If a lion can become a vegan, so can humans.

[CreamCat]

https://creation.com/the-lion-that-wouldnt-eat-meat

This lion could have realized that it was God. Veganism could have involved incredible amount of Godly will power for this lion.

Edited September 14, 2019 by CreamCat

[TheSomeBody]

plants are also god

 

[Matt8800]

4 hours ago, CreamCat said:

https://creation.com/the-lion-that-wouldnt-eat-meat

This lion could have realized that it was God. Veganism could have involved incredible amount of Godly will power for this lion.

@CreamCat Both Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta ate meat and are generally considered the most enlightened beings in India over the last 100 years. That would have some implications to reconsider your assumption that veganism is "godly" or "good".

Veganism is just veganism. There is no reason to think it has any impact whatsoever on enlightenment in general. Some enlightened people are vegans and some arent.

Edited September 14, 2019 by Matt8800

[Scholar]

48 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

@CreamCat Both Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta ate meat and are generally considered the most enlightened beings in India over the last 100 years. That would have some implications to reconsider your assumption that veganism is "godly" or "good".

Veganism is just veganism. There is no reason to think it has any impact whatsoever on enlightenment in general. Some enlightened people are vegans and some arent.

Some enlightened beings also rape little monk boys. In fact, the entire universe by nature could be viewed as ultimately enlightened, and it still embraces torture and suffering.

Veganism is simply an extention of identification, inclusivity of other beings into the self. There were enlightened masters who had no problem keeping slaves, yet today no enlightened master would deem that appropriate.

Spiritual enlightenment will not give one the ability to see the suffering of others as ones own, it only has a tendency to do so because this work inherently has to do with the workings of the ego.

[Jonac]

I think persons will become total vegan at some point. Im not vegan at all but i think is gonne be like this in future.

[CreamCat]

7 hours ago, Scholar said:

Some enlightened beings also rape little monk boys.

The vast majority of people would assume it's rape when little boys have consensual sex with men just because they are boys.

Consider that it could have been concensual sex.

Edited September 14, 2019 by CreamCat

[Matt8800]

8 hours ago, Scholar said:

Some enlightened beings also rape little monk boys. In fact, the entire universe by nature could be viewed as ultimately enlightened, and it still embraces torture and suffering.

Veganism is simply an extention of identification, inclusivity of other beings into the self. There were enlightened masters who had no problem keeping slaves, yet today no enlightened master would deem that appropriate.

Spiritual enlightenment will not give one the ability to see the suffering of others as ones own, it only has a tendency to do so because this work inherently has to do with the workings of the ego.

@Scholar I think comparing raping children to killing animals painlessly for food is a false equivalency. But since morals are subjective, you are free to believe they are equal  

I have no moral issue with eating meat. I am opposed to suffering but I am not opposed to death. If the animals are put to death with minimal pain and suffering for nourishment of other animals that eat meat, I am fine with that.

People think death is "bad" because they identify with their own bodies and fear the death of their physical body.

If you think killing animals in a way that minimizes the pain and suffering in the process is "bad", then we will just have to agree to disagree.

I have zero fear of death so that might make the context different for me than people that are fearful of death.

Edited September 14, 2019 by Matt8800

[CreamCat]

2 hours ago, Matt8800 said:

killing animals painlessly for food

You think lion's teeth are not painful? Which one is worse between being chewed to death or being raped? That's a tough choice, dude. Can you choose?

Being vaporized to death by a nuclear bomb within half a second might be painless.

If you want painless death, ignite a massive aerosol bomb.

Edited September 15, 2019 by CreamCat

[Cudin]

Veganism is an ego development trait. It doesn't really have to do with spiritual development, even though there is a clear relationship between both

[GreenWoods]

3 hours ago, Matt8800 said:

I have no moral issue with eating meat. I am opposed to suffering but I am not opposed to death. If the animals are put to death with minimal pain and suffering for nourishment of other animals that eat meat, I am fine with that.

People think death is "bad" because they identify with their own bodies and fear the death of their physical body.

If you think killing animals in a way that minimizes the pain and suffering in the process is "bad", then we will just have to agree to disagree.

I have zero fear of death so that might make the context different for me than people that are fearful of death.

But this can just as well be used to justify killing and eating your neighbour. Where is the difference between your neighbour and a cow? It's only a difference in degree and not in kind (right?). Animals are less conscious, so perhaps one might say that perhaps 10 cows equal 1 human?

I don't judge them but I am really curious why some enlightened people eat meat.

An argument I often hear is that it's the cycle of life (spider eats fly) and is a natural part of being human. But meat is no longer necessary for human survival. One would put one's  desire for a better taste above the lives of animals, I fail to see how this is possible if one is conscious of Oneness. 

But if even Ramana ate meat, then I'm probably overlooking something?

[Scholar]

10 hours ago, Matt8800 said:

@Scholar I think comparing raping children to killing animals painlessly for food is a false equivalency. But since morals are subjective, you are free to believe they are equal  

I have no moral issue with eating meat. I am opposed to suffering but I am not opposed to death. If the animals are put to death with minimal pain and suffering for nourishment of other animals that eat meat, I am fine with that.

People think death is "bad" because they identify with their own bodies and fear the death of their physical body.

If you think killing animals in a way that minimizes the pain and suffering in the process is "bad", then we will just have to agree to disagree.

I have zero fear of death so that might make the context different for me than people that are fearful of death.

The problem with this is that it justifies creating a human being that cannot suffer but is your slave. One day that will be possible, just change some genes, design the brain to follow your orders but not be able to suffer, and have your own slave robot.

Why would it be bad if it doesn't suffer? I could kill the human-slave whenever I want, after all they cannot suffer and they enjoy being my slaves, because that is how I made them.

 

Not valuing the experience of life, especially in the degree of cows and mammals, more than temporary sensory pleasure you get from consuming the meat will lead you down some really bad paths as far as ethics go if you want to remain consistent and be without biases. The thing is that you are not really killing the animal for food, because you have food options which do not take the experience of another being away from them, atleast to a far lesser degree. The reason you kill the animal is because you either like the taste or the convinience of it.

If you however do not think death is bad whatsoever, and you do believe suffering is bad, I think you will struggle finding arguments against the anti-natalist. For example, if we wipe out all life on earth, there will be no more suffering. If life itself has no value to you, how is it not a moral imperative to kill all beings to reduce suffering?

 

There are many other problems with the "Death is completely fine" position. Contemplate it, stop using it as an excuse in the animal context and use it universally, see where this position will get you. See if you like where that position gets you.

You could view the act of killing someone as taking away their bodily autonomy against their will, and against their best interest. If you do not view death as inherently bad, what about taking someones freedom away from them by depriving them of their existence on this plane? Sure someone can choose to do so to themselves, but how do you justify doing it to someone else when it is not necessary for your survival, and not even for your pleasure. You don't need to eat meat to feel good, you can easily do other things which will not take that liberty away from these beings.

Edited September 15, 2019 by Scholar

[Moreira]

8 hours ago, GreenWoods said:

But this can just as well be used to justify killing and eating your neighbour. Where is the difference between your neighbour and a cow? It's only a difference in degree and not in kind (right?). Animals are less conscious, so perhaps one might say that perhaps 10 cows equal 1 human?

I don't judge them but I am really curious why some enlightened people eat meat.

An argument I often hear is that it's the cycle of life (spider eats fly) and is a natural part of being human. But meat is no longer necessary for human survival. One would put one's  desire for a better taste above the lives of animals, I fail to see how this is possible if one is conscious of Oneness. 

But if even Ramana ate meat, then I'm probably overlooking something?

Enlightened people eat meat because they have realized that everything is a game. veganism is a low consciousness stage.

Why satanist illuminaty make spirit ccoking, kill babies and drink their blood? they know that all is an illusion, and as the rebel part (satan) they make fun of it.

 

Edited September 15, 2019 by Moreira

[Emerald]

All cats, big and small, are obligate carnivores. So, that probably really isn't good for the lion to go Vegan.

But human beings can. I am Vegan myself. But it's important to give the kitties what they need.

 

 

[GreenWoods]

25 minutes ago, Moreira said:

Enlightened people eat meat because they have realized that everything is a game.

"Everything is a game" also justifies slaughtering your neighbour, yet most enlightened people don't do it, but some do eat meat. So how do they discriminate?

They are aware of Oneness and feel massive love towards Creation. They embody this Love when dealing with people but not with animals. Why?

31 minutes ago, Moreira said:

 veganism is a low consciousness stage.

If you want ro call one way a low conscious stage I would bet it's not being vegan. Eating meat seems more like denial and refusal of conscious frontation and cherry picking when and how to apply wisdom like " everything is a game".

 

 

[Matt8800]

12 hours ago, CreamCat said:

You think lion's teeth are not painful? Which one is worse between being chewed to death or being raped? That's a tough choice, dude. Can you choose?

Being vaporized to death by a nuclear bomb within half a second might be painless.

If you want painless death, ignite a massive aerosol bomb.

@CreamCat Yes, while the pain wouldnt last long, Im sure it is painful. That is not how I am suggesting people kill their animals for food however.

[Matt8800]

10 hours ago, GreenWoods said:

But this can just as well be used to justify killing and eating your neighbour. Where is the difference between your neighbour and a cow? It's only a difference in degree and not in kind (right?). Animals are less conscious, so perhaps one might say that perhaps 10 cows equal 1 human?

I don't judge them but I am really curious why some enlightened people eat meat.

An argument I often hear is that it's the cycle of life (spider eats fly) and is a natural part of being human. But meat is no longer necessary for human survival. One would put one's  desire for a better taste above the lives of animals, I fail to see how this is possible if one is conscious of Oneness. 

But if even Ramana ate meat, then I'm probably overlooking something?

@GreenWoods I believe we are incarnated in complex physical beings for our eternal, spiritual evolution. Complex spirits are incarnated in more complex organisms. 

I see humans as more complex. I subjectively feel that it is the complexity that matters in this case because of the potential evolution of the spirit that inhabits the body.

[Scholar]

10 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

@GreenWoodsI see humans as more complex. I subjectively feel that it is the complexity that matters in this case because of the potential evolution of the spirit that inhabits the body.

But why does complexity matter to you? Why does that mean that the pleasure you get from consuming meat is more important than the life of a less complex being, espeically when it is not that much less complex?

[Matt8800]

4 hours ago, Scholar said:

 

You could view the act of killing someone as taking away their bodily autonomy against their will, and against their best interest. If you do not view death as inherently bad, what about taking someones freedom away from them by depriving them of their existence on this plane? Sure someone can choose to do so to themselves, but how do you justify doing it to someone else when it is not necessary for your survival, and not even for your pleasure. You don't need to eat meat to feel good, you can easily do other things which will not take that liberty away from these beings.

@Scholar I love animals so I can see your perspective more than it may appear. I even try to avoid killing insects.

I also try to stick with chicken and fish to avoid more complex animals. With that said, I have accepted that a chicken might see a few less sunsets so its body can provide nourishment. I like the Native American attitude where they show gratitude for what the animal is providing for them.

If it is a matter of just consciousness, I am an animist so I believe everything is conscious, including plants. Consciousness is on a spectrum of complexity.

The very act of living and surviving takes from the environment. It displaces animals from their homes, destroys insects, diverts water, etc, etc, etc. There is always a give and take and cannot be avoided, though we differ in opinions as to go about that giving and taking.

I dont agree that people are just as healthy without meat. There might be some people whose bodies adjust just fine but many people dont do as well. I have known people that went vegan but switched back for health reasons. If veganism was more healthy, athletes would be vegans simply so they could win more often.

In Yoga, the ascetics, who didnt eat meat, drink alcohol or have sex sat on the right of the guru. The tantrikas sat on the left of the guru. In Tantra, they might eat meat, drink alcohol, take mind altering drugs and have sex. This is how we got the terms, "right hand path" and "left hand path". I am on the Tantric left hand path.

Disagree with the behavior and actions of others if you like but aversion to the "other" is just more duality. There are different paths.

[Matt8800]

11 minutes ago, Scholar said:

But why does complexity matter to you? Why does that mean that the pleasure you get from consuming meat is more important than the life of a less complex being, espeically when it is not that much less complex?

@Scholar Values are always completely subjective. Explaining my why is not going to make more sense to someone who has different subjective values. I simply dont see it the same way.

[Matt8800]

2 hours ago, Moreira said:

Enlightened people eat meat because they have realized that everything is a game. veganism is a low consciousness stage.

Why satanist illuminaty make spirit ccoking, kill babies and drink their blood? they know that all is an illusion, and as the rebel part (satan) they make fun of it.

 

@Moreira I believe that killing and eating a chicken is different than killing and eating a baby. This is where you would probably ask questions as to why they are different and maybe present an argument on how they are similar.

Subjectively, I see that as a false equivalency. If you think they are the same thing, then we will just have to agree to disagree.