I am not contesting his argument here, but his interaction… I do not, with he…
The reason for abstinence of certain foods, could have stemmed from an intolerance or from a simple distaste for it, and then become embedded in the religion… over time.
I found this: “Lay Buddhists do eat onions and garlic, but anything from the Allium family (onions, garlic, leeks, spring onions, etc.) are avoided by monks and Lamas because they hinder meditation by causing intestinal gas” I cannot tolerate alliums anymore… nor solanums, or grains, or legumes, or pulses, or cruciferi, or dairy, or all additives/preservatives but I do eat garlic most days, and the odd bit of gf grain or pulse… but only very rarely.
…and this: “Yes, Buddhists take alcohol. Buddhism especially the Mahayana sect does not abhor alcohol but intoxication. And, intoxication results from drinking more than required by your body. … There are instances of prominent Buddhists that reasonably drank alcohol, which is without the aim of getting intoxicated.” I think it good for the soul, to get merry at times, but not too overly so.
Where the part about morality enters into it is when, say, someone deliberately introduces fermented foods or drink into the diet of someone allergic to them. Why? Because they loathe this person and from their own frame of mind it is justified.
…or when others insist that you should consume that which you cannot, simply because it’s nutritionally good… I call that stupidity, and I find that an immoral suggestion, on the grounds of negligence.
…an example: ”…eggplants are a part of the nightshade family, a group of vegetables that include peppers, potatoes, tobacco, tomatoes, and tomatillos. Although these vegetables have been consumed over hundreds of years, they are associated with certain health problems due to their solanine content.” It is stupid to consume anything that one is intolerant to, but yet many still do, and happily suffer the gastrointestinal-consequences of their foolish gastronomic actions.
Think about it like this. Suppose someone who loathes Trump figured out a way to infect him with the coronavirus. He rationalized it such that he viewed it as an act of morality. How? By convincing himself that this man’s reckless policies have in fact caused the deaths of thousands upon thousands of others throughout the still unfolding covid-19 pandemic. He might even see it as karma. Trump infected with the very disease that he allowed to spread like wildfire from coast to coast.
Then, with most religions, the part where violating dietary taboos is judged by God. Or, with Buddhism, the equivalent of that re “the universe”.
Taking the law into your own hands, is obviously unlawful, and what about those that chose to not self-isolate from the very beginning or not self-quarantine after travelling… where is their punishment, for spreading the virus further and wider?
It seems that Buddhist dietary requirements arose from need and necessity, rather than gimmick, and so became an indoctrinated dogma over time.
All such fads derive from a need, not an ideology, but become an ideology over time… an ideal standard for that group of people over there, but not necessary for that group of people over there. Different habitual strokes, for different cultural-religio folks.