body is based on illusion. I am not debating from an illusory standpoint.

Regarding the "morality" of eating meat, those are just your subjective opinions on what you think is "bad". If there is no suffering, there is no problem.

Some enlightened people eat meat, some dont. Its a non-issue.

[alankrillin]

3 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

That is an assumption that I would have any concern about someone killing me. I havent had a sense of self for over two years and have zero fear of death. If The Source is done with my body, I will be very happy to transition to the next realm. This obsessive concern for the survival of the body is based on illusion. I am not debating from an illusory standpoint.

Regarding the "morality" of eating meat, those are just your subjective opinions on what you think is "bad". If there is no suffering, there is no problem.

Some enlightened people eat meat, some dont. Its a non-issue.

Besides the delusion and pathological lying. 

You created a thread about a "non-issue" to argue. 

So enlightened you are that vegans bother you. 

If every thing is a non issue you wouldn't have created such a thread, you delusional fool

Edited January 28, 2019 by alankrillin

[Matt8800]

1 minute ago, alankrillin said:

You talk a lot of bull. 

If your that excited then go on do it instead. 

This is clearly Pathological lying. 

 

Do you say that because you dont believe anyone could possibly see through the self if they are on A.org or because you dont believe its possible if someone eats meat? Or maybe you feel that someone couldnt see through the self if they dont share your opinions

Im genuinely interested in how you came to those conclusions based on the information that I put up.

[Matt8800]

9 minutes ago, alankrillin said:

Besides the delusion and pathological lying. 

You created a thread about a "non-issue" to argue. 

So enlightened you are that vegans bother you. 

If every thing is a non issue you wouldn't have created such a thread, you delusional fool

Vegans dont bother me in the least, nor did I say anything like that. That is your own projection.

There seems to be a strong aversion in spiritual communities towards meat eaters. For whatever reason, some seekers seem to think they need to hide it from others in the community. I think that is unnecessary and feel discussion is warranted for that reason.

I feel no need to be involved in any spiritual communities but they are helpful to some.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Matt8800

[alankrillin]

4 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

Vegans dont bother me in the least, nor did I say anything like that. That is your own projection.

There seems to be a strong aversion in spiritual communities towards meat eaters. For whatever reason, some seekers seem to think they need to hide it from others in the community. I think that is unnecessary and feel discussion is warranted for that reason.

I feel no need to be involved in any spiritual communities but they are helpful to some.

it's non-issue.

It reality, it is the "sources will"

who are you as an ego mind to oppose what happens in reality?

[Girzo]

If you really believe that animals don't suffer, then whatever, there's no discussion. Enjoy your karma.

[Shadowraix]

10 hours ago, alankrillin said:

it's non-issue.

It reality, it is the "sources will"

who are you as an ego mind to oppose what happens in reality?

Except whatever he does or whatever anybody does is also the sources will and what happens in reality including opposition to it. 

Accepting death doesn't mean you will go out to kill yourself. It's being content with either situation. With every why not go die there is a why not live. When it is time to die you will die. No matter what. 

Edited January 29, 2019 by Shadowraix

[alankrillin]

2 hours ago, Shadowraix said:

Except whatever he does or whatever anybody does is also the sources will and what happens in reality including opposition to it. 

Accepting death doesn't mean you will go out to kill yourself. It's being content with either situation. With every why not go die there is a why not live. When it is time to die you will die. No matter what. 

You missed the irony, i was reflecting his own approach back to him. 

Saying everything is source and everything the way it should be and then following up with an argument or "case" for meat eating is like saying this movie is perfect, everything is the way it should be except, if the villain wasn't in this movie, it would be better.

So this is hypocrisy by definition, what you guys actually mean is everything is source when i want to prove an argument, but then conveniently  i'll ignore this fact when my ego wants to make an opposing argument, that reality is not perfect and needs to change.

It doesn't look wise, it looks like a scapegoat, I'd suggest not using the everything is "source" card if you want to follow up with an argument or "case".

Its basically like saying everything is perfect but.... then obviously it isn't perfect, if it was, there wouldn't be a but.

Its actually a paradox. 

Source ingrains every living creature with life, all of natures sole objectively is to thrive and grow with life. 
Your entire human body it made up of billions of alive cells run by source. And yet the dysfunctional ego can commit suicide.

If you are enlightened you will be 100% for life not indifference, sorry you guys totally misunderstood detachment.

But you wont get it because you're nihilistic fundamentally, you seem to think all of life is meaningless, unless you assign it meaning, but if you observe source carefully you will see with or without your ego metal mind it does things, pay attention to those things. 

Those things have meaning because its what creates existence. Which is the ultimate meaning. 

[Shadowraix]

@alankrillin The objection to perfection is also source doing that so still it objecting is perfect. You are just advocating for what you think enlightenment is. 

It does do things but that doesn't mean it needs meaning to do so from the absolute. 

[alankrillin]

Just now, Shadowraix said:

@alankrillin The objection to perfection is also source doing that so still it objecting is perfect. You are just advocating for what you think enlightenment is. 

It does do things but that doesn't mean it needs meaning to do so from the absolute. 

Hence why I said its a paradox which is true, instead of saying the opposition of opposition of the opposition, of the opposition is also source in a never ending circle.

I see your intention is to somehow convince me about my own being or my own truth, thats very vile of you, don't need such a distraction, thanks.

Maybe pay attention to your hypocrispy, you have no intention of learning anything you just want to prove people wrong, hence your "Devil's Advocate" arguments here with literally everyone.

For someone who says everything is meaningless you sure got baited and triggered to my trap word "numnuts" in our previous meat thread, to the point where you tunnel vision solely on the single word dismissed the entire post and stuck to it as you pinpoint of interest. Which gave so much of you away.

You can stop quoting me now, Ive tried ignoring you but you have ego issues to prove me wrong, and replying to you just seems to make you more itchy.

[Emerald]

18 hours ago, Matt8800 said:

Im a devil for eating meat? Would you say that Nisgardatta and Eckhart Tolle are also devils or does meat eating only make me a devil?

No. You are a devil for using the truth of non-duality to justify a behavior that contributes to pain and suffering. 

Zen devils use the truth of no-self to play mental gymnastics with those truths to justify harmful behavior like rape, murder, stealing, manipulation, etc. 

And they would use an idea like, "Cows don't have an ego, therefore they don't suffer when we kill them. Therefore, it's okay if I kill a cow." Not only are they assuming a lot of things about how cows experience things, they are also using canned insights relative to non-duality to justify something that they themselves find morally quesitonable... And if they didn't find it morally questionable, then they wouldn't bother with the rationalization.

This is the entire game of Zen devilry is to use non-dual truths to justify any and all behaviors that they want to do without regard to who it harms. So, it's really about using certain insights to rationalize self-interest over the interests of others or the common good in general.

So, Eckhart Tolle and Nasgardatta are probably not doing this, even if they do eat meat. So, they are not Zen devils.

Edited January 29, 2019 by Emerald

[Shadowraix]

@alankrillin Seems you've misinterpreted my intentions to a lot of things that I do. I'll clear them up.

You've never got any emotional reaction out of me. I don't reply to things I don't have anything to say about so that is why you think I am tunnel vision-ing what you say. If I didn't reply to it then I likely agreed with it. If I can find some kind of point against what you say i'll say it but not to try and appear right. I don't really care if somebody thinks I am wrong or right. Its just for others to consider. To me the best discussions are ones that cover as many points as possible rather than one that finds some kind of resolution.

My commenting on you over using the word 'numnuts' was because personal attacks just degrades the conversation. Adds no substance for the purpose of making one feel better or another feel worse.

Was the enlightened comment what you mean by trying to convince you of your own being or own truth? If you aren't enlightened then you only speak of what you think enlightenment is. And last I saw you don't think you are enlightened.

Sorry if you got the wrong idea, man. But I don't have anything against you or some agenda to prove you wrong. You are the one bringing up the most points in these threads so you are the most likely person to reply to. And you already say what I would of said to other replies before I see it.

[Matt8800]

1 hour ago, alankrillin said:

You missed the irony, i was reflecting his own approach back to him. 

Saying everything is source and everything the way it should be and then following up with an argument or "case" for meat eating is like saying this movie is perfect, everything is the way it should be except, if the villain wasn't in this movie, it would be better.

So this is hypocrisy by definition, what you guys actually mean is everything is source when i want to prove an argument, but then conveniently  i'll ignore this fact when my ego wants to make an opposing argument, that reality is not perfect and needs to change.

It doesn't look wise, it looks like a scapegoat, I'd suggest not using the everything is "source" card if you want to follow up with an argument or "case".

Its basically like saying everything is perfect but.... then obviously it isn't perfect, if it was, there wouldn't be a but.

Its actually a paradox. 

Source ingrains every living creature with life, all of natures sole objectively is to thrive and grow with life. 
Your entire human body it made up of billions of alive cells run by source. And yet the dysfunctional ego can commit suicide.

If you are enlightened you will be 100% for life not indifference, sorry you guys totally misunderstood detachment.

But you wont get it because you're nihilistic fundamentally, you seem to think all of life is meaningless, unless you assign it meaning, but if you observe source carefully you will see with or without your ego metal mind it does things, pay attention to those things. 

Those things have meaning because its what creates existence. Which is the ultimate meaning. 

Again, you are attributing "badness" to something when no suffering in conscious experience happened. Nobody has answered my question on how something can be considered "bad" when there is no suffering.

[alankrillin]

23 minutes ago, Shadowraix said:

@alankrillin Seems you've misinterpreted my intentions to a lot of things that I do. I'll clear them up.

You've never got any emotional reaction out of me. I don't reply to things I don't have anything to say about so that is why you think I am tunnel vision-ing what you say. If I didn't reply to it then I likely agreed with it. If I can find some kind of point against what you say i'll say it but not to try and appear right. I don't really care if somebody thinks I am wrong or right. Its just for others to consider. To me the best discussions are ones that cover as many points as possible rather than one that finds some kind of resolution.

My commenting on you over using the word 'numnuts' was because personal attacks just degrades the conversation. Adds no substance for the purpose of making one feel better or another feel worse.

Was the enlightened comment what you mean by trying to convince you of your own being or own truth? If you aren't enlightened then you only speak of what you think enlightenment is. And last I saw you don't think you are enlightened.

Sorry if you got the wrong idea, man. But I don't have anything against you or some agenda to prove you wrong. You are the one bringing up the most points in these threads so you are the most likely person to reply to. And you already say what I would of said to other replies before I see it.

What you described is devils advocate. 

You still don't understand existence itself is meaning. You can't write meaningless in a book without creating meaning.  You can't paint a painting about meaningless without creating meaning. 

To convey meaningless you need meaning. 

You can't point to meaningless without existence to convey it. 

There is only existence inside nothingness it's a paradox, it's not a something neither is it nothing. 

[Matt8800]

51 minutes ago, Emerald said:

 

Zen devils use the truth of no-self to play mental gymnastics with those truths to justify harmful behavior like rape, murder, stealing, manipulation, etc. 

 

(Sigh)...Ill try to explain again.

Rape, murder, stealing, manipulation = suffering in conscious experience. Even if murder of a human was painless, their destiny may have been movement towards realization and that should not be interfered with.

Killing an animal instantly for food = no suffering

You insist that your subjective morality is objective. Now you are saying it is OK for Nisgardatta and Tolle because they dont "justify" it? Do you feel that actions are bad if the perpetrator justifies it but is a non-issue if it is not justified? Ive never heard that reasoning before but ok

For people that dwell in non-duality, there is no such thing as justification. Who is justifying and to whom?

To be clear, I am extremely sensitive to an animal's suffering. I have always had a great love for animals and still do.

Edited January 29, 2019 by Matt8800

[Shadowraix]

12 minutes ago, alankrillin said:

What you described is devils advocate. 

You still don't understand existence itself is meaning. You can't write meaningless in a book without creating meaning.  You can't paint a painting about meaningless without creating meaning. 

To convey meaningless you need meaning. 

You can't point to meaningless without existence to convey it. 

There is only existence inside nothingness it's a paradox, it's not a something neither is it nothing. 

Good stuff.