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.
Aren't Buddhists Vegetarian?
I recently chatted with a Buddhist online and met locally for lunch. Our meeting went very well.
But I was surprised and disappointed when she ordered meat for her meal. I thought Buddhists were vegetarian.
I am vegetarian because I can't support the cruelty of animal slaughter. I hoped Buddhists were also supporters of nonviolence.
But I was surprised and disappointed when she ordered meat for her meal. I thought Buddhists were vegetarian.
I am vegetarian because I can't support the cruelty of animal slaughter. I hoped Buddhists were also supporters of nonviolence.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
There is no hard and fast rule in Buddhism that says you must not eat meat, although some traditions advocate vegetarianism.
As ever, choices consequences.
your comment with regard to Buddhists and non-violence is also, inappropriate.
And I'm a vegetarian.
Either you mean Buddhists are not non-violent, or killing is somehow non-violent.
Buddhism rules! :rockon:
Judgmental stuff just makes me feel so facetious
All depends upon tradition and personal perference.
Either you mean Buddhists are not non-violent, or killing is somehow non-violent.
Probably inappropriate in that it violates right speech. (Check out, "Speak only words that do not harm") It's okay to state your opinions, but your statement had a bit of a edge and a jab to it, which could upset some of those here who do eat meat.
The topic of whether or not Buddhist should be vegetarians pops up here quite frequently. If you're curious, you could do a search and read through some of the thoughts and comments on the cyclical topic that never ends, lol.
"A closed mouth gathers no foot.".
There's not point being a vegetarian though if the vegetables that your eating have come at the cost of numerous lives, poisoning of the food chain from pesticides, soil enriched with blood/bone meal or mulched up mackerel.
is one of the precept
killing
is one of the unskilful deed in ten unskillful deed, word and thought
it is upto us to decide whether we eat meat or not
at a certain level of practice 'whatever comes to your plate is just four basic elements, earth, fire, water and air'
and
you are indiffernce to what you eat
at a lower level it is better if we can avoid eat meat
but
we do not have to upset of other's eating meat
if we upset, it itself disturbe our own thought process and it is a hindrance to our own practice
most important thing is not 'what other's do, but what i do'
Buddhism is all about being practical, it is said that the Buddha was not vegetarian; he too ate whatever was given to him even if it was meat. He would not, however, eat meat that was killed directly for him. I think that's a good rule to live by, but like others say, live and let live.
Some years ago I had to do a 45-day stint in the county jail for failure to pay fines. I could only eat the small portions of bread and veggies on my tray, which wasn't filling.
I requested vegetarian, but nobody cared.
After a few days, I said I was a Buddhist and it is my religious requirement to eat vegetarian. Lo and behold, immediately I was served special vegetarian entrees!
Moral of the story: Nobody dares trample religious beliefs.
So thanks to Buddhism for being my alibi in maintaining vegetarianism!
The position of the Buddha Dharma has always been that killing animals for food is productive of karma that leads to rebirth in the lower realms, that is, rebirth as an animal, hungry ghost, or hell being. But eating meat, is not karma producing unless there is a direct connection between the act of eating and the killing. Therefore, the rules of mendicancy are that (1) a follower of the Buddha can not kill an animal, including for a meal (e.g. even if out in the forest or while traveling), (2) one can not accept meat that has been killed "for" oneself as it is by the intention of the killer that the meat is for the mendicant that the mendicant thereby shares the karma of killing. (3) if the mendicant is begging and the donor puts meat in the bowl that is leftovers from the donor’s meal, and therefore the meat was not killed with the mendicant in mind, then the mendicant must eat what is in the bowl and there is no karma of the killing attached to it. This is the pre-Mahayana view of meat eating.
In the Mahayana view, Karma doesn’t appear to be so linear. Additionally, the modern world needs to be taken into account. In the modern world we have to ask what is the karmic connection between eating meat bought at a supermarket and the eater? Though the animal is not killed with the intent of being for any particular person, supermarket meat is killed with the intent of being for the buyer, so anyone who buys the meat is participating in the karma of the intentional killing and additionally if the meat is bought specifically for another to eat then the eater still shares in the karma of the killing through the purchase.
However, if dropped into the arctic circle and there was no way to survive except to hunt or fish until being able to return to the agricultural realm, the person has to deal with a pre-agricultural karmic relationship, and so killing the animal to survive may be done without karmic detriment if the killing is done with the appropriate reverence in knowing that the being that is killed is one’s own intimate relation so that the eating is done with full recognition that it is the flesh of a relative and necessary for survival. The karmic result is then entirely dependent on the truth of the matter of necessity and sincerity, so that the animal’s death becomes a bodhisattva sacrifice rather than a victimization of a lesser being.
On the other hand, in our modern world, since we do not live in the arctic or where the fruits of agriculture are not available, there is virtually no practical way to eat meat without direct karmic consequence from the killing of it being connected to the eating of it. In other words, the slaughterhouse is present and manifest on the plate.
This Mahayana level of understanding--that meat-eating is to be avoided altogether--is presented in the precepts of the Brahma Net Sutra and in the meat-eating chapter of the Lankavatara Sutra.
Any traditions that follow the precepts of the Brama Net sutra are strict vegetarian. For example, even physically bringing meat onto the grounds of a Korean temple, is strictly forbidden. Likewise the Lankavatara Sutra presents the question with greater emphasis.
DT Suzuki translation wrote:
And they aren't all self-righteous either.
Imagine the poisonous hormones that gush througout the animal's body at the moment of death from their extreme fear. That's what you eat.
Imagine the poisonous hormones that gush througout the animal's body at the moment of death from their extreme fear. That's what you eat.Yes but do you use vegetarianism as an identity? In the Zen world that's just another hat that one need not wear as it can sometimes get pulled over our eyes and obscure the light, so to speak. Eat a vegitarian diet. Don't "be" a vegetarian. It's simpler that way. And that makes it a lot easier in case you get a hankering for pepperoni.
I eat meat. But you wouldn't know why I eat meat without asking me, you'd just judge me from afar while I ate out one day. I cannot eat wheat or most dairy, and where I live fruits and veggies are very difficult to come by 6 months of the year (in an eatable condition). We also have a diabetic child and to keep him on balanced blood glucose, eating meat is part of that at this point in time. Could I be vegetarian? Yes. But I would suffer nutritionally part of the year if I did for lack of variety, so it is not worth it to do so. But it doesn't make me a bad Buddhist, or a person who doesn't care about nonviolence. I do care, and I'm very careful in where we purchase our meats. I still don't feel great about it, but right now it's necessary, so we just avoid supporting slaughterhouses and buy local, organic, family farmed grass fed meats, so that at least we are trying to do the least harm we can.
Imagine the poisonous hormones that gush througout the animal's body at the moment of death from their extreme fear. That's what you eat.
I don't know... You're clearly just trying to make people feel bad about eating meat (deny it all you want, but I'll call BS) and that seems pretty self righteous to me.
"That's what you eat". I don't think it gets more self righteous than that.
Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I get really bored of anti meat militants getting on people's cases. You eat what you want, I'll eat what I want (hormones and all) and we'll all live happily.
Imagine the poisonous hormones that gush througout the animal's body at the moment of death from their extreme fear. That's what you eat.
I hope that was not directed at me!
It really depends on if the action causes suffering to others. If it does, then there is a moral responsibility to suggest that this activity be stopped, if one can see and truly cares about the suffering that these other beings are experiencing. Inflicting suffering on these other beings like this is unethical. What goes on at a slaughterhouse is unethical.
It is not really self-righteous to suggest that this unethical behavior should be stopped. The Buddha, even in the old scriptures, agrees with this!
You can tell because people don't feel good listening to them, they feel attacked.
I can listen to vegetarians talking about being vegetarian, and that's totally cool with me. I can listen to them talk about their views and why they make their choices and that's awesome. No problem. It's not for me personally, but I don't have a problem with it.
But then other people talk about it, and it stings a little. They're not just sharing views or asking questions, they're on the offensive. They try and invoke negative feelings in other people (causing suffering) and that's not cool in my opinion.
I think this is an essay worth reading - It's by a Theravadin monk: Why Buddhists Should Be Vegetarian
It goes into why a lot of Buddhists aren't vegetarian, why the Buddha wasn't, but why it is a very reasonable choice nowadays - now we have more access to alternative food and the meat industry is much more harmful and bad for the environment. I don't really like the term "should" in it, but ok. It's a fine read, with cute pictures
Myself I'm a part-time vegetarian. When I'm at friends or family, I don't require them to cook vegetarian for me, but at home I prefer to eat vegetarian food.
This is how self-righteous is defined:
self-right·eous
[self-rahy-chuhs, self-] Show IPA
adjective
confident of one's own righteousness, especially when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others.
To me, you come across as being exactly that-moralistic of the behavior of meat eaters. If is your *opinion* and you believe that everyone should live that way based on your opinion. Perhaps that is not the way you intend to come across, since perception of tone and such is difficult in text. But your words do carry a tone (to me) of "I am morally superior to those who eat meat, because it is *clearly* the wrong thing to do, and I uphold that and you don't." There are many reasons why someone might not be vegetarian, and it's not up to you to judge them for it.
So Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King were both self-righteous? I find that hard to believe! So all those anti war peace activists, like Thich Nhat Hanh, are self-righteous ego projectors? I don't think that is the case!
It's like saying 'I hate it when someone is being murdered and they yell 'murder! Help!'. It's a shock tactic that'll just put people off, and even if someone helps, it'll only be because of fear and shame...'
And then we turn it on its head and insinuate that campaigning vegetarians are unpleasant people deep down, egotistical, self-righteous etc. How cynical can we get? We're the ones butchering our fellow creatures, yet we ignore that obvious unpleasantness and focus instead on the entirely hypothetical egotism of those who draw attention to the suffering we're causing.
Pro lifers are a great example. Whether or not I support the issue personally isn't important, but when I was 15 and in Catholic school, the pro-life brigade came to show children pictures of what were supposed to be aborted fetuses. Not cool.
I think it's the same with militant vegetarians.
They think they're doing a "good thing" by being vegetarian and that it somehow exonerates them from the bad things they do in other areas of their lives. They can speak to people however they like because they're "good people" so it's cancelled out.
I'll try and find the study, it was super interesting.
I mean seriously! Not everyone is a vegetarian, and those that are need to get over themselves, and those that aren't reap what they sow - karma wise. So can't we move on?
But the awfulness of the meat is murder people doesn't make it any more moral to eat meat. And on this thread, the issue that has been generally avoided in favour of the metta argument about shock tactics, is the issue of whether it is in fact moral to eat meat.
You are welcome to do a search and read what others have written before. It usually just ends up with everyone agreeing to disagree.
I'm not going to lie, I've known some militant vegetarians who kind of fail in the other obvious things like... basic kindness... lol.
(I'm just teasing!! Don't anyone get their robes in a knot).
I had this idea that we should especially not eat dogs or cats or horses, because they already help us in other ways, so they get a pass.