Should Buddhists be vegetarians? -

Should Buddhists be vegetarians?

By Dr. D. P. Atukorale

All Buddhists are expected to observe the five precepts. Out of these, when we observe the first precept, we promise not to take the life of any living being and not to harm any such being. It is guise clear that we cannot consume flesh without someone else killing the animals for us. If we do not consumer meat or meat products, there will be no killing of animals. The first precept is an injunction against destroying life and hurting others.

The Buddha also tells us not to hurt others according to the first precept. According to passage number 131 of Dhammapada. "He who, for the sake of happiness hurts others who also want happiness, shall not hereafter find happiness". Therefore according to Buddhism not killing and not hurting living beings are very important.

Passage no 225 of Dhammapada says "The wise who hurt no living beings and who keep their bodies under self-control, may go to immortal "Nirvana" where once gone they sorrow no more".

Again Dhammapada passage no. 405 says " A man is not a great man because he is a warrior and kills others, but because he hurts not any living beings, he in truth is called a great man".

Dhammapada passages 129 and 130 say "All beings fear before danger, life is dear to all. When a man considers this, he does not kill or cause to kill".

According to Buddhism all animals such as fish, mammals and birds are sentient creatures and should not be killed or hurt. According to Buddhism, Buddhists should not be hunters, fishermen, trappers, slaughterhouse workers, vivisectors etc.

What About Eating Meat?

Some people argue that, as long as people don't kill animals themselves, it is all right to eat meat. But passages nos 129 and 130 of Dhammapada specify that we should not kill or cause to kill. When somebody buys meat and meat products he or she must necessarily cause someone to kill these animals.

By accepting meat served to us by someone else, we are causing others to kill. Dhammapada passage no. 7 says " He who lives only for pleasures and whose soul is not in harmony, who considers not the food he eats, is idle and has not the power of virtue, such a man is moved by "Mara", is moved by selfish temptation even as a weak tree is shaken by the wind".

Why Should Buddhists Be Vegetarians?

The main reason is mercy. Mcrcy is an important way of learning to be a better person. Being without mercy is incompatible with being a Buddhist. Having a merciful and a compassionate heart will show up in all aspects of ones life. Think of the intense pain you would get when a bee or a wasp or a centipede attacks you. A person who has ever seen how a crab is cooked in boiling water and its desperate and doomed efforts to crawl and jump out betray the unbearable pain it experiences, will never eat crabs. Finally the crab gives up the life in sorrow as it turns bright red. What a painful end.

A person who has ever seen the excruciating pain suffered by a cow when the slaughterer cuts a part of the neck, bleeds the animal and skins the animal long before it dies will never have the heart to eat beef. Not eating the flesh of these animals is an expression of mercy.

For meat-eaters, every banquet, every wedding and every birthday party and every wedding anniversary means death of thousands of animals.

Preventing the suffering of living creatures by not using their flesh to satisfy our taste buds and hunger is the minimum expression of compassion we as Buddhists can offer.

To shoot, knife, strangle, drown crush, poison, bum or electo or otherwise intentionally to take life of a living being, purposefully to cause pain on a human being or an animal is to defile the first precept. Another way to defile the first precept is to cause another to kill, torture or harm any living creature. Therefore to put flesh of an animal into one's belly is another way to cause another to kill.

If fowls, cows and fish are not eaten, they would not be killed. Therefore meat eaters are responsible for the violence and destruction of animals.

Buddhism also teaches us that there is not a single being that has not been our father, our mother, husband, wife, sister, brother, son or daughter, in the ladder of cause and effect through countless rebirths. In other words the creature that is the cow today might have been our mother during the last birth. The chicken you are going to eat for your dinner to night might have been your brother or sister during your last birth. Therefore rights of nonhumans should not be ignored or trampled upon. How can a monk seeking liberation from suffering, persistently eat the flesh of animals, knowing the excruciating pain and terror caused to them at the time of their slaughter?

Did The Buddha Sanction Meat Eating?

The laymen and Buddhist monks who eat meat quote the Jeewaka sutra in which the Buddha is said to have been addressed by one Jeewaka. Buddha is quoted as saying.

"I forbid the eating of meat in 3 cases. If there is evidence either of your eyes, or of your ears or if there are grounds of suspicion. In three cases, I allow it, if there is no evidence of your eyes or of your ears and if there is no ground of suspicion".

Are not domestic animals such as cows, goats, pigs and hens slaughtered for those who eat their flesh? If no one eats their flesh, obviously they would not be killed.

Can anyone imagine a monk saying to his "dayakaya" who had offered him meat, "Sir, it is kind of you to donate this meat to me. But as I have reason to believe that the animal from which it came was killed just for me, I cannot accept it."

Jeewaka sutra also implies that the Budda approved of butchering and the horrors of the slaughter house. Yet slaughtering is one of the trades forbidden to the Buddhists and with good reason. To say that on the one hand that the Buddha condemned the blood trades of slaughtering hunting? fishing and trapping and on the other hand allowed Buddhists and Buddhist monks to eat flesh of slaughtered animals when the animals have not been killed specifically for them is an absured contradition.

Who else but the meat eaters are responsible for the blood trades of butchering, hunting and fishing? After all the slaughterers and the meat packing houses that sustain them are only responding to the demands of the flesh eaters.

"I am only doing your dirty work" was the reply of a slaughterer to a gentleman who was objecting to the brutality of slaughtering harmless dumb animals.

Every individual who eats flesh whether the animal is expressly killed for him or not, is supporting the trade of slaughtering and contributing to the violent death of harmless dumb animals.

Was the Buddha so obtuse that, He failed to understand this, He who has been described as the "Perfect one", in whom, all mental, spiritual and psychic faculties have come to perfection and whose consciousness encompasses the infinity of the Universe?

Was the Buddha so imperceptive as not to see that only by abstaining from flesh eating can one effectively end both killing of defenceless and dumb animals and the infliction of terror and suffering upon them.

The Budda, we are told forbade his monks to eat flesh of such animals as dogs, elephants, bears and lions. Why should the Buddha sanction the eating of one kind of flesh and condemn another? Does a pig or a cow whose meat is supposed to be approved for eating, suffer any less pain, when it is slaughtered than a dog or a bear?

All Buddhists who are familiar with numerous accounts of the Buddha's extra-ordinary compassion and reverence for living beings, for example, his insistence that, his monks carry filters to strain water they drink, lest the death of micro organisms in the water could occur, could never believe that he would be indifferent to the suffering and death of domestic animals caused by their slaughter for food.

As all Buddhists are aware, monks have a separate code of conduct called the "Vinaya". Surely the Buddha could have demanded of his monks what he could not have demanded of his lay followers.

Monks by virtue of their training and their strength of character, are different from the lay people and are better able to resist the pleasures of senses to which ordinary people succumb. That is why, they renounce sexual pleasure and also not eat solids beyond 12 noon. Why is taking solids after 12 noon a more serious offence than eating animal flesh? Did the Buddha really say the things the compilers of the Pali Sutras would have us believe, he said on the subject of meat eating?

Mahayana Version of Meat Eating

Let us now consider the Sanskrit version as regards meat eating. I quote from "Lankavatara" sutra which devotes one whole chapter on the evils of meat eating.

"For the sake of love, of purity' the Bodhisatva should refrain from eating flesh which is born of semen, blood etc. For the fear of causing terror of living beings let the Bodisatva who is disciplining himself to attain compassion refrain from eating flesh".

"It is not true that meat is proper food and permissible when the animal was not killed by himself, when he did not order others to kill, and when it is not specially meant for him".

"Again there may be people in the future who being under the influence of taste for meat, will string together in various ways sophistic arguments to defend meat eating".

But meat eating in any form, in any manner, and in any place is unconditionally and once and for all, is prohibited. I will not permit".

Surangama Sutra says "The reason for practising "dhyana" and seeking to attain "Samadhi" is to escape from suffering of life. But in seeking to escape from suffering ourselves, why should we inflict it upon others. Unless you can control your minds, that even the thought of brutal unkindness and killing is abhorrent you will never be able to escape from bondage of world's life".

"After my parinirvana in the last kalpa, different kinds of ghosts will be encountered everywhere, deceiving people, and teaching that they can eat meat and still attain enlightenment. How can a bhikku who hopes to become a deliverer of others himself, be living on the flesh of other sentient beings?"

The "Mahaparinirvana" Sutra (Sanskrit version) states "The eating of meat extinguishes the seeds of compassion".

Even before the Buddha's time various religions in India condemned flesh eating as not conducive to spiritual progress. If elder bhikkus of Mahayana were satisfied with Theravada version of flesh eating, they would have remained silent. The fact that they spoke out so vehemently against flesh eating, shows how deeply disturbed the elder bhikkus who wrote the Sanskrit version of Buddha's teachings were.

The Encyclopaedia of Buddhism points out that in China and Japan, flesh eating was looked upon as an evil and was ostracized and any kind of meat was not used in temples and monasteries. Meat eating was taboo in Japan until the middle of the 19th century. People avoided giving alms to flesh eating bhikkus.

Dr. Kosheliya Wali in her book, "Conception of Ahimsa In Indian Thought" says, "meat can never be obtained without injuring creatures and injury to sentient beings and is detrimental to heavenly bliss and therefore one should shun meat eating".

"One should consider the disgusting origin of flesh and the cruelty of slaughtering sentient beings and entirely abstain from flesh eating".

"He who permits the slaughter of animals, he who cuts up, kills, buys, sells, serves it up and eats, every one is a slayer of animals".

"He who seeks to increase his own flesh with the flesh of others and worshipping the gods is the greatest of all sinners".

"Meat cannot be obtained from straw or stone. It can be obtained only by slaughtering creatures. Hence meat is not to be taken".

A Chinese monk once said "You form a company with whatever type of meat you eat. You form a corporation with whatever type of animals you eat. For example if you eat a lot of pork you will become tied up into a company of pigs, same applies to cows, chicken, sheep fish and so forth".

A British vegetarian named Dr. Watch once said "To prevent human, bloodshed one must start at the dinner table".

If a person wants to take joy in Buddhism and enter into mercy and knowledge of the Buddha he must begin at the dinner table.

A wedding party takes hundreds if not thousands of animal lives. A birthday party or a wedding anniversary takes hundreds of animal lives. Before the death, living creatures experience, not joy, but anger and hatred and resentment.

It is just by not killing with body that you observe the first precept. If in your thinking you allow the killing to go or, you also break the first precept.

We must be determined not to condone killing even in our minds. According to Buddhism mind is the base of all actions.

Did Buddha Die From Eating Meat?

Buddhist monks who eat meat under certain circumstances, justify their flesh eating, saying that, Buddha himself ate a piece, of pork at one of his follower's houses rather than hurt the feelings of his "dayakaya". Some monks who eat flesh, say that, they eat whatever put before them without any aversion.

But most of the Buddhist scholars contend that it was not a piece of meat that caused the Buddha's death and all Mahayana scriptures unequivocally condone meat eating as mentioned earlier.

According to Mrs. Rhys David what Chunda offered to the Buddha is some mushrooms. Rhys David says that the term "sukara maddara" has at least 4 meanings.

(a) Food eaten by pigs.

(b) "Pigs delight?'

© Soft parts of the pig and

(d) Food trampled by the pigs.

Chunda being a follower of the Buddha, surely, would not have offered a piece of pork, well knowing that flesh was not a part of the Buddha's diet. Very likely Chunda did not eat meat himself as many Indians did not eat meat during the Buddha's time. Why then would he have offered meat to the "World Honoured one", a person so sensitive to suffering of all living beings, that he would not drink milk from a cow during the first 10 days after its calf is born.

Any monk who has been offered meals at the home of a Buddhist knows that, the "dayakaya" usually asks the monk or his attendant or other "dayakayas" known to the monk, what kind of food, the monk normally eats, so that the "dayakaya" can avoid serving food that does not agree with him physically or spiritually. During the Buddha's days the would be donors of meals to the Buddha often consulted yen. Ananda, the Buddha's attendant.

Buddhist monks who do not like any item of diet offered to them have a pleasant way of rejecting such food, without uttering a single word.

As far as I know the majority of Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka eat meat and meat products. Some monks sometimes mention to the dayakaya, items of diet such as chicken which they eat when the dayakaya meets them to book a date for "dana". Quite a number of Buddhist monks especially those living in temples such as "Sasuna" and hermitages do not consume any form of meat, fish or eggs, because that kind of food rouses passion and is not conducive to their spiritual upliftment.

It is note-worthy that more and more dayakayas give vegetarian diet for almsgivings and the number of vegetarian monks has been increasing during the past few years.

Buddhist monks can play a great role in reducing the slaughter of animals and the terror and suffering associated with slaughter by requesting their followers not to serve flesh when they meet the monks to invite them for an almsgiving as there are lots of Buddhists who follow the good examples set by Buddhist monks. The majority of Buddhists have a higher respect for vegetarian monks than for monks who eat flesh. Buddhist monks who preach "Dhamma" can in no way accept flesh for food without getting into a conflict with "Ahimsa".

Buddhism is a religion to be practised. If the body of Buddhist monks makes a proper drive for vegetarianism it would save a lot of animals from slaughter and cruelty and terror that accompanies slaughter. The body of Buddhist monks should lead the way and lay Buddhists, at least a good proportion of them would follow.

With acknowledgements to

(1 ) "A Buddhist case for Vegetarianism" by Roshi Philip Kapleau.

(2) Dharma Bhandagaraya by Ven. Weragoda Sarada.

The Island - 13 Feb 02

QUOTE

Are all Buddhists vegetarians?

No. The First Precept admonishes us to refrain from killing, but meat eating is not regarded as an instance of killing, and it is not forbidden in the scriptures. (We are speaking here mainly of the Pali scriptures. Some of the Mahayana scriptures, notably the Lankavatara Sutra, take a strong position in favor of vegetarianism. Also see Note below)

As recorded in the Pali scriptures, the Buddha did not prohibit consumption of meat, even by monks. In fact, he explicitly rejected a suggestion from Devadatta to do so. In modern Theravada societies, a bhikkhu who adheres to vegetarianism to impress others with his superior spirituality may be committing an infringement of the monastic rules.

On the other hand, the Buddha categorically prohibited consumption of the flesh of any animal that was "seen, heard or suspected" to have been killed specifically for the benefit of monks (Jivaka Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 55). This rule technically applies only to monastics, but it can be used as a reasonable guide by devout lay people.

To understand this "middle path" approach to meat-eating, we have to remember that there were no "Buddhists" in Shakyamuni's time. There were only mendicants of various kinds (including the Buddha's disciples), plus lay people who gave them alms out of respect without necessarily worrying about the brand name of the teachings.

If meat was what a householder chose to offer, it was to be accepted without discrimination or aversion. To reject such an offering would be an offense against hospitality and would deprive the householder of an opportunity to gain merit -- and it could not benefit the animal, because it was already dead. Even the Jains may have had a similar outlook during the same period of history, despite the strict doctrine of ahimsa.

Vegetarianism could not become a source of serious controversy in the bhikkhu sangha until the rise of fixed-abode monastic communities in which the monks did not practice daily alms-round. Any meat provided to such a community by lay people would almost certainly have been killed specifically for the monks. That may be one reason for the difference in Mahayana and Theravada views on meat eating -- the development of monastic communities of this type occurred principally within Mahayana.

The issue of meat eating raises difficult ethical questions. Isn't the meat in a supermarket or restaurant killed "for" us? Doesn't meat eating entail killing by proxy?

Few of us are in a position to judge meat eaters or anyone else for "killing by proxy." Being part of the world economy entails "killing by proxy" in every act of consumption. The electricity that runs our computers comes from facilities that harm the environment. Books of Buddhist scriptures are printed on paper produced by an industry that destroys wildlife habitat. Worms, insects, rodents and other animals are routinely killed en masse in the course of producing the staples of a vegetarian diet. Welcome to samsara. It is impossible for most of us to free ourselves from this web; we can only strive to be mindful of entanglement in it. One way to do so is to reflect on how the suffering and death of sentient beings contributes to our comfort. This may help us to be less inclined to consume out of mere greed.

All of that having been said, it cannot be denied that the economic machine which produces meat also creates fear and suffering for a large number of animals. It is useful to bear this in mind even if one consumes meat, to resist developing a habit of callousness. Many Buddhists (especially Mahayanists) practice vegetarianism as a means of cultivating compassion. The Jivaka Sutta hints that one could also make a good case for vegetarianism starting from any of the other brahmaviharas (loving-kindness, sympathetic joy, equanimity). Interestingly, it is loving-kindness rather than compassion that is mentioned first in the Jivaka Sutta.

If you are considering trying out vegetarianism for the first time, we suggest discussing it with someone who has experience. There are a few issues that ought to be considered regarding balanced diet, etc.

Note (by Binh Anson): The Lankavatara Sutra, although recorded the Buddha's teaching in Lanka (Sri Lanka), is essentially a product of later Mahayana development. According to H. Nakamura (Indian Buddhism, 1987), there are several versions of this sutra, one fairly different in content from the other. Most scholars concluded that this sutra was likely compiled in 350-400 CE. In addition, according the the popular Zen master D.T. Suzuki (The Lankavatara Sutra - A Mahayana Text, 1931), the chapter dealing with meat eating was indeed added much later in subsequent versions. He also agreed that this sutra was not the authentic words by the Buddha, but was compiled much later by unknown authors following Mahayana's philosophy.

QUOTE

Ven. S. Dhammika had said in his "Good Questions, Good Answers":

"One who eats meat can have a pure heart just as one who does not eat meat can have an impure heart. In the Buddha's teachings, the important thing is the quality of your heart, not the contents of your diet. Many Buddhists take great care never to eat meat buy they are not concerned about being selfish, dishonest, cruel or jealous. They change their diet which is easy to do, while neglecting to change their hearts, which is a difficult thing to do. So whether you are a vegetarian or not, remember that the purification of the mind is the most important thing in Buddhism."

The note on not being able to judge who is killing by proxy is weak. There is direct and indirect participation. One who purchases meat supports killing directly.

With regards to impure heart and non-veg diet, how can a person who supports the slaughter of animals have a pure heart, as purity is characterized with qualities such as nonviolence and kindness to all living beings? To say that "one who eats meat can have a pure heart" is the equivalent of saying "one who supports killing of animals can be nonviolent and kind to all living beings". Is that not an oxymoron?

That aside, purity of heart and purity of habits go hand in hand. One influences the other. In the long run, you can't hope to attain / sustain one without the other.

So according to your logic Bhavananda Swami is much more compassionate than the Dalai Lama, because he is veg as opposed to the latter. Please tell this to the parents of the abused children, perhaps they will forgive him because of his "pure diet".

I am convinced that the arrogant pride some vegetarians present by judging others by their diet is more harmful tham tons of hamburgers.

QUOTE(Openmind @ Jan 19 2005, 06:31 PM)

Did I say that anyone who is a veg must surely be compassionate? That's merely one aspect of it, but it's a very visible aspect. Obviously neither Dalai Lama nor Bhavananda Swami are completely up to mark in this regard.

Since our shastras are fairly clear about meat-eating, then perhaps our acharyas are also polluted by this arrogance in discouraging people from meat-eating, as they even say that a meat-eater cannot truly worship Hari? I will spare you from quotes of Hari-bhakti-vilasa.

QUOTE(Openmind @ Jan 19 2005, 05:50 PM)

If meat was what a householder chose to offer, it was to be accepted without discrimination or aversion. To reject such an offering would be an offense against hospitality and would deprive the householder of an opportunity to gain merit -- and it could not benefit the animal, because it was already dead.

This demonstrates an awful lack of foresight. If the monk would politely tell that "we Buddhist bhikshus are vegetarian as we respect all sentient life", then perhaps the householder would consider offering him veg food the next time he comes over, and while he's at it, cooking veg for himself, thus sparing the life of an animal. By accepting meat, the bhikshu affirms the righteousness of meat-eating and gives the message that meat-eating is not a problem at all. How many lives of innocent animals will this religious preceptor thus sacrifice through a misleading example?

Would rejecting such an offering be an offense against hospitality? Perhaps so. Then again, would a good host offer something he knows the monk cannot take (because he heard it from the previous monk)? Not likely so. Also, one needs to consider whether pleasing everyone is more important, or whether leading a righteous life is more important. A righteous life includes the following of righteous principles.

If the host should offer the bhikshu to kindly have sex with his wife, smoke a pack of cigars and drink a jar of sake, should the bhikshu accept that in the name of honoring the hospitality of the householder? I fail to see how that would be any different from refusing to take meat.

"Since our shastras are fairly clear about meat-eating, then perhaps our acharyas are also polluted by this arrogance in discouraging people from meat-eating, as they even say that a meat-eater cannot truly worship Hari? I will spare you from quotes of Hari-bhakti-vilasa."

Madhava: Excuse me, who spoke about Hari and Vaisnava shastras? If my memory serves this topic is called "Should Buddhists be vegetarians".

Bangli: thank you for letting me know what you hate about Tibetan Buddhists, their meat eating habits. In return, I tell you what I hate about Vaisnavas: their (imaginary) superiority while chanting phrases like "trnad api sunicena...". How can a person who is supposed to think himself lower then a blade of grass judge and condemn others without knowing anything about them, merely by looking at what they eat?

Bangli: you see, there was a time when I also believed that purity depends on vegetarian diet until I personally met many kind hearted and very serious spiritual practitioners who were not vegetarians. I have seen far too many evil minded vegetarians and elevated meat-eaters with my own eyes, I simply could not care less for quotes.

Bangli: I - along with many Buddhists, Wiccans, Taoists, Tantrikas etc. - do not consider consuming meat as harming those animals. Also, whenever I eat meat, I say specific mantras for the slaughtered animal that IS killed. I mean, if you throw away that piece of meat, that will not bring the animal back to life. Of course many would say it is just sense gratification and I am trying to find excuses. Well, I have been a strict vegetarian for 15 years, perhaps this may serve as an evidence to the fact that I could live without meat for as long as I want. But I did not mean to start any debate. You presented some materials showing why it is important for Buddhists to be veg, so I presented some materials showing that there are more important concerns for Buddhists than veg diet. I never try to convert anyone to meat-eating, so I think thats all I can contribute to this topic.

QUOTE(Openmind @ Jan 19 2005, 07:14 PM)

Madhava: Excuse me, who spoke about Hari and Vaisnava shastras? If my memory serves this topic is called "Should Buddhists be vegetarians".

Well, you just spoke of Bhavananda in contrast with Dalai Lama, so I took it that you also include Vaishnavas in the discussion on vegetarianism.

QUOTE

You might want to consider that your vision of people's eligibility might not be as grand and deep as the perception of the shastras?

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

I think you miss the entire point that everyone is trying to make. No one has stated that being a Vegetarian makes one automatically pure, compassionate or even a human being. They are simply stating that compassion for living entities and the practice of ahimsa are rudimentary aspects of Buddhism and so the question of vegetarianism and Buddhism makes sense.

Your decision to eat meat may not be a form of sense gratification however it is indeed selfish. For those that never practiced vegetarianism I can at least fathom an aspect of ignorance on their part as maybe they just don't have the capacity to equate compassion with not killing a helpless animal. However for those that are fully aware of that aspect of meat eating and who have in the past followed such an edict I find the choice to again eat meat to be a callous and irreligious decision.

Your point that a Vaisnava should embody "trnad api sunicena..." is sort of funny coming from someone who has decided that killing an animal is indeed okay and not against the very essence of ahimsa. The difference is that the essence behind trnad api sunicena is not that one stands by and watches injustice or irreligious behavior and says nothing. It has a humble and truthful insight into their own faults. Humility doesn’t mean you don’t equate right from wrong.

All glories to the Vaisnavas... and the Buddhists too...
Rasaraja dasa

QUOTE

"Avoid harming others, cultivate love for all beings, and realize your true self."

Dear Openmind,
what happened to you?

i remember you as a very kindhearted and gentle soul...
you wrote me once about finding a true guru.

your astonishing statements about the okayness of meat-eating make me truly sad.
i can feel bitterness and frustration and i pray that you may soon realize that eating meat is VERY VERY bad.

besides, those Bhavananda/Lama-arguments make no sense.
Hitler was vegetarian too.

honestly, there is nothing in the world that can justify eating meat.

best wishes
Tarunji

QUOTE(Openmind @ Jan 19 2005, 12:31 PM)

I am convinced that the arrogant pride some vegetarians present by judging others by their diet is more harmful tham tons of hamburgers.

It's not more harmful to the cows.

QUOTE(Openmind @ Jan 19 2005, 06:22 PM)

My personal experience is that when an elevated meat eater becomes vegetarian they continue to be elevated and when a gross meat eater becomes vegetarian they continue to be gross.

True elevation begins when we stop eating our hearts and frying our brains ......

QUOTE(bangli @ Jan 19 2005, 09:43 PM)

QUOTE(Rasaraja dasa @ Jan 20 2005, 12:38 AM)

Tapati, Rasaraja made a good point here..

Your points are acknowledged but really a little off track here as the subject is about what the Buddha taught and if those Buddhists who eat meat are realy following the doctrine of 'ahimsa' that The Buddha taught or just watering it down to suit their own means.

namaskar,

bangli

Yes, he did make a good point, but since the topic has spread out to encompass vegetarianism in general, I think my points are valid. They would apply to sincere Buddhists who believe they are not violating their tradition by eating meat since no meat is being slaughtered specifically for their needs. In fact, I wonder how much simply goes to waste in the stores from overproduction? How much do they throw away? (That is even sadder to me than someone consuming it, the idea that a cow died for no reason.)

Blessed Be--

Tapati

QUOTE

CLAUDETTE: Isn't there a difference regarding the question of meat-eating between the two big schools of Buddhism, "Theravada" and "Mahayama"?

TONY: Yes, seemingly so. The Pali scriptures of the Theravada school report the Buddha as having died from eating some rotten pork at the end of his life, and also claim that he said it was OK to eat flesh as long as you yourself have not seen, heard, or suspected that the animal was killed especially for you. On the first point, when one investigates the Pali work "sukara-maddava" – translated by meat eaters as pork – the evidence suggests that it actually means "pig's delight", ie. a type of food favoured by pigs, probably truffles, rather than pig's meat.

I readed somewhere (and a ex-zen monk talked this to me too) that this word for pig would mean "mushrooms", telling us that Buddha may eaten a psycodelic mushroom.

I prefer to believe this than to believe that someone like Gautama Buddha would be eaten any meat. After all when he was meditating at bodhigaya he was eating only a little of cannabis.

I like very much of buddhism, but I don't agree with this meat eating. Usually there are some sangas, like the zen sanga where I used to go that serve only vegetarian food. When I went to a tibetan temple they served meat and said that we should try to eat all the things to avoid aversion. There was a alcaholic drink too.

I never more went there. Sometime after I told this to a vrajayana buddhist friend and she told me that at her tradition (new kadampa) the things were different. There they didn't eat meat and she is a scrit vegetarian.

I no longer have the heart for a debate about Buddhism here at this time.

Bright Blessings to Openmind!

QUOTE

I no longer have the heart for a debate about Buddhism here at this time.

Bright Blessings to Openmind!

Same here.

(with apologies to Lord Chaitanya)

O Openmind!

Feeling your separation, I am considering a moment to be like twelve years or more. Tears are flowing from my eyes like torrents of rain, and I am feeling all vacant here at GD in your absence.

I humbly apologize to everyone here whom I may have offended by butchering up this thread and other posts of mine. I was very disturbed that openmind had left the sanga here at GD and felt I was to blame somewhat for debating the meat eating thing and hurting his feelings. ( I admit I was having some personal problems as well)

I know he was loved by many here and I felt horrible that the debate had gone to such a point that he felt he had to leave.

I hope he will return and I hope you will all forgive me for any wrong I may have done.

I have restored the original post that started the thread..

namaskar,

bangli

QUOTE(bangli @ Jan 24 2005, 09:03 PM)

My dear Bangli,

Thank you, I very much appreciate your words, and according to Openmind's own words it was not simply this topic or what transpired here specifically. I share some of his concern that by not being someone who aspires to be a Vaishnava any longer I am going to simply offend people for no good reason or will make people feel like I am out to destroy their faith or belief. It has caused me to return to my periodic evaluation of what exactly attracts me to a Vaishnava forum (or two or three now) when I really don't believe it is the one true way anymore and had been out of touch for over a decade. I considered whether I should likewise leave, in fact. I am kept here in part by the relationships I have been forming in private messages, and the support of those who are willing to explore new ideas with me. Openmind was one of those dear souls I was getting to know and I hope he will consider coming back, as I did actually cry at the loss of his voice here and my developing friendship with him.

I think that I and others who have left the Vaishnava path were attracted by the notion that we could heal the damaged part of our psyche by finally having positive relationships with Vaishnavas that are not rooted in judgment, as our former ones were. We'd like to see what we can reclaim of a tradition we spent a lot of years learning, and we'd like to achieve some closure. Perhaps this need is sometimes at cross purposes with the needs of those of you who do presently practice and believe in this tradition. And so we wonder, as Openmind wondered, whether we are causing you some harm by being here.

That is certainly not my intention, and I beg of you all to tell me if you ever feel that my presence here is in fact causing harm. In that case I would stop posting but maintain my account for private messaging only.

I too hope that Openmind will consider returning. I don't know if he checks back here but perhaps if we express our appreciation for his presence here he may return someday.

Blessed Be--

Tapati

PS It feels good to talk about it; it was feeling like the elephant in the room...perhaps we all need to "process" as we say in California.

"Believing ourselves to be possessors of absolute truth degrades us: we regard every person whose way of thinking is different from ours as a monster and a threat and by so doing turn our own selves into monsters and threats to our fellows"

namsakar,

bangli

I am fascinated by Buddhism. Buddhists believe that existence is illusion. Does anyone know how long Buddhist have to do their practices until they no longer exist?

In reading this thread, I see too it has branched away from what is Buddhist beliefs to other people's and their understandings. The Lakota Sioux whose traditional lifestyle followed the paths of the American Bison never actually believed in the higher sense that they killed the bison but "The Bison gives itself so The People may live." If the bison is volunteering to be eaten, then the process of eating it is harldy murder or slaughter but more like suicide as the bison is wanting to be eaten.

I think the bigger issue is one of appreciation and thankfulness to the beauties and blessings of life and choosing to be a compassionate and loving being and not so cut and dry of one eating or not eating meat.

I just wanted to share a little wisdom that might help us avoid these messy situations where feelings of anger arise toward another. I'm a Mayavadi Impersonalist Gaudiya Vaisnava and one thing we believe is that we are all God. If we can remember that when we don't love another, we don't love ourselves since we are all the Same Person or God.

QUOTE(Rasaraja dasa @ Jan 19 2005, 02:08 PM)

Your decision to eat meat may not be a form of sense gratification however it is indeed selfish.

I am a vegetarian myself, but I do feel that what Gary Zukav says here in response to a question about eating meat has merit.

Here is a line from the reply:

QUOTE

Many people who eat meat have a relationship with Life that is reverent, and that respects the natural exchange of energy between the domains of Life on the Earth—such as mineral, vegetable, and animal.

QUOTE(babu @ Jan 26 2005, 06:45 AM)

Babu..

Can you explain your Mayavadiness in terms of your Gaudiyaness...or vice versa?

Are you a Suguna Brahmavadi with Nirguna Brahmavadi tendencies..?

sorry to go off topic,

namaskar,

bamgli

I have a strict vegetarian friend who will eat meat once a year and not because he craves meat.

According to a buddhist sutra reality is composed of simply tiny particles that we organize together in a way to make meaning for ourselves, whether we organize them into a piece of meat or some daal.

QUOTE(evakurvan @ Jan 26 2005, 03:31 AM)

According to a buddhist sutra reality is composed of simply tiny particles that we organize together in a way to make meaning for ourselves, whether we organize them into a piece of meat or some daal.

So I'll just bite a chunk off your arm, then?

or a nice plate of fresh indian hog stool?

Wow, you guys must be really hungry!

QUOTE

sorry, but this is very dangerous mayavad-philosophy.

morality?
ethics?

we organize...doesnt matter...blablabla...

tough for me.

QUOTE

sorry, but this is very dangerous mayavad-philosophy.

haha well this thread is about potential outlooks on vegetarianism within buddhism,
so 'mayavad' ideas are bound to come up, right? When referring to 'mayavadi' it seems what is meant by that are buddhists and advaita vedantans. I always found it strange that this word id never heard before and that i assume most buddhists dont even know exists, is so often used when critisizing them. I guess it would have looked sort of bad for prabhupada to expose newcomers to all these anti-buddhist comments instead of just anti-mayavadi comments, since the latter is just some strange word that people are more bound to agree with dismissing.

QUOTE

So I'll just bite a chunk off your arm, then?

haha yeah. its true when presented with this absolute idealism stance people will turn around say how about i break this plank of wood into ur face, and then tell me if material reality is just illusion?!?
I dont think that quotes like that from sutras are meant to be taken literally and materially in that specific closed sense. It would be like reacting to 'you are not this body' to: ok then, how about i cut off all ur toes?

i think the usefulness of that quote in this vegetarian-chat context would be to speculate on the better-left-alone idea that perhaps we select arbitrary rituals (and syllables), hierarchize food into sentient vs less sentient based on our own anthropocentric experience, and then through following these guidelines we create a very Real and True absolute sense of the sacred for ourselves.

From the quotes supplied by Bangli it would seem that Tibetan Buddhists should be vegetarians too. Yet vegetarianism doesn't seem to be a part of their culture and I doubt that they would give the evidence provided by a Western scholar the same weight they give to their elders' example. Yes, Tibet has a very harsh climate and not much grows there.

But to say that vegetarianism makes one puffed up and judgmental when its karmic, ethical and what to speak of environmental benefits are pointed out -- I really don't know what to say. I am not convinced that one can't do both, be nonjudgmental *and* spare the animals at the same time. The meat industry is the number one consumer and also polluter of drinking water, think about that if the ethics of vegetarianism seem too elitist or self-righteous.

I can accept, for the sake of argument, that the idea that a meat-eater will go to hell, is a superstition. But the idea that I chant mantras for the liberation of the animal which I am eating or that the animal actually wanted to be eaten, is just as superstitious. It is more honest to just say, I like the taste and I don't care so much how this piece of meat ended up on my plate.

i think there is no usefulness is such a quote.

such quotes within the scheme of vegeterianism grant you the right to twist anything to your liking.

what a strange conception...

first of all this quote is totally ego-centric.
"we organize" to "our pleasure"....
second of all, like i said before, vegetarianism should be about ethics and morality.
if an animal is just something we organize together, where will it lead to?

Madhavaji found out where.

if all is just a matter of how we organize and give structure to things, then everyone should be God(dess).

and i wont buy such quotes in any discussion.
sorry.

Tarunji

"haha well this thread is about potential outlooks on vegetarianism within buddhism,
so 'mayavad' ideas are bound to come up, right? When referring to 'mayavadi' it seems what is meant by that are buddhists and advaita vedantans. I always found it strange that this word id never heard before and that i assume most buddhists dont even know exists, is so often used when critisizing them. I guess it would have looked sort of bad for prabhupada to expose newcomers to all these anti-buddhist comments instead of just anti-mayavadi comments, since the latter is just some strange word that people are more bound to agree with dismissing."

Baada Boom!

Yes that term Mavavad is just simply 'UGLY' and those who use it generally have a very poor understanding of Shankara's philosophy known as Advaitavad...

namaskar,

bangli

@bangli

you saw my smiley, did you?

i was just using the UGLY word on purpose, not as a critizism to Sripad Shankara Acarya.
but what is MISUSED in his glorious name, well, thats another story.

QUOTE(Indranila @ Jan 26 2005, 01:28 PM)

The thing is 'Buddhism' did not originate in Tibet and came later and got mixed up with the 'Bon' religion that had been indigenous with that area. The areas that Buddhism spread to after it left India like Tibet, China, and Southeast Asia accepted Buddhism but mixed some of their own indigenous religious practices with it and most kept eating meat.
Buddha himself did not advocate meat-eating and to say he did is a total contradiction of the precepts he taught, non-animal sacrifice, ahimsa etc.

namaskar,

bangli

QUOTE(TarunGovindadas @ Jan 26 2005, 08:22 PM)

@bangli

you saw my smiley, did you?

i was just using the UGLY word on purpose, not as a critizism to Sripad Shankara Acarya.
but what is MISUSED in his glorious name, well, thats another story.

I know...

just having a go at ya!

QUOTE

Buddha himself did not advocate meat-eating and to say he did is a total contradiction of the precepts he taught, non-animal sacrifice, ahimsa etc.

yippieyeyho!

spoken from my heart.
thanks.

conclusion:

QUOTE

Should Buddhists be vegetarians?

yep.

QUOTE

such quotes within the scheme of vegeterianism grant you the right to twist anything to your liking.

i was not using that quote as a way to sell meat-eating to vegetarians, i myself am not a fan of meat. if this were my aim id paste an obvious quote in direct reference to meat-eating and then probably someone would do the same with a quote that then debunks mine. Both buddhist. If one is totally honest and thorough one can see so many contradictions in sastra, and i dont think thats bad. I dont think a comforting finality can be found to these religious questions through quote-seeking for some arch-quote.

QUOTE

if all is just a matter of how we organize and give structure to things, then everyone should be God(dess).

The quote wasn't prescriptive as in instructing people to organize things however they like, but saying that this is what we already do without realizing it.

I know this isnt what you were directly saying right now, but this comment i hear sometimes that buddhists are ignorant because they want to be god or say they are god, is a sort of peculiar understanding of buddhism, especially in the way that it's understood by those who say it. Saying atman = brahman or something like that, isnt the same as saying i am the ultimate enjoyer and i want others to serve me.

QUOTE(evakurvan @ Jan 26 2005, 07:51 AM)

I dont think that quotes like that from sutras are meant to be taken literally and materially in that specific closed sense. It would be like reacting to 'you are not this body' to: ok then, how about i cut off all ur toes?

I thought, "Finally someone has the good sense to point this out!"

QUOTE(evakurvan @ Jan 26 2005, 07:51 AM)

i think the usefulness of that quote in this vegetarian-chat context would be to speculate on the better-left-alone idea that perhaps we select arbitrary rituals (and syllables), hierarchize food into sentient vs less sentient based on our own anthropocentric experience, and then through following these guidelines we create a very Real and True absolute sense of the sacred for ourselves.

Why should this poor idea be better left alone? It surely says it pretty much the way I see it.

-ek

Dear Tapati,

Thank you so much for your thoughtful post about the presence here of people like Openmind and yourself; you put in words what I have been feeling, too.

Respectfully,
-- Dhyana

QUOTE(Madhava @ Jan 19 2005, 02:01 PM)

You might want to consider that your vision of people's eligibility might not be as grand and deep as the perception of the shastras

Let us also consider that the zAstras are merely the codification of the thoughts and visions of people like Openmind, you and me.

QUOTE(bangli @ Jan 26 2005, 02:19 AM)

Babu..

Can you explain your Mayavadiness in terms of your Gaudiyaness...or vice versa?

I don't know where to begin. Its obvious to me that we are all God or in the process of becoming God and in the full spectrum of the Light, the love pastimes of Radha Krishna are Its total dance.

QUOTE(Elpis @ Jan 26 2005, 05:05 PM)

Let us also consider that the zAstras are merely the codification of the thoughts and visions of people like Openmind, you and me.

I don't really agree with the second part of this train of thought. If any of us had thoughts and visions elevated enough to be codified into shastra, we would probably be writing shastra or relishing visions rather than glued to a computer monitor discussing the merits of vegetarianism

.

Those that are relishing visions, please excuse my comment...

QUOTE(angrezi @ Jan 26 2005, 07:01 PM)

QUOTE(Elpis @ Jan 26 2005, 05:05 PM)

Let us also consider that the zAstras are merely the codification of the thoughts and visions of people like Openmind, you and me.

.

Those that are relishing visions, please excuse my comment...

In some far flung future time, the musings here might be seen as shastra.

Cyber storage may last forever.

QUOTE(Dhyana @ Jan 26 2005, 04:53 PM)

Dear Tapati,

Thank you so much for your thoughtful post about the presence here of people like Openmind and yourself; you put in words what I have been feeling, too.

Respectfully,
-- Dhyana

You're very welcome.

Blessed Be--

Tapati

QUOTE

or a nice plate of fresh indian hog stool?

Ditto. I can't help but mention here the toilet scene in Trainspotting (just saw it yesterday on TV). Now this was a highly original organization of reality, what to speak of the spectacular layers of meaning the chief protagonist ascribed to it. (I am being sarcastic. Sorry)

QUOTE

Why not take the quote literally? Why a nonliteral approach should be better or preferred to a literal one in this case? What if I only see meaning in its literal understanding?

The thing is it is easy to discuss abstractly meat-eating when animal slaughter is removed and hidden from our view. There is a big slaughterhouse not far from where I live. The place is off the road and is nicely hidden behind a high green hedge. If it weren't for the sign on the driveway, you would never know that it is there. A few times a day big trucks loaded with pigs drive down my street to the slaughterhouse. Almost every day whenever I go out I see one or two of them, the pigs placed very humanely in their ventilated compartments as per the EU regulations, their smell still lingering in the air for quite a while after the truck has passed.

Although I try not to think consciously that these creatures are bred and fed just to be slaughtered around the cornenr, I can't avoid the sight of them or their smell. Nowadays I simply can't go near the meat section in a supermarket without feeling sick. I can't bear to see the dead meat anymore, and I didn't feel such a revulsion even in my most fanatical ISKCON days when I took whole-heartedly all kinds of quotes literally.

QUOTE

Why not take the quote literally? .... What if I only see meaning in its literal understanding?

I think it's great to be able to take outrageous ideas literally, especially if you're able to do so outside the purpose of showcasing how foolish they sound in the face of obvious logical scrutiny.

Lots of showcasing in here indeed!

chestbeating too..

People will say just about anything to hit below the belt in forums it seems, it's like driving a car on the freeway where people can easily 'flip ya off', whereas in person they would never dare.

On a different note..

I cannot stand the smell of meat either in grocery stores, it gags me.
And even now the Tibeten Buddhists below me have been cooking something all night long that has completely smelled up my entire apt. (smells like rat curry with hog stool) I am not exaggerating, the smell woke me up in the middle of the night here it is so rank.

QUOTE(bangli @ Jan 27 2005, 06:31 AM)

It is the great drawback of online communication, and the profiles were to help with that somewhat. I think they do, as I see far less of it here than elsewhere. On the other hand, online communication allows me to get to know and communicate with people all over the world. I can't afford to travel there and meet them, so what a blessing for me.

On another forum someone is constantly using the rolling eyes smiley, and I can't help but wonder if they actually do that in personal communication too, or is it just online? And also, do they realize it feels just as rude online as if in person? In general my communication with this person is like fingernails on a chalkboard, we just do not "get" each other. It's been interesting to look at.

Meat eating is an emotional topic and I think it inspires our deepest feelings.

QUOTE(bangli @ Jan 27 2005, 06:35 AM)

I cannot stand the smell of meat either in grocery stores, it gags me.

I am not too fond of it either.

Yesterday I looked at these pictures from the Eid festival in Bangladesh and they made my stomach turn, especially number 7 and 8.

QUOTE(Tapati @ Jan 27 2005, 01:14 AM)

In some far flung future time, the musings here might be seen as shastra.

Be careful what you say because someone may worship it.

Maybe it's because im from a different culture where people are openly opinionated and phrase things strongly for colourful effect, but I don’t find anything anyone has said in this thread offensive. Nor in the wine thread. I'm confused as to why anyone would. I prefer it when discourse contains strong or adversarial opinions, even slapdash ones, as opposed to moderate comments everyone would agree on, nod and go home. It's more real and personal.

A multilogue where everyone's opinion converges is boring and probably dishonest. Feeling this obligation to filter your spontaneous way of expression into expected accepted formats is for bank tellers and strangers!

. And feeling that what you say has to be right and defensible from all angles puts you in this mood where you feel you have to be so deliberate and take every word you say and your opinions so heavily and seriously. And that can't be a good thing spiritually. At least it doesn't feel right.

I've never felt at ease in places where people are so vigilant about 'offending' me or eachother. I find it helpful to see anything didactic i ever say as 'little opinions.' And it's sort of hard to ever say anything without sounding didactic just because declaring anything sort of implies you are invalidating the opposite of that which you are delcaring. And you dont want to do that. But being mute because of the weight of having to communicate through this inadvertently dualistic language of ours is sort of boring. Like worshipping a god with no Personality.

QUOTE(Tapati @ Jan 26 2005, 08:14 PM)

In some far flung future time, the musings here might be seen as shastra.

Cyber storage may last forever.

Good point

QUOTE(angrezi @ Jan 27 2005, 04:05 PM)

QUOTE(Tapati @ Jan 26 2005, 08:14 PM)

In some far flung future time, the musings here might be seen as shastra.

Cyber storage may last forever.

Good point

Probably not. The points that would make shastra would get deleted.

I am replying a bit late about this topic, was unable to post earlier. Somehow it is still on my mind, so here it goes:

QUOTE

Meat eating is an emotional topic and I think it inspires our deepest feelings.

Well that's true. Arguing for meat eating gets me emotionally, esp. when done by former devotees, many of whom at one point in their lives considered vegetarianism important enough to take a vow about it. I don't understand why one has to validate or relativize meat eating to purge the demon of narrow-mindedness and judgmentalism. Vegetarianism is a good thing and vegetarianism is in. I live in a meat eaters paradise, in the local furniture shop out of maybe 100 sofas, only two are upholstered with cloth, the rest are all leather because this is what the local people like to buy. But even here people know that vegetarianism is in. I have never had to feel apologetic about my vegetarianism and I do have meat eating friends here.

Nowadays you can be anything after KC -- Buddhist, Christian, atheist, Communist, anarchist -- and still remain a vegetarian. There will be for sure a vegetarian branch or wing of your thing. I also wonder if the tendency to undo every single thing learned in KC in order to become wholesome again is a wholesome one or rather a sign of a chronic quitter.

I also don't see anything in this thread to be upset about. As a rule I try to not take electronic communication too much to heart, either in a positive or negative sense because I am aware that electronically I get only the verbal part of the message which in face to face communication accounts to no more than 20 percent. In a way, electronic communication is special because all we have are our verbal messages, so we listen to them more carefully than we would if we would communicate three dimensionally. On the other hand, I am aware that in real life, when I am able to observe the body language as well, I would probably evaluate the verbal message quite differently. This makes electronic communication kind of mysterious and fascinating, we are always intrigued if our mental images of our online interlocutors are true or not.

Hmmm, while I do have a knee-jerk reaction to judging people for not following rules I myself might follow, I am not sure if that's my only source of reluctance to automatically condemn the meat-eating of others. I feel about meat eating like I feel about abortion: I don't want to do it myself, but since I have no proof that it is wrong in a spiritual sense I don't feel like I can legislate my belief or even go around and tell people they shouldn't do it. If a meat-eater asks me what I think, or why I am a vegetarian, I'll certainly tell them and cite some good reasons economically and environmentally why it makes sense to at least drastically reduce consumption, as well as point out the suffering of animals in factory farms and slaughterhouses. But I am not going to a PETA rally anytime soon. (I have a problem with some of their tactics also.)

I have a good friend who was vegetarian but discovered that she is allergic to soy, and that was the cause of some physical problems she'd been having. She decided her diet was too limited if she cut out soy, so she adds some small amounts of meat back into her diet periodically. What is interesting is that this has shocked my meat-eating husband. I would say that after being with me for over 8 years he's become accustomed to my personal zeal for being a vegetarian (I am more rigid about my own behavior than that of others) and probably agrees with me overall but is just not at a place to give it up. So he was really shocked when we went over tonight and my friend was cooking roast beef. (We were there to do computer stuff, not to join her for dinner.)

I could start preaching to her about why she should stick with being a vegetarian, but I just don't see the point. She is an intelligent person and I am sure she's considered her decision carefully, and it is up to her to accept any consequences.

Nor am I going to badger my husband about it. I just ask that he keep his dishes separate from mine. He only nukes tv dinners or eats lunchmeats at home, so I needn't worry about my cooking pots. He has some paper plates and plastic forks to use.

Ultimately I have no proof of any adverse spiritual reaction. I have made my mind up that even if God appears and writes in fiery letters in the sky "Meat eating is just fine." I am going to remain a vegetarian. But I am not going to assault others with that desire.