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.
A question about vegetarianism in Buddhist belief
Namaste,
I have a question about vegetarianism in Buddhist belief.
My understanding from the reading that Ive done so far is that ahimsa/ non violance is quite central to the buddhist belief, and this in turn extends to not killing living beings in order to eat.
But ive also read that not all Buddhists are vegetarian, including the Dalai Lama ( which for some reason i find shocking ). So i wanted to ask, what is the general view of eating meat in Buddhism ? Is it something that Buddha himself taught ?, or did it come about more from cultural reasons, since im guessing that many Hindus in Buddhas time would have been vegetarians.
Also, how is it that a person like the Dalai Lama can NOT be vegertarian ? and how do Buddhists that eat meat reconcile this with the teachings regarding Ahimsa?
Ive probably got my understanding of this completely wrong so please forgive my ignorance here.. any explanations or clarifications on this point would be really helpfull.
thank you in advance.
I have a question about vegetarianism in Buddhist belief.
My understanding from the reading that Ive done so far is that ahimsa/ non violance is quite central to the buddhist belief, and this in turn extends to not killing living beings in order to eat.
But ive also read that not all Buddhists are vegetarian, including the Dalai Lama ( which for some reason i find shocking ). So i wanted to ask, what is the general view of eating meat in Buddhism ? Is it something that Buddha himself taught ?, or did it come about more from cultural reasons, since im guessing that many Hindus in Buddhas time would have been vegetarians.
Also, how is it that a person like the Dalai Lama can NOT be vegertarian ? and how do Buddhists that eat meat reconcile this with the teachings regarding Ahimsa?
Ive probably got my understanding of this completely wrong so please forgive my ignorance here.. any explanations or clarifications on this point would be really helpfull.
thank you in advance.
0
Comments
I am sorry if I shock you more.
The Buddha himself did not teach vegetarianism.
However, we must understand the Buddha himself was a mendicant who collected alms food in silence.
Thus to demand from people they provide him with special vegetarian food would have been rather rude.
But the Buddha did make a rule that if it was suspected or known an animal was killed especially to feed monks, then that animal food could not be accepted.
As a monk, the Buddha eats what the people eat.
The Buddha taught a monk must be easy to support rather than difficult & burdensome to support.
Buddha also taught to earn a living from the slaughter of animals is wrong livelihood.
So if a layperson follows the Buddha's teachings about refraining from killing, then they will offer Buddhist monks vegetarian food because they themselves eat & prepare vegetarian food.
The Buddha was not one who placed demands upon people. The Buddha was not a moralist. The Buddha generally taught people who came to him and requested to be taught.
I hope that helps.
DDhatu
In Tibetan Buddhism meat eating is more common because of the geographical region....vegetables don't fair well in the climate of Tibet. In order to survive, they had to eat a largely meat based diet. However I am not really sure why Tibetan Buddhists in other countries still have a meat based diet. I'm certainly no expert
To add to what's already been said (and I think some excellent points have been made), I'd like to share my own thoughts on this subject.
In Theravada, vegetarianism isn't a requirement; however, does that mean that purchasing meat is the same as purchasing produce? My answer is no. Essentially, the meat that one purchases from the grocery store must come from an animal that's been deliberately killed; but the same cannot be said about the fruits and vegetables that one purchases from the grocery store. Fruits and vegetables aren't sentient beings, and harvesting them doesn't automatically entail the intentional killing of any sentient beings. If any sentient beings are killed in the harvesting of a fruit or vegetable, it's conceivable that it was accidental rather than deliberate. In the case of meat, that's not the case. The animal must almost always be deliberately killed by someone.
It's true that purchasing meat from the grocery store doesn't entail the kamma of killing for the purchaser; however, a well-informed practitioner should be aware that an animal has to be deliberately killed for that meat to be available. Abstaining from eating meat doesn't free one from the web of killing and death, of course, but it's hard to argue against the fact that doing so would at least help by not directly contributing to the meat industry that's built around the raising and killing of animals specifically for their flesh.
The way I see it, no source of food is 100% free from harming sentient beings, but the consumer does have the power to limit the amount of harm done. This can be achieved in many ways, e.g., not buying meat or at least buying meat from farmers and companies who treat their animals more humanely, buying eggs from farmers and companies who allow their hens to roam freely, buying produce from farmers and companies who don't use any pesticides, etc. So the consumer isn't powerless. They can have an effect on how many animals are killed, the manner of their deaths or how they're treated in general, not to mention the amount of pesticide-free produce that's sold, etc.
When going to the super market, for example, that particular store keeps a record of all purchases and uses that information towards influencing store policy. Theoretically, if the the majority of consumers cease buying meat, the demand for meat will go down and less animals will need to be killed in order to meet the demand. In addition, if the majority of consumers who do purchase meat and dairy products purchase them from farmers and companies who treat and kill the animals in a more humane fashion, other companies will naturally follow suit due to the potential profit of such business practices. The same holds true for the kind of produce we buy. In a capitalist society, money is the greatest impetus for change pure and simple.
Essentially, all of this ties into to the idea of personal responsibility and how far we as individuals wish to be socially active in regard to our Buddhist beliefs and practices. It's a personal choice that we each must make. For some, purchasing meat is perfectly acceptable to them since they know that the animal has been killed by another person; but for others, the purchasing of meat might not seem so acceptable when they consider things such as what meat is and how it gets to the store. Therefore, while I think that in regard to the first precept the Buddha taught about personal responsibility in the form of regulating our own actions of body, speech and mind, that doesn't mean that we should simply turn a blind eye to where our food comes from. Doesn't that also fall within the realm of personal responsibility?
Hence, while I agree that vegetarianism isn't a requirement, I do think it's at least a compassionate option that's in line with the Buddha's teachings on ahimsa. That's why even though there's nothing in Theravada which states this lifestyle choice is necessary or even preferred, I generally try to avoid buying meat or anything with meat in it when I go to the grocery store, out to eat at a restaurant, etc.
Just to be clear, however, I'm not trying to demonize meat eating or the meat industry because that's a pointless crusade. As I said, abstaining from eating meat doesn't free one from the web of killing and death. Killing and death are awful facts of samsara that have the potential to arise because there are sentient beings whose minds are defiled by greed, hatred and delusion. Besides removing oneself from the cycle of birth and death altogether, there are worldly solutions to these problems, but these solutions can merely limit the potential harm to other sentient being. In essence, besides escaping samsara, there are no perfect solutions.
On top of that, condemning or demonizing another for their complicity means that we should also condemn and demonize ourselves as well. If we want to, we can find reasons to demonize internet usage. I doubt that most people are aware of how many birds are killed each year by microwave towers, but one could reason that every person who surfs the web or sends out an e-mail contributes to those deaths. Shall we cease to use the internet then?
My point is that choosing to be more socially active in our respective practices is an admirable thing to do; nevertheless, we should never forget the very nature of samsara. In his introduction to The Four Nutriments of Life: An Anthology of Buddhist Texts, Nyanaponika Thera echoes:
Jason
When I eat meat, I do not relish in the pain of the animal. It is best if the animal is killed quickly. I do, however, thank the animal for it's flesh, and resolve to live for the animal that gave me sustenance, and thus not take it's contribution to my life for granted.
I guess the idea could be described as looking at the bigger picture. For example, carnivores must eat meat in order to survive. Are they forced to accumulate bad karma every time they have a meal? If karma is attachment, then I don't think so.
A visit to an abattoir will very soon convince most people that to kill another animal simply because we want a rare entrecôte with a green pepper sauce is frankly, to put it mildly, questionable.....
Killing an animal to eat and thus live, is unnecessary, and therefore, yes, morally wrong, given that the Buddha told us to do no harm.
I consider myself a vegetarian, who however, due to a blood condition, is obliged occasionally to indulge in meat.
I'd prefer to be a completely meat-free zone. But alas, I (like HHDL) can only do what I have to do because I have to do it.
Eating animals has been necessary for many cultures due to geography and climate.
Also, many human beings have health problems if they do not eat meat. It is necessary for them.
Buddha advised karma is intention. What is morally wrong & harmful is based in intention.
For many women, iron deficiency is a problem. Often, the human body has problems assimilating iron from non-meat sources.
In India, the most common understanding of the word 'dharma' is duty. Duty is that which must be done.
That which is necessary to do is Dharma practice.
With metta
DDhatu
Thankyou for your answers
Theres still a LOT I have to learn about Buddhism, particularly the subtleties !
I come from a branch of Hinduism that is very clear cut about a lot of things. In particular eating meat. It simply lays down four regulations to follow, one of which is not killing living things to eat because God lives in the hearts of all living things...
I guess I kind of assumed it would be that simple in Buddhism, especially with the whole concept of non violance... but im learning that in Buddhism a single point or concept always has complexity below the surface of what it appears to be..
its something that I like about buddhism... the way everything is layered and requires deep thought and understanding to follow... i like that its not all just about blindly following...
the points made about vegetarianism have given me a lot to think about so far... thank you for relieving me of at least some of my ignorance !
You might like to browse this website for some information about vegetarianism for Buddhists:
http://www.shabkar.org/
Regarding an earlier comment made by someone about Tibetan Buddhists eating meat, no meat is ever prepared or served at the Tibetan Buddhist centres or at the TB monastery that I'm familiar with, all the food is vegetarian - and I am also a vegetarian myself.
Kind wishes,
Dazzle
Palzang
I have thought about it and it has everything to do with morals.
It is because we have claws, fangs, fists, sexual organs, brains that can create weapons, etc, morals are necessary.
Trungpa was either wrong or was teaching crazy wisdom.
Crazy wisdom asks: "Am I human with a reflective mind & conscience or merely an instinctually programmed animal".
Please try to understand, when the Buddha said it is rare to be born human, he was not referring to the billions of human beings on our planet. The Buddha was referring to something mental.
Hi Palzang,
What do you think he meant with this response?
Chogyam Trungpa was the first teacher I ever spoke to in private. For me his response appears to point to the fact that we are more than just creatures with animal instincts.
_/\_
A good example was the public talk I referred to when he made the statement quoted. His first teaching happened before he even got there, namely that he was an hour and a half late for the teaching. The people who were all spiritual and other worldly when they first got there were quite the opposite by the time he finally showed up! I knew right then that I was going to like this man...
I would suggest looking up the Owl Precepts by the Aro Ter to get a better insight into this quote than I can provide here.
Palzang
A CONTEMPLATIVE APPROACH
According to the ideas of my teacher, Jamgon Kongtrul, the only way to develop spiritual discipline is to accept chaos as well as orderliness. His suggestions are very profound and totally ecumenical. To develop genuine spirituality, one has to be dedicated to a contemplative approach, a meditative approach. That doesn't mean that everybody on this earth has to sit on a meditation cushion....We are not talking in terms of being good meditators. We are talking about actually, personally being able to identify with what you've studied, what you've heard, what you've learned, what you've read. It is bringing all of this into your personal experience.
From Talk One of "Jamgon Kongtrul," an unpublished seminar, Boulder, Colorado, November 1974.
Palzang
Hi Palzang,
If that advice was meant for me , with respect, I feel no need for information from the Aro Ter, but thanks for the suggestion anyway. (no snottiness intended)
Kind wishes,
Dazzle
Palzang