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
fivebells
Veteran
Comments
I think this is a key to the "problem":
I always have trouble explaining my eating habits: I'm a vegan when preparing my own food, when I'm a guest I eat what I'm served and at a restaurant I try to make the most skillful choice I can. Years ago I was a hard-core, label-scanning, t-shirt-wearing vegan, which made more sense to people than what I do now.
One thing the article states, and I have heard this elsewhere, is that the Buddha ate meat. I am aware that he probably did, in fact, consume meat, but only when offered. To refuse would be to make vain the animal's sacrifice. He would never knowingly allow an animal to be killed on his behalf. He simply accepted what was presented for his own sustenance.
Things are different now. The industrial level suffering behind the majority of meat production did not exist at that time. It is one thing to kill an animal because you are hungry and that is what you know to eat. It is quite another to participate in a massively cruel and harmful industry for the mere taste of flesh. We have choices to make, and our choices matter.
Based on the depictions that I have seen, the Buddha ate alot of things.:winkc:
He also seemed to smile and laugh quite a bit so I hope that he would find this funny.
Eh, I'm not vegetarian, but you only need to worry about that if you don't do it properly. You can definitely be healthy as a vegetarian. Just talk to a nutritionist before making the switch.
There's an interesting article by Tsem Tulku on " Whats the Difference Between Shaykyamuni Eating Meat vs Me Eating Meat.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Liberating-Animals,-Part-2---Whats-the-Difference-Between-Shakyamuni-Eating-Meat-vs-Me-Eating-Meat?&id=3874004
I've been a vegetarian for 2 years now. Eating played a big role as a social activity with family and friends. It took my family and friends awhile to a get used to my choice of food. I must say i haven't had that many dinner dates as before..but I have seemed to acquired new group of friends who shares similar views on eating meat...which is to practice non-killing for our self gratifications.
This is precisely what I've been telling my carnivore-focused friends. I explain that the objective is not to become a vegetarian (which is not likely to happen with most of them anyway), but to become more conscious about what is going on in the world...to boldly face the absurd cruelty that is going on in the name of ensuring that 330 million Americans have some form of meat on their plate 3 times per day, every single day.
You've pegged the real issue here perfectly.:smilec: It is very difficult for me to understand people who shrug their shoulders and just seem to care less about what is going on around them (and to their own health too!). I am trying to understand these dear brothers and sisters, I really am. I am not an activist or hardcore veggie of any kind. On rare occasions I will eat something that has broth in it, and will go along with family meals at Thanksgiving, etc. I am fine with that. I am never judgmental about anybody's diet and am married to the biggest carnivore on planet earth. I just don't get why so few are 100% unmoved by the suffering caused by industrial/corporate farming like I am. So, I usually let go of all this head noodling of mine during meditation at Sangha, but the heavy compassion is quickly renewed by what I see around me...Samsara on steroids (not to mention miscellaneous hormones, antibiotics, genetic manipulation, etc.)
Buddhism is not about becoming a vegetarian, it is about having compassion for beings and to awaken our mind and heart to the reality in front of us. It can be a real challenge, but to remain asleep? I would much rather face reality with a heavy heart than to toss even more delusion dust onto these old eyes! :smilec:
e.g. Some bakeries admitting to using various sources of palm oil that they can't guarantee is ethically farmed. This was told to me via a direct e-mail from them to me. This causes totally unnecessary death and suffering to the innocent inhabitants of the rainforest.
It's not just eating meat that causes suffering in this day and age of cheap processed food.
New scientific studies continue to present which seem to show "sentience" is displayed by more creatures than we thought. I don't know about all that but for me eating animals is unnecessary and harmful.
Strong emphasis on the "for me" portion of that.
This is a non-sectarian Buddhist vegetarian website :
http://www.shabkar.org/
.
Absolutely. We can choose not to eat meat. Or we can choose to continue because we have this craving and don't really care about the consequences.
P
Thank you Dazzle, and from that site there is a paper by Ajahn Jagaro with this wonderful opening:
__________
"On a previous occasion when I gave a talk on Buddhism and vegetarianism there were some very strong reactions from some members of the audience. People who have strong reactions to talks are people who have very strong feelings about the topic, which means they have very strong views about the topic. This is a great danger, because as soon as we develop very strong, fixed views about anything, it tends to make us rather rigid. We develop a closed mind, which makes us over-react to anything that is said. If it's not in agreement with us it must be against us. That's all we see - black and white - and that is a great shame. The Buddha warned against attachment to views and opinions as one of the fundamental causes of suffering."
__________
When I discuss my choice to be vegetarian with my non-veggie friends, I make a point to share with them that my goal is never to convert anyone, only to share my personal insight and reasons, with the hope that it might touch their hearts enough to inspire more contemplation about where our food comes from, eating healthier, and the degree to which corporate farming is a real game changer for those who love animals. It is important that we adopt humility and gentleness when discussing this topic with people, though I believe it is a topic worth discussing instead of shying away from. Maintaining right speech and right intention is critical. The goal is not to become "opposed" to eating meat. After all, the Buddha did eat meat, and instructed monks to eat what was given them. Instead, the goal is to harness compassion, and abstaining from support of the meat industry is one of many ways to do this. It is not the only way for sure.
Pretty easy NR ... just always eating legumes and grains together, and you will be getting complete protein.
Actually, the "complete protein" myth was busted about 30 years ago.
Just eat enough calories and don't worry about protein - it's very overrated due to the meat industry trying to push their "high-protein" food. More isn't always better in this case.
Lets not forget that french fries and soda pop are vegetarian. As long as you get educated on eating healthy you will be just fine without your meat.
I wasn't suggesting that we DON'T need protein, but the meat and dairy industry makes it sound like we need lots and lots of it and that's simply not true. Too much protein (like what's in the standard American diet) will cause health problems.
The "myth" that I was referring to was specifically that you need to eat all the essential proteins in a single meal to make them "complete". That is simply not true, your body stores protein and combines amino acids when it needs to.
As long as you are eating enough, you are getting enough protein.
I don't support eating "vegan junk-food", that's worse than non-vegan junk food.
I couldn't agree with you more!:D
if your muscles ache a day or two after doing some physical exercise, you need more protein.
If you do exercise regularly (like yoga) then you can manage your protein intake very efficiently this way.
ORLY?? It's not pathetic and inane? I guess that is a good thing.
But you've said it. I haven't.
If that is the case then how did this get in my email box?
Would the Buddha approve? One should not need to read the scriptures to know the answer...
<object height="310" width="492">
<embed src="http://hsus.pb.feedroom.com/hsus/hsus/embed_oneclip/player.swf?Environment=&SiteID=hsus&SiteName=Humane Society&SkinName=library&ChannelID=&StoryID=c00984d2a4d4b029246af4bfc9b4873baa013fa6&Volume=.5&AddThisSWFURL=http://%SiteID%.pb.feedroom.com/hsus/%SiteID%/embed_oneclip/player.swf?fr_chl=%ChannelID%&fr_story=%StoryID%&AddThisSWFWidth=330&VideoPlayer.videoPlayer1.StoryLinkURL=http://www.humanesociety.org/news/multimedia/index.html?fr_story=%StoryID%&fr_chl=%ChannelID%&OneClipEmbedCodeWidth=492&AutoPlay=false&MoreVideoURL=https://secure.humanesociety.org/site/Donation2?df_id=2160&VideoPlayer.videoPlayer1.SendEMailURL=http://hsus.feedroom.com/custom/playerbuilder/feedroom/sendMail.jsp&quality=high&Org=hsus&AddThisHostURL=http://humanesociety.org/news/multimedia/index.html?fr_chl=%ChannelID%&fr_story=%StoryID%&rf=cs&AddThisSWFHeight=218&2160.donation=form1&OneClipEmbedCodeHeight=310&OneClipEmbedCodeURL=http://hsus.pb.feedroom.com/hsus/hsus/embed_oneclip/player.swf&VideoPlayer.videoPlayer1.JavascriptFolderURL=http://static.feedroom.com/affiliate/_common/js" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="310" width="492">
</object>
Testimony by Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO – The Humane Society of the United States
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Domestic Policy Subcommittee
Hearing on March 4, 2010
----
...And again, as has been the case each time the HSUS and other organizations have called attention to investigative findings of inhumane treatment in the slaughter process, the general response by those in the animal agriculture business was to suggest that the events at [this plant] were an aberration – a case of a “bad apple” obviously not conforming to industry’s high standards of animal welfare
The logic of this escapes me. Every time we’ve done an undercover investigation at a slaughter plant or a livestock auction, we’ve found horrendous mistreatment...
Of course, if you live in a place where this does not happen, then you don't have to worry about it. However, millions of people here in the US believe it does not happen here either...
I was just trying to be discreet and mindful, and practice right speech.
I deleted my post because my words were hasty and fuelled by irritation, though I believe, rightly so.
So now this thread is going the way of others, and you have taken it that way.
Why say such antagonistic things?
What does it achieve?
Why do you behave in this confrontational and controversial manner?
Do you wish to incite anger and animosity in others?
Is this your point with being so "in your face" about such matters?
Why can you not give people the liberty and space to think what they wish, no matter how much you might disagree with them?
What does such chest-poking actually bring you?
What construct does it provide for you upon which to build your practice?
Is your attitude a fruit of the Eightfold Path, in every way, in your opinion?
When you convince me you have a direct line to the Buddha's ear, I'll be more prepared to consider your ways and means of communication, as skilful.
He may well have such opinions. But he would also have compassion and speak more mindfully to people rather than bitchslap them round the face with such persistence.
And I also think he would look upon other acts perpetrated by humans with the same degree.
Are you as vocal about Uganda's attitude towards homosexuals?
Are you just as vocal about ritual barbaric circumcision of young girls, or the murder of infant girls in China and India?
Are you just as vocal about child slave-labour of children in China provinces?
When you tell me you are just as militant, vocal and active in these areas, I'll be more prepared to give you my time.
So far, in my opinion, you are just wasting it.
I do not believe that simply talking about what actually happens is antagonistic. An "attack" on meat production methods is not an "attack" on people who eat meat. Why do people think it is the same thing? Have I ever verbally attacked another person here and called them names and such? I don't believe I have. I think people feel this way because they identify with being a "meat eater" and whenever someone talks about meat production they perceive is as an attack on themselves, when it is really not. When this occurs, it is simply a mental projection of the person and not actual reality. Psychological projection takes place a lot in discussions like these. This is why I have been accused of "hate filled rants, when no such thing has ever occurred.
I don't claim that my attitude is perfect no. But that is what practice is for. But, I also think that what you think my attitude is and what my attitude actually is are two different things. But it appears to me that the real reasons why people become vegetarians can't even be mentioned, in any way, without being accused of spewing antagonism. Why is that the case?
Does that mean that if one is not actively out there stopping rapists from raping people, then they are not concerned about the occurrence of rape? According to the logic you present, that is the case. But, I think that is flawed reasoning, because it is possible to care about the occurrence of rape, without having to become an "anti-rape activist".
p.s. Sorry for the thread hijack. I think the OPs essay link is very good.:)
So lovely to learnt that you are a vegetarian. Buddha elaborated the compassionate truth of loving oneself, loving others, loving all living beings and their environment through vegetarianism. He never control anyone against their wish but purely stated from the right path of a blissful life through love towards all living beings and their environment.
Can you blame them, when you make it so obvious how much in contempt you hold the production and distribution in a market?
It's an attack by association. One that is completely deliberate.
I'm sorry, hiding behind Buddhist reasoning such as this does neither you nor anyone else any credit. What do you take us for, idiots? Your intentions are clear, and now trying to squeeze out of any responsibility for what perceptions people have, cuts no ice.
if people are going to hold such perceptions, take responsibility for having had a part in creating them.
precisely. So permit people to follow their own practice without slapping them round the head and foisting your opinionated views on them in such a manner.
.
Oh yes... Perception is often deception. If I have misconstrued something, it is only due to what you have hitherto projected.
That's because there are many different reasons for people to become vegetarian, not simply the ones you put forward.
And as someone just explained to me once, "I don't agree in killin g or eating anything with a mother."
That was fine. She wasn't 'spewing antagonism' or shoving her views down my throat with gory images and sarcastic remarks.
No, I merely asked if you were as vocal in your condemnation regarding cruelty and inhuman treatment of children, as you are about cruelty and inhuman treatment of animals. Yes or no?
And it's possible to care about the meat industry without becoming an on-forum strident in-your-face "anti-meat activist".
Nice of you to say so. even though it's somewhat late in the day.
People get attached to their ideas and become offended if you attack the idea.
"I'm a meat eater" or "I'm a vegan"
When people are their ideas, it become impossible to debate ideas without bruising egos... which should happen less often in a Buddhist forum
Please quote your source for this and provide a link.
And by the way - it's rubbish.
Man is an omnivore and always has been.
This is merely propaganda and misleading, at that.
Do you argue against vegetarianism as strongly?
You can have one without the other. That was the WHOLE POINT of the essay that was posted in the beginning of this thread. Did you read it? The fact that it can be discussed without people attacking each other is what you don't seem to understand and not understanding this is why you so hate discussions on vegetarianism... Saying "this is my view" it not the same as saying "this is my view and I think your view is wrong and I'm better than you!" it's not the same thing! Saying this is my view is simply saying this is my view and nothing more.
Taking the view that you have. It seems that you think that the issue can't even be discussed, at all, without people attacking each other. Which is simply false.
An "attack by association" is something that you perceive because of your own associations, not because of mine.
I should take responsibility for other people's perceptions?? How am I supposed to know what perceptions people have or don't have? I did not create any perceptions in other people, they create them themselves. It's simply not possible for one person to "create" a perception inside another person. Perceptions, by definition, are self created. I have had plenty of discussions with other non-vegetarians about my views where they did not see it as an attack on them. So if it happens with some people and not with other people, then where does the perception of an attack come from?
So why do you not have a problem with people doing this on the other side of the issue? Because you hold that same view that they do? It's ok for meat eating people to slap vegetarians around but it not ok for the opposite to happen. Why is that?
But again, simply stating my view is not the same as slapping people. You are slapping yourself when you falsely transform the statement "this is my view" into "that is his view, his view is different than my view, therefore he must think my view is wrong and he must think he is a better Buddhist than me." Everything beyond "this is his view" you are making up all by yourself and is your own fault, not mine.
No one is shoving views down your throat except you.
Yes or no is irrelevant because this comment is what is called a red herring. "A "red herring" is a deliberate attempt to divert a process of enquiry by changing the subject."
But to answer your question:
No and I apologize for only having one head and two arms. If I had more I would gladly do all of the things you suggested. But because I only have 2 arms, I am not to be taken seriously... This is reasonable?
I also don't believe that one particular type of sentient being is any more important than any other. Some people see human beings as much more important than other animals. I don't.
I only become strident and in your face when people try and accuse me of being a hypocrite because I don't live naked in the forest... eat food so I don't starve to death... or because I'm not trying to save orphans in china... Which is ridiculous.
Why are you so mean to people that hold different views than yourself?
I only argue strongly when people try and accuse my of being a hypocrite because I eat food or don't live naked in a forest. But I do feel the same way about the dairy and egg industries as I do about the meat industry because animals are horribly abused in those industries also.