Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Vegetarianism
Hi,
I've read that vegetarianism is debatable as necessary for Buddhism. What is the general rule? (I.e. what do most schools of Buddhism teach about it, and do you need to be vegan, or is just a regular vegetarian okay)? I keep feeling pulled towards it and I wonder if perhaps I was vegetarian in a past reincarnation so it may be just the feeling of something familiar. However I've tried going vegetarian for weight loss purposes, and the longest I was able to stick to it was 3 months.
(I come from a very traditional Midwestern family, meat and potatoes and all that. So they're not entirely supportive of vegetarians during the holidays and say foolish things like "God put animals on the earth for us to eat," etc.)
I've read that vegetarianism is debatable as necessary for Buddhism. What is the general rule? (I.e. what do most schools of Buddhism teach about it, and do you need to be vegan, or is just a regular vegetarian okay)? I keep feeling pulled towards it and I wonder if perhaps I was vegetarian in a past reincarnation so it may be just the feeling of something familiar. However I've tried going vegetarian for weight loss purposes, and the longest I was able to stick to it was 3 months.
(I come from a very traditional Midwestern family, meat and potatoes and all that. So they're not entirely supportive of vegetarians during the holidays and say foolish things like "God put animals on the earth for us to eat," etc.)
0
Comments
Can you clarify that?
Perhaps you missed the preceding sentence:
As Jason observes, it is the more compassionate option (for the animal you don't kill, and the planet less impacted by the harmful effects of meat production), and hence very worthy of consideration.
Good arguments, well said.
in buddhism vegetarianism differs from monastery to monastery, and in the lay community from individual to individual, depending on their disposition and environment. try to get out of the midwest and find your own nest either within or without it where you can operate outside of the social and moral pressure of its cultural sphere. eating meat in the midwest is probably a very karmic thing to do because i imagine the cows there don't suffer very lightly. if you're struggling transforming over to a vegetarian diet, take it slowly and eliminate meat gradually from week to week.
the ethics of buddhism are somewhat dependent on time and circumstance, geography and ecological climate, and things to that consideration, which is why there is not a universal standard, also because buddhism is a vast religion and the world's largest non-abrahamic religion, so the morals are diverse. devadatta may have had some insight in his plan but i guess if he was unsuccessful it was probably too radical a plan and wasn't entirely sound. moral relativity is present but i don't know if it's absolute... i don't even know if it's a tootsie roll. ha ha ha HAW
With killing aside, it's good to evaluate what is necessary in your life and what isn't. What indulgences do you have that you can do without? You mentioned that you went 3 months without eating meat, so perhaps this is something that you can see if you can overcome. I used to smoke every day and "quit" a few times harharhahrar. I thought about how it was an addiction, bad for my health, and I smoked them for the calm feelings it produced, an artificial happiness. I can be happy with meditation and reading, so why have this additional indulgence? It was a good personal test to see if I could overcome it.
Follow your own heart's relation with the dharma on vegetarianism
As long as your mindful of indirectly supporting killing through your own vegetarian/vegan practices - although I guess that compliments a Buddhist lifestyle?
Most people here are lay practitioners. Most monasteries don't allow sex, either.
And personally, I don't kill animals for the meat I eat. Although in truth, it'd be better all-around, for us, other animals and the one being killed, if we did kill our own meat.
Do the computer and internet package you're using to access this forum to preach, which directly harms our environment thus indirectly harming animals, count as necessary to life? Is eating meat necessarily an indulgence?
Well not when you come into the convo with such a negative outlook...
http://www.viet.net/~anson/ebud/ebdha151.htm
Here is an important quote from that speech...
Do you feel that because one is a lay practitioner they are granted with the right to kill? Killing is killing, whether you're lay, monk, or neither. Same with sex is an indulgence whether you're lay or monk, and neither furthers practice. It's one's own discretion to choose whether to be celibate / have sex, or eat / not eat meat.
Agreed, it would be much better.
haha preach is a powerful word man, I'm sorry if I came off that way. If I was preaching I wouldn't be saying to follow the heart on this matter! Meat is often an indulgence unless needed for survival, and given the OP's context, 3 months is a little too long to go without "survival meat"
No, the computer I'm using isn't necessary, I acknowledge that it's an indulgence just as meat is (in many cases) an indulgence.
Texas Hermit - Thanks for the Dharma Talk!
Otherwise, if it's there, don't let the animal die in vain, and just eat it.
Oh, no--I was making a sincere point. Billions of creatures are harmed and killed in various indirect ways through eating a vegan diet--do they not count?
Again, eating meat is not killing any more than eating vegan is. It's just that for meat-eaters, some of what's killed in the process gets put to actual use.
I disagree (although it often is), but ok.
I don't eat it for survival, but I have done the vegetarian thing for the same reasons you did but ultimately realized that there will inherently be death so long as I eat anything, and don't feel that eating meat is necessarily the more compassionate path.
"Again, eating meat is not killing any more than eating vegan is. It's just that for meat-eaters, some of what's killed in the process gets put to actual use. "
While I agree that eating non-meat food still involves some degree of death of animals, it's hard to believe that the amount of death/suffering is equivalent to eating meat. If a large segment of the population refuses to eat meat, the meat industry becomes less profitable and there are less animals raised to be slaughtered than there would have been. It is a small dent, but I think it's a significant one.
Oomundus, this is inaccurate. Taking on a vegetarian diet means you're not involved in buying into the industries that cause the suffering to these animals. The industries are killing billions. As the Golden Eternity said, it's small but significant. It is right intention and right effort. One cannot live without killing, there's always an ant that is stepped on or microscopic life that is killed when you clean yourself.
Can't afford to move anywhere right now, but maybe in a few years.
Not necessarily, it depends on the methods of killing. Granted, mass meat production has created incredibly cruel slaughter methods, but unless you are a skilled butcher yourself, there is no guarantee for the animal that you'll do a better job.
Since it is unlikely that the meat industry is going away, i feel that the most compassionate act (other than reducing your consuption of meat, ideally to zero) is to try to get industry conditions improved.
That's great, just go on your own pace with what you feel comfortable with
.
Are inflammatory attacks on people's characters really necessary everytime a vegetarian VS meat eater thread is started in here? What does it achieve besides inflating your ego and drawing the veil of delusion closer?
Respectfully,
Raven
.
You could also eat organic and free range foods, they are typically treated much more humane in life and death. For factory raised meat, the death is often the least horrible part of their journey I'd bet.
Organic food is also healthier for us on the whole. Less pesticides and chemicals ingested by plants and animals and also us (the consumers).
Respectfully,
Raven
Who's unadorned truth is it though?
The message itself seems pretty slippery to begin with... I wonder what drew that kind of harsh comment out? There are plenty of ways to help people see the chain of connection between farm and market and plate, being callous and unforgiving in your speech doesn't seem very kind.
Besides, the social norms of our culture make being a vegetarian difficult, and we are made to be carnivores before we have much choice. Coming to see the difference between socialized and compassionate action takes time, then outgrowing that rut takes even more time. No need to slap anyone around.
With warmth,
Matt
Some say eating meat (and animal fats) is what helped us evolve to have so much more brain mass, which in turn developed our language centers and so on. Seems that being strictly 1 way or another is missing the point of variety, appreciation, and survival.
If you care about living things then you care about the planet - in which case ideally anything you eat should come from as close to home as possible, to reduce the damage done on the planet (aka oil consumption).
Plus it helps mindfulness of where this food came from, at least... it makes it much easier for me to visualize and be grateful for every morsel when I know it came from Joe's farm down the road.
I think the main issue people have with consuming living things, is the guilt/blame when that living thing isn't appreciated. If you are careful about choosing the right things, it's inherently more appreciative to those lives - whether animal or plant.
Eatwild.com has listings of farms all over the country - which you can visit, personally inspect, and order from if you so choose to.
aMatt - good point on organics, they are the more ethical choice. Just be careful not to be tricked by all the deceptive labelling out there. And yes, you are right most of us are conditioned to be meat-eaters and harsh words are probably not as effective as a good example. We should become amazing vegetarian chefs, that's what sells it!
dhammachick - i spoke some plain, uncontroversial truths about market forces. we must be conscientious consumers. But again, i am sorry if my language was too harsh or abrupt.
Namaste.
You slice me up some vegetarians and I'll grill us up some steaks
It's a drag, when I buy organic dog food it's hard to know what degree of "organic" or "free range" it is because the rules of defining it as one of the two are quite loose.
Hear that one all the time! "Veggie" burgers takes a whole new meaning.
Animal-based proteins are more complex than vegetable-based proteins too, so it will build muscle mass faster than if someone had a vegan diet. To me through a survival perspective an omnivorous (people seem to be using carnivore a lot in this thread....savages
The issue is not merely about eating meat, as the Buddha ate meat whenever it ended up in the alms bowl. Furthermore, he instructed the monks to do the very same in the Vinaya. The issue then, is about excess (greed) and total lack of awareness and compassion that most have about the lives of animals in their daily hamburger.
Have you ever tried to show a meat-eater a video of what happens in a slaughterhouse, only to have them turn away because they cannot look at it? Or to have them simply say "I don't want to know?" To me, this is the real issue. A lack of respect for the lives of animals who are sacrificed for the nutrition of others. I have more respect for a hunter who shoots his own food then I do the mindless consumer who goes years on end buying meat from the supermarket without once really thinking about how it got there.
In the Omnivore's Dilemma (and other books by Michael Pollen), the suggestion is that meat be used as a condiment...as an occasional source of protein. I think that is wise advice from the standpoint of one's health--reducing cholesterol--as well as from an ecological position. Although I practice a vegetarian diet, I do not freak if I discover that chicken broth was used in a sauce, and on rare occasions, I will eat a dish with a small amount of meat in it as a reminder that all things are interconnected in nature's cycle, and that I cannot drive to work without taking life. I offer thanks to the animal that gave the ultimate sacrifice for my sustenance. I perhaps do this 2 or 3 times a year. Not often perhaps, but enough to where I avoid any holier-than-thou sentiments about my diet. As an American, I already use 50 times the natural resources of people in other areas of the world, and I am very cognizant of this fact. Every day I find new ways to conserve, recycle, and improve my way of living. Every day, I find new ways to apply the middle way to this existence.
Each person is on their own journey and must sort through this in their own way, but if more people were mindful of what is going on around them in terms of their food, things would change for the better. I do see the tide shifting a little bit, but there is so much more to be done.
I choose not to eat meat as a matter of personal ethics and as a support for practice. Its a personal choice, the karma argument doesnt work either, its illogical to assert that one is karmically culpable for the actions of another, therefore eating the meat of an animal that is killed by someone else can in no way bring killing karma to the meat eater. It makes no sense.
Eating meat is unethical, period. I think everyone recognizes that but we certainly dont need soap-box Buddhists misrepresenting the teachings in order to get people to stop eating meat.
It wont work either.
Sorry, but I value all life, including the smallest insects that get sprayed with pesticides and trampled by tractors to bring your vegetables to the table. I'm literally having a showdown with a freakin' spider in my house because I want him GONE (harmless, but I'm scared crapless of them) but refuse to kill him. I had to put an ugly little bug out of its misery once because he was nearly cut in half and just lying there struggling - and ended up bawling on my boyfriend's shoulder over it.
I'm very aware of the severity of killing--I'm just also aware of death being inherent in our own existence, and how prominent it is in vegan lifestyles as well, directly and indirectly. If I know thousands are killed and harmed unintentionally AND intentionally through eating veggies, and one is killed intentionally by eating meat, then I don't feel that choosing veggies is necessarily the more compassionate action, just because the death is KNOWINGLY inadvertent.
What I meant about preaching, is that while you say "it's your choice, follow your heart!" you also imply "[but following your heart in THAT direction is not in accord with a Buddhist path of Right Intention and Effort nor is it rooted in compassion]." I personally have compassion for the animals that die, a lot of it. I just feel I'm also being realistic and that making an effort towards "humane" slaughter is a better expression of it, for me, and also appreciate your efforts.
No, not everyone agrees with your rigid, black-and-white opinion. =P
Please express to me the ethical qualities of meat eating, and by all means maintain your usual charming tone when you do so. By reading what my post says in its entirety you can see that my opinion isnt "rigid, black-and-white", there are many factors involved that influence my opinions and the unethical nature of continuing to eat the flesh of animals when it is not necessary is no exception.
I'm sorry that the tone you inferred is not-so-charming. The tone I read into your remark above isn't too charming either.
Your opinion still seems very black-and-white to me: "eating meat is unethical, period."
Should a person die rather than eat meat to survive? Is eating meat the same as killing? Are there absolutely no circumstances that are at least somewhat grey?
I already explained my reasoning for including meat in my diet here. I don't feel my choice is unethical. You might.
You do ask for a tall order. First, the easy one is that ethics is a set of beliefs, intrinsically subjective to the interpretation of the person experiencing the objects. So your question is really "pierce my ethical rigidity" which doesn't seem like you even want it, more wielding this line as a stick to bat away other visions of ethics.
The more troublesome one is the direct and concrete assumption you make about the suffering of animals. I wonder if an animal, raised in a loving and well tended environment, and one day killed for food has a depressed existence? Without the market for that animal, it would never have been given an opportunity for life. So, is existing worth existing when suffering occurs and death is the eventual?
From that ethical high-ground, you must also see that it would be unethical to bear children, as one day they will die, during life they will suffer. Only being a shepherd to pure, non-suffering lives holds ethical resonance?
Now, this is not to say that the current market isn't a horror show of mistreatment and compassionate-less killing. It certainly is. But to hold the entirety of an action as something that is intrinsically 'bad'... well it really does nothing but solidify yourself against the beauty that is.
With love,
Matt
I'm quite relaxed, thanks.
Just because something is recognized as being unethical does not mean that there can be no exceptions for it to happen.
The analogy of dying rather than performing an unethical act is irrelevant if you ask me. It would be illogical for an individual to chose death over a cheesburger.
The unavoidable nature of death doesnt do it for me.
Have I done something to piss you off? Because if so, I'm sorry. It's just the way I talk, and I'm genuinely not trying to offend anyone.
Ethics are subjective and man-made. It's not a force like gravity. I don't feel a person killing so that they and their family can survive, or eating meat that's already been killed and would otherwise be trashed, is unethical. Perhaps you do. But the point is that no, not everyone views it as you do.
A vegetarian Buddhist website:
http://www.shabkar.org/
.
Ethics is based on reason, of course its not a universal law.
i think there is a simple misunderstanding. If something is considered unethical, that doesnt mean we cant come up with situations that the unethical act might be necessary, such as the ones you point out. If you kill an individual in self defense you are making the decision to commit a harmful/unethical act under circumstances that deem it necessary. Same with the eating meat or die of starvation scenario.
Based on those two scenarios we can say that killing is unethical but unfortunately may at times be necessary. The same can be said about eating meat in my opinion. The consumption of meat in a modern society where it is no longer necessary is unethical, however, in certain situations the act of eating meat may be necessary.
In my opinion necessity does not change the ethical designation of the act.
I didn't imagine it would, there seems to be a very solid quality to your perceptions in this matter. I never intended on tying to get you to eat meat, rather, challenge your habituated conceptions because you asked. It is even more clear now that the intent was simply waving certainty around like a weapon, rather than genuine curiosity into other views.
With warmth,
Matt
Actually, thats not it.
If you had presented sound arguments I would have greatly enjoyed discussing them.