Meat Eating and Mahayana

lamaramadingdong

Tonight's supper-
Curried Noodles (yum!)

1 pkg wide rice noodles
2 tsp sesame oil
3 Tbs peanut oil
1 tsp grated ginger
1 tsp minced garlic
1 tsp Thai Kitchen green curry paste
1 can water chestnuts, sliced and rinsed
1 can bamboo shoots, rinsed
3 Tbs oyster sauce
1/4 cup chopped cilantro
1/4 cup fresh bean sprouts

Prepare noodles as per package
toss in sesame oil
in hot wok, add peanut oil, ginger, garlic, curry paste
mix until dissolved
add bamboo shoots, water chestnuts
add noodles and oyster sauce, steam until hot
add sprouts and cilantro

vinlyn

Hmmmmmmmmm...oyster sauce in a thread about vegetarianism.

lamaramadingdong

A little is better than a lot.
If you want complete vegetarian, figure a work-around.
Not like I started with "Butcher a cow".

Invincible_summer

vinlyn said:

Actually, I do have mild tachycardia. And when it was confirmed, I said to the doctor, "Well I guess all those Krispy Kream donuts finally caught up with me." He responded: "No, this was a genetic problem passed on by your mother."

Well that's a relief! *proceeds to double-fist doughnuts*

karasti

The human body and diet is a pretty complex system, and much of the "vegetarians are less likely to have heart problems" is pretty wide assumption that the diet makes all the difference, when in fact people who are veggie or vegan tend to live much healthier lives overall, including higher veggie intake (obviously) more exercise, less stress and other beneficial things. Someone who eats meat who greatly increased their veggie intake can greatly reduce some of their health risks. Also, even if you look at the research, the problem (supposedly) is more in over consumption of red meat, not fish, seafood, and fowl.

Dakini

seeker242 said:

Dakini said:

I think that if Mahayana Buddhists want to avoid eating meat as part of their practice, fine. It's inappropriate for them to try to push that on others with long suttric analyses and arguments. People do what they need to do. The Tibetans and Mongols don't care. The DL's entire family was raised eating their own livestock that the parents slaughtered routinely. His eldest brother (a tulku in their regional monastery) hired hunters to shoot game when he organized an expedition to Lhasa. People do what they need to do to survive, or maintain health. Let each practitioner see after his own karmic seeds as s/he sees fit.

I would be willing to bet a cow would completely disagree with that, if they could speak! Some people chose to speak for them, from a Mahayana perspective, nothing wrong with that. It's really not just about a practitioners karmic seeds as they see fit, it's also about horribly abused animals who suffer. I don't think it's inappropriate for people to speak on their behalf.

OK, you have a point. In traditional societies, the livestock don't suffer horribly. They graze contentedly. The sheep are slaughtered incredibly efficiently. All they experience is someone reaching in and squeezing their aorta. They die instantly. Only a split-second of discomfort.

In the West, however, with all this factory farming and awful practices, yes. The animals suffer. That's why it's important to buy from vendors who only buy free-range meat, and so forth. We had a guy posting here briefly who said he'd developed a new much more humane way to slaughter cows. He was not well-received. I think he had a good idea, though. He was already putting it into practice. I think something like that's important, if we're going to support humane ranching practices.

Those of us who are meat-eaters, anyway.

karasti

It's not inappropriate to bring it up, and offer suggestions in the right time, place, company and context. However, you also have to realize that everyone does the best they can with what they have, and while it's horrifying to think of what the animals go through, there are a lot of families who cannot afford to buy a single free range chicken at a cost of $12 when they can get a whole bag of tyson chicken breast for $5 when they have a family to feed. A lot of people do know the horrors of factory farming, but until there is a shift in availability, free-range meats are really hard for a lot of families to afford. We definitely get them when we can, and we've mostly taken to eating more of other things, and less meat in order to afford the free-range meats. But we have a pretty big grocery budget that is about twice what many families budget, whom I know personally. It would be pretty darn hard for them to feed their children anything that resembles a good diet on their budget without buying the cheaper meats. Lecturing them on the matter generally only ends in them feeling bad. Compassion on the part of the animal that leads to judgement and unkindness towards fellow people. It's a fine line.

Also, a lot of people who are vegan/veggie tout, for example, the awesomeness of quinoa. Without realizing that quinoa that is grown in South America has caused a whole lot of problems, because of the increased demand for the farmers, their families and the locals, along with damage to the farm land because of the excess harvesting of the same crop over and over again. Just one example of many. So, there are usually consequences, somewhere to someone, some other being, in exchange for our existence. Many of us try to lessen it as much as we can, but I have at one point in my life been in a place where I had to feed 4 people on $85 a week. If you can manage free-range meats on that budget, then you must have superpowers, lol.

Invincible_summer

I think all of this discussion regarding food ethics & environment just shows that there's no "perfect" way to eat. If you want to satisfy your own personal code of ethics, you may be doing harm to the environment (e.g. veg*ns eating quinoa); if you want to be kind to the environment, you may be wandering into ethical grey areas (e.g. local, organic food and its tendency to be unavailable to the average income earner; is killing animals still okay even if it's not factory farmed, etc).

Citta

karasti said:

The human body and diet is a pretty complex system, and much of the "vegetarians are less likely to have heart problems" is pretty wide assumption that the diet makes all the difference, when in fact people who are veggie or vegan tend to live much healthier lives overall, including higher veggie intake (obviously) more exercise, less stress and other beneficial things. Someone who eats meat who greatly increased their veggie intake can greatly reduce some of their health risks. Also, even if you look at the research, the problem (supposedly) is more in over consumption of red meat, not fish, seafood, and fowl.

OK..lets assume that the data is accurate and that the interpretation of the data is correct...and that is an assumption which would be challenged even by some who have no pecunary interest in the subject. But lets assume that a veg/vegan diet confers a few more years. Lets say an average of three or four. And I have seen no claim from the Vegetarian Society of the UK which goes further than that..what do you suppose most people will do with that extra three years ?
I can guess. Most of them will spend the time sitting in a care home singing along to the TV.
Life is about more than living longer.

Pass the steak.

seeker242

“By eating meat we share the responsibility of climate change, the destruction of our forests, and the poisoning of our air and water. The simple act of becoming a vegetarian will make a difference in the health of our planet.”
― Thich Nhat Hanh

According to a 2006 United Nations initiative, "the livestock industry is one of the largest contributors to environmental degradation worldwide, and modern practices of raising animals for food contribute on a "massive scale" to air and water pollution, land degradation, climate change, and loss of biodiversity. The initiative concluded that "the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."

According to the Worldwatch Institute, one of the top ten sustainable development research organizations, "Massive reductions in meat consumption in industrial nations will ease their health care burden while improving public health; declining livestock herds will take pressure off rangelands and grainlands, allowing the agricultural resource base to rejuvenate. As populations grow, lowering meat consumption worldwide will allow more efficient use of declining per capita land and water resources, while at the same time making grain more affordable to the world's chronically hungry."

Antibiotics are routinely added to grain feed as a growth stimulant. Livestock consume 70% of the antibiotics in the United States.This practice contributes significantly to the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, including MRSA

"Cattle grazing is destructive to the environment in numerous ways, including soil loss to erosion, reduced survival of seedling trees, and loss of species diversity."Jones, Allison, "Effects of cattle grazing on North American arid ecosystems: a quantitative review," Western North American Naturalist 60 (2), (2000): 155-164.

"My life experience has given me a better understanding of what is happening, and what a mistake it is to believe there is anything called "humane" slaughter. Animals have families and feelings, and to think that kindness before killing them is an answer is totally wrong. Humans have no need for animal products. And when we consume animal products, we're not just killing the animals. In the long run, we're killing the planet, and ourselves." Howard Lyman, Former 4th generation Cattle Rancher

There literally can be 20 more pages of this! How anyone can speak in defense of such things is beyond my comprehension!

Bring on the spinach!

Citta

Please take the spinach...welcome.

seeker242

karasti said:

Also, a lot of people who are vegan/veggie tout, for example, the awesomeness of quinoa. Without realizing that quinoa that is grown in South America has caused a whole lot of problems, because of the increased demand for the farmers, their families and the locals, along with damage to the farm land because of the excess harvesting of the same crop over and over again. Just one example of many. So, there are usually consequences, somewhere to someone, some other being, in exchange for our existence. Many of us try to lessen it as much as we can,

Yes, we should try to lessen it as much as possible! That is precisely why informed vegans purchase sustainable quinoa because quinoa is awesome! To assume that people don't know about these things is really just that, an assumption. Often a wrong one!

riverflow

I'm vegetarian (almost-but-not-quite vegan, because pizza!), something I began only about four months ago. But this is a decision I made without anyone trying converting me. The time seemed right to me to look into it.

In my experience, actively proselytizing others (and all that comes with that) I find generally counter-productive (PETA is an obvious example). As someone practicing Buddhism, I try to focus on MY eating habits rather than judge the eating habits of others. I don't keep my being a vegetarian a secret from others, but I don't go out of my way to advertise it either. I see it as a positive change for myself, not as a negative standard to hold against others.

Going vegetarian has brought about positive changes in my attitude in my practice beyond eating habits--but maybe the practice of others has a different focus. Maybe that diversity is a good thing, rather than seeking consistency and conformity among others who are at different places in their practice?

karmablues

Presently, my diet consists of around 70 percent fruits and vegetables. Going fully vegetarian is on my to-do list. Given my own inclinations, I have a feeling my practice will lead me there at some point. I am looking forward to it.

riverflow

karmablues said:

Presently, my diet consists of around 70 percent fruits and vegetables. Going fully vegetarian is on my to-do list. Given my own inclinations, I have a feeling my practice will lead me there at some point. I am looking forward to it.

I worked up to it gradually too. It wasn't really even my intention to go vegetarian-- I eventually noticed I was eating less meat and so it didn't take much effort to go from "part-time" to "full-time." I became a vegetarian almost by accident! haha

Good luck!

Citta

I was vegetarian for many years.
Almost without realising it I became aware that I was gradually eating meat. As my practice developed I felt more and more reluctant to make an lunch an issue.

Cinorjer

Lazy_eye said:

All going too far, in my view. If by buying meat one is participating in the karma of the meat industry, then by the same principle we must say that buying grains and vegetables is participating in the karma of agriculture, which destroys habitats and biodiversity -- causing loss of life, both directly and indirectly.

Basically, once we introduce a notion of collective karma, there is actually no way to avoid bad karma except by leaving the planet.

You've hit the nail on the head. The entire third section of the essay above should be replaced with your final sentence.

I thought the article was a pretty good summation of the logic and thinking about the "eat meat or not" debate in Buddhism, until the writer ended the section on Buddhism 301 with "While it may be labeled by words, the true meaning of this is not able to be comprehended by people of ordinary consciousness..."

I thought, "Oh, that again. Not to be understood by ordinary mortals, is it. The author doesn't understand, so this viewpoint is consigned to the 'imponderable' trash can."

It's not rocket science to make the final leap of understanding that the interconnected, collective karma of the world means it's impossible to live a life without causing bad karma. The most dedicated monk behind the temple walls cannot live a life without causing bad karma. So getting obsessed with what is and isn't good and bad karma is probably wasted energy.

Collective karma can be illustrated. So everyone stops eating meat in the industrialized world. The millions of people who make a living off the meat industry are now without a livelihood, and on top of that millions of farm animals are slaughtered and buried in mass graves because the ranchers can't just turn them loose to roam the land, can they? The land itself that used to be pasture is now sold to developers and natural habitat is turned into genetically engineered corn and soybean fields. Also because now everyone has to get their protein from vegetables, speculators in the commodity market cause the price of beans and wheat and corn to quickly double and poor people and nations that have to import their food begin to go hungry. And all because you stopped eating meat. Don't you feel bad, now?

This is only the tip of the chain of consequences. Individual karma cannot be separated from collective karma. Unintended consequences means nobody can act to produce only good karma. The quest to live a life of only skillful good karma actions is doomed to failure. That doesn't mean skillful means are unnecessary and actions that cause bad karma are not to be avoided. We have the precepts to remind us of that. But the Buddha could have written a Precept "avoid eating meat" if he'd wanted. After all, he did list "Avoid intoxicants" now, didn't he? So why isn't "avoid meat" a precept?

Because a diet of only rice will quickly make you sick. Because only in rich, industrialized societies does everyone have the luxury of picking and choosing what they eat. For most people of the world throughout history, getting anything to eat through the year is the problem. The occasional bit of protein from meat was a blessing. Maybe now we should avoid meat, if our circumstances allow us to substitute beans for chicken year around. All you'd be sacrificing is a bit of variety in your diet. But for many Buddhists, that would mean sacrificing the only good source of protein available. So it's not a hard rule.

Chaz

Cinorjer said:

The quest to live a life of only skillful good karma actions is doomed to failure. That doesn't mean skillful means are unnecessary and actions that cause bad karma are not to be avoided. We have the precepts to remind us of that. But the Buddha could have written a Precept "avoid eating meat" if he'd wanted. After all, he did list "Avoid intoxicants" now, didn't he? So why isn't "avoid meat" a precept?

Perhaps the the precepts aren't meant to be something "followed" at all. Rather, it may be a skillful way to impress us that trying to attain enlightenment by imposing and following rules that are impossible to keep is an exercise in futility.

Other methods must be employed. In the Mahayana, terminology such as "purifying karma" is employed and there are practices to be taken up that specifically address the purification of karma, Vajrasattva practice being one.

There is still the notion of no-harm, but we will all practice that to our capacity to do so. Some of practice this by not eating meat. Some of us give up other harmful activities. Some of us rescue nightcrawlers on the sidewalk after a rainstorm. Some of us ride bicycles to reduce our carbon footprint and the the toxic pollutants that harm all life - not just animals.

Maybe I should start a thread on that - the karmic imperative to abandon cars and buses as it applies the precepts. Everybody ready to get back on their bikes? After all it is Bike to Work Day!!!!

Citta

That would raise the issue of the pollution caused by the manufacturers of bicycles...
The fact is purity is not the point nor is it possible.
Everything is Interdependant. Samsara can't be fixed.

Chaz

Citta said:

That would raise the issue of the pollution caused by the manufacturers of bicycles...
The fact is purity is not the point nor is it possible.
Everything is Interdependant. Samsara can't be fixed.

Quite right - no matter what we "do" it always comes back to karma and the futility of trying to "do" something about it.

I like your example - I ride a bike, in part, because of the reasons outlined in my previous post - my reasoning and intent is confounded in that the benefit of my activity is probably offset by the carbon footprint and pollution inherent in the manufacturing process. So, all my activity might actually not amount to anything of benefit to beings, in a broad sense, and would, in fact, do nothing but increase my already heavy karmic burden.

Cinorjer

The flip side would be to use collective karma and the conditioned interdependence as an excuse not to do anything. In the example, I'm pretty sure the carbon footprint of manufacturing a bike is much less than driving a car for a few years.

rivercane

To me, leather and fur are almost worse than eating meat. When I learned that most animals are skinned alive for fur or leather, because it is easier than skinning a dead animal, that put me off of leather forever.

With synthetic fabrics there doesn't seem to be any need for leather jackets and leather couches besides the way they look/feel. This seems incredibly selfish. And fur, to me, is just wrong no matter how you try to spin it.

And yes, I still have some leather. I would never wear a leather jacket or anything like that but I find it really hard to find dress shoes or belts that are not made of leather. I guess that's just an excuse really, but I wish society would come out with a good replacement fabric for these items.

I didn't find the OP preachy at all and thought it was really pretty insightful. I liked the quote about animals being able to smell someone who eats meat. I'm sure we've all heard how vegetarians...um, "taste" better, well I can believe that animals are able to smell or otherwise sense a person who eats meat. That's something I never thought about before and found it really eye-opening.

It also seems like there is no longer any doubt that eating red meat has a negative effect on our emotional health. I wonder if anyone has used it as a legal defense since it's been more or less proven that consuming red meat makes us more aggressive, angry, and potentially violent.

People can say what they want about not being able to being able to find affordable vegetarian alternatives (although I wonder how true this is in modern America) but there seems to be no getting around the fact that meat has a negative impact on our physical and mental health.

Citta

I wouldn't be so sure @cinojer..particularly in places like India and China where unregulated factories are producing vast numbers of bicycles and huge amounts of pollution.

karmablues

I think it's important to remember that the Buddha said the following:

Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.

So while it may be impossible to ensure that our actions will only lead to positive outcomes and be free of any unintended negative outcomes, we should at least try to ensure that our intentions are pure (in terms of being free from the defilements).

karasti

Synthetic fibers have their own problems, namely that they are made from petro products and cause significant pollution when they are produced and in their disposal. We have a Native American family here that still mostly survives on what they can produce and make themselves. They hunt and use the entire animal, furs included. That is what they use for their winter clothing still. So, as usually you cannot simply say that one never, ever should use fur or leather. They, in doing what they do, do far less harm to the environment than I do in purchasing my clothing and meat from the store.

@seeker242 and you make the assumption that those of us who eat meat do not already know all the things you already bought up. I don't think I've ever seen anyone here defend factory farming as a good thing, or ideal. Just that some people have no choice. Others still are simply not at a place in their personal evolution that they are able to see the harm. We are all in different places in our development. For me personally, it is less than ideal to consume animals. I do so carefully and with mindfulness as much as I possibly can, both in my shopping and my eating. I could see one day choosing not to eat it at all myself. But with one income and 5 people in the family I do not get to make that choice for a multitude of reasons. I accept the resulting karma. But I'm already well aware of the issues, as are most people in this forum, and reiterating them over and over and over again doesn't really change anything.

Arthurbodhi

Whatever do you eat, just eat it consciously. Eat like you care.

Chaz

karmablues said:

So while it may be impossible to ensure that our actions will only lead to positive outcomes and be free of any unintended negative outcomes, we should at least try to ensure that our intentions are pure (in terms of being free from the defilements).

That will require what is, in Mahayana, called Threefold Purity.

Threefold purity is taught using the following example:

"No Self, No Meditation, No Result".

Only when those three purities are present will our intention be without defilement.

No pro-vegetarian argument I have seen has threefold purity. I would say, then, that all are defiled in intent.

Chaz

Arthurbodhi said:

Whatever do you eat, just eat it consciously. Eat like you care.

Here's what the Karmapa's said about that ....

http://www.kagyumonlam.org/English/Lectures/20071224_HHK_Advice_Vegetarianism.html

Arthurbodhi

Chaz said:

Arthurbodhi said:

Whatever do you eat, just eat it consciously. Eat like you care.

Here's what the Karmapa's said about that ....

http://www.kagyumonlam.org/English/Lectures/20071224_HHK_Advice_Vegetarianism.html

I'm agree with the Karmapa, but I don't think that I will live a shorter life if I don't eat meat.

karasti

I don't think that's what he said..

Citta

The problem is right there...as HH says some western people interpreted his preference for a vegetarian diet as a COMMANDMENT...I saw this first hand. My wife's root guru is HH's tutor. She has been around long enough to take a calm view..but she was assured by other students that the Karmapa had 'banned' meat..And of course as he says in the interview he hadn't made it a commandment ..We have this understandable but unhelpful desire to have things black or white.

Chaz

Citta said:

The problem is right there...as HH says some western people interpreted his preference for a vegetarian diet as a COMMANDMENT...I saw this first hand. My wife's root guru is HH's tutor. She has been around long enough to take a calm view..but she was assured by other students that the Karmapa had 'banned' meat..And of course as he says in the interview he hadn't made it a commandment ..We have this understandable but unhelpful desire to have things black or white.

Quite so.

My root guru is close to HH and his family is close to the Karmapa's office. He has never made any announcement regarding meat diet among his student pursuant to any statement from HH. We continue to use both red meat and alcoholic beverages as Tsok offerings.

My guru, while a young man, is still a traditional Kagyu guru in many respects. I seriously doubt that he would deliberately go against HH's wishes in this matter. So I suspect, as other's do, that in some cases, HH's statements are misinterpreted as commands. Irt's quite clear he believes that eating meat isn't a good thing, but it's also easy to see that he doesn't mean that would should all give up eating meat, right this second.

maarten

It seems simple to me. The Buddha advises us to develop compassion for beings "to-be-born":

Those born and to-be-born,
May all beings be at ease!

Wishing that animals "to-be-born" are at ease conflicts with eating factory meat. Not all people are in the position that they can avoid this conflict by not eating meat, but it you have this choice...
I'm not a saint either, but I hope we will all develop as our compassion to its fullest capacity, for the happiness of all beings.

Citta

Chaz said:

Citta said:

The problem is right there...as HH says some western people interpreted his preference for a vegetarian diet as a COMMANDMENT...I saw this first hand. My wife's root guru is HH's tutor. She has been around long enough to take a calm view..but she was assured by other students that the Karmapa had 'banned' meat..And of course as he says in the interview he hadn't made it a commandment ..We have this understandable but unhelpful desire to have things black or white.

Quite so.

My root guru is close to HH and his family is close to the Karmapa's office. He has never made any announcement regarding meat diet among his student pursuant to any statement from HH. We continue to use both red meat and alcoholic beverages as Tsok offerings.

My guru, while a young man, is still a traditional Kagyu guru in many respects. I seriously doubt that he would deliberately go against HH's wishes in this matter. So I suspect, as other's do, that in some cases, HH's statements are misinterpreted as commands. Irt's quite clear he believes that eating meat isn't a good thing, but it's also easy to see that he doesn't mean that would should all give up eating meat, right this second.

I gather Chaz that some of HH's Dharma centres stopped using meat in Tsoks..but that they have reverted to its use...I suspect that over time the situation will become calmer.

seeker242

Cinorjer said:

Lazy_eye said:

All going too far, in my view. If by buying meat one is participating in the karma of the meat industry, then by the same principle we must say that buying grains and vegetables is participating in the karma of agriculture, which destroys habitats and biodiversity -- causing loss of life, both directly and indirectly.

Basically, once we introduce a notion of collective karma, there is actually no way to avoid bad karma except by leaving the planet.

You've hit the nail on the head.

I agree! The question to ask now is "Which behaviors or lifestyles are more harmful and which are less harmful? Or are they equally harmful?" If one behavior is less harmful and one has the opportunity to chose that behavior, over the more harmful one, then it is a moral imperative to chose the less harmful behavior if one wants to fully want to express "Ahimsa" in their life. Ahimsa is generally translated as "do no harm". But like other people have pointed out, literally doing no harm is simply not possible, you have to leave the planet or perhaps kill yourself! Neither of which is reasonable obviously! So to fully embrace Ahimsa in a realistic manner, the intent is not to "do no harm" but rather to "do as little harm as possible".

People say that you can not fix samsara, this is true! But if a person ignores the conventional reality of some behaviors causing more harm than others, they are not embracing Ahimsa, they are ignoring Ahimsa!

seeker242

riverflow said:

I'm vegetarian (almost-but-not-quite vegan, because pizza!),

This Saturday, June 29th, just so happens to be "Vegan Pizza Day"! I eat pizza all the time, mostly homemade! Sometimes I get Papa John's though. Just minus the cheese, then add soy cheese, pop it in oven for like 5-10 minutes. It's pretty good! Or this other place called "Pizza Fusion" has an all vegan pizza on their menu too. It's pretty good but quite expensive since they only use all natural, organic ingredients. Some people say they don't really like the soy cheese, I don't have a problem with it myself. Having a homemade one this Saturday for "vegan pizza day".

.

federica

*Moderator Note:*

I have had to delete several posts due to off-topic, inflammatory and unnecessary argument.
Please stick to topic and refrain from adding commentary which could be construed as "Traditionally-argumentative".

Further indiscretion will result in a closed thread.

No response necessary.
Thanks.

Carry on.

riverflow

seeker242 said:

This Saturday, June 29th, just so happens to be "Vegan Pizza Day"! I eat pizza all the time, mostly homemade! Sometimes I get Papa John's though. Just minus the cheese, then add soy cheese, pop it in oven for like 5-10 minutes. It's pretty good! Or this other place called "Pizza Fusion" has an all vegan pizza on their menu too. It's pretty good but quite expensive since they only use all natural, organic ingredients. Some people say they don't really like the soy cheese, I don't have a problem with it myself. Having a homemade one this Saturday for "vegan pizza day".

There is a place across the river, in Memphis that is vegan and I had pizza there once with a friend who was visiting. I was skeptical of the cheese, but I was surprised how good it actually was.

I haven't had yogurt in quite some time, and I no longer have cheese with my spaghetti. The only other non-vegan food I eat is chocolate.

In tiny West Memphis, the options are much fewer (West Memphis, contrary to what the name suggests, is not a sort of suburb of Memphis). I have a hard time just finding vegetable broth here!

seeker242

riverflow said:

I haven't had yogurt in quite some time, and I no longer have cheese with my spaghetti. The only other non-vegan food I eat is chocolate.

In tiny West Memphis, the options are much fewer (West Memphis, contrary to what the name suggests, is not a sort of suburb of Memphis). I have a hard time just finding vegetable broth here!

"Silk" brand soy yogurt is what I get. It's pretty good, especially the blueberry! But they usually only sell it at health foods store like whole foods, Trader Joe's or something like that. Lucky for me, they are planning on building a new whole foods store like 4 blocks from my house! I could ride my bike there in like 5 minutes! They are pretty expensive but they have a lot of stuff that other stores don't carry, like dark chocolate! Most dark chocolate I have seen is vegan, sometimes not though. I could imagine that living in a small town it's much harder to find this kind of stuff! Friend of mine live in New Your City, loads of good stores there! Upstate NY, not so much!

Chaz

seeker242 said:

I agree! The question to ask now is "Which behaviors or lifestyles are more harmful and which are less harmful? Or are they equally harmful?" If one behavior is less harmful and one has the opportunity to chose that behavior, over the more harmful one, then it is a moral imperative to chose the less harmful behavior if one wants to fully want to express "Ahimsa" in their life. Ahimsa is generally translated as "do no harm". But like other people have pointed out, literally doing no harm is simply not possible, you have to leave the planet or perhaps kill yourself! Neither of which is reasonable obviously! So to fully embrace Ahimsa in a realistic manner, the intent is not to "do no harm" but rather to "do as little harm as possible".

People say that you can not fix samsara, this is true! But if a person ignores the conventional reality of some behaviors causing more harm than others, they are not embracing Ahimsa, they are ignoring Ahimsa!

OK, that may be true, but I have to ask, so what?

Let's say I ignore or simply can't deal with things like Amhisa right now. Lets say I'm a mahayanist and rely on my root guru and lineage teachers for guidance in such matters and they ask me to focus my practice elsewhere? Lets say I'm adult enough to understand the karmic implications of my lifestyle choices and willing to accept those consequences, but too old to want to devote energy to lifestyle change that would be considerable and not supported by She Who Makes Dinner.

It's my karma too, y'know?

I'm doing as little harm "as possible". Is that not enough?

Chaz

Citta said:

I gather Chaz that some of HH's Dharma centres stopped using meat in Tsoks..but that they have reverted to its use...I suspect that over time the situation will become calmer.

I don't know about that. My sangha/center has never abandoned the use of traditional Tsok offerings.

The Kagyu retreat center I go to in Crestone, as never, to the best of my knowledge, ever offered any meat from their kitchen to guests or retreatants.

What I find curious is that the real controversy over diet in the Mahayana tradition exists online. In polite sangha society, the subject almost never comes up. Never any argument. I've read more discussion of this subject in this thread than my sangha has engaged in in the last 10 years.

Citta

Ain't that the truth. And its a fact that I have pondered many times since first joining an online Buddhist Forum...I too have seldom over the years in flesh and blood Buddhist circles heard anyone ask what someone else eats, or tell anyone else what they eat..
In fact there are a whole list of subjects that seem to be exclusively the preoccupation of cyber-Buddhism. I have NEVER heard anyone discuss their love life either. Or their relationships generally. Not making a judgement...just sayin'.
I wonder if its because when we meet up in the 'real' world we are making the priority the practice instructions we are given. Or listening to a Dharma talk...so our subjective beliefs do not feature. Having said that I have had no first hand contact with those schools like some Sanghas of Chinese origin where I gather that vegetarianism is presented early on as an expectation..

federica

The 'hottest' topics we find discussed by members are (in no particular order)

Not specifically "Buddhist"
Abortion
Vegetarianism
Violence/self defence.

Specifically "Buddhist"
Karma
Rebirth
Dependent Origination/Self/not-self.

Just FYI.

Citta

Just to add that there was no suggestion that any of these topics should not be discussed. It may well be that the former almost exclusive focus on practice and the underlying theory did not meet everyone's needs. I am thinking of a Buddhist friend who had an abortion back before the era of the Internet.
I suspect she had very little opportunity at the time to ventilate her conflicted emotions with other Buddhists. I suspect also that these topics are now on the agenda in part because they feature in online discussion.
Its also a fact that on the more male dominated Buddhist websites she would be shot down for attempting to discuss the issue even now.

seeker242

Chaz said:

seeker242 said:

I agree! The question to ask now is "Which behaviors or lifestyles are more harmful and which are less harmful? Or are they equally harmful?" If one behavior is less harmful and one has the opportunity to chose that behavior, over the more harmful one, then it is a moral imperative to chose the less harmful behavior if one wants to fully want to express "Ahimsa" in their life. Ahimsa is generally translated as "do no harm". But like other people have pointed out, literally doing no harm is simply not possible, you have to leave the planet or perhaps kill yourself! Neither of which is reasonable obviously! So to fully embrace Ahimsa in a realistic manner, the intent is not to "do no harm" but rather to "do as little harm as possible".

People say that you can not fix samsara, this is true! But if a person ignores the conventional reality of some behaviors causing more harm than others, they are not embracing Ahimsa, they are ignoring Ahimsa!

OK, that may be true, but I have to ask, so what?

Let's say I ignore or simply can't deal with things like Amhisa right now. Lets say I'm a mahayanist and rely on my root guru and lineage teachers for guidance in such matters and they ask me to focus my practice elsewhere? Lets say I'm adult enough to understand the karmic implications of my lifestyle choices and willing to accept those consequences, but too old to want to devote energy to lifestyle change that would be considerable and not supported by She Who Makes Dinner.

It's my karma too, y'know?

I'm doing as little harm "as possible". Is that not enough?

Then you are doing a little harm "as possible" and following Ahimsa properly for your situation. I think there is a big difference between "ignore" and "can't deal". I don't think they mean the same thing. I don't think they are even close. However, if a person has two choices, one is more harmful and one is less harmful and they can easily chose either one, and they chose the more harmful one. Then by definition, they are not behaving in a manner that is consistent with Ahimsa.

Citta said:

.I too have seldom over the years in flesh and blood Buddhist circles heard anyone ask what someone else eats, or tell anyone else what they eat..

Personally, I've seen it many times. I see it every time I have a meal at my local temple. The temple rules forbid even the presence of meat products on the temple grounds. While at the temple or living at a local residential center, people are required to be vegetarian. There are no exceptions. All the monks are required to be vegetarian, no exceptions, ever. However, no one argues about it because they recognize that this behavior is, as it says in the Brama Net Sutra, is the "Moral Code of the Bodhisattvas". Teachers recommend that layperson be vegetarian outside the temple also. Some of them even say things like engaging in fishing, even if you are eating the fish, will cause you to go straight to hell. But, such statements are not considered controversial in the slightest.

Citta

Yes I see.
I have attended a number of centres/temples but I have never attended a temple where a dietary regime was in place. Or one where anyone is told that they will go to hell.
I can see that one's outlook would tend to be shaped by that.

karmablues

seeker242 said:

Some of them even say things like engaging in fishing, even if you are eating the fish, will cause you to go straight to hell. But, such statements are not considered controversial in the slightest.

Such statement would not be in accordance with the Buddha's teachings as recorded in the Pali Canon. From the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta:

["Now, Ananda, when a monk or brahman] says thus: 'It seems that one who kills living beings... has wrong view, will always, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell,'
[Such a statement] I do not concede that to him.

.....

Now there is the person who has killed living beings here... has had wrong view. [Yet] on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. But (perhaps) the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him earlier, or the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him later, or right view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death. And that was why, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappeared in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. But since he has killed living beings here... has had wrong view, he will feel the result of that here and now, or in his next rebirth, or in some subsequent existence.

So in the case described above, although the person who kills might still be able to go to heaven that doesn't mean he has escaped the negative karma from the killing which will still bear fruit at some point in time.

seeker242

karmablues said:

seeker242 said:

Some of them even say things like engaging in fishing, even if you are eating the fish, will cause you to go straight to hell. But, such statements are not considered controversial in the slightest.

Such statement would not be in accordance with the Buddha's teachings as recorded in the Pali Canon. From the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta:

That is correct. But, Mahayana sutras often take precedence over the Pali Canon whenever there is an apparent discrepancy. For example, the Pali Canon says it's ok to eat meat "under certain circumstances". Mahayana sutras say "no, it isn't" That is precisely why I made the title "Meat Eating and Mahayana".:) But even considering the Canon, I think it's still safe to say that killing normally causes hell rebirth. But, my point was just that it's not viewed as a controversial statement within that tradition that follows those scriptures.

Perhaps this is the reason why controversy exist online but not at a temple or around people of the same tradition. You don't have people of 6 or 10 different traditions, that say different things, going to the same temples. They all go to their own different temples where everyone is saying the same things. Meanwhile, online there are many different traditions, who say different things, all mashed together in the same place.

Chaz

seeker242 said:

That is correct. But, Mahayana sutras often take precedence over the Pali Canon whenever there is an apparent discrepancy.

Oh, I don't think so ........

For example, the Pali Canon says it's ok to eat meat "under certain circumstances". Mahayana sutras say "no, it isn't" That is precisely why I made the title "Meat Eating and Mahayana".:) But even considering the Canon, I think it's still safe to say that killing normally causes hell rebirth.

So Milarepa is in a hell realm and his alleged enlightenment is a sham, right?

We're all bound for hell because we all kill sentient beings.

Lovely outlook you have there, seeker.

But, my point was just that it's not viewed as a controversial statement within that tradition that follows those scriptures.

OK, but you seem to be framing you're assertions in such a way that it implies that your sangha is going to a pure land and the rest of us mere mortals is bound for a hell realm.

Care to clarify?

Perhaps this is the reason why controversy exist online but not at a temple or around people of the same tradition. You don't have people of 6 or 10 different traditions, that say different things, going to the same temples. They all go to their own different temples where everyone is saying the same things. Meanwhile, online there are many different traditions, who say different things, all mashed together in the same place.

Oh, ya think? OF COURSE that's the case. I think you have to treat forums like they are made up of a number of different traditions and unless it's your intent to create controversy on purpose, topics such as this should be avoided.

You wouldn't tell Dead Baby Jokes in a room full of young mothers would you?

federica

And 'eating meat' doesn't mean to say you've killed it yourself, or had it killed for you.

And I think people who retort that buying meat from a store or supermarket is enough to consider that meat as having been 'killed for you' because there you are, buying it are just pushing it....Frankly, IMO, that's just splitting hairs and firing guilt through a spatter-gun.
I dispute

But, Mahayana sutras often take precedence over the Pali Canon whenever there is an apparent discrepancy.

Not to anyone following Theravada, they don't. That as far as I am concerned, is actually quite inaccurate at best, and presumptuous at worst....
I don't have any clue as to why you would assume this.
It's certainly never occurred in my experience.