Is meat eating immoral? Is plant eating sinful?

[Brian Schuh]

Okay, I don't mean to be rude, but fruitarianism is kind of dangerous. You should not have started with that.

Oh no, you aren't being rude. Everyone needs to understand that one should consult a professional before starting any "extreme" diet.

 

[Lyndon]

While going vegan might be considered an extreme diet, being a vegetarian requires no more professional help than being a healthy meat eater, just common sense, making sure you are getting protein from other sources than meat, and vitamin B12, although B12 is easily available in dairy products without the need for a vitamin substitute.

A meat eating diet is much more dependent on plants than a vegetarian diet because it takes many pounds of plants to feed the animal its whole life to produce 1 pound of meat.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Yes, meat eating is immoral, and plant eating is sinful, so the logical conclusion is to starve to death. Thank God I'm a sinner! Just joking.

Many plants offer us fruit, in exchange we are to plant the seeds. That was the basis of my fruitarianism when I practiced that. Anything that has seeds is a fruit, tomatoes, cucumbers, squash etc. For some reason grains and bread should always be included in your diet. I included some animal products like dairy, eggs and honey. Some fruitarians also drink yeast for extra protein. That is about as strict as I ever got. But I could not maintain my weight. So professionals advised me to give it up. I don't know if I'll ever get back to it. I'm open to it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No. I don't believe in "sin" or the concept of "adharma". I accept Nature as She is.

 

[Acim]

Vegetarian diet is extremely advocated in Dharmic faiths.
In Hinduism, it's a diverse set of idea though many Hindus prefer a strict lacto-vegetarian diet.
Other philosophies such as Jainism and Buddhism too supports it strongly.

But which one is Adharma? Which should be acceptable?

My thought is that eating meat isn't all that bad, in scheme of things. A couple decades ago when I was first contemplating on this, I went with logic of plants have feelings too, and are alive and are clearly raised to be slaughtered strictly for our benefit. I played with that argument for a number of years whenever some high and mighty vegetarian type wished to be all up in my business about my decision to enjoy a good meaty dinner. It still makes a some sense to me.

It's very rare in the last decade or so that I come across anyone that claims righteousness on this whole topic. I consider that a great thing and like that we all have decided it's a personal choice and so acceptable comes down to individual consciousness.

The more I contemplated on it over the years, the more the ideas of this (physical) world being an illusion grew on me, and that it really doesn't matter what my individual consciousness may think is morally right on this topic. I don't fully accept this and will provide counter arguments to my own self to further contemplate, but do think the illusion of the physical existence trumps whatever amounts to righteousness on this (and other) topics.

I do think ideally, a living being is without lack. How that looks in an ideal, perfect order, I'm not 100% sure. But it does seem possible to me to exist as a living being and not have to rely on food for sustaining life. Being told by others (i.e. a doctor) or my own self (via ignorance) that I am (only) a physical being and that to sustain (my) life I must eat, is really just reinforcing conviction in the fundamental belief (or even error) of my identity as a living being. Justifying that I am in a state of lack and need something outside of me to live.

That we have to eat at all, is to me cutting to the chase of this argument.
And that I still desire to be a physical being enjoying a life on this plane of existence means, for me, that given my understanding of physical world as illusion, I'm caught up in minutiae if I really am pausing to reflect on what I'm ingesting and second guessing myself as immoral based solely on what I eat. That some things are inherently good and others inherently bad. With that logic at work, I'm prone to argue its all inherently bad. But given my deeper understandings around forgiveness, then whatever I (or anyone else) choose(s) to eat, it's all good. It's all natural (to this physical existence). And it's all so ultimately trivial in the scheme of things that I may as well find what I most enjoy eating and have fun with the illusion while I still have desire to experience it.

 

[Acim]

I do remember when I was very young, watching Barney Miller, being introduced to the concept of Breatharian (the belief that it is possible for a person to live without consuming food). It's obviously stuck with me to this day, but not enough for me to ever try it. Though enough for me to be curious about it and to treat it like an ideal. A little surprised Wikipedia has a page for it, but not so surprised to learn that its adherents haven't fared so well with it.