the great vegetarian debate

[David N. Snyder]

I really appreciate the references to the Lankavantara Sutra on this matter.
I am moving back to a vegetarian diet, gradually.
If one doesn't feel superior to another, then one doesn't intentionally create the illusion of self and other.

A vegetarian diet is best - for those who can maintain one
but as soon as one thinks they are superior for not eating meat, all karmic benefit is lost anyway.
Regardless of how one eats
it would be wonderful to have a meal with everybody here.

[David N. Snyder]

For those that think vegetarianism has no place in Buddhism, they are forgetting about the numerous references to not kill or cause to kill or to incite another to kill or to speak in praise of another killing, or even to allow another to kill, in the sutras (Pali and Mahayana) and also the direct teachings against meat in the Lankavatara Sutra and since this is a Mahayana forum, these sutras are relevant.

For those that think an omnivore diet has no place in Buddhism, they are forgetting about the sutras and teachings that seem to suggest some meat eating is acceptable, especially for monks and nuns who receive food on alms rounds (and also the prohibitions on some types of animal flesh, implying that others are okay). Therefore, there is room for both views within Buddhism and neither 'group' is excluded from being known as Buddhist.

I see one extreme form of vegetarians that condemn meat eaters and consider them to not be Buddhist. And then there is another extreme of meat eaters who believe all vegetarians are really Jains and that all vegetarians are "holier-than-thou" and are not real Buddhists and need to be forced to eat meat.

I think there can be a 'middle ground' among both vegetarians and omnivores:

For vegetarians, they can accept that meat eaters are Buddhist too and not take a fanatical position and action in regard to diet. For example, if they discover the soup they are eating has animal fat broth in it, there is no need to spit it out and make a scene. It is not going to bring the animal back to life. They can sit down and eat with omnivores and not complain about what they are eating. If paying for a meal at a restaurant with family and friends, there is no need to restrict them on 'what they can order.'

And for omnivores, they can accept that vegetarians are Buddhist too and not insist that the vegetarians need to be force-fed meat by another, even by a teacher to make some point. The omnivores can recognize that the vegetarians have made a choice with their diet and don't want to be force-fed anything, just as the omnivores don't want to be ordered about what they can and cannot eat.

I have seen aversion, arrogance, self-righteousness, and claims to being 'true Buddhists' by both sides from both extremes. Perhaps a more middle way position among both groups would cool the embers.

So, yes, let's all sit down and have a meal some time together and we can all order whatever we want!

[Mr. G]

Trycicle magazine

Welcome to Dharma Wheel Willy! It's all in good fun here.

[Malcolm]

I see one extreme form of vegetarians that condemn meat eaters and consider them to not be Buddhist. And then there is another extreme of meat eaters who believe all vegetarians are really Jains and that all vegetarians are "holier-than-thou" and are not real Buddhists and need to be forced to eat meat.

I dont think anyone suggested that those who choose not to eat meat should be force fed meat.

Sakya Pandita pointed out that meat eating was acceptable in the Śravaka schools, forbidden in general Mahāyāna and permitted in Highest Yoga Tantra.

And in Dzogchen, there are no rules at all, other than knowing your own situation and working with circumstances.

N

[Nemo]

Being vegetarian is noble. The statements about it's health benefits are rather dubious, but it is a compassionate choice. I don't think that is in question by anyone. Being a self important douche who thinks they are better than everyone else is not so great though from a Buddhist point of view. The Buddha never did that. Not with murderers, or butchers or people who were simply of low understanding. I despise most special clubs of people who think they are better than everyone else. Most especially when it is proselytized. Perhaps it is rather reactionary in nature and that explains the zeal, but it still looks like fundamentalist ramblings in many cases. Especially with the pseudo science and refusal to accept facts.

[Malcolm]

The statements about it's health benefits are rather dubious, but it is a compassionate choice.

For people who have severe cardiovascular disease, there is little choice -- they should immediately switch.
For people who are prone to various kinds of cancer, they should switch.

The China Study is an excellent book that demonstrates quite well that people who eat large quantities of meat and dairy are have an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer.

N

[Blue Garuda]

Being vegetarian is noble. The statements about it's health benefits are rather dubious, but it is a compassionate choice. I don't think that is in question by anyone. Being a self important douche who thinks they are better than everyone else is not so great though from a Buddhist point of view. The Buddha never did that. Not with murderers, or butchers or people who were simply of low understanding. I despise most special clubs of people who think they are better than everyone else. Most especially when it is proselytized. Perhaps it is rather reactionary in nature and that explains the zeal, but it still looks like fundamentalist ramblings in many cases. Especially with the pseudo science and refusal to accept facts.

Self-important douche? Fundamentalist ramblings? Pseudo-science?

What is amusing is that all these qualities amy also apply to meat eaters.

Whatever your point, you just failed miserably to present it by being insulting - I don't think Buddha acted like that either.

[catmoon]

Maybe we can shift the grounds of these arguments, since I don't see any agreements coming anytime soon. While slogging through five pages of this stuff, I could not help but wonder, since when is it Buddhist practise to correct someone over and over again, when they have made it patently clear they are not interested in the advice offered? Now, I can see it being encouraged in evangelical Christianity, or in Maoist-era "education" sessions, but in Buddhism?

It is hard to see that any good is being done by pursuing the topic. Everyone is talking, no one is changing their point of view, and animosity is encouraged. If pursued to a logical end, the arguments will not lead to resolution, but to the creation of a vegan sect, a vegetarian sect, an ovolactarian sect and so on.

[Blue Garuda]

Maybe we can shift the grounds of these arguments, since I don't see any agreements coming anytime soon. While slogging through five pages of this stuff, I could not help but wonder, since when is it Buddhist practise to correct someone over and over again, when they have made it patently clear they are not interested in the advice offered? Now, I can see it being encouraged in evangelical Christianity, or in Maoist-era "education" sessions, but in Buddhism?

It is hard to see that any good is being done by pursuing the topic. Everyone is talking, no one is changing their point of view, and animosity is encouraged. If pursued to a logical end, the arguments will not lead to resolution, but to the creation of a vegan sect, a vegetarian sect, an ovolactarian sect and so on.

Strangely enough, if we revisit the OP, there is a 'middle way' suggested and a question about what others do, not a request for a debate to the death.

As I wrote earlier, people can change their minds - it's a part of the Buddhist path.

[Malcolm]

Maybe we can shift the grounds of these arguments, since I don't see any agreements coming anytime soon. While slogging through five pages of this stuff, I could not help but wonder, since when is it Buddhist practise to correct someone over and over again, when they have made it patently clear they are not interested in the advice offered? Now, I can see it being encouraged in evangelical Christianity, or in Maoist-era "education" sessions, but in Buddhism?

It is hard to see that any good is being done by pursuing the topic. Everyone is talking, no one is changing their point of view, and animosity is encouraged. If pursued to a logical end, the arguments will not lead to resolution, but to the creation of a vegan sect, a vegetarian sect, an ovolactarian sect and so on.

This already exists.

My personal opinion is that the Vegetarianism in Mahāyāna sutras and lower tantra is largely a product of a cultural response and an appeal to dietary trends in Indian culture, and need not be taken as "gospel". They are not definitive teachings.

Thervadins, Japanese Buddhists and Tibetan Buddhists by a large eat meat.

Chinese Buddhists do not.

Many Tibetan Buddhists feel bad about it, because they also follow Mahāyāna; but because Anuttarayoga tantra is more important, they eat meat.

Chinese Buddhists are very shrill and agressive about not eating meat and many Tibetan Lamas with lots of Chinese students have succumbed to pressure not to eat meat (which is undoubtedly better for their health).

In the US, there is trend for yoga practicing Buddhists to eschew eating meat. Also amongst some younger Tibetan Buddhists there is a trend to stop eating meat -- which is ironic, because virtually all instructions of yantra and tummo recommend that one eat some meat, especially lamb and yak, which are quite warming.

There are lamas like the Karmapa and Chatral Rinpoche, that advise everyone to stop eating meat. Then there are Lamas like Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, who advise everyone to eat meat.

I also have gone through periods of revulsion towards meat. But in the end, my conclusion is that diet is mainly important for maintaining one's health. Therefore, one should eat whatever is best for one's health, and that is a state that changes with age, with the seasons, and with illness.

[David N. Snyder]

Rarely, but it does happen once in a while, some have changed their views and even diet after reading and participating in debates such as this one. And it has gone both ways, with some changing views or diets from omnivore to veggie and vice versa.

But typically most participants (not all) in these debates are zealots who don't change their minds, but offer the views from their respective backgrounds. In most cases I don't think they are expecting to change the minds of the zealots on the other side, but rather just to present their views for the benefit of the readers. There may be some people who are teetering on the line one way or the other and read the posts for an education and clarification. The posts continue and the same arguments get presented for the benefit of those readers and any new readers who are coming to the conversation late.

And it is not necessarily a bad thing. The vegetarians provide information for the benefit of any new people interested in Buddhism who happen to have an affinity toward vegetarian diets and want to feel that this diet is compatible with the Buddha-Dharma. And the omnivores provide information for the benefit of any new people who don't want to be obliged to eat only vegetarian foods, but still want to be Buddhist and want reassurance that their diet is still compatible with the Buddha-Dharma.

[LastLegend]

If people are going to eat meats, try hagal meats by the Muslim farmers as these farmers have a special way of killing the animals. They pray for the animals for they kill them. At least that is a more compassionate way of killing.

[Malcolm]

If people are going to eat meats, try hagal meats by the Muslim farmers as these farmers have a special way of killing the animals. They pray for the animals for they kill them. At least that is a more compassionate way of killing.

Killing is killing, there is nothing compassionate about taking a life.

N

[Blue Garuda]

If people are going to eat meats, try hagal meats by the Muslim farmers as these farmers have a special way of killing the animals. They pray for the animals for they kill them. At least that is a more compassionate way of killing.

It's 'halal' and a crude method of slaughter. They pray to their God so unless you believe that an animal has a soul and will be treated well by a God which likes this fashion of killing, it is very far from compassionate. It is regarded by many as cruel:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/2977086.stm

[catmoon]

All killing is not the same. There is killing in self defense, killing for survival, killing for vengeance, killing just for the sheer hell of it, killing with intent and without, with regret after and with rejoicing after. From a karmic POV they are quite different beasts.

Now in the case of the imam performing a slaughter with prayers, the consequences maybe be little different as far as the victim is concerned, but the consequences to the imam do differ due to his prayers. Those prayers could contain just the sort of regrets and good wishes towards the dinner-to-be that can greatly reduce the consequences.

[Malcolm]

All killing is not the same. There is killing in self defense, killing for survival, killing for vengeance, killing just for the sheer hell of it, killing with intent and without, with regret after and with rejoicing after. From a karmic POV they are quite different beasts.

But all lack compassion.

[Virgo]

because virtually all instructions of yantra and tummo recommend that one eat some meat, especially lamb and yak, which are quite warming.

What is the need for warming food products under these circumstances Loppon?

Kevin

[Malcolm]

because virtually all instructions of yantra and tummo recommend that one eat some meat, especially lamb and yak, which are quite warming.

What is the need for warming food products under these circumstances Loppon?

Kevin

well, yantra can be quite demanding physically, as can tummo, so you need rich nutritious heavy warming food to prevent vata disorders and so on.

[Virgo]

because virtually all instructions of yantra and tummo recommend that one eat some meat, especially lamb and yak, which are quite warming.

What is the need for warming food products under these circumstances Loppon?

Kevin

well, yantra can be quite demanding physically, as can tummo, so you need rich nutritious heavy warming food to prevent vata disorders and so on.

I see. Thanks Namdrol.

Any connection in TM texts between food and planets? For example, in the Vedas, milk is considered a product related to the moon. Those with malefic moons in their charts shouldn't take it very often and especially not on Mondays, or should donate it on Mondays, etc.?

Thanks,

Kevin

[PadmaVonSamba]

All killing is not the same. There is killing in self defense, killing for survival, killing for vengeance, killing just for the sheer hell of it, killing with intent and without, with regret after and with rejoicing after. From a karmic POV they are quite different beasts.

But all lack compassion.

There is a story about the Buddha in a former life who is on a boat with many people, and he knows that one of the people is going to kill the others, so he kills that person out of compassion (before he kills anybody else) because he is aware of the suffering that person would otherwise reap from killing all the people on the boat.