the great vegetarian debate

[Stewart]

Fair point Greg, but where did the Buddha suggest things for lay people are different, with regard to the 3 points?

[gregkavarnos]

I really don't know if there is a different teaching aimed at lay people, but the specific teaching was directed at Devadatta who was, at the time, a member of the monastic community.

PS I am not assuming that for householders the Buddha prescribed vegetarianism.
PPS I was a vegetarian well before I became a Buddhist, I did not need a Buddhist justification then, nor do I need one now.

[Mr. G]

I really don't know if there is a different teaching aimed at lay people

PS I am not assuming that for householders the Buddha prescribed vegetarianism.

There wasn't and he didn't.

PPS I was a vegetarian well before I became a Buddhist, I did not need a Budhist justification then, nor do I need one now.

I think one of the points in the Devadatta story is to not dictate to others what they should eat, what they should wear, where they should live and whether they should be a monk or a layperson. Basically, he's saying mind your own business.

[PadmaVonSamba]

What I never understood, and have no real hope of ever understanding, is why these enlightened practitioners must actually participate in killing a sentient being to improve its lot.

Eating meat that is offered to you is different from killing.
As far as legends about the practices of famous yogis and so forth, who knows all of the details of the situation?

"enlightened" is a vague, western term.
But my teachers are at least very accomplished and they might select to eat meat if given the option, but they do not kill beings.

To say that choosing to eat an already killed animal is the same as killing the animal yourself is entirely incorrect and misses the point about not killing.

If the person who chooses to eat meat is the same as the killer, then the vegetarian school teacher whose student grows up to become a butcher must also be held responsible for the killing of many animals. The people who put together your computer were able to do that because they ate food and that probably included a lot of meat. So, your keyboard has that blood on it as well.

The chain of connections to suffering is endless. Anyone who says they do not choose to be part of that chain is probably deluded, living on an island all alone, or lying.

I am a vegetarian 98% of the time. I prefer it and I think it is a good way to go. But eating meat or not has nothing to do with dharma.
.
.
.

[Malcolm]

What I never understood, and have no real hope of ever understanding, is why these enlightened practitioners must actually participate in killing a sentient being to improve its lot. Surely such a practitioner can benefit such a being by simply saying mantras, or another practice - other than participating in killing it.

Killing, the taking of life, requires the intent to take life, an object, the carrying out of the action and satisfaction in doing so.

In other words, a human that is so advanced that he or she can actually directly choose to benefit another being should be able to do so through other means than participating in the killing of that being.

Eating meat does not equate with killing unless you killed the meat you are eating, or asked that it be killed for you.

However, whenever we eat anything at all we are participating in the death of something else. This is a simple fact of life. When we harvest grain, we destroy the homes and lifes of many creatures. We participate in their death when we eat oats, wheat, not to mention the death of the plants in question, etc. To live is to participate in the death of other beings, both plant and animal.

Many vegetarians argue the deaths caused by agriculature is unavoidable. And I agree with them. But they never accept responsibility for the deaths of creatures caused by agriculture, and do their best to pretend they have no karmic responsibility for them.

When a peice of meat is available in a resturant, its death is unavoidable. Why? Because it is dead. It has been slaughtered already. It has been packaged and sold. But I did not kill that animal. I no more killed that animal that our vegetarian friends killed all the insects and birds that die in the large scale production of rice harvested by machines in Lundberg Farms. For example, feathermeal is one of the main products Lundberg Farms uses in organic rice production. Feathermeal, in case you were wondering, is described as follows:

Feather meal is a byproduct of processing poultry; it is made from poultry feathers by partially hydrolyzing them under elevated heat and pressure, and then grinding and drying. Although total nitrogen levels are fairly high (up to 12%), the bioavailability of this nitrogen may be low. Feather meal is used in formulated animal feed and in organic fertilizer.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feather_meal

Now, how can vegetarians, who suppose they eat a diet free from animal products, possibly excuse themselves when they eat rice and other kinds of large scale organic produce? Feathermeal is pervasively used in the cultivation of organic crops. Feathermeal is a by-product of the poultry industry. The feathers of those chickens in those truly hellish chicken factories get ground up and used in "organic" fertilizer. Feathermeal is also fed to steers in industrial beef operations.

Another common organic fertilizer is blood meal. Another one is bone meal. What about manure? All of these are used pervasively in growing organic produce. What about Biodynamic farming? This is another form of organic food production that depends heavily on the use of animal products in production of organic foods.

I can refuse to eat that peice of meat or fish, but that organic bread too comes at the cost of life, as does the rice, and the asparagus. All food comes at the cost of life. The cost of life is death. There is no food that does not come at the cost of life.

One need not be "advanced" to benefit some animal whose meat you are consuming. In fact, to benefit those with whom one does not have direct contact in some way is impossible on a merely mental level unless you are an awakened person. For example, this is the reason ordinary people cannot successfully do Phowa for others. They simply do not have the yogic capacity to eject the consciousness of another being from its body (these days there are many arrogant people who run around and pretend to do phowa for others, deceiving the relatives and accepting money for their deceptions)

When you eat meat with compassion, presence and awareness, and use a mantra like the six spaces of Samantabhadra, you create a positive cause for that animal specifically, and if you are eating a vegetarian meal, a specific positive cause for any animal who was killed during the harvesting of that crop. This works for ordinary people best because one is making a concrete physical connnection with those animals through tsal.

I no longer believe that plants are insentient because I beleive the distinction between sentient and insentient is a false distinction. At least, it is a false distinction from a Dzogchen perspective. From the Dzogchen point of view, everything is made of five elements, all sentient beings, even consciousness, even the buddhas. Plants are every bit alive as animals. As Garab Dorje says "The color of rtsal is green". But because it is convenient and because they are ignorant of the principles of the basis, ideological vegetarians make a false distinction between sentient and non-sentient. There is, according to Dzogchen teachings, no true distinction to be made between the sentient and the non-sentient. Therefore we must respect all life, not just the life that is convientient for us to respect. Even though we must respect all life, life must be taken for other life to flourish. This is simply how samsara is. Therefore whenever we eat, and no matter what we eat, we must do so with compasion, pressence and awareness because all food comes at the cost of something's life.

Everytime we consume the flesh of something we are incoporating that being's vital energy into our own, whether it is plant or an animal. When we die, our vital energy, our rtsal, contributes to the growth and health of other creatures. This is the natural cycle of life.

Thus one simply has to be mindful and attentive, present and aware. If one eats without presence and awareness, even eating a tomato becomes a non-virtue. If one eats with presence and awareness, even eating meat becomes a virtue.

...but let's just be very honest about this popular "defense" of eating meat.

I am being very honest about this extremely unpopular advocacy of meat-eating -- because in the end it is not about meat, it is about compassion, presence and awareness. I know that many people with more conventional Mahāyāna views about meat-eating, not to mention fanatical vegans and so on, will find this principle, if not just counter-intuitive, completely unacceptable.

So people like to mention Chatral Rinpoche, and so on. But they are not speaking from the point of view of Dzogchen. They are speaking from the point of view of common Mahāyāna. As I have said many times, this is fine. But it is not the point of view of Dzogchen teachings.

N

[David N. Snyder]

I really don't know if there is a different teaching aimed at lay people, but the specific teaching was directed at Devadatta who was, at the time, a member of the monastic community.

PS I am not assuming that for householders the Buddha prescribed vegetarianism.
PPS I was a vegetarian well before I became a Buddhist, I did not need a Buddhist justification then, nor do I need one now.

It is debatable if there are teachings or not that prescribe vegetarianism for lay people. Consider the following points:

Devadatta was a member of the monastic Sangha, not a lay person. The Buddha rejected Devadatta's list, but this does not mean he disagreed with everything in the entire list.

The threefold rule is a rule for monastics who went door-to-door for food and had to graciously accept what was offered.

The practice of going door-to-door for food was a common practice in India before Buddhism. Not everyone at the time of Buddha was Buddhist yet, so not everyone at the time could be expected to be vegetarian.

There are teachings that directly speak against meat eating, for example the Lankavatara Sutra and others.

In the Theravada Canon, which is generally considered to more conservative and more in favor of omnivore diets, there are references which suggest that meat eating is not acceptable for lay people. For example:

“Monks, one possessed of three qualities is put into Purgatory according to his actions. What three? One is himself a taker of life, encourages another to do the same and approves thereof. Monks, one possessed of three qualities is put into heaven according to his actions. What three? He himself abstains from taking life, encourages another to so abstain, and approves of such abstention.” Anguttara Nikaya, 3.16

". . . he abstains from killing living beings, exhorts others to abstain from killing living beings, and speaks in praise of the abstention from killing living beings." Samyutta Nikaya 55.7

"He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should he incite another to kill. Do not injure any being, either strong or weak, in the world.” Dhammika Sutta, Sutta Nipata, Khuddaka Nikaya

"Monks, possessing forty qualities one is cast into purgatory . . . he takes life himself, encourages another to do so, approves of taking life, and speaks in praise of thereof . . ." Anguttara Nikaya 10. 213

The above quotes show that is not just okay to not do the killing yourself, it is also unacceptable to encourage another, approve of another's killing, or speak in praise of it.

[kirtu]

I no longer believe that plants are insentient because I beleive the distinction between sentient and insentient is a false distinction....Therefore we must respect all life, not just the life that is convientient for us to respect. Even though we must respect all life, life must be taken for other life to flourish. This is simply how samsara is.

Approaching the Tendai, Shingon and Zen position via Dzogchen ...

Kirt

[mindyourmind]

I no longer believe that plants are insentient because I beleive the distinction between sentient and insentient is a false distinction....Therefore we must respect all life, not just the life that is convientient for us to respect. Even though we must respect all life, life must be taken for other life to flourish. This is simply how samsara is.

Approaching the Tendai, Shingon and Zen position via Dzogchen ...

Kirt

This is merely another convenient obfuscation, with all respect.

There is a qualitative difference then, even on this argument, between plant sentience and animal sentience.
Or, to cut through the crap - if I have the choice there is a difference between killing a cow and killing a cabbage.

[Malcolm]

There is a qualitative difference then, even on this argument, between plant sentience and animal sentience.

Really, what is the difference? Visible sense organs? A so called "nervous system"?

It simply won't do to call something an "obsfucation" merely because you disagree with someone's opinion.

You are a lawyer, be precise.

N

[mindyourmind]

There is a qualitative difference then, even on this argument, between plant sentience and animal sentience.

Really, what is the difference? Visible sense organs? A so called "nervous system"?

It simply won't do to call something an "obsfucation" merely because you disagree with someone's opinion.

You are a lawyer, be precise.

N

I meant it is an obfuscation in a general sense, it is an excuse used often, not just by you.

And yes, I believe that there is a great, real and rather obvious difference. For starters we can start with the amount of suffering involved. If someone is going to, with a straight face, try to convince me that the "suffering" undergone by a truckful of cabbage is anything approximating that undergone by say a truckload of pigs, well then I have very little else to say, and it would be best for at least the rules of this forum if we leave the debate just there.

I am aware of some of the tests and treatises that have seen the light recently, mostly as far as I can tell designed by theists to show that the problem of suffering can be discounted. There are none that convinced me that the patently obvious should be discarded. Raising, killing and eating an animal is just simply involving more suffering than even the worst case scenario of the amount of bugs we kill in producing a non-meat meal. Remember also that some of those same bugs are also killed in the process of slaughtering an animal.

Part of that precise answer would, in addition to suffering, most definitely deal with the presence or absence of a central nervous system, although if you will that could be a duplication of the suffering argument.

This whole argument equating animal sentience with plant "sentience" is simply a last-ditch, desperate and rather unbecoming argument, designed to defend our choices as meat-eaters.

I accept without any reservation that a vegetarian meal involves death and suffering, but not more so, or even equal, than the death and suffering involved in eating meat.

Again, I respect everyone's choice in what they eat and do not eat, and what you eat or not will not liberate you, but let's not make stuff up to make us feel better.

[Stewart]

I doubt very much Chatral and Norbu Rinpoche are arguing about what's on the menu.

[Mr. G]

In the Theravada Canon, which is generally considered to more conservative and more in favor of omnivore diets, there are references which suggest that meat eating is not acceptable for lay people. For example:

“Monks, one possessed of three qualities is put into Purgatory according to his actions. What three? One is himself a taker of life, encourages another to do the same and approves thereof. Monks, one possessed of three qualities is put into heaven according to his actions. What three? He himself abstains from taking life, encourages another to so abstain, and approves of such abstention.” Anguttara Nikaya, 3.16

". . . he abstains from killing living beings, exhorts others to abstain from killing living beings, and speaks in praise of the abstention from killing living beings." Samyutta Nikaya 55.7

"He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should he incite another to kill. Do not injure any being, either strong or weak, in the world.” Dhammika Sutta, Sutta Nipata, Khuddaka Nikaya

"Monks, possessing forty qualities one is cast into purgatory . . . he takes life himself, encourages another to do so, approves of taking life, and speaks in praise of thereof . . ." Anguttara Nikaya 10. 213

The above quotes show that is not just okay to not do the killing yourself, it is also unacceptable to encourage another, approve of another's killing, or speak in praise of it.

I don't see how any of these quotes posits a stance against meat eating. Seems a bit of a stretch. These passages could also be applied to the death of insects and applied to farming.

[kirtu]

I meant it is an obfuscation in a general sense, it is an excuse used often, not just by you.

What exactly is the "it"?

And yes, I believe that there is a great, real and rather obvious difference. For starters we can start with the amount of suffering involved. If someone is going to, with a straight face, try to convince me that the "suffering" undergone by a truckful of cabbage is anything approximating that undergone by say a truckload of pigs,

No one to my knowledge has claimed that cabbages undergo suffering or that the suffering of pigs living and then being slaughtered equates to the suffering of cabbages.

Not even Allan Ginsberg who merely said that he could hear the cows (or pigs).

This whole argument equating animal sentience with plant "sentience" is simply a last-ditch, desperate and rather unbecoming argument, designed to defend our choices as meat-eaters.

First the statement doesn't equate plant sentience with animal sentience second at least the Tendai and Zen view (I may have overreached on including Shingon) is meant as an expansive teaching on Buddha Nature and interdependence to include plants and rocks, to include all of the perceived world and to include that which we ordinarily view as the insentient world.

I accept without any reservation that a vegetarian meal involves death and suffering, but not more so, or even equal, than the death and suffering involved in eating meat.

In both cases millions of beings have had their mind and bodies separated in order for us to eat.

Kirt

[gregkavarnos]

I am aware of some of the tests and treatises that have seen the light recently, mostly as far as I can tell designed by theists to show that the problem of suffering can be discounted. There are none that convinced me that the patently obvious should be discarded. Raising, killing and eating an animal is just simply involving more suffering than even the worst case scenario of the amount of bugs we kill in producing a non-meat meal. Remember also that some of those same bugs are also killed in the process of slaughtering an animal.

Why is it that in these discussions people always forget that the majority of murdered animals are currently grain or feed (clover, hay, etc...) fed, that means you have the killing involved in the harvesting of the grain and feed PLUS the killing of the animal being slaughtered for its flesh.

[practitioner]

I am aware of some of the tests and treatises that have seen the light recently, mostly as far as I can tell designed by theists to show that the problem of suffering can be discounted. There are none that convinced me that the patently obvious should be discarded. Raising, killing and eating an animal is just simply involving more suffering than even the worst case scenario of the amount of bugs we kill in producing a non-meat meal. Remember also that some of those same bugs are also killed in the process of slaughtering an animal.

Why is it that in these discussions people always forget that the majority of murdered animals are currently grain or feed (clover, hay, etc...) fed, that means you have the killing involved in the harvesting of the grain and feed PLUS the killing of the animal being slaughtered for its flesh.

[gad rgyangs]

i also see a perfunctory dismissal of the idea that it is possible to influence the existence and practices of the slaughterhouse industry by refusing to buy meat. There are actually many cases where boycotts and education were able to induce changes in various situations:

http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/boycotts/successfulboycotts.aspx

[Malcolm]

And yes, I believe that there is a great, real and rather obvious difference. For starters we can start with the amount of suffering involved. If someone is going to, with a straight face, try to convince me that the "suffering" undergone by a truckful of cabbage is anything approximating that undergone by say a truckload of pigs, well then I have very little else to say, and it would be best for at least the rules of this forum if we leave the debate just there.

Well, it seems that your criteria of suffering is a little limited and only adresses the suffering of suffering.

Raising, killing and eating an animal is just simply involving more suffering than even the worst case scenario of the amount of bugs we kill in producing a non-meat meal.

I don't think the suffering of a mammal is qualitatively or quantitatively greater than the suffering of an insect -- I know that some Buddhists make this (false) disctinction, but the monastic penalty for killing an insect is no less than that of killing a cow -- it merely requires confession. What this says to me is that Buddha valued the life of all creatures equally regardless of phyla. Destroying vegetation, especially seeds, is also included in this class of vows, as is digging in the ground.

Remember also that some of those same bugs are also killed in the process of slaughtering an animal.

Of course.

Part of that precise answer would, in addition to suffering, most definitely deal with the presence or absence of a central nervous system, although if you will that could be a duplication of the suffering argument.

This is a value judgment you are making that does not have an objective base.

It is a certainly the case that in Early Buddhism the issue was not so clear cut among Buddhists. Coming from a common Vedic Heritage where plants are considered fully qualified animate beings, early Buddhists also held this view. Only later, under the influence of scholastic dogmatism, did Buddhist philosophers begin to argue plants were non-sentient. The Buddhist arguments against plant life being sentient are quite late, motivated it seems mainly to defend Buddhist from criticisms from Jains and Hindus. Lambert Schmithausen wrote a long and interesting article about this and concludes (http://www.scribd.com/doc/78950014/The- ... t-Buddhism):

But as stated above (§ 5.2 and n. 204) a few sources suggest yet another
motivation, viz. that plants should not be injured or destroyed because they are the
abode or habitat of animal s (cp. also the analogous motivation not to
pollute water in § 11.1). This ecological argument is fully valid today also,
indeed more than ever before, and for both monks and lay people.

39.2 However, I for one should find it reasonable to combine this latter
argument with a different view of the nature of plants - one that is perhaps not too
far from what I hope I have been able to show to have been, with some probability,
that of earliest Buddhism: the view that plants themselves, too, are living
beings, in the sense of a border-line case. But contrary to the situation
in earliest Buddhism where the border-line status of plants served to reduce
inhibitions against injuring them, it should now be used to re-establish them.
In this sense, we should rather stress the other aspect of the border-line status: Plants
are, to be sure, not living beings like animals, and not at all living beings like men,
with some secret anthropomorphic features and faculties, and hence perhaps not
sentient beings in the usual sense of the word; but not entirely insentient either, not
altogether insusceptible of being injured; living beings of a peculiar kind,
which we can somehow explore from outside, but which we will probably never be
able to "understand" from within; familiar beings, but at the same time utterly strange,
and precisely for that reason to be treated with respect: because we simply do
not know, and perhaps cannot even imagine, what it means for a plant itself to
be injured. To be sure, unless we are ready to starve, we cannot avoid using plants,
and this often means: injuring or even killing them. But we should do this as
little as possible, carefully and with a sense of regret, not with
the unnecessary brutality and relentlessness which has become habitual, and at the root
of which is mostly not need but greed.

This whole argument equating animal sentience with plant "sentience" is simply a last-ditch, desperate and rather unbecoming argument, designed to defend our choices as meat-eaters.

I did not equate the two. I merely pointed out that I no longer believe that anything imbued with prāṇa can possibly be non-sentient. Plants possess prāṇa, therefore, they are alive, therefore, after some fashion, I must accept that they too are sentient. Not only to plants possess prāṇa, but they also possess ojas, mdangs, they also possess the seven phase digestive process that we humans and all animals do. They take food, they break it down, is it conducted by fluid within plant membranes where it builds their flesh, their soft tissue, hard tissues and finally in the end they produce sap, flowers, seeds, etc.

I will state that, based on my understanding of Dzogchen teachings, those Buddhist scholastics who argued that plants were not alive, equivalent with rocks and crystals, were wrong in their understanding.

I accept without any reservation that a vegetarian meal involves death and suffering, but not more so, or even equal, than the death and suffering involved in eating meat.

Again, I respect everyone's choice in what they eat and do not eat, and what you eat or not will not liberate you, but let's not make stuff up to make us feel better.

When growing plants in the large quantities made necessary buy the increasing population of the our planet is made possible only through the use of animal-based fertilizers that come from the death of animals in the billions, such as in organic agriculture, or the petrochemical fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides that contaminate the environement and poisoin billions of birds and insects, such as in conventional cultivation, there is no solid argument than can be made that a vegetarian diet, even a so called organic veb is less harmful to animals than a non-vegetarian diet. It simple does not add up.

So let us not pretend that being a vegetarian is intrinsically more moral or better than being an omnivore. Vegetarians who argue in that way are simply being false brahmins.

[gregkavarnos]

I don't see how any of these quotes posits a stance against meat eating. Seems a bit of a stretch. These passages could also be applied to the death of insects and applied to farming.

C'mon Mr. G, don't be silly, extraordinarily few of the animal carcasses sold for consumption die by natural means. That means somebody has to be encouraged (normally via financial incentives) to kill them. Through the purchasing of the flesh, a portion of the money of which is paid for the flesh goes to the slaughterer, thus the slaughterer receives approval for their task. But I am sure you are well aware of this.

[mindyourmind]

We must disagree on that then.

I am not in any manner trying to take any moral high ground here. I try to be vegetarian but at times I eat meat, and for different reasons.

When I do so however, I know what I am doing, I know the price that is being paid. I face what I am doing, and I do not accept all sorts of moral contortions to try and feel better.

[gregkavarnos]

I did not equate the two. I merely pointed out that I no longer believe that anything imbued with prāṇa can possibly be non-sentient. Plants possess prāṇa, therefore, they are alive, therefore, after some fashion, I must accept that they too are sentient. Not only to plants possess prāṇa, but they also possess ojas, mdangs, they also possess the seven phase digestive process that we humans and all animals do. They take food, they break it down, is it conducted by fluid within plant membranes where it builds their flesh, their soft tissue, hard tissues and finally in the end they produce sap, flowers, seeds, etc.

Where do plants fit into the schema of the realms of samsaric existence? What is the mental poison that causes one to reborn as a plant? Why are there no references to birth as a plant in any of the Sutta and Sutra (and even the exceedingly few Tantra I have read) given that plants are also sentient? etc... According to that logic we should all be breatharians if we wish to be compassionate at a relative level. Seems to be a form of Jainism to the nth degree, only you do a clever intellectual backflip and use it to justify eating meat rather than avoiding eating all sentient (into which class you include plants) beings.