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.
Buddhism and vegetarianism
zidangus
Veteran
When the Buddha was alive, there was not the huge choice of food that is available today. It is clear that the issue of killing animals for food was one which he gave a lot of thought to. It's also clear that his teachings extend compassion to all sentient beings, including those destined for the butcher. But in some sutras he did not require his followers to be vegetarians, and rejected such a requirement when suggested by his cousin (and, later, rival) Devadatta. In fact, Buddha's last meal could have been wild boar meat, given him by Cunda the smith. Tough I should say that others believe it was mushrooms.
On the issue of vegetarianism the Buddhist sutras are contradictory, and different schools have different attitudes toward it depending on the sutras they believe authoritative. Or, given how we get attached to our food choices, maybe they have just chosen which sutras they believe authoritative depending on their attitudes towards vegetarianism, and I admit I am guilty of this picking and choosing what suits me myself with regards to some sutras.
There are some Buddhists who seem to ignore the issue completely. I mean some Buddhist such as the Dali Lama and the Shunryu Suzuki, who praise vegetarianism while continuing to eat meat themselves :scratch: , and then there are Zen temples which have elevated shojin ryori to an art. Hui Neng, is supposed to have lived with hunters during his exile, but would destroy their traps and gather vegetables to eat. On the other hand some Vajrayana Buddhists believe it's more important to chant mantras or dedicate their merit to the souls of slaughtered animals, than to actually refrain from killing them.
So what does this all actually mean ? Were the early Buddhists happy to eat animal flesh, as long as someone else accumulated the bad karma of doing the killing? In the past this is how things were done in Japan, with the burakumin, getting stuck doing work like butchering. Side note here, the discrimination against the descendants of these people still continues today in Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burakumin
So if we take Buddha's words to be true in the sutras which say it's ok to eat meat, then why did Buddha take the stance he did on this issue ?
I mean the precept against taking the lives of animals is there for all to see. It applied to monks and lay followers. So if everyone followed the Buddha's teachings, there would be no slaughter houses, no butchers, no meat to eat. The world would be a vegetarian world. Also, take into account that early Buddhist monks lived with a different economic system than todays. They were not allowed to use money and went begging for their food, basically they were teaching to the local community in return for food, clothing, etc etc. This behaviour goes all the way back to the time the Buddha spent under the Bo tree, when children brought him food and he would teach them in return.
Anyway the monks were expected to accept whatever was offered to them, but were not allowed to accept offerings of meat from animals that had been killed specifically for them. Even the suspicion that this was the case, was enough to reject the meat. When a monk eat meat it was not an endorsement of the act of killing the animal, because the monk or nun taught the lay person the precept against the taking of life. Maybe if the Buddha made his monks accept only vegetarian food, the message of compassion would be less likely to get to those who did not have vegetarian food to offer. By allowing, (but not forcing I should add) his monks to accept meat, maybe the Buddha thought this would allow his teaching to spread to more laypeople.
I should also say that a lot of monks did not like the idea that lay people should practice vegetarianism. After the Buddha's death, this was one of the issues that lead to the split between the Theravada and Mahayana schools, that is would Buddhism be a practice predominantly for monastic practice, or could lay people participate fully too. When Devadatta proposed that the monks should be allowed to accept only vegetarian food, it was because he wanted greater separation between monks and laypeople.
Maybe Buddha rejected this and his other proposals because he wanted to affirm that Buddhism was inclusive to all, and not because he wanted to endorse eating meat.
On the issue of vegetarianism the Buddhist sutras are contradictory, and different schools have different attitudes toward it depending on the sutras they believe authoritative. Or, given how we get attached to our food choices, maybe they have just chosen which sutras they believe authoritative depending on their attitudes towards vegetarianism, and I admit I am guilty of this picking and choosing what suits me myself with regards to some sutras.
There are some Buddhists who seem to ignore the issue completely. I mean some Buddhist such as the Dali Lama and the Shunryu Suzuki, who praise vegetarianism while continuing to eat meat themselves :scratch: , and then there are Zen temples which have elevated shojin ryori to an art. Hui Neng, is supposed to have lived with hunters during his exile, but would destroy their traps and gather vegetables to eat. On the other hand some Vajrayana Buddhists believe it's more important to chant mantras or dedicate their merit to the souls of slaughtered animals, than to actually refrain from killing them.
So what does this all actually mean ? Were the early Buddhists happy to eat animal flesh, as long as someone else accumulated the bad karma of doing the killing? In the past this is how things were done in Japan, with the burakumin, getting stuck doing work like butchering. Side note here, the discrimination against the descendants of these people still continues today in Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burakumin
So if we take Buddha's words to be true in the sutras which say it's ok to eat meat, then why did Buddha take the stance he did on this issue ?
I mean the precept against taking the lives of animals is there for all to see. It applied to monks and lay followers. So if everyone followed the Buddha's teachings, there would be no slaughter houses, no butchers, no meat to eat. The world would be a vegetarian world. Also, take into account that early Buddhist monks lived with a different economic system than todays. They were not allowed to use money and went begging for their food, basically they were teaching to the local community in return for food, clothing, etc etc. This behaviour goes all the way back to the time the Buddha spent under the Bo tree, when children brought him food and he would teach them in return.
Anyway the monks were expected to accept whatever was offered to them, but were not allowed to accept offerings of meat from animals that had been killed specifically for them. Even the suspicion that this was the case, was enough to reject the meat. When a monk eat meat it was not an endorsement of the act of killing the animal, because the monk or nun taught the lay person the precept against the taking of life. Maybe if the Buddha made his monks accept only vegetarian food, the message of compassion would be less likely to get to those who did not have vegetarian food to offer. By allowing, (but not forcing I should add) his monks to accept meat, maybe the Buddha thought this would allow his teaching to spread to more laypeople.
I should also say that a lot of monks did not like the idea that lay people should practice vegetarianism. After the Buddha's death, this was one of the issues that lead to the split between the Theravada and Mahayana schools, that is would Buddhism be a practice predominantly for monastic practice, or could lay people participate fully too. When Devadatta proposed that the monks should be allowed to accept only vegetarian food, it was because he wanted greater separation between monks and laypeople.
Maybe Buddha rejected this and his other proposals because he wanted to affirm that Buddhism was inclusive to all, and not because he wanted to endorse eating meat.
0
Comments
Another thing I think about when reflecting on the first precept and how it relates to what we eat is non-animal products that harm the environment and sentient life in the process. Take palm oil which is in thousands of products these days. Forests are destroyed to plant the crops, orang-utans are losing their habitat and being caused major suffering. Soy products are similarly controversial. Thousands of acres of rain forest in south America have been destroyed to produce soy crops. There’s goes my tofu burger!
I believe there are movements to produce sustainable soy crops with less environmental impact, and there is lots of awareness about the plight of the orang-utans.
I guess the main thing I’ve realised is that it takes ongoing self-education and awareness of where your food comes from and a regular evaluation of whether you’re on the right track. Whole foods prepared by yourself are best, but hey not everyone has time to bake their own bread (although it is a highly recommended and deeply satisfying thing to do!)
I was a vegetarian for 14 years then started getting frustrated by a lack of choice (I didn’t learn to cook properly until recently) So I started eating seafood, then lamb. I don’t eat beef because I don’t like the taste, I think cows are cool
That's what I think anyway.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33859347/A-Buddhist-Case-for-Vegetarianism
@TiaP I was a vegetarian for about 15 years, and I actually found the menu I put together to be much more varied and interesting than meat-eating. I had made international dishes that were vegetarian, like enchiladas stuffed with chopped eggs, olives, peppers, Chinese pot-stickers (dumplings) with tofu and veggie filling, or scrambled eggs and chopped veggies, etc. Get yourself some good ethnic veggie cookbooks, on an international veggie cookbook. I guess I'm like you, in that I never had experience cooking with meat, so my cooking is really basic. If I took the time to learn some cool meat dishes, it wouldn't be so boring.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081202164601AA0dWj6
you can buy it at Adventist book centre
But there have been critics in America
"Quorn's 2002 debut in the United States was more problematic than its European introduction had been. The sale of Quorn was contested by The American Mushroom Institute, rival competitor Gardenburger, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). They filed complaints with advertising and trading-standards watchdogs in Europe and the US, claiming the labelling of Quorn as "mushroom based" was deceptive.[22] The CSPI observed that while a mushroom is a fungus, Fusarium is not a mushroom, and stated, "Quorn's fungus is as closely related to mushrooms as humans are to jellyfish."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorn
http://www.gampopacenter.com/teachings/lamp-of-reasoning/index.html
http://what-buddha-said.net/Canon/Sutta/MN/MN55.htm
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/4.24-Amagandha-S-Sn-2.2-piya.pdf
It appears that there are two extremes, one side decided that meat should be forbidden the other side think that it is fine to eat meat. What is the middle path ?
There is a belief that forbidding people from eating meat is the way to spiritual progress. The ones that are vegetarian due to the rule sometimes think that they are more holy or spiritually advance than the people who aren't. However, that is not necessarily the case according to the Mahasihanada Sutta:
There are people who “eats no fish or meat and drinks no rum or spirits or fermented rice- gruel. ….Or a person becomes a herb-eater, a millet-eater, an eater of water -plants, or rice-husk-powder, or rice-scum, of flowers of oil-seeds, of forest roots and fruits, who drinks no cold water…” , etc.. as a practice.
According to the Buddha, a person ” may do all these things, but if his morality , his heart and his wisdom are not developed and brought to realization, then indeed he is still far from being an priest or contemplative. But, Kassapa, when a monk develops non- enmity, non ill-will and a heart full of loving-kindness and , abandoning the corruptions, realizes and dwells in the uncorrupted deliverance of mind, the deliverance through wisdom, having realized it in this very life by his won insight.”- Mahasihanada Sutta
Just because a person eat meat does not mean that they are mean or immoral. In the same way, it is possible for a person to be a vegetarian and yet engages in impure words, thoughts , and action. For example, Hitler is a vegetarian and yet he can be verbally and physically abusive towards human. Eating meat does not make you a failure in the spiritual path, and eating vegetarian does not mean that a person is peaceful or non-violent, or succeed in the spiritual path.
It is clear that forbidding people from eating meat does not help to purify people of inner defilements that obstruct progress on the spiritual path . Maybe this is one of the various reasons why the Buddha did not feel the need to lay down a rule forbidding people from eating meat eating. However, he clearly said that those who kill other beings for consumption or offering will give rise to future disadvantage due to the act of killing living beings or ordering a living creature to be killed:
"If anyone slaughters a living being for sake of the Tathagata or any of his disciples, he thereby creates much demerit in these five instances: When he says: Go and fetch that living sentient being this is the first instance in which he lays up much demerit. When that living being experiences pain and fear on being led along by the neck, this is the second instance in which he lays up much demerit.
When he says: Go and slaughter that living sentient being this is the third instance in which he accumulates much demerit. When that living being experiences pain and panic on being killed, this is the fourth instance in which he lays up much demerit. When he provides the Tathagata or his disciples with such food that is not permitted, which is unsuitable & unacceptable, this is the fifth instance in which he collects much demerit.
Anyone who slaughters a living being for sake of the Tathagata or any of his disciples creates future disadvantage on these five occasions... "- Jivaka Sutta
Nowadays, we rarely have to worry about this because there is no need to hunt and the meat can be purchased in markets. Does the Buddha endorse his lay disciples to engage in selling meat in the market? The Vanijja Sutta clearly shows that it goes against Right Livelihood of the Eightfold Path:
"A lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison." - AN 5.177 : Vanijja Sutta
It is clear that the Buddha neither endorse that people kill living beings, order them to be killed , or sell the meat of living beings for others to purchase.
Also, Right Intention is part of the Eightfold Path. One of the three right intention taught by the Buddha is the intention of Harmlessness. It is wishing others be free from suffering. Compassion is empathy with those afflicted by suffering. It has the characteristic of wishing that others be free from suffering, a wish to be extended without limits to all living beings. Compassion springs up by considering that all beings, like ourselves, wish to be free from suffering, yet despite their wishes continue to be harassed by pain, fear, sorrow, and other form of dukkha.
In an effort to put our intention of harmlessness and intention of good will / metta into practice, we should be mindful of the food we eat to minimize harm for other living beings. In this way , we develop both internally ( compassion, right thought, intention) and externally ( minimizing dukkha and harm for others through our action and choices), since eating vegetarian simply because we are being forbid does not help us progress in the spiritual path.
It is recommended that people choose to eat vegetarian as an expression of an inner compassion and intention of harmlessness. If people have the intention but are in a habit of eating meat or find it difficult , maybe start with one day a week or so.
With metta,
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/4.24-Amagandha-S-Sn-2.2-piya.pdf
I personally try to limit my meat in-take, mainly for environmental reasons. So instead of having meat 2-3 times a day, most days a week, I have meat 3-4days a week with one meal. The middle path, halfway between veggie and omnivore.