Per the title. If an animal dies out in nature without any human involvement, shouldn’t it be considered vegan to harvest any of the useful parts from it (not nessicarily meat, think hide), since there was no human-caused suffering involved?
Similarly, is driving a car not vegan because of the roadkill issue?
Especially curious to hear a perspective from any practicing moral vegans.
Also: I am not vegan. That’s why I’m asking. I’m not planning on eating roadkill thank you. Just suggesting the existence of animal-based vegan leather.
This is a great take. Buddhism is more a philosophy of a worldview than a religious worldview.
Buddhism taking on concepts of other religions, even deities, is upaya (skilful means). Its a way draw as many people as possible out of suffering as possible. I seem to remember that’s the whole idea of mahayana Buddhism: getting as many people as possible at least partway towards enlightenment is better than only a few all the way.
Mahayana also reframes the goal toward practicing compassion in the moment and other pro social concepts (no self), rather than enlightenment of the individual.
A Western Zen teacher was asked by a student why the Bodhisattva vows are unattainable. Suffering is endless, living beings are innumerable. But we vow to end all suffering and lead all beings to enlightenment.
The Zen teacher replied, essentially, they’re silly because being helpful is the goal.
Mayahana also helped a lot with reification that snuck in during the five hundred years after the Buddha’s death. The abhidharma for example reduces the mental factors into individual components or atoms and treats them as though they have an essence or self.
Indian Buddhist philosophers such as Nagarjuna, pointed out that even these are interdependent. Jewels in Indra’s net.
For context, I’ve been studying and practicing off and on for around a decade. Took my precepts in the Plum Village Zen tradition under Thich Nhat Hanh’s lineage, and also study and practice under the guidance of a Theravada monk and scholor named Bhikkhu Analayo.
All concepts are upaya. Some are more skillful than others, such as the Dharma taught by the Buddha. But they’re signs on a map, rather than a dogma to hold onto.
Of course, individual teachers and practitioners are human, and they may see things differently than I do. But ultimately I view Buddhism as a critique of concepts, that points at the interdependent (empty) and impermanent nature of things. And most world religions seem to lean much more heavily on dogma.
But again individual practitioners in other religions may be more enlightened. I know Thich Naht Hanh was friends with a lot of Christians and studied theology in the West as a young man. Some of his closest friends included monastics like Thomas Merton. And some activists such as Daniel Berrigan and Dr King. Hanh believed that the heart of Christ and the heart of the Buddha were pointing at the same ultimate ground.
And I could also argue that Jesus was quite critical of Judaism. Though his followers have largely used him for personal and political gain in the 2000 years since his death.
Linked below is a Dharma talk were a Plum Village nun discusses the appropriation of spirituality for the sake of control of the masses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm7NL8mOsEs
Anyway, I’ve read a lot and I’ve studied a lot. I find wisdom in both Theravada and Mahayana. Though I do find the Tibetan tradition problematic, and don’t generally spend much time with their teachings anymore. Though I am drawn to the esoteric teachings and have cribbed quite a bit from the book of the dead, I find Plum Village speaks more to my heart. And without that, the dharma is hard to hear.
I also like systems science by the way. Very similar critique of reification. Or ‘selfing’.