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. Vegetarian or Vegan
Some of might be aware that I am not a Buddhist. I guess you could say I am a wanna be Buddhist. I say that in so far as I have a poor understanding of worship and feel uncomfortable with making a verbal mental commitment to a teacher. A. because I am a commit socalist and B. I trust very little except my gut feeling.
Never the less I have adopted some common ground priciples in to my belief system from a very early age.
I became a veggie when I was about 19 or 20 years of age and have never ever lapsed, even whilst up battling against hunger when travelling in countries such france or Brazil where vegetarianism is crime and veganism is an insult to their moral code. I have to add I am not a vegan.
I simply do not eat any thing that has lived including seafood.
I am interested in the real Buddhist position on vegetarianism or veganism. For me it has be an issue of life style, moral strength, spiritual belief and animal welfare .
Never have I forced it on any one and I have always respected the beliefsof others.
I am just curious as to how many of you practise vegetarian or vegan beliefs along with your Buddhist beliefs.
Never the less I have adopted some common ground priciples in to my belief system from a very early age.
I became a veggie when I was about 19 or 20 years of age and have never ever lapsed, even whilst up battling against hunger when travelling in countries such france or Brazil where vegetarianism is crime and veganism is an insult to their moral code. I have to add I am not a vegan.
I simply do not eat any thing that has lived including seafood.
I am interested in the real Buddhist position on vegetarianism or veganism. For me it has be an issue of life style, moral strength, spiritual belief and animal welfare .
Never have I forced it on any one and I have always respected the beliefsof others.
I am just curious as to how many of you practise vegetarian or vegan beliefs along with your Buddhist beliefs.
0
Comments
http://www.newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=200&highlight=meat
Lots o' controvery...
-bf
I believe it's a personal decision. Many Buddhists, including the Dalai Lama and myself (and a lot in between), are meat eaters. I'd be curious to see what percent of Buddhists are vegetarian, but my gut feeling is that strict vegetarian Buddhists are in a minority worldwide (though that has no bearing on whether it is "right" or "wrong"). I certainly believe there are good reasons to limit meat intake - but no reason that it should be universally banned.
Well, since neither "worship" or "commitment to a teacher" are required, I'd say your ok to call yourself Buddhist so long as you believe in the basics of the four noble truths, 8-fold path, karma, etc.
1) You saw the animal killed.
2) You know it was killed specially to feed you.
3) I think there's a 3rd... But I forgot it...
He ate meat himself, being a alms-beggar. It was rude to reject anything people put in your bowl.
A book authored by a Tibetn nun said that meat purchased commercially was unlawful also, since it was killed to meet your demand... But personally I'm a big meat-eater... Another book says, "Buddhism is not what you put in your stomach, but what you put in your mind."
But since we Buddhists follow a Middle Path, I suppose there's no harm in killing one if you are starving or something...
I always do this regardless of human or animal... In my mind I keep saying and trying to "send" good karma to them so that they will receive new, good effects from me... I know it's stupid to believe it works but then, well, only way.
I've told this story before, but one time at a public teaching someone asked Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche whether we as Buddhists shouldn't refrain from eating meat. His response was, "Why? I have fangs and claws, don't I?" The point is eat what you feel is best for you but don't make a production of it. After all, plants are living, sentient beings also. It's impossible to live in the world without feeding off the deaths of other sentient beings. That's simply the karma of this life, which is what Trungpa Rinpoche was saying. Tantric Buddhism has a very different view of this than other traditions, as you might expect.
Palzang
You said and I quote Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche was asked whether we as Buddhists shouldn't refrain from eating meat. His response was, "Why? I have fangs and claws, don't I?" The point is eat what you feel is best for you but don't make a production of it. After all, plants are living, sentient beings also.
This has got to be the craziest thing I have heard on this site so far. I was concerned about deity worship. You guy's have MUCH more to worry about as you seem to be paying homage to a Werewolf.
I'm not even going to go there with the "living plants" thing.
It's only my opinion and I say this with respect but I do not need any spiritual guidance to tell me that meat is murder.
And I am not really sure what you mean when you say that we are "paying homeage to a werewolf" - can you please explain??
Are you also saying that "living plants" are not living, sentiment beings? If so, what proof do you have of that? Are you saying that anyone that eats meat is essentially a murderer?
Having your own opinion is fine, but clinging to it as a way of feeling superior over someone else who feels differently is perhaps something to be more worried about.
Think carefully about your own intentions before you criticize others.
I would also like to post this quote from a Bhikkhu in East London, Bhikkhu Pesala:
"Vegetarians always seem to miss the point. Almost all food production entails the intentional killing of living beings. Is the kamma of killing a thousand fruit flies any less serious than killing a small fish? Who knows? What matters is only your intention.
If you purchase meat that is free from the three defects, then you are like the monk who accepts and eats meat free from the three defects. Whether you purchase meat or not, farmers will still raise livestock for slaughter, and fishermen will still catch fish. That is their business, and their kamma.
Equanimity means: All beings are owners of their kamma, heirs to their kamma, born of their kamma, are related to their kamma, and have kamma as their only true refuge. Whatever kamma they do, for good or for ill, of that they will be the heirs. The farmers and fishermen, meat-traders and fish-mongers, but also the cattle, sheep, ducks, chickens, pigs, fish and prawns, and meat-eaters and vegetarians, are heirs to their kamma, and will inherit its results.
If householders would inevitably make unwholesome kamma by purchasing meat, then the Buddha would have advised them not to do it. Kamma depends on one’s intention, that is what kamma is. Anyone who says that a Buddhist must not eat meat is a follower of Devadatta, not a follower of the Buddha. Anyone who prefers not the eat meat or fish, whether for health reasons, revulsion at the thought of eating dead animals, or for financial reasons, can do so. But if anyone says that eating meat or purchasing meat is unwholesome kamma then they have not understood the Buddha’s teaching on kamma.
One makes unwholesome kamma in four ways:
1. One kills an animal oneself
2. One urges another to kill
3. One condones it, i.e. gives permission for it to happen, as in granting fishing or hunting permits on land that one owns or manages
4. One speaks in praise of killing, e.g. saying that the hobby of fishing is good, that selling meat is a profitable business, etc.
As long as you do none of those, then you do not participate in the unwholesome kamma of killing. You may still make the unwholesome kamma of greed, but then you will do that if you're attached to not eating meat too. Attachment to views is unwholesome kamma. Just stop taking such extremely polarized black and white stances.
Being vegetarian is fine. Eating meat is fine. The Buddha said so.
Whatever you do, be mindful, and don't be attached one way or the other."
~ http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=16527&view=findpost&p=261212
Jason
"Being vegetarian is fine. Eating meat is fine. The Buddha said so.
Whatever you do, be mindful, and don't be attached one way or the other."
Far from paying homage to "werewolves", we are paying homage to people that remove their sakkaya-ditthi (self-identity view) and conceit, thereby seeing the world as it is - not how it is perceieved through the selfish sense of self.
I'm confused, Herman.
Do you love this site - or were you being facetious or thinking that we are out of line?
Homage to a Werewolf? Do you mean in general or because of the statement of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche?
Some Buddhist believe that plants are sentient beings. Some don't because plants don't have the "flee factor" or ability when in danger.
Being a meat eater - I would have to agree that one is required to kill or murder an animal. I think to also live in, what we call civilization, one has to kill or murder to live. Whether you're living in the wild or shopping in a grocery store.
Whatever the intention of your post, I hope you haven't been offended by any of the comments by members of this forum.
-bf
Having your own opinion is fine, but clinging to it as a way of feeling superior over someone else who feels differently is perhaps something to be more worried about.
Think carefully about your own intentions before you criticize others.
Thank you for that pearl of wisdom. As I made clear it is only my opinion. I wish to point out to all fellow travellers I feel good about not eating meat.
I simply love animals and am very concerned about the detachment that so people have to eating meat and the method of farming and slaughter that takes place. Again I find the consumption of meat spiritually damaging.
Why am I now thinking about "A fish called Wanda".What a great movie.
I remember Kevin Kliens character. "You British think you're sooo superior".
I agree with Herman that vegetarianism pretty much embodies the buddhist mindset of if you can't help, at least do no harm. I consider my meat eating tendencies a failing, and do feel a bad about it.
I certainly don't hold meat-eating against fellow buddhists, since I'm guilty of it myself. Vegetarianism is easy, much like other aspects of practice, when you can focus on that primarily. When confronted with meat at every meal, after being a meat-eater for 29 years, that spagetti sause looks so good...
Hope that doesn't seem too much like fence stradling, but I can empathize with everyone's point of view.
Herman, my first point is I am the first and only British person to post on this thread, so with respect this quote is a little way off the mark. On reading your post, it appears that your original question was how many people on here are Vegetarians and asking the Buddhist viewpoint on this subject. You appear to have had many varied responses, however you seem to be a little vexed at some of the replies..why?
I eat meat, although I will confess to having problems with mass production, the conditions in which animals are kept and their general welfare. The buddhist standpoint has been eloquently answered by Elohim, in answer to your question, I simply eat meat out of choice.
Herman, one question if I may be so bold, how would an Innuit-Eskimo be expected to exist living as a vegetarian, given the almost total absence of vegetation?
Also, would it not be fair to say that these indigenous people hold the utmost respect for the Animals they hunt, indeed they revere their spirits...I also understand that they waste nothing of the Animal.
We live in a world of varied cultures and belief structures, and therefore it is to my way of thinking necessary to respect different lifestyles. Mankind has been eating meat and fish for millions of years, I am sorry that you appear to take some of these replies as criticism, as I am sure none was intended, I respect your choices, whether you respect mine is your decision.
Palzang
The First Precept
‘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 (byang chub sems – 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.
This is from the Aro Ter website, a veritable treasure house of great teachings.
Palzang
Also, would it not be fair to say that these indigenous people hold the utmost respect for the Animals they hunt, indeed they revere their spirits...I also understand that they waste nothing of the Animal.
I am aware of indigenous people of the world and their needs and have a basic understanding they do not have a Super Market at the end of the local waterfall.
The point is, and I apogize for laboring this issue, is it's about Western chioce. You choose to each meat or not eat meat. You are aware of your actions and you make choices that have impact on the market place. You and I consume passively or non passively.
We control our own lives to a point, however the Innuit people have the same control but less chioce. Maybe that is part of the problem.
As for Mr. Hesse, you're not a Buddhist and obviously don't understand the first thing I said. Humans are born killers. It's in our nature. That's not Buddhism, it's fact. And if you think plants aren't alive, then I don't know what to tell you.
All I can say in my defence is I was not born to be to a Killer. I think it's authoritive for you to make a statement that I am not a Buddhist as if is an exclusive club. I guess I'm not your kind of Buddhist.
"I've got soul but I'm not a soldier" The Killers
I disagree with the notion of humans born killers, animals born victims theory. True, it is in their nature to suffer and ours to crave. But as Buddhists we should turn this around... We should no longer have craving, just as animals should no longer have suffering.
As good and example of buddhist philosopy as I've ever read, imho.
[*NOT MODERATING*]
The Innuit people may have a greater choice than they once had, due to the gradual influx of people and settlers on the fringes of their once deserted territories. However, many of them are striving to keep alive the traditions and customs which are inexorably being eroded and erased by the influence of other cultures. So perhaps it is arguable that along with the ski-scooters and rifles they are beginning to use, they are open to a greater choice.... however, drastically changing their diets and embracing or adopting vegetarianism may well prove to be their death-knell.... in a similar way to that, if they were to catch "the common cold", it would kill them. Their systems have evolved to a specific type of existence. It would take decades to change that.
There are, however, pockets of people still living extremely primitive and simple lives in the south american jungles.... and forced or compelled to live with them and like them for any period of time, we would all have to drastically change our habits and lifestyles.
Sometimes the only way to survive is to adopt the ways of the native.....
Every single mammal is born to be a killer. There isn't one animal that doesn't.... being part of a food chain means that at one point or another, you have to destroy something's existence to consume it. It is our personal choice to NOT exercise that right. But any time you've voluntarily swatted a fly, mosquito or dirty great big cockroach, you are exercising that instinct.
You only have to look at the tenacity of the plant in Brian's popular photo -
http://www.newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=643
- to understand that plant's instinct to survive, to make it, to continue existing, to know that plants are as tenacious and determined to procreate and to survive as anyone. And don't forget some plants are carnivorous.....
Ajani_mgo said:
"we don't kill ourselves having no veggies to eat."
I beg to differ. there have been instances where in Man's desperate urge, need and instinct to survive, he has ended up eating his dead fellow men.... I'm referring to the plane crash in the andes, in 1972. Interestingly, they were cleared of their sins by the Vatican..... Make of that what you will...!
http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/features/vanishings:_lost_in_the_andes.php
If I'm correct, you declared yourself to not be a Buddhist in your first post.... and as SimonThePilgrim stated elsewhere, there are as many different thoughts as there are Buddhists. So providing you're "YOUR" kind of Buddhist, that's what should be important to you. As the Dalai Lama says, "I'm a Human Being first, a Buddhist Monk second and a Lama third....."
But on this point, I have to give you profound thanks for this thread.
For my part, I am grateful for threads and posts which make me stop in my tracks and examine and re-examine my stance, opinion and thoughts on all and any matter of controversy. It causes me to seek answers, to inspect my own conscience and to keep me from complacency and apathy. It's wonderful when we all concur and agree and 'get along' but it is stimulating and encouraging when discussions reveal and awaken our sleeping points of view. there is no single, unified point of agreement on this subject, as there aren't on so many others too. But animated discussion and debate like this serves to broaden the Mind, reveal the aspects of others we must perforce learn to respect, and highlights the wonderful intellectual differences we all share under one big roof.
One of the advantages of being a lazy american mono-linguist is being familiar with all the slang words.
(in with the good air, out with the bad... in with the good air, out with the bad...)
Does anyone here think flowers are nice? I do.
-bf
Yes, I love all flowers. They brighten the meadows.....
I have one thing to say, and then I will be quiet! I am vegetarian, vegan 97% of the time (I eat ice cream on the weekends sometimes!), but unless you are vegan and only eat things that you grow right in your own backyard, you kill just about as many things as meat eaters do! There is no way possible for humans to survive without killing SOMETHING along the way. Vegeatarians are not any better than non-vegetarians.
Ok, I am done now....Ghasso!
I am confused by this above statement and forgive if I have got it very wrong. I am not part of the food chain at least I hope not, as for that terrifing plane crash. I think you will find that was driven by desperation not choice.
I cannot look away or bury my head to the sand when the facts are there. Every time we buy a meat product we are creating a demand in the market place. That product must be replaced. It is at that point the life of an animal is taken.
How can we say I will not eat dog, horse or elephant then make a moral distinction that it is exceptable to eat pig, cow or even snails.
May I say you ended your post with grace and consideration. Thank you.
And his is to addressed to all who are clearly flirting with my comrades the Jains.
With regards to killing flies or moths. I do kill flies simply because they spread disease and I feel morally justified in doing so. Moths on the other hand are victims of my need to get from A to B at night. I would like to apologise to all moths here an now, I admit it I have killed by the million in my car. All I can say in my defence is that as a result of my occasional speeding, due largely to my terrible time keeping. It was quick.
While I'm in the mood to I would like to formally apologise to you all for my awful spelling in recent posts. My greek english teacher Mr litteratura would have his ead in is ands.
I think I heard somewhere that we are all killers, yeah. The bags we carry, the leather belt we put on...
Anyway killing a small insect has a same effect as killing a large animal... I remember the saying of Yoda once...
"Size matters not." :coolc:
Nasturtium flowers are pretty and delicious too; their leaves have a peppery taste and add a great fillip to salads... the seeds were once refered to as "poor man's pepper"...once dried completely, and ground, they taste rather like it....
The Buddha said, I believe, that all that grows is medicinal and beneficial. But it takes a 'Master' to find and use the medicine within each plant, wisely....so don't go experimenting....!
Take the yew tree... it contains a powerful ingredient that is used in the treatment of breast cancer. But virtually every bit of the tree is toxic!
Exactly. And my point earlier was that unless you only eat the food from your own garden 100% of the time, you are respnsble for killing many, many living things.
MoonLgt - yes, flowers are tasty, but I just feel more guilty when eating a flower than I do when eating a carrot!!
Legislation (currently being fought against by the UK in the European parliament) has halted ALL production and sale of herbal supplements and alternative herbal medications. the German Government pushed it through, because many of the mega-pharmaceutical companies were watching their profit margins narrow drastically and alarmingly, because people were seeking other ways in which to treat themselves, other than by chemical drugs.
Now I will immediately admit that ignorance of any product, and abuse of its use is dangerous, if you don't know what you're doing (herbal, chemical, it can all be tricky!)
but these companies were saying that they want all products withdrawn, thoroughly tested - and then THEY'LL market them once they're satisfied. But I betcha the doses and quantities will be drastically reduced, and the prices inflated. I find this outrageous. they have in one fell swoop, decimated the livelihoods of countless thousands of people concerned with the production, marketing and distribution of these products.:mean: :grr:
Might start another thread.....
What is cranky one day, is all the rage the next.... vegetarians and vegans used to be the butt of jokes once upon a time... now their lifestyle has much to commend it, as long as they ensure a healthy balanced diet for themselves. And certainly, in the UK, soya, Tofu and Quorn products are readily available in supermarkets.
I take on board what you said earlier, Herman, about Vegetarianism being unheard of in France. It is extremely difficult - in fact, impossible - especially in far-flung, isolated cultural areas such as the one I live in, to obtain any vegetarian products such as the ones I mentioned.
I have a blood condition which dictates I obtain at least some of my protein from animal meat. I have to say I enjoy meat, but I would like to add in my defense (if one is needed!) that if I were to move back to the UK, I would revert to a vegetarian diet, because food supplements and meat-substitute products are so much more available.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/29/earlyshow/contributors/emilysenay/main580811.shtml
The real Fact is that Herbal Medicine, While more gentle to the human system than most of the chemical compounds marketed by major corporations is a new gold mine for them that they would like to control.
I wonder if the whole omnivore/vegetarian/vegan debate is not a distraction from the real problem, which is that of mindfulness and greed. I have met many a greedy vegetarian and many a mindful omnivore. I would rather be at table with the latter than the former.
Mindfulness also includes a sense of interbeing, our solidarity with those who do not have enough. To eat more than we need, whatever the make-up of our diet, to demand out-of-season foods, to impose cash crops to the detriment of subsistence foods: these are some of the components of greed.
On another note...sometimes it really bothers me when people hear that I am vegetarian/vegan, so they automatically assume that I think I am better than they are. When people hear that you are vegetarian, they immediately start to judge you.
* religious
* health
* ecological
* financial
* taste
* grossed out by the thought of what meat is
* animals are cute
* against animal cruelty
* empathy for animals
And I'm sure there are other reasons out there. Interestingly, I had a biology teacher who was vegetarian for primarily ecological reasons. She explained how much more resources are needed to sustain a meat eater than a vegetarian since energy is lost the further up the food chain you go. However, she was a believer in hunting. In some areas in the U.S., the deer population does increase beyond the resources of an area - resulting in starving, sick deer. Therefore, controlled hunting keeps the remaining population much healthier. And since the deer weren't specifically raised for food (unlike cows), there's not the same damage to the environment like forests being cut down or fertilizer being used. Anyways, her story really opened my eyes that not all vegetarians are 100% anti-meat for anyone.
I feel I am about to get attacked for being an extremist. But how on earth your teacher can say she had empathy for animals.
To hunt is in a civilised society is a contradiction in terms. I might understand if the verb "to cull" were used.
There is no sport in hunting. You don't hear the deer or fox say OK what a great bit of fun. You chase me until I am exhausted or caught by a pack of dogs then maybe if your quick about it you can cut my throat. Great fun.
And if I might add the only reason cows are raised for food is because there is a market for it. Whether thats Big Mc or pet food it is a consumer item.
Show me a compassionate deed in hunting, show me how it is a sport . Is it an unselfish act ?
The one thing you have missed on your list are the words "life" or "living thing". The closest you came by way of expression was " Animals are cute ".
I fail to how your former teacher has any common ground with enlightened compassion.
Here in France Les Chasseurs (hunters) hold what is termed as an "Abattage", which means a slaughter...this entails the killing of all creatures great and small. This appears to be done for the "Sport". Herman, you are not an extremist!!
Fox Hunting? Well don't get me started on that! This is cruelty in the extreme. The bullshit excuses put forward to defend this cruel and barbaric act beggar belief. I am going to be a bit silly now......Let's make foxhunting a sport by giving the fox a sporting chance....let's genetically mutate the fox into, say, something weighing 300Lbs, with the teeth to match!!
Bred to operate in packs like wolves.......bring it on!!
Seriously, to associate the word "Sport" with this activity is in my view......tasteless!!