Vegetarianism and Buddhism

[thaibebop]

I agree somewhat with thaibebop in that in a universal framework of Buddhism no acts are wrong or right - activities are value-neutral.  So the act of killing is value-neutral, what determines the good or bad of the action is the reason (i.e. kill for food- OK; kill to hang the animals head on your wall – bad).  However, I believe that in Theravada Buddhism there is what is referred to as “the Five Precepts” which are killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and consumption of intoxicants.  These five precepts are kind of like a code of conduct (or the five commandments if you will) for the lay Theravada Buddhist.   

In Buddhism just as in Christianity, and most other religions are full of hypocrisy.  I mean lying (to save face) and consumption of intoxicants are practically Olympic sports in Thailand.  Nobody’s perfect right? 

More specifically in regard to killing there appears to be a certain acceptance of the need to kill to live – humans require sustenance. As many have stated there is no specific requirement to be a vegetarian, and even Buddha himself was a meat-eater.  As sabaijai points out in areas of Tibet it is practically impossible for them to survive without eating meat.  I have heard of areas of Tibet where the herders will stuff the nose/mouth of the yak/sheep with cloth or mud, and then leave the animal to die.  When they return to their “surprise” the animal is dead, and therefore they consume the animal without “killing” the animal.  I know, I know they did kill the animal, but how where they suppose to know cutting off ways for the animal to breath would result in its’ death?  In some areas of Tibet, as well as Cambodia they also employee Muslims to butcher the animals.  And in some locations I have heard they only allow young boys to slaughter the animals, as they are young enough to be able to endure the “bad karma” they will build up from the slaughter.

In regard to your students comment I think the real point there is the reason behind the act.  You would be killing that mosquito not out of some fundamental desire to eat, but simply to rid yourself of what you view as a pest.  Not quite killing for pleasure, but a far cry from killing for survival.  So the problem is not the action of killing but the why you killed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have liked what you said but you should keep in mind that killing is killing whether done for duty, profit or fun. If I kill to eat or in self-defense I will still have to be apart of cause and effect.

Exmaple: If I kill an animal for food my actions might render this animals children dead because I killed their mother. Or the population of this animal might suffer because I must kill one day to survive.

Exmaple: I kill in self-defnese I might still have to go to jail. I will have to deal with what I have done. My killing of this person, even though justified, might make someone upset and they may want to kill me for what I have done, thus I may have to kill again.

This is closer to what I meant.

[Bakuteh]

I agree somewhat with thaibebop in that in a universal framework of Buddhism no acts are wrong or right - activities are value-neutral.  So the act of killing is value-neutral, what determines the good or bad of the action is the reason (i.e. kill for food- OK; kill to hang the animals head on your wall – bad).  However, I believe that in Theravada Buddhism there is what is referred to as “the Five Precepts” which are killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and consumption of intoxicants.  These five precepts are kind of like a code of conduct (or the five commandments if you will) for the lay Theravada Buddhist.   

In Buddhism just as in Christianity, and most other religions are full of hypocrisy.  I mean lying (to save face) and consumption of intoxicants are practically Olympic sports in Thailand.  Nobody’s perfect right? 

More specifically in regard to killing there appears to be a certain acceptance of the need to kill to live – humans require sustenance. As many have stated there is no specific requirement to be a vegetarian, and even Buddha himself was a meat-eater.  As sabaijai points out in areas of Tibet it is practically impossible for them to survive without eating meat.  I have heard of areas of Tibet where the herders will stuff the nose/mouth of the yak/sheep with cloth or mud, and then leave the animal to die.  When they return to their “surprise” the animal is dead, and therefore they consume the animal without “killing” the animal.  I know, I know they did kill the animal, but how where they suppose to know cutting off ways for the animal to breath would result in its’ death?  In some areas of Tibet, as well as Cambodia they also employee Muslims to butcher the animals.  And in some locations I have heard they only allow young boys to slaughter the animals, as they are young enough to be able to endure the “bad karma” they will build up from the slaughter.

In regard to your students comment I think the real point there is the reason behind the act.  You would be killing that mosquito not out of some fundamental desire to eat, but simply to rid yourself of what you view as a pest.  Not quite killing for pleasure, but a far cry from killing for survival.  So the problem is not the action of killing but the why you killed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have liked what you said but you should keep in mind that killing is killing whether done for duty, profit or fun. If I kill to eat or in self-defense I will still have to be apart of cause and effect.

Exmaple: If I kill an animal for food my actions might render this animals children dead because I killed their mother. Or the population of this animal might suffer because I must kill one day to survive.

Exmaple: I kill in self-defnese I might still have to go to jail. I will have to deal with what I have done. My killing of this person, even though justified, might make someone upset and they may want to kill me for what I have done, thus I may have to kill again.

This is closer to what I meant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Khantipalo Bhikkhu in "Buddhism Explained" has this to say about Killing or "Destroying living beings":

Some bring up the old 'suppose' argument. "Suppose that a town is infested by plague-bearing rats, does this Precept (not to kill or destroy living beings) mean that a Buddhist cannot kill them?" To begin with, there is little point in arguing about statements opening with the word suppose as they are hypothetical and frequently unprofitable. However in this case the Buddhist attitude for observing this Precept should be clearly understood. It is good to feel shame and even an inabilty to kill in normal circumstances but when not only oneself but many others are threatened by death then one must use intelligence, There is no principle here to be blindly followed "that you must do this or not do that" for Buddhists, using wisdom and compassion, have themselves to decide what is the best thing to do

It appears that while killing is not condoned in Buddhism, the motive behind the act of killing is all-important and using wisdom and compassion will help to determine whether killing is permissible.

[sabaijai]

I agree somewhat with thaibebop in that in a universal framework of Buddhism no acts are wrong or right - activities are value-neutral.  So the act of killing is value-neutral, what determines the good or bad of the action is the reason (i.e. kill for food- OK; kill to hang the animals head on your wall – bad).  However, I believe that in Theravada Buddhism there is what is referred to as “the Five Precepts” which are killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and consumption of intoxicants.  These five precepts are kind of like a code of conduct (or the five commandments if you will) for the lay Theravada Buddhist.   

In Buddhism just as in Christianity, and most other religions are full of hypocrisy.  I mean lying (to save face) and consumption of intoxicants are practically Olympic sports in Thailand.  Nobody’s perfect right? 

More specifically in regard to killing there appears to be a certain acceptance of the need to kill to live – humans require sustenance. As many have stated there is no specific requirement to be a vegetarian, and even Buddha himself was a meat-eater.  As sabaijai points out in areas of Tibet it is practically impossible for them to survive without eating meat.  I have heard of areas of Tibet where the herders will stuff the nose/mouth of the yak/sheep with cloth or mud, and then leave the animal to die.  When they return to their “surprise” the animal is dead, and therefore they consume the animal without “killing” the animal.  I know, I know they did kill the animal, but how where they suppose to know cutting off ways for the animal to breath would result in its’ death?  In some areas of Tibet, as well as Cambodia they also employee Muslims to butcher the animals.  And in some locations I have heard they only allow young boys to slaughter the animals, as they are young enough to be able to endure the “bad karma” they will build up from the slaughter.

In regard to your students comment I think the real point there is the reason behind the act.  You would be killing that mosquito not out of some fundamental desire to eat, but simply to rid yourself of what you view as a pest.  Not quite killing for pleasure, but a far cry from killing for survival.  So the problem is not the action of killing but the why you killed.

I have liked what you said but you should keep in mind that killing is killing whether done for duty, profit or fun. If I kill to eat or in self-defense I will still have to be apart of cause and effect.

Exmaple: If I kill an animal for food my actions might render this animals children dead because I killed their mother. Or the population of this animal might suffer because I must kill one day to survive.

Exmaple: I kill in self-defnese I might still have to go to jail. I will have to deal with what I have done. My killing of this person, even though justified, might make someone upset and they may want to kill me for what I have done, thus I may have to kill again.

This is closer to what I meant.

Khantipalo Bhikkhu in "Buddhism Explained" has this to say about Killing or "Destroying living beings":

Some bring up the old 'suppose' argument. "Suppose that a town is infested by plague-bearing rats, does this Precept (not to kill or destroy living beings) mean that a Buddhist cannot kill them?" To begin with, there is little point in arguing about statements opening with the word suppose as they are hypothetical and frequently unprofitable. However in this case the Buddhist attitude for observing this Precept should be clearly understood. It is good to feel shame and even an inabilty to kill in normal circumstances but when not only oneself but many others are threatened by death then one must use intelligence, There is no principle here to be blindly followed "that you must do this or not do that" for Buddhists, using wisdom and compassion, have themselves to decide what is the best thing to do

It appears that while killing is not condoned in Buddhism, the motive behind the act of killing is all-important and using wisdom and compassion will help to determine whether killing is permissible.

According to the Abhidhamma Pitaka, intent is the crux of the matter. It is intent that determines kamma (action) and vipaka (result).

[Pepe']

I've wondered about this for some time now...

[Brucenkhamen]

I've wondered about this for some time now...

They may not eat meat if they have reason to believe the animal was killed especially for them.

[Pepe']

I have definitely not heard that one yet.

The most common one I've heard is that they must accept what people offer to them...

[Brucenkhamen]

I have definitely not heard that one yet.

The most common one I've heard is that they must accept what people offer to them...

Generally that's true, but not in the circumstances I outlined above, I think there might be other exceptions too but can't tell you off the top of my head.

[garro]

As far as I'm aware the Buddha asked that monks not make themselves a burden on the laity. Which means that they can't be fussy eaters. If they refuse to accept meat off the laity they are denying them the chance to make merit. it is also my understanding that monks should not eat any meat which has been specifically killed for them.

[chutai]

Is It "kosher" For Thai Monks To Eat Meat

I'm no authority on the Tripikata , but there doesn't appear to be "many cases" of people preparing meat for Buddha Shakyamuni and the monks. For instance, the example of General Siha. He was apparently mistaken about serving meat to monks and reproached and embarassed because of it.

To refuse meat that was prepared for a monk was expected because the lay person was supposed to know better and because of it's negative karmic affect, so it was not an offence towards the lay person if the monk refused it. But refusing meat that was not prepared for the monk, but was offered as dana, was an offence towards the layperson who was supporting the monks - since there was no adverse karmic effect on the monk who accepted it.

Buddha Shakyamuni stated that monks were not to eat meat killed or prepared specially for them, if they had such knowledge : so that entailed accepting only leftovers of meat originally prepared for others. Also monks could not accept uncooked meat since they would have to cook it and thus have unwanted karmic effects.

I would expect that is still the case for Theravadan monks and bhikkhunis in Thailand, and all ordained within the Northern tradition ?

[chownah]

Monks are not supposed to eat the meat of certain animals (lions, tigers, elepohants, and many more). I'm pretty sure that the reason for this is that many people find eating these things disgusting and the Buddha forbid monks to act in ways that would disgust local people. Also they are not supposed to eat raw meat...I think for the same reason....while around where I live eating raw meat is highly favored and often eaten.....but the monks I think are still not supposed to eat it.

Chownah

[garro]

I seem to remember that Devadatta asked the Buddha to impose stricter rules on the Sangha. One of these rules was that monks become vegetarian, but the Buddha refused. Devadatta tried to usurp the Buddha for his refusal but luckily failed.

[siamesekitty]

๋๋ี๋Monks are also not allowed to request any particular food, nor are people to ask what they would like to have.

[camerata]

From Accesstoinsight:

There are very few dietary restrictions and these are reasonable, ruling out the consumption of certain animals' flesh (for instance, dogs', snakes', tigers', bears', hyenas') and also that of human beings. Here we may briefly consider the question of meat in relation to the bhikkhu. The word bhikkhu is derived from the root bhikkh = "to beg" (this English word is from the same Indo-Aryan root). Although a bhikkhu, when he goes out to obtain almsfood, does not beg (he collects what is offered), since he is not allowed (unless ill) to ask for food, still he is largely dependent upon whatever is put into his bowl. After he has returned to the vihara he may if he wishes, select whatever vegetable foods he has been given and eat only that. In this respect it is proper to remember that when Devadatta requested Lord Buddha for a ruling that bhikkhus should abstain from flesh, the latter did not agree to rule thus, saying: "And the eating of flesh that is pure in three respects, that is to say, that the eater has not seen, heard, or suspected that it has been killed (specially for bhikkhus) is allowable." (Flesh and fish allowable must, however, be cooked as bhikkhus cannot eat any kind raw or uncooked.) There is also the Discourse to Jivaka on the same subject and the oft-quoted Amagandha Discourse, in which the evils of ill-conduct in so many ways are pointed out as much more harmful than the eating of meat.

We may summarize by saying that as far as his alms-round is concerned, a bhikkhu receives whatever is offered without discrimination (except the unallowable meats, which he is not very likely to be given nowadays). If he wishes to be a vegetarian, he may choose from among the food placed in his bowl, although where he receives only little, this will be very difficult for him. In any case, whether almsfood or that brought to the vihara by lay-supporters, he cannot ask for this or that kind of food unless he is ill, when it is allowable to do so. In countries where the almsround is not possible, a bhikkhu or a sangha of bhikkhus will be dependent upon laypeople who agree to give support. Where a number of bhikkhus are staying, laypeople will organize the buying, cooking, and offering of food in the way most convenient to them and in accordance with the Vinaya. There is no need for food offered by them to be special but it should be nutritious. Therefore, laypeople should not ask, "Do you like...?" or "What shall we cook for you today...?" The bhikkhu tradition is to accept whatever laypeople wish to offer from the food they have themselves, in this way being as little trouble as possible to householders, of whom it is as true now as it was in Lord Buddha's days, that they have "a lot to do" (bahukiccam).

A bhikkhu cannot go to a restaurant or shop and buy or order food (or anything else for that matter). Nor can he personally store food overnight. Once food has been formally offered to him, it must be consumed by him before noon, or else left for lay-people to finish. Again, a bhikkhu cannot cook for himself (although he is allowed to reheat food cooked already). Storing or cooking may, however, be done by a samanera or by a lay-disciple in the vihara. The principle underlying these three training rules is that greed, ever-ready to spring up where food is concerned, should of course be discouraged, while the bhikkhu's dependence upon lay-people is greatly stressed. He is taught to reflect everyday: "'My life is dependent upon others' — this should frequently be reflected on by one gone forth" (Discourse on the Ten Conditions, AN 10.48).

[chutai]

A bhikkhu cannot go to a restaurant or shop and buy or order food (or anything else for that matter).

Presumably the same rule doesn't apply to bhikkhuni then. Not if the one that I was discussing Buddhism with , over a cup of coffee in a restaurant/bar only last week, is anything to go by anyway.

Afterthought

Yes, she was the genuine article.

Edited February 18, 2008 by chutai

[garro]

Has the order of Bhikkhuni arrived in Thailand?

Do you mean Mae Chi?

Edited February 18, 2008 by garro

[chutai]

Has the order of Bhikkhuni arrived in Thailand?

Do you mean Mae Chi?

I do mean Mae Chi. Sorry, but I never realised that there was a difference.

There isn't any bhikkhuni in Thailand then ? Excuse my ignorance of the subject.

[garro]

Easy mistake.

The Mae Chi observe far less precepts than the monks.

In Sri Lanka they have Bhukkhuni and they observe more precepts than the monks.

[chutai]

Easy mistake.

The Mae Chi observe far less precepts than the monks.

In Sri Lanka they have Bhukkhuni and they observe more precepts than the monks.

Thanks for the clarification.

Sri Lankan, Theravada is interesting though, as the Anagarika Dharmapala routinely teaches Mahayana concepts such as anuttara samyak sanbodhi and the Six Paramitas. So it's no suprise that they may differ from other Theravadan countries in other ways too.

But I'm wandering of- topic again.

[Pepe']

Thanks for the detailed responses.

Just to be clear then.

So slautering and eating animals does not violate the principle of Ahimsa?

[camerata]

Just to be clear then.

So slautering and eating animals does not violate the principle of Ahimsa?

Slaughtering does, eating doesn't.

[Plus]

^ I understand the idea of accepting whatever is offered without displaying any attachments, but this is certainly oversimplifying. How about ordering to slaughter a pig? How about ordering pork without saying the word "slaughter"? How about eating pork freshly slaughtered for your dining pleasure?

Maybe if monks really don't display any attachment to offered food, they don't create any karma, but if animals were slaughtered for their satisfaction, or they enjoy consuming slaughtered animals, they can't stay clean.

[Virin]

1 of the 227 rules for Theravada monks to observe: prohibition on consumption of 10 types of meat which are human, elephant, horse, snake, dog, lion, tiger, hyena, bear, leopard, no reason is provided. Many discussions why it must be this specific flesh, some gave the reason that they are big animal, elephant and horse are royal animals, some are about smell, etc. but no conclusion, just possibility of the reason.

Anyway, the main focus of eating meat in Theravada Buddhism is about the first precept – killing, not to take life. The monks are allowed to eat meat with these 3 conditions;

1. The monk has not seen the act of killing.

2. The monk has not heard the sound of killing.

3. The monk has not suspected that the animal is killed specifically for him.

[Pepe']

Thanks for clarifiying this once and for all...

[CuriousGeorge77]

It would seem to me that the direct cause of the poor animals death wouldn't affect things... If the monks couldn't eat meat then there would be a lower demand for meat overall, and thus fewer animals would be killed overall. (Of course, you could make an argument that fewer animals would be alive overall, as well. ) Even in the case where you know food will be spoiled if the monk doesn't eat it - consuming the meat still creates more demand for it. (Think of All-You-can-eat places)

So while this could be Right Thought it wouldn't exactly be Right Action, right?

[Plus]

I think they just like to eat it, everything else is secondary - how it was killed, who was it killed for, right thinking, right action - all just an excuse for gluttony.

Attachment to food is the most basic, animalistic quality. I find it hard to believe that all three hundred thousand of Thai monks have completely overcome it. They all can make big faces and utter big speeches about it, though.

Hypocrisy is another common human weakness.

[chownah]

If you want to accuse someone of hypocracy maybe you should accuse the Buddha....he is the one who made it very very clear that it is ok for monks to eat meat...he's the one who made this rule or allowance. The Buddha ate meat.

Chownah

[chownah]

Yeah, really!!!! I can just see it now......early in the morning the monks are making their rounds....the first woman in line tries to slip a chicken wing into the first monks bowl....he fishes it out and hands it back saying.....that hypocrit the Buddha might have accepted this dead flesh but I will not indulge in this hypocracy!!!!!!

Chownahahahahha

[Plus]

Buddha, an enlightened being free from slavery of his own tongue, and an average monk salivating at the sight of chicken are not quite the same.

Following Buddha and behaving like Buddha is not the same.

Most of the time Thai monks have no choice, though.

[CuriousGeorge77]

I'm curious to see what people say about the idea that that chicken in your pot never would have been alive if people didn't eat meat - it was raised specifically to be food, and never would have been born otherwise. The Burmese Jungle Fowl might have been ran extinct and the entire race of domesticated chickens never would have been.

IMHO, being a complete vegetarian is everybit as much of a hypocritical position as anything else - the absolutes just aren't absolute. Certainly, you don't want to cause suffering, but life is life. Eating plants to harming life as well - by eating any kind of nuts or fruit you are eating baby plants that will never grow. And plants have energy/life force as well.

Certianly, however, plants are less prone to suffering than animals, but that is another matter altogether, using a completely different line of reasoning.

I don't the the Buddha was hypocritical - after Jainism was around in his time and he didn't subscribe to it. Jainism is the logical extension of such logic, and clearly the buddha had other reasons.

[Rinrada]

Last time we had them round (our local monks) was on wifes sisters 100days and we/i fed them Massaman ...avec lots of spuds .....aroi mak...as well as the usual dishes of rice with lots of chicken and pork... with no refusals in the ranks....in fact they didnt leave much for me...only kidding.....

My special ice creams also went without a trace...

Wifes a really good cook but she never.cooks beef.....dont like dead cows...so I dont eat it either .nothing religeous just dosnt eat it.....figure ....not too fussy about Haggis either....wonder if I should ask the monks...