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.
Question for the learned ones.
I have yet another question that I am having difficulty finding answers to. My dilemma is this. I know we are not supposed to cause suffering to any living thing. This includes animals. Is it still okay to eat meat? I just don't like vegetables that much. I like salads, but I can't be a rabbit forever. Just wondering. I am full of wonderment most times.
0
Comments
Are Buddhists vegetarian?
Best wishes,
Jason
A tantric take on dietary habits is given in the wonderful Owl Precepts from the Aro Ter organization (a nyakpa, or lay tantrika, group):
‘Tantrikas refrain from killing the efflorescence of rigpa as it sparkles through the fabric of duality.’
Commentary: Tantrikas realise that to refrain from killing the efflorescence of their enlightened nature is simultaneously possible and impossible. It is possible, because they are enlightened from beginninglessness; but it is impossible because they may lack confidence in the non-dual state. Because of this ambivalence, they develop confidence in the non-dual state through sustaining awareness of the pain and suffering caused by killing in all its manifestations. Their understanding of this is always present. Tantrikas understand that it is impossible to disconnect from killing. They understand that it is so, simply because they have human bodies. They recognise that to have a body, and to exist, is to cause death. From this knowledge they establish compassionate connections with everyone and everything everywhere. Tantrikas recognise that to walk across fields is to kill insects. They recognise that to light a fire to keep warm is to kill beings, and that eating bread makes them responsible, in part, for the death of field mice. They understand that to use medicines is to kill organisms and bacteria. They recognise that plant life has sentience, and that sentience may exist within phenomena in which sentience cannot be perceived. Through this knowledge they know that is impossible to be 'pure' or disconnected from killing. They realise that it is impossible to ‘transcend’ their situation as a potential killers, merely by enacting purist physical regimes or purist dietary policies. They understand that to live is to cause death, and that this fact cannot be avoided. They recognise that there is no external method for disconnecting themselves from the causes of death; and that the only possibility of practise is to generate compassion when awareness arises of any cause of death. They know that because it is impossible to be pure, that it is also impossible to judge others from the standpoint of purity. They know that if they cannot judge others according to purity and impurity then all trace of religious bigotry is abandoned. They delight in the knowledge that the avoidance of bigotry restores the joy of practice. Knowing they cannot be ‘pure’ according to the ‘relative purist rationale’ dissolves all boundaries with regard to compassion. The knowledge that one’s physical existence is in itself the act of killing imbues tantrikas with the pervasive motivation to avoid harming other beings wherever possible. This knowledge also encourages the dynamic of alleviating suffering wherever it is found according to capacity, circumstances, and appropriate juncture. Tantrikas extend themselves to other to the extent of their ability, and without abuse to the continuity of their own worthwhile existence. Tantrikas attempt to commit themselves to experiencing bodhicitta at every opportunity, in order to create connections with whatever they eat, drink, or wear. They commit themselves to a non-aggressive way of life. Whether their style of taking sustenance is carnivorous, vegetarian, vegan, or fruitarian; they commit themselves to refraining from aggression by way of act, word, or attitude to those who derive sustenance according to contrasting considerations. Each style of deriving nourishment is linked with a form of expressing chang-chub sem (bodhicitta) - active-compassion - according to the different vehicles, and so they commit themselves to adopting whatever style accords with the integrity of their perception as tantrikas.
Finally, a little anecdote that I've shared before. The first time I saw Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche was at a public talk he gave in Evanston, Illinois, in 1974. After the talk he took questions from the audience, as was his wont. One person asked just this question, whether as Buddhists shouldn't we eat a vegetarian diet and refrain from killing animals. His response was, "Why? I have claws and fangs, don't I?" A very profound answer if you think about it.
Palzang
I have spent a decent amount of time contemplating as well as researching my own diet. First, I am going to say that I agree foremost with the fact that pretty much everyone else has said "personal preference." For me, my preference is a balance of compassion and my own good health. That is an equation that has been very pragmatic and comfortable for me. I am vegetarian because I do not believe that I need to kill animals (or fish, or bugs, etc.) in order to survive. I try to harm and kill as little as possible while maintaining a healthy and "doable" diet.
In addition, there are many kinds of vegetarianism, and everyone seems to have a different definition. If you are considering a veggie lifestyle you should definitely research its many manifestations. A sort of "standard" is Lacto-ovo vegetarianism, which means you eat eggs and dairy products. No animals are killed, but depending on whom you buy your products from, they could be seriously harmed. In our specialized world, making compassionate decisions is not always simple! Even if you continue to eat meat, you might want to consider how the animals that nourish you lived their lives. Were they well taken care of or were they mistreated and forced to live in sub-standard conditions in order to make your dinner less expensive?
I have one last point and I think this riffs off what Palzang said about our inability to live a life in which we do not kill or harm other creatures (so true!). I actually currently eat chicken because I was pregnant within the last year and am still breastfeeding a LOT. My protein needs are very high and my time and patience are low with a small child. My health and my son's health are way more important than any dietary decisions I could make in this situation. That whole "balanced equation of compassion and health" is what helped me make the decision to eat chicken during this process.
'Kay, I know that was long and personal. I hopefully it was even the slightest bit helpful, woody. Good luck!
On another note, Congratulations, Mouthfulofclay on your new addition to your family!
Now another question, which I have so many of, what is the belief about personal deities? I had not heard of this until now. Guess I still have a lot of reading to do.
On another thread, I think it was one dealing with sexuality, you posted something about (excuse me if my memory fails a bit here) Buddhists not being particualry given to accepting behavoirs based on the notion that something is "natural". The quote you have offered: seems to imply that that naturalness is a good criterion after all.
Actually, I think nature and naturalness are very important. But at the same time we transcend "nature". This is all a source of confusion to me at times. Anyway, I eat meat, and I often reflect that it is impossible to live without causing death and that death and life are not only interconnected, but in some sense identical.
Palzang