VeggieBoards - Reply to Topic
Thread: Dalai Lama is not a vegetarian. Any thoughts? Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
11-09-2009 01:13 AM
oh, amy!_ Buddhism does not force you to be a vegetarian.

So, I don't think it's a big deal.
11-08-2009 07:33 PM
soilman
Quote:
If he does not, then he should abandon the traditional claim of himself being the incarnation of Avalokitesvara, the Boddhisattva of Compassion.



Actually, in interviews, he doubts the truth of this claim, and considers that it may be more a cultural fiction than a fact, considers the possibility of there not being a "next incarnation" after he dies, and implies that he mostly is hanging on to it for the fact that it has cultural value, and can serve as a rallying point for Tibetans, as well as because it is good theatre for the press, and therefore helpful in regard to his primary goal: which is to improve the political situation and well-being and self-determination of Tibetans.



In some ways he is a kind of cool guy, by not taking all the religous mumbo jumbo too seriously, noting that he lucked into the situation - others cast him into the role of Dalai Lama. He is hanging on to it, he says, primarily for the practical value he thinks it can have, in improving the situation for Tibetans.
11-08-2009 02:26 PM
jai Kinda sad if u can't follow the rule book u stand for, show me a man of principles and I will show you Jesus,Allah,Shakti,Buddha working thru them!
10-30-2009 06:02 PM
GhostUser
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunestrider View Post

I don't think that it is important that a prior Dalai Lama was a vegetarian or not.



Here is the gist of my argument:



1) If you are high in the Himalayas, as Tibet is, and especially in the nineteenth century and before, where and when it is next to impossible to have a vegetarian diet, that is one thing. In other words, meat-eating is OK, under those times and circumstances.



2) But to travel to other places (for example, Milwaukee, in May of 2007, (as mentioned in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel newspaper) as the current Dalai Lama did, where vegetarian foods are in abundance, is absolutely not acceptable. Especially if he endorse the eating of veal.



3) And, of all meats to eat, to choose veal, where a calf is tormented to provide a so-called "delicious meat", is thoroughly outrageous.



4) The Dalai Lama's own website says that "the Dalai Lama is not necessarily a vegetarian, at least not outside Dharamsala", which implies that he is a vegetarian while residing at Dharamsala. Dharamsala can certainly be considered in the high foothills of the Himalayas. If he can be a vegetarian there, in that remote region, why not in the temperate USA, in springtime?



I agree with you that most religious leaders are hypocritical; they say one thing, but do the opposite.



But the Dalai Lama is the darling of Hollywood and the cause celebre of Generation X. His influence is considerable.



All I wish is that he would practice what he preaches. If he does not, then he should abandon the traditional claim of himself being the incarnation of Avalokitesvara, the Boddhisattva of Compassion.



If even I have the fortitude to give up meat-eating, I would certainly hope that he could, too. Or, at least, eschew veal.



Well said!
10-29-2009 12:03 PM
Dunestrider I don't think that it is important that a prior Dalai Lama was a vegetarian or not.



Here is the gist of my argument:



1) If you are high in the Himalayas, as Tibet is, and especially in the nineteenth century and before, where and when it is next to impossible to have a vegetarian diet, that is one thing. In other words, meat-eating is OK, under those times and circumstances.



2) But to travel to other places (for example, Milwaukee, in May of 2007, (as mentioned in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel newspaper) as the current Dalai Lama did, where vegetarian foods are in abundance, is absolutely not acceptable. Especially if he endorse the eating of veal.



3) And, of all meats to eat, to choose veal, where a calf is tormented to provide a so-called "delicious meat", is thoroughly outrageous.



4) The Dalai Lama's own website says that "the Dalai Lama is not necessarily a vegetarian, at least not outside Dharamsala", which implies that he is a vegetarian while residing at Dharamsala. Dharamsala can certainly be considered in the high foothills of the Himalayas. If he can be a vegetarian there, in that remote region, why not in the temperate USA, in springtime?



I agree with you that most religious leaders are hypocritical; they say one thing, but do the opposite.



But the Dalai Lama is the darling of Hollywood and the cause celebre of Generation X. His influence is considerable.



All I wish is that he would practice what he preaches. If he does not, then he should abandon the traditional claim of himself being the incarnation of Avalokitesvara, the Boddhisattva of Compassion.



If even I have the fortitude to give up meat-eating, I would certainly hope that he could, too. Or, at least, eschew veal.
10-25-2009 01:15 PM
nomad888 No comment really, religious leaders are no different than politicians so I don't really care what the Dalai Lama does one way or another. He's just an other guy.



Out of curiosity, however, does anyone know if any past Dalai Lamas have been strictly vegetarian? I am aware of the stance of Buddhism in general, but with a quick internet search I couldn't find anything stating that even a single past Dalai Lama had been vegetarian.
10-22-2009 08:57 PM
penny79
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlp View Post

Well, don't you know that unless you provide a disclaimer about your concern for humans every time you express concern for animals, it is clear that you have absolutely no compassion for humans?



EXAMPLE:



I hate the fact that people abandon their animals to die miserable deaths by starvation, disease and/or predators.







This and Sevenseas' Tom Cruise post have me laughing tonight. Thanks.
10-22-2009 08:56 PM
mlp
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

You might want to actually look at what this thread is about, and if you must, start your own thread about the plight of the Tibetans. But it sounds like you're content to ignore the murders of billions of animals for food, as you call it a "relatively trivial" issue. I think any adult who eats veal who knows what it's about has a deep problem with compassion, especially the Dalai Lama, who should know better.





Well, don't you know that unless you provide a disclaimer about your concern for humans every time you express concern for animals, it is clear that you have absolutely no compassion for humans?



EXAMPLE:



I hate the fact that people abandon their animals to die miserable deaths by starvation, disease and/or predators.



^^^ Unacceptable. Obviously, the person who wrote this has no concern or compassion for human beings.



Although I hate the fact that people abandon their animals to die miserable deaths by starvation, disease and/or predators, this issue obviously pales in comparison to the plight of starving children all over the world.



^^^ Just barely acceptable.



Although people abandon their animals to die by starvation, disease and/or predators, at least that's part of the natural cycle of life and death, so why would anyone worry about that when there are children starving all over the world?



^^^ Acceptable.
10-22-2009 08:34 PM
GhostUser ^ Agreed. If you are a religious figure than you best damn practice what you preach.
10-22-2009 05:06 PM
Irizary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe View Post

Tough nuggies. You seem content to ignore the murders and persecutions of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Tibetans.



You might want to actually look at what this thread is about, and if you must, start your own thread about the plight of the Tibetans. But it sounds like you're content to ignore the murders of billions of animals for food, as you call it a "relatively trivial" issue. I think any adult who eats veal who knows what it's about has a deep problem with compassion, especially the Dalai Lama, who should know better.
10-21-2009 09:27 PM
jAded
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pixelle View Post

I think it's a little ridiculous that here is a guy who supposedly represents non-materialistic Buddhist values, and yet he's getting around the world in first class travel and accommodation, and eating food made by top class chefs on what is basically the celeb circuit for a large part of his time. It's pretty strange. Having said that though, he still makes a lot of sense when you hear him speak - not that I'm into it at all.



Like the Pope. Isn't he meant to take a vow of poverty? Or is that just the lowly nuns?
10-21-2009 08:57 PM
amaroque
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

I think llamas are cooler than lamas. People should consider more llamas as spiritual leaders, instead of some lamas.



Then alpacas would be like...monks?
10-21-2009 07:12 PM
Her Jazz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pixelle View Post

Well, as I already said the FIRST time you said it (LOL) I wasn't saying you should go around TELLING other people how to live, but when you are amongst other vegans, you could at least make it sound like you're not defending the eating of animals by omni-Buddhists.













Yeh, that IS some spin IMO. And judging his Buddhisimity is possible because I already have - Oh the shame, I'm so bad! He and a whole heap of other Buddhists are disrespecting one of the big precepts and I think it would make a lot more sense if people stopped finding ways to justify him doing that and just admit that's what goes on.



* I'm of the opinion that Buddhism IS a religion despite protests that it isn't by those who practice it. It happens to have a doctrine that is followed, it has deities to worship, there's religious symbolism, prayers etc and temples - that's enough evidence for me that it's a religion - a bit less confining than some maybe, but a religion nonetheless.

Well, on a personal level I am not impressed by the Dalai Lama and if my opinion were asked, I would strongly disapprove of his meat eating...but it would have nothing to do with the religious aspect. Instead, I would look at him as someone who should especially know better. The old texts tell us that animals have souls as we do and should not be killed. You don't have to be a Buddhist to take that teaching to heart.



Still, "Buddhism" as well as some select other "religions" are not so black and white. Certainly the protocol for who or what is worshiped or adored is cultural and varies from place to place. Likewise with what is considered to be moral or immoral. But Buddhism at it's heart is an extension of very ancient philosophy (Buddha being only a facet)...which later broke apart into different groups and has changed with the times. It's convenient to label them all as one group but it's not that easy.



Calling it all a religion to me is confining it to a simplified little corner (and I'm not even a Buddhist).

IMHO however, if you are a vegetarian (for ethical reasons) then you have automatically hit a higher spiritual level than your average person. Religious or otherwise. Labels suck.
10-21-2009 02:37 PM
Kellye
Quote:
As far as I can see, he is not a Buddhist and should not be holding the post. Bhudism does not allow any violence against animals.



Lots of Buddhists eat meat. The fact that they eat meat doesn't change their religious beliefs.



"Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you." - Jivaka Sutta, MN 55.



Straight from the mouth of the man himself.





That being said, I don't think Buddhists should eat meat because I think it conflicts with the First Precept. It's kind of like declaring a holy war when the First Commandment is: Thou shalt not kill. And as far as that goes, Christians shouldn't eat meat either, even though meat-eating is included in their scriptures.



Don't make no sense.
10-21-2009 02:34 PM
jdhillon As far as I can see, he is not a Buddhist and should not be holding the post. Buddhism does not allow any violence against animals.
10-21-2009 10:44 AM
CKR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiz View Post

No one is expecting perfection of him. Just that he at least try not to be a meat-eating, Rolex-wearing, celebrity-snuggling holy man of compassion leading a simple, jet-setting life.



I agree with this. The meat eating (or more so his lame excuse for eating the meat) is only one part of why this guy is a hypocrite.
10-21-2009 10:40 AM
Nishani
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefragile77 View Post

As a veg*n it upsets me that other people eat meat that is true.

However it is not my place to tell other people how to live.





Well, as I already said the FIRST time you said it (LOL) I wasn't saying you should go around TELLING other people how to live, but when you are amongst other vegans, you could at least make it sound like you're not defending the eating of animals by omni-Buddhists.







Quote:
Originally Posted by Her Jazz View Post

I know this wasn't addressed to me...but seeing as I follow a somewhat similar path to thefragile77 I'd like to kind of put my own spin on this.



Buddhism (and similarly Hinduism and other like paths) particularly supports a vegetarian/vegan way of life. (in fact, in a general sense to make any real progress you MUST follow a vegetarian diet)

However, unfortunately, a lot of it's followers do not try to adhere to the path of Ahimsa (non-violence). Especially in modern day, a lot of followers find the idea of a vegetarian diet to be old fashioned and next to impossible. ("It's too hard" is the excuse I've heard from a few)

It could be (IMO) that the Dalai Lama is trying to be trendy or modern by being a non-veg.



This type of spiritual path though is extremely open. Because in a weird way it isn't really a religion. You can follow it 100% and be a true person of the path, but there are many people who don't follow 100% and would still be considered in the same group. The reason for this is that everyone is seen as being at different levels of the same over all path (generally regardless of religion etc.). Therefore judging others is frowned upon as you might actually discourage them from improvement. Instead, teaching by example is encouraged and anything more aggressive is seen as something akin to trying to convert.

So, judging the Dalai Lama's Buddhist-ness (I think I just invented something)is not really possible. It would be more accurate to gauge his actual level of spirituality in general.





Yeh, that IS some spin IMO. And judging his Buddhisimity is possible because I already have - Oh the shame, I'm so bad! He and a whole heap of other Buddhists are disrespecting one of the big precepts and I think it would make a lot more sense if people stopped finding ways to justify him doing that and just admit that's what goes on.



* I'm of the opinion that Buddhism IS a religion despite protests that it isn't by those who practice it. It happens to have a doctrine that is followed, it has deities to worship, there's religious symbolism, prayers etc and temples - that's enough evidence for me that it's a religion - a bit less confining than some maybe, but a religion nonetheless.
10-21-2009 10:30 AM
Kellye
Quote:
The Dalai Lama is only held out to be such a wonderful spiritual leader of peace or some such nonsense because its useful to American foreign policy, not because he's actually done anything.



How is this useful for American foreign policy? The U.S. hasn't done a damned thing to stand up for the Tibetan people since they were taken over by the Chinese. It's not like we're using the coup as an excuse to go to war with China or anything.
10-21-2009 10:22 AM
suchgreatheight Just because you wear monks robes doesn't mean you're a saint. The Lamas ruled Tibet as a brutal theocratic feudal state where most of the population were slaves before they were overthrown. The Dalai Lama is only held out to be such a wonderful spiritual leader of peace or some such nonsense because its useful to American foreign policy, not because he's actually done anything. The Lamas only became 'peaceful' once they lost their army.
10-21-2009 09:51 AM
GhostUser When I say something about animal cruelty to friends and family I only do so rarely. Otherwise I'll be seen as the person not to invite out anymore. Then I'd have no friends. I do however rarely make my point so that it is at least somewhat engraved into their heads.



With my husband however. He's the poor omni who hears my wrath :] but hes stuck with me.
10-21-2009 09:11 AM
adam antichrist
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post


Ultimately, all this talk about "it's not my right to comment on someone else's life choices" etc. comes down to the anthropocentric and hierarchical idea that "they're just animals".





Personally I love it when members of religion come knocking on my door telling me that I'm going to hell for my sinful ways. I also enjoy it when white supremacists cheerfully inform me that I am a race traitor for belonging to a message board which is open to various ethnicities.



yes, I think the world is a better place for all the people who are convinced their morals are the only way to provide us with integrity. But sadly, not everyone agrees with me. Some people would rather have their opinions respected, since it is their choice to be ****wits!



I like to argue with these sorts of people until I'm blue in the face, in the vain hope that it may convince them to adopt my viewpoint.
10-21-2009 06:59 AM
Sevenseas
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefragile77 View Post


As a veg*n it upsets me that other people eat meat that is true.

However it is not my place to tell other people how to live.

So if you saw someone abusing their pets or their kids, you wouldn't feel you have the right to comment and tell them how to live? You would merely try to lead by example, and hope that you not kicking dogs or beating kids with a belt would help those others to make changes?



If that is the case, then you are consistent but also highly irresponsible and an enabler of abuse. On the other hand, if that is not the case, and you would feel the need to comment or interfere in some way in that kind of abuse, then you would have the appropriate response to violence, but you would be oh-so-selective in picking and choosing which kinds of values and ways of life deserve your objection and which do not.



That the exploitation of animals is distanced from the acts of the consumer does not make it any less any less violent and hurtful towards animals who get their throats cut or cannot turn around, and it does not make it any less deserving of objection than any other violence. To disguise moral cowardice and political passivity as "tolerance" would be a dishonesty, and any religious beliefs which have that as a consequence seem highly suspect to me.



Quote:
I also defend anyone's right to have their own ethics which may or may not include eating meat.

What if someone's ethics include the idea that it's okay to take a belt and beat their kids into submission? I guess you would not "equate" that with meat-eating. Hell, I wouldn't either -- I'd rather be beaten with a belt than live my whole life in intense confinement and then be slaughtered -- but that does nothing to prevent me from having a strong objection to both practices.



Ultimately, all this talk about "it's not my right to comment on someone else's life choices" etc. comes down to the anthropocentric and hierarchical idea that "they're just animals".



I'll add that it would be a false dilemma to assume only two choices: 1) being completely passive about meat-eating 2) screaming "murderer!" to meat-eaters' faces. You can object to animal cruelty and express your moral values in various constructive and productive ways.
10-21-2009 05:48 AM
Andromache I thought one of the precepts of Buddhism was not to harm a sentient being. Animals are considered sentient in Eastern philosophy. Is it ok as long as it's not him that does the harming? Doesn't seem very Buddhist to me.
10-20-2009 11:55 PM
thefragile77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pixelle View Post

Fragile, I needed to know if you were an ethical vegan before proceeding with the next question I had, because if you weren't, the question would be irrelevant.











This is purely a discussion on a vegetarian board, how are we "getting in others faces" by talking amongst ourselves about how we, as individual veg*ns, feel about this issue of the DL eating meat? IMO, how you answer it comes down to YOUR ethics not those of other people who eat meat.









You don't have much alternative other than taking the medicine to stop your visual deficit progressing, but people DO have an alternative to eating animals, so the comparison of those two dilemmas doesn't really hold up in an argument. I agree, it's not right to force people into taking up your vegan lifestyle as you said, but you're not even showing any disapproval of them eating animals on an intellectual level even. You actually seem to be defending their animal eating because of your religious beliefs. Do you think that Buddhism has perhaps deprived you of your objectivity and consistency in this particular ethical argument?



This is my last word on the subject because it is tiring and you do not seem to understand what I am trying to get across to you.

As a veg*n it upsets me that other people eat meat that is true.

However it is not my place to tell other people how to live. My OWN ethics - prevent me from telling my family and friends that their meat eating is horrific to me. MY ethics mean that I lead by example. Practising non-violence does not just mean not slapping them into sense. I try to practise non-violent attitudes and non-confrontational behaviours also - obviously I'm not perfect.



I also defend anyone's right to have their own ethics which may or may not include eating meat. I don't agree with it but its their right not mine or yours to stop them. I have been known to protest things like the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan however I do not equate the murder of civilians with meat eating. Again this is my ethical stance not yours.

As for your last comment I think your issue is with religion and philosophies such as Buddhism and not with anything I'm saying - after all who are you to question my ethics? I don't question yours as they are not mine to take issue with.



I am more objective now than I have ever been and more consistent in my veg*nism and ethics. I do not compare myselves to others - this is perhaps what is confusing to you. What you believe about my approach [to ethics or veg*nsim] makes no difference to my ethics, life or existence.





10-20-2009 07:44 PM
Her Jazz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pixelle View Post






You don't have much alternative other than taking the medicine to stop your visual deficit progressing, but people DO have an alternative to eating animals, so the comparison of those two dilemmas doesn't really hold up in an argument. I agree, it's not right to force people into taking up your vegan lifestyle as you said, but you're not even showing any disapproval of them eating animals on an intellectual level even. You actually seem to be defending their animal eating because of your religious beliefs. Do you think that Buddhism has perhaps deprived you of your objectivity and consistency in this particular ethical argument?



I know this wasn't addressed to me...but seeing as I follow a somewhat similar path to thefragile77 I'd like to kind of put my own spin on this.



Buddhism (and similarly Hinduism and other like paths) particularly supports a vegetarian/vegan way of life. (in fact, in a general sense to make any real progress you MUST follow a vegetarian diet)

However, unfortunately, a lot of it's followers do not try to adhere to the path of Ahimsa (non-violence). Especially in modern day, a lot of followers find the idea of a vegetarian diet to be old fashioned and next to impossible. ("It's too hard" is the excuse I've heard from a few)

It could be (IMO) that the Dalai Lama is trying to be trendy or modern by being a non-veg.



This type of spiritual path though is extremely open. Because in a weird way it isn't really a religion. You can follow it 100% and be a true person of the path, but there are many people who don't follow 100% and would still be considered in the same group. The reason for this is that everyone is seen as being at different levels of the same over all path (generally regardless of religion etc.). Therefore judging others is frowned upon as you might actually discourage them from improvement. Instead, teaching by example is encouraged and anything more aggressive is seen as something akin to trying to convert.

So, judging the Dalai Lama's Buddhist-ness (I think I just invented something)is not really possible. It would be more accurate to gauge his actual level of spirituality in general.
10-20-2009 07:34 PM
Fyvel Mod Post



Please keep the personal attacks out of it. The attacks have been deleted, as well as some responses to them. If you see a personal attack refrain from responding and just report it and let the mods deal with it. Use your judgment, if you think something you are saying is a personal attack, it probably is, and is probably best left unsaid.
10-20-2009 07:14 PM
_sharon To each his own.



Meh, what others are doing are not really something I am too concerned about. It's mainly what I am doing. Me, me, me! Haha, self-centered much?
10-20-2009 06:57 PM
GhostUser
Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenseas View Post

may i remind you of the definition of 'vegetarian'. The ivu definition of 'vegetarian' is perfectly compatible with refuting statements or presuppositions made by no one in a thread.



10-20-2009 06:55 PM
Sevenseas
Quote:
Originally Posted by VegEnigma View Post


Also see this thread. The OP asks if forum members would date a hunter, so good ole Joe comes by and quotes the definition of the word vegetarian, then claims that others are ignoring the definition of the word by stating they would not date a hunter. (No one was even claiming it might be inconsistent to be a vegetarian and date a hunter, BTW. And we all know the definition of the word doesn't even mention dating preferences.)

May I remind you of the definition of 'vegetarian'. The IVU definition of 'vegetarian' is perfectly compatible with refuting statements or presuppositions that no one has made.
10-20-2009 06:51 PM
GhostUser
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Peach View Post

How come I never get away with saying things like that?



I probably won't.
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off