Vegetarianism and Buddhism

[phetaroi]

Well, I think the OP is doing a lot of extrapolating. So let me try. Does he drive a car or use any kind of transportation that relies on fossil fuels? Use plastic bags? Write on paper? Use electricity (like when he's on the computer writing this stuff)?

Can we not make cases that all of these things result in the death of animals in one way or another?

[ChiangMaiFun]

Whilst I respect your views I come from a Theospohical/Buddhist perspective - you cannot distinguish between killing and eating - both are reliant upon the other - Karmically if you eat the meat that has been killed you are partly responsible. The intention is to eat - are you suggesting that in eating meat there is no harm as the intention is just gluttony and no compassion? it is highly convenient to seperate the two... an arguement used frequently in war crime trials - but I didn't pull the trigger...

It would be helpful if you could cite the scriptures, whether Mahayana or Theravada, that say "you cannot distinguish between killing and eating."

Theosophy Is Not Buddhism

Fair point... I have always described myself as a Theosophist first... Theosophy, however, has many elements of Buddhism/Hinduism etc. wthin it and therefore I consider myself an ecclectic mix of the three and not bound by any particular Sangha or its teachings... we should remember there is no book written by the Buddha and much is interpretation and hence could not be described as 'pure teachings'.

In the Buddha's time no doubt Monks had to accept what they were given - things change - just as in Christ's time or Krishna's time certain practises were 'normal' - clothing/eating everything - are we to be bound to the past?

[ChiangMaiFun]

'All men tremble at punishment, all men fear death; remember that you are like unto them, and do not kill, nor cause slaughter'

Dhammapada

'He who, seeking his own happiness, punishes or kills being who also long for happiness, will not find happiness after death'

Dhammapada

Vegetarianism, "a natural and logical ramification of the moral precept against the taking of life" ⁽⁵⁾

(5) Epstein, Dr. Ron, Buddhism A-Z, selection: "Vegetarianism"

[ChiangMaiFun]

Whilst I respect your views I come from a Theospohical/Buddhist perspective - you cannot distinguish between killing and eating - both are reliant upon the other - Karmically if you eat the meat that has been killed you are partly responsible. The intention is to eat - are you suggesting that in eating meat there is no harm as the intention is just gluttony and no compassion? it is highly convenient to seperate the two... an arguement used frequently in war crime trials - but I didn't pull the trigger...

It would be helpful if you could cite the scriptures, whether Mahayana or Theravada, that say "you cannot distinguish between killing and eating."

Theosophy Is Not Buddhism

In general, both the butcher and the buyer of meat will suffer in such realms as the burning

and boiling hells.ii As Buddha said, “Killing animals for profit and buying meat are both evil

deeds; these kinds of actions will result in a rebirth in the horrifying realms of hel_l.”iii

Intentionally eating meat is a violation of Buddhist principals.iv The Buddha said [in the

Lankavatara-sutra],

[ChiangMaiFun]

Doesn't this tell us that 2,500 years ago there was no alternative & although enlightenment was possible there was possibly also khamma to pay.

Doesn't modern science remove our excuse?

But do you really want to choose science over what the Buddha said? Are you sure the science is correct? Safer just to follow what the Buddha said, and not second-guess him about what he didn't say.

Good point... here's what the Buddha said: His last sermon

(Nirvana Sutra)

How could one greedily stick to [crave after] the flesh of fish?" Buddha continued "O Kasyapa! "I, from now on, tell my disciples to refrain from eating any kind of meat". O Kasyapa! When one eats meat, this gives out the smell of meat while one is walking, standing, sitting or reclining. People smell this and become fearful. This is as when one comes near a lion. One sees and smells the lion, and fear arises. O good man! It is the same with one who eats meat. It is a similar situation with all people who, on smelling the meat, become afraid and entertain the thought of death. All living things in the water, on land and in the sky desert such a person and run away. They say that this person is their enemy. They say that this person is their enemy. Hence the Bodhisattva does not eat meat. In order to save beings, he shows [pretends] that he eats meat. Though he [seems to] eat meat, in actual fact he does not. O good man! Such a Bodhisattva does not even take pure food. How could he eat meat? One hundred years after my death, all the holy sages of the four fruitions [the four stages leading to "arhatship"] will enter Nirvana. The age of Wonderful Dharma will be over, and there will appear the age of Counterfeit Dharma, when the bhiksu will keep the precepts [only] as a matter of form, will recite [only] a little of the sutras, will greedily take food and drink and [excessively] nourish his body.

[camerata]

On the other hand we only know what Buddha said by word of mouth.

Not really a problem since it delivers results.

[camerata]

Good point... here's what the Buddha said: His last sermon

(Nirvana Sutra)

This is a Mahayana sutra. From what I've read, the original Pali Nibbana Sutta is completely different. I think we all accept that Mahayana Buddhism and Mahayana scriptures are against the eating of meat, but non-Buddhist historians/linguists and Theravadin Buddhists consider those sutras to be either apocryphal or altered. So I don't think we can ever agree on this.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Good point... here's what the Buddha said: His last sermon

(Nirvana Sutra)

This is a Mahayana sutra. From what I've read, the original Pali Nibbana Sutta is completely different. I think we all accept that Mahayana Buddhism and Mahayana scriptures are against the eating of meat, but non-Buddhist historians/linguists and Theravadin Buddhists consider those sutras to be either apocryphal or altered. So I don't think we can ever agree on this.

Yes... I was asked for 'evidence' from either school... I think whatever we can quote or not quote it really is fundamental - we are responsible for our actions - cannot hide the fact that vegetarianism is ethically based and more compassionate - even if I accepted some of the views on here I'd be eating, potentially, my late relatives - mai arroi!

[Samuian]

Agreed sabaijai,

in fact I have a feeling that it is actually against the law for Monks to break some of these rules - a few years back the Thai press carried a story about a Thai Abbot in Oz that had been frequenting brothels. The press, if I remember correctly, were stating that when (if?) he returned to LOS he was subject to arrest!

There's an old story about Theravada monks and their alms. It goes something along the lines of a leper, whilst giving some of his food arms, lost his thumb. Yep, it dropped in to the alms bowl. The monk carmly consumed the diseased thumb along with the rest of the collection. While I would think this is an urban myth, it goes someway to explain that the monks ARE obliged to eat all food given alms. Often though this is taken back to the temple and shared with other monks. What is left is shared by visitors and temple staff after the monks have finished (obviously the food is in serving dishes in the middle of the table, I don't mean eating the monk's left over dregs). I often eat at my temple - we take food with us as many visitors do. After the monks have finished, we tuck in. I am a vegitarian, so I only eat what I am assured is veggie.

Thai women are forbidden by cistom from touching a monk or even directly passing something to one. I do not really know the prostitute scene etc, but I would thought most Thai women would be horrified if a monk come on to them, and would never consider the reverse. I am sure it does happen, but I would have thought rarely. Mia Nois I fear is mostly down to myth and rumour - Thai women can become very jellous, it would be good ammo to let a rumour start that 'her' enemy entertains the local Abbot!

"There's an old story about Theravada monks and their alms. It goes something along the lines of a leper, whilst giving some of his food arms, lost his thumb. Yep, it dropped in to the alms bowl. The monk carmly consumed the diseased thumb along with the rest of the collection. While I would think this is an urban myth, "

It certainly is an urban myht....

...as this problem is based on the concept of Ahimsa (do no harm, avoidance of violence) the consumption of meat, is often seen in this light:

If meat was what a householder chose to offer, it was to be accepted without discrimination or aversion. To reject such an offering would be an offense against hospitality and would deprive the householder of an opportunity to gain merit -- and it could not benefit the animal, because it was already dead.

and deeper analysis reveals the plot....

Few of us are in a position to judge meat eaters or anyone else for "killing by proxy." Being part of the world economy entails "killing by proxy" in every act of consumption. The electricity that runs our computers comes from facilities that harm the environment. Books of Buddhist scriptures are printed on paper produced by an industry that destroys wildlife habitat. Worms, insects, rodents and other animals are routinely killed en masse in the course of producing the staples of a vegetarian diet. Welcome to samsara. It is impossible for most of us to free ourselves from this web; we can only strive to be mindful of entanglement in it. One way to do so is to reflect on how the suffering and death of sentient beings contributes to our comfort. This may help us to be less inclined to consume out of mere greed.

All of that having been said, it cannot be denied that the economic machine which produces meat also creates fear and suffering for a large number of animals. It is useful to bear this in mind even if one consumes meat, to resist developing a habit of callousness. Many Buddhists (especially Mahayanists) practice vegetarianism as a means of cultivating compassion.

Excerpts from http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/vegi.html

.... after all, it's all relative and it's about ones mindset and understanding, in general nothing speaks for the consumption of the flesh of dead animals, but very little against it!

If one reflects on the pictures, the steps necessary to bring this Steak, pork or chicken Curry on the plate one may easily be convinced to be vegetarian!

Edited December 8, 2009 by Samuian

[phetaroi]

Good point... here's what the Buddha said: His last sermon

(Nirvana Sutra)

How could one greedily stick to [crave after] the flesh of fish?" Buddha continued "O Kasyapa! "I, from now on, tell my disciples to refrain from eating any kind of meat". O Kasyapa! When one eats meat, this gives out the smell of meat while one is walking, standing, sitting or reclining. People smell this and become fearful. This is as when one comes near a lion. One sees and smells the lion, and fear arises. O good man! It is the same with one who eats meat. It is a similar situation with all people who, on smelling the meat, become afraid and entertain the thought of death. All living things in the water, on land and in the sky desert such a person and run away. They say that this person is their enemy. They say that this person is their enemy. Hence the Bodhisattva does not eat meat. In order to save beings, he shows [pretends] that he eats meat. Though he [seems to] eat meat, in actual fact he does not. O good man! Such a Bodhisattva does not even take pure food. How could he eat meat? One hundred years after my death, all the holy sages of the four fruitions [the four stages leading to "arhatship"] will enter Nirvana. The age of Wonderful Dharma will be over, and there will appear the age of Counterfeit Dharma, when the bhiksu will keep the precepts [only] as a matter of form, will recite [only] a little of the sutras, will greedily take food and drink and [excessively] nourish his body.

And just a couple of posts earlier you said, "In the Buddha's time no doubt Monks had to accept what they were given - things change - just as in Christ's time or Krishna's time certain practises were 'normal' - clothing/eating everything - are we to be bound to the past?"

I have never seen fearful people walking past a McDonalds run away because someone who had just eaten a Big Mac happens to walk out on the street.

From your own logic, couldn't this issue change?

[phetaroi]

On the other hand we only know what Buddha said by word of mouth.

Not really a problem since it delivers results.

I accept that.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Good point... here's what the Buddha said: His last sermon

(Nirvana Sutra)

How could one greedily stick to [crave after] the flesh of fish?" Buddha continued "O Kasyapa! "I, from now on, tell my disciples to refrain from eating any kind of meat". O Kasyapa! When one eats meat, this gives out the smell of meat while one is walking, standing, sitting or reclining. People smell this and become fearful. This is as when one comes near a lion. One sees and smells the lion, and fear arises. O good man! It is the same with one who eats meat. It is a similar situation with all people who, on smelling the meat, become afraid and entertain the thought of death. All living things in the water, on land and in the sky desert such a person and run away. They say that this person is their enemy. They say that this person is their enemy. Hence the Bodhisattva does not eat meat. In order to save beings, he shows [pretends] that he eats meat. Though he [seems to] eat meat, in actual fact he does not. O good man! Such a Bodhisattva does not even take pure food. How could he eat meat? One hundred years after my death, all the holy sages of the four fruitions [the four stages leading to "arhatship"] will enter Nirvana. The age of Wonderful Dharma will be over, and there will appear the age of Counterfeit Dharma, when the bhiksu will keep the precepts [only] as a matter of form, will recite [only] a little of the sutras, will greedily take food and drink and [excessively] nourish his body.

And just a couple of posts earlier you said, "In the Buddha's time no doubt Monks had to accept what they were given - things change - just as in Christ's time or Krishna's time certain practises were 'normal' - clothing/eating everything - are we to be bound to the past?"

I have never seen fearful people walking past a McDonalds run away because someone who had just eaten a Big Mac happens to walk out on the street.

From your own logic, couldn't this issue change?

You seem to enjoy turning the debate into farce - I am not suggesting people will be fearful of MacDonalds (although some may think we should be!) I am simply putting the point that eating meat does not sit comfortably with the Buddhist practice of Compassion and in fact there are many quotes from Sutras against eating meat as it breaks the first precept etc.

You are an ardent advocate of killing and meat eating - and that is your right - its just that it isn't compassionate nor is it very Buddhist... taking life (unreasonably when we have choice) is wrong (but you have the right to do it).

But no doubt you will remain a fan of MacDonalds and I of a slightly different fare.

[sabaijai]

Doesn't this tell us that 2,500 years ago there was no alternative & although enlightenment was possible there was possibly also khamma to pay.

Doesn't modern science remove our excuse?

But do you really want to choose science over what the Buddha said? Are you sure the science is correct? Safer just to follow what the Buddha said, and not second-guess him about what he didn't say.

Good point... here's what the Buddha said: His last sermon

(Nirvana Sutra)

How could one greedily stick to [crave after] the flesh of fish?" Buddha continued "O Kasyapa! "I, from now on, tell my disciples to refrain from eating any kind of meat". O Kasyapa! When one eats meat, this gives out the smell of meat while one is walking, standing, sitting or reclining. People smell this and become fearful. This is as when one comes near a lion. One sees and smells the lion, and fear arises. O good man! It is the same with one who eats meat. It is a similar situation with all people who, on smelling the meat, become afraid and entertain the thought of death. All living things in the water, on land and in the sky desert such a person and run away. They say that this person is their enemy. They say that this person is their enemy. Hence the Bodhisattva does not eat meat. In order to save beings, he shows [pretends] that he eats meat. Though he [seems to] eat meat, in actual fact he does not. O good man! Such a Bodhisattva does not even take pure food. How could he eat meat? One hundred years after my death, all the holy sages of the four fruitions [the four stages leading to "arhatship"] will enter Nirvana. The age of Wonderful Dharma will be over, and there will appear the age of Counterfeit Dharma, when the bhiksu will keep the precepts [only] as a matter of form, will recite [only] a little of the sutras, will greedily take food and drink and [excessively] nourish his body.

Nothing above says ""you cannot distinguish between killing and eating."

[ChiangMaiFun]

Doesn't this tell us that 2,500 years ago there was no alternative & although enlightenment was possible there was possibly also khamma to pay.

Doesn't modern science remove our excuse?

But do you really want to choose science over what the Buddha said? Are you sure the science is correct? Safer just to follow what the Buddha said, and not second-guess him about what he didn't say.

Good point... here's what the Buddha said: His last sermon

(Nirvana Sutra)

How could one greedily stick to [crave after] the flesh of fish?" Buddha continued "O Kasyapa! "I, from now on, tell my disciples to refrain from eating any kind of meat". O Kasyapa! When one eats meat, this gives out the smell of meat while one is walking, standing, sitting or reclining. People smell this and become fearful. This is as when one comes near a lion. One sees and smells the lion, and fear arises. O good man! It is the same with one who eats meat. It is a similar situation with all people who, on smelling the meat, become afraid and entertain the thought of death. All living things in the water, on land and in the sky desert such a person and run away. They say that this person is their enemy. They say that this person is their enemy. Hence the Bodhisattva does not eat meat. In order to save beings, he shows [pretends] that he eats meat. Though he [seems to] eat meat, in actual fact he does not. O good man! Such a Bodhisattva does not even take pure food. How could he eat meat? One hundred years after my death, all the holy sages of the four fruitions [the four stages leading to "arhatship"] will enter Nirvana. The age of Wonderful Dharma will be over, and there will appear the age of Counterfeit Dharma, when the bhiksu will keep the precepts [only] as a matter of form, will recite [only] a little of the sutras, will greedily take food and drink and [excessively] nourish his body.

Nothing above says ""you cannot distinguish between killing and eating."

cannot or can? I profer that you cannot but you may have meant can? of course some people will say but this is not 'true Buddhism' bit like protestants and catholics (but thank goodness we do not fight over it!) - everyone has to decide for themselves after searching their heart - I'm just struggling to make my humble point that we cannot say 'monks or Sangha say it's ok' so it's ok...

The problem is transderivational search - we search to support our view - it's the human way of making meaning of it all - something goes BANG and we go through our minds to search what it may be... same thing is happening here.

Our meat eating brethren are justifying their delight in eating meat by saying 'what about vegetables', 'what about pests', 'what about the Sangha' when it all boils down to some very simple observances... hurt, cruelty and pain to animals, by us, to satisfy our greed. All this let alone the health problems with meat eating. I just hope that some people take another look at it - interesting debate anway...

[phetaroi]

Good point... here's what the Buddha said: His last sermon

(Nirvana Sutra)

..."When one eats meat, this gives out the smell of meat while one is walking, standing, sitting or reclining. People smell this and become fearful...It is a similar situation with all people who, on smelling the meat, become afraid and entertain the thought of death..."

And just a couple of posts earlier you said, "In the Buddha's time no doubt Monks had to accept what they were given - things change - just as in Christ's time or Krishna's time certain practises were 'normal' - clothing/eating everything - are we to be bound to the past?"

I have never seen fearful people walking past a McDonalds run away because someone who had just eaten a Big Mac happens to walk out on the street.

From your own logic, couldn't this issue change?

You seem to enjoy turning the debate into farce - I am not suggesting people will be fearful of MacDonalds (although some may think we should be!) I am simply putting the point that eating meat does not sit comfortably with the Buddhist practice of Compassion and in fact there are many quotes from Sutras against eating meat as it breaks the first precept etc.

You are an ardent advocate of killing and meat eating - and that is your right - its just that it isn't compassionate nor is it very Buddhist... taking life (unreasonably when we have choice) is wrong (but you have the right to do it).

But no doubt you will remain a fan of MacDonalds and I of a slightly different fare.

Please, I am seriously questioning two statements/quotations you used for your argument.

And don't you think stating that I'm an "ardent advocate of killing and meat eating" is hyperbole since I don't remember ever discussing the topic until your posts came along.

[rockyysdt]

Our meat eating brethren are justifying their delight in eating meat by saying 'what about vegetables', 'what about pests', 'what about the Sangha' when it all boils down to some very simple observances... hurt, cruelty and pain to animals, by us, to satisfy our greed. All this let alone the health problems with meat eating. I just hope that some people take another look at it - interesting debate anway...

I would have thought using the reasoning that there is also killing involved with vegetable production as questionable as " about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption".

This means that there is up to five times more killing involved to produce meat, not to mention the killing of higher sentient creatures.

I wonder where we are currently on this subject, given the valid pros & cons that have been put forward?

[ChiangMaiFun]

Good point... here's what the Buddha said: His last sermon

(Nirvana Sutra)

..."When one eats meat, this gives out the smell of meat while one is walking, standing, sitting or reclining. People smell this and become fearful...It is a similar situation with all people who, on smelling the meat, become afraid and entertain the thought of death..."

And just a couple of posts earlier you said, "In the Buddha's time no doubt Monks had to accept what they were given - things change - just as in Christ's time or Krishna's time certain practises were 'normal' - clothing/eating everything - are we to be bound to the past?"

I have never seen fearful people walking past a McDonalds run away because someone who had just eaten a Big Mac happens to walk out on the street.

From your own logic, couldn't this issue change?

You seem to enjoy turning the debate into farce - I am not suggesting people will be fearful of MacDonalds (although some may think we should be!) I am simply putting the point that eating meat does not sit comfortably with the Buddhist practice of Compassion and in fact there are many quotes from Sutras against eating meat as it breaks the first precept etc.

You are an ardent advocate of killing and meat eating - and that is your right - its just that it isn't compassionate nor is it very Buddhist... taking life (unreasonably when we have choice) is wrong (but you have the right to do it).

But no doubt you will remain a fan of MacDonalds and I of a slightly different fare.

Please, I am seriously questioning two statements/quotations you used for your argument.

And don't you think stating that I'm an "ardent advocate of killing and meat eating" is hyperbole since I don't remember ever discussing the topic until your posts came along.

Frankly your posts have been aggressive and rude - you are not interested in discussing this and have no interest as far as I can tell apart from defending carniverous meat eaters - I have tried to articulate an important arguement with quotes and rational debate - you come back with McDonalds - I'm sorry but you are blocking up an important discussion and I shall not be replying anymore to your posts

Edited December 8, 2009 by camerata
Un-Buddhist insult deleted. No more, please.

[rockyysdt]

after all, it's all relative and it's about ones mindset and understanding, in general nothing speaks for the consumption of the flesh of dead animals, but very little against it!

If one reflects on the pictures, the steps necessary to bring this Steak, pork or chicken Curry on the plate one may easily be convinced to be vegetarian!

Wrongly or rightly?

[sabaijai]

The problem is transderivational search - we search to support our view - it's the human way of making meaning of it all - something goes BANG and we go through our minds to search what it may be... same thing is happening here.

One could say the very same about your arguments. That's the usual technique followed in any debate.

Our meat eating brethren are justifying their delight in eating meat by saying ...

That's an ad hominem argument again.

In fact it may have nothing to do with 'delight in eating meat,' and you have absolutely no way of knowing. Don't presume that you do.

One might just as well proclaim that you are trying to justify a sense of superiority and moral indignation by condemning those who choose to follow the omnivorous path followed by the majority of Buddhists.

It's obvious here that you're not convincing the omnivores And it's equally obvious that the omnivores aren't convincing the vegetarian advocates. So shall we just agree to disagree?

[phetaroi]

One could say the very same about your arguments. That's the usual technique followed in any debate.

That's an ad hominem argument again.

In fact it may have nothing to do with 'delight in eating meat,' and you have absolutely no way of knowing. Don't presume that you do.

One might just as well proclaim that you are trying to justify a sense of superiority and moral indignation by condemning those who choose to follow the omnivorous path followed by the majority of Buddhists.

It's obvious here that you're not convincing the omnivores And it's equally obvious that the omnivores aren't convincing the vegetarian advocates. So shall we just agree to disagree?

Excellent post. You have clearly stated that the debate is at a standstill.

I am reminded here of something I forget when I lament about American politics. There was a time (e.g., when Sam Rayburn was around) that compromise in government was valued. Now we seem to be in a phase where compromise is almost impossible because politicians (and many other Americans) feel they have to stick with their principles 100%. Sort of a "my way or the highway" attitude, which often serves no one, other than glee when the other side loses.

The OP's stridency on the issue at hand -- you will go to Buddhist hel_l if you continue to eat meat -- is too Born-Again-Christianish in attitude for me. I grant his right to be a vegetarian and I do not consign him to Buddhist hel_l for doing so. I am very bothered that he gets so angry when someone will not submit to what he sees as his superior viewpoint. Attitudes like this are what lead to schisms in religions/philosophies, including Buddhism.

[ChiangMaiFun]

I agree we are at a standstill - although nowhere in any post have I sought to impose my view or suggest damnation attends those who eat meat! I am not convinced by any argument proffered that it is 'Buddhist' to eat meat and to divorce the action of doing so from the consequences tracing back to the moment of slaughter - Thailand is more an Animist country than Buddhist and so don't think holding them up as en example is fruitful.

I have sought to demonstrate, through rational debate and through quotations (which have been hailed as almost not 'true' Buddhist as they are not 'pure' -so bang goes the Chinese and Tibetans!) that vegetarianism is the more compassionate path - I waver not from this stance and I, along with millions of others, believe deep within our hearts that this is the case.

I am disappointed (shocked even as it seems so fundamental and obvious to me) that not more Buddhists in Thailand are vegetarian - many arguments have been put forward about 'not choosing', being 'attached' or 'proud' and therefore not practising it - the same could be said for any activity - including helping people - and so it is not convincing.

It has been stated that the action of the slaughterman can be held as separate from the consumer - another argument I find wholly unconvincing - form all the studies over the decades I am of the firm belief that we are responsible for all our actions and their consequences and the convenience of the argument 'I didn't kill it' is fallacious.

It has, in the most part (you know who you are), been an interesting, polite and intelligent debate and one I have enjoyed - I do not apologise for presenting my case with vigor or for standing by, sentry-like, my understanding of the Pathway...

I pray that all beings find Peace

Om Shanti

[sabaijai]

I am disappointed (shocked even as it seems so fundamental and obvious to me) that not more Buddhists in Thailand are vegetarian - many arguments have been put forward about 'not choosing', being 'attached' or 'proud' and therefore not practising it - the same could be said for any activity - including helping people - and so it is not convincing.

Most Buddhists in most Buddhist countries, whether Theravada, Mahayana or Vajrayana, eat meat so you must experience a lot of shock and disappointment as you travel

Good luck finding Buddhist utopia!

[rockyysdt]

After 290 replies & 10,981 views this subject is definitely controversial & of interest to many.

In the end the path each of us follows will be a matter of personal conscience.

Hopefully none of us becomes critically disadvantage by their choice.

Perhaps, as our awareness grows with practice, insights through self experience will reveal the answer.

[camerata]

After 290 replies & 10,981 views this subject is definitely controversial & of interest to many.

Frankly, I don't think it is at all controversial within Theravada. Meat-eating isn't forbidden by the scriptures, the Buddha ate meat, monks eat meat (except for Santi Asoke who are not part of the Thai Sangha) and the laity eat meat. It gets controversial within Mahayana because the scriptures are against it, yet some monks eat meat and most of the laity eat meat. It gets controversial outside Buddhism for many reasons, one of them being that evolution designed us as omnivores and another being that Judeo-Christian culture isn't against it. Many vegans and vegetarians seem to be quite militant about it, though.

[Xangsamhua]

After 290 replies & 10,981 views this subject is definitely controversial & of interest to many.

Frankly, I don't think it is at all controversial within Theravada. Meat-eating isn't forbidden by the scriptures, the Buddha ate meat, monks eat meat (except for Santi Asoke who are not part of the Thai Sangha) and the laity eat meat.

Santi Asoke monks and nuns are vegetarian, as are the lay followers (though some have difficulty with it).

[ChiangMaiFun]

I am disappointed (shocked even as it seems so fundamental and obvious to me) that not more Buddhists in Thailand are vegetarian - many arguments have been put forward about 'not choosing', being 'attached' or 'proud' and therefore not practising it - the same could be said for any activity - including helping people - and so it is not convincing.

Most Buddhists in most Buddhist countries, whether Theravada, Mahayana or Vajrayana, eat meat so you must experience a lot of shock and disappointment as you travel

Good luck finding Buddhist utopia!

The only Buddist utopia I seek is within me... not without... and I fail at that continually of course on a daily basis

[Latindancer]

After 290 replies & 10,981 views this subject is definitely controversial & of interest to many.

In the end the path each of us follows will be a matter of personal conscience.

Hopefully none of us becomes critically disadvantaged by their choice.

Perhaps, as our awareness grows with practice, insights through self experience will reveal the answer.

A good and well-balanced reply. It seems to me that most humans are not content with putting forward their own viewpoint, but want to establish it as the only morally valid path, sometimes trying to back this up with scriptural evidence. When this fails, they use emotional argument. This stubborn dogmatism about their beliefs which some people display is a big problem for them. And it's why they often cannot see the truth in other religions. If you look at the root and heart of all religions, they are basically the same, but look at how some of the followers argue ! Maybe there is some kind of middle path in the veg. debate ?

In the absence of absolute consensus about what the Buddha himself taught regarding this, it would be interesting to compare the views about vegetarianism / meat-eating of various Buddhist masters who have been widely regarded as deeply enlightened, with no controversy about them or their enlightenment. Can anyone quote some views ? For instance, I know that Hui Neng, the fifth patriarch in China, lived with hunters for about 5 years, but ate only the vegetables from the common dish.

I have been totally vegetarian for 34 years, but it doesn't worry me if fellow Buddhists eat smallish amounts of meat.....as long as it hasn't been "factory-farmed", or killed in an inhumane manner. If they eat more than just a little, I point out that evidence shows we have not evolved for it, and that scientific evidence has shown it to greatly increase heart disease and cancer. Animal fat has that result; also meat is high up the food chain and collects pollutants. Vegetarians have been demonstrated to have 40% less heart disease and cancer ( ! ) than meat-eaters. That's a huge drop.

I don't try to do anything more than gently convince people that anything more than just a little is not good for their health. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

It has been said that the best revenge is success, and I intend to prove meat-eaters wrong by outliving them, and being much healthier in my old age. I have already outlived some, and the others are starting to look at my youthful looks and health in a slightly different way.....

For what it's worth, my advice to people is usually : Be vegetarian if you wish, but be careful of your vitamin B12 levels, and iron as well, if you are female.

Eat a little meat if you feel you need it, but make sure it has been raised and killed in a decent, humane way, and be mindful of the various arguments for vegetarianism concerning health, cruelty and pain for sentient beings. Scientific observers are constantly amazed about how aware animals are, and how they actually feel pain. Don't eat a lot, if you value your health.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Latindancer

[Samuian]

after all, it's all relative and it's about ones mindset and understanding, in general nothing speaks for the consumption of the flesh of dead animals, but very little against it!

If one reflects on the pictures, the steps necessary to bring this Steak, pork or chicken Curry on the plate one may easily be convinced to be vegetarian!

Wrongly or rightly?

Eaten and be eaten - imho it doesn't really matter, it's one of these traps, I for myself feel very

comfortable eating fruits, salads, vegetables, diary and soy-products, but don't mind seafood and

meats in general.

been a vegetarian at times when it wasn't a fashion yet, in western countries and traveling a lot,

always ran into problems, with host's, menu's what to chose...

if one reflects on what actually is there on the plate.... but then I think this issue can be taken to the ridiculous ...

After all the consequence would be "don't eat, because..." this in turn would mean to kill oneself... so..

[rockyysdt]

After all the consequence would be "don't eat, because..." this in turn would mean to kill oneself... so..

Latindancer's recommendation of keeping it to a minimum sounds like a good idea.

Particularly if having trouble with maintaining balance in ones diet (dairy intolerant).

Hopefully the next 15 - 20 years of practice might reveal to me some glimmer of knowledge on the answer.

[sabaijai]

After 290 replies & 10,981 views this subject is definitely controversial & of interest to many.

In the end the path each of us follows will be a matter of personal conscience.

Hopefully none of us becomes critically disadvantaged by their choice.

Perhaps, as our awareness grows with practice, insights through self experience will reveal the answer.

A good and well-balanced reply. It seems to me that most humans are not content with putting forward their own viewpoint, but want to establish it as the only morally valid path, sometimes trying to back this up with scriptural evidence. When this fails, they use emotional argument. This stubborn dogmatism about their beliefs which some people display is a big problem for them. And it's why they often cannot see the truth in other religions. If you look at the root and heart of all religions, they are basically the same, but look at how some of the followers argue ! Maybe there is some kind of middle path in the veg. debate ?

In the absence of absolute consensus about what the Buddha himself taught regarding this, it would be interesting to compare the views about vegetarianism / meat-eating of various Buddhist masters who have been widely regarded as deeply enlightened, with no controversy about them or their enlightenment. Can anyone quote some views ? For instance, I know that Hui Neng, the fifth patriarch in China, lived with hunters for about 5 years, but ate only the vegetables from the common dish.

I have been totally vegetarian for 34 years, but it doesn't worry me if fellow Buddhists eat smallish amounts of meat.....as long as it hasn't been "factory-farmed", or killed in an inhumane manner. If they eat more than just a little, I point out that evidence shows we have not evolved for it, and that scientific evidence has shown it to greatly increase heart disease and cancer. Animal fat has that result; also meat is high up the food chain and collects pollutants. Vegetarians have been demonstrated to have 40% less heart disease and cancer ( ! ) than meat-eaters. That's a huge drop.

I don't try to do anything more than gently convince people that anything more than just a little is not good for their health. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

It has been said that the best revenge is success, and I intend to prove meat-eaters wrong by outliving them, and being much healthier in my old age. I have already outlived some, and the others are starting to look at my youthful looks and health in a slightly different way.....

For what it's worth, my advice to people is usually : Be vegetarian if you wish, but be careful of your vitamin B12 levels, and iron as well, if you are female.

Eat a little meat if you feel you need it, but make sure it has been raised and killed in a decent, humane way, and be mindful of the various arguments for vegetarianism concerning health, cruelty and pain for sentient beings. Scientific observers are constantly amazed about how aware animals are, and how they actually feel pain. Don't eat a lot, if you value your health.

The latest scientific evidence suggests that, in populations over 40 years of age, low cholesterol is a greater predictor of early death than high cholesterol, and that most heart disease in genetic and relatively unaffected by the consumption of meat.

However this is a Buddhism forum. For discussions on health, see Health, Body & Medicine.