the great vegetarian debate

[PadmaVonSamba]

Being a vegetarian or a vegan, in Samsara, is a very nice thing to do, but that's really about all it is. So, thanks anyway, but don't act like it's some big deal, because it isn't.

Would a cow or pig consider it to be a big deal? I think they would.

But if you ask a cat or dog, they would say eating meat is fine.
And if you ask the insect who drowns when you water the vegetable garden, what would they say?

Really, it's a great thing to be a vegetarian.
But if it puts one up on a "high horse"
you are better off eating that horse.

The interesting thing is that we have two sets of criteria at work.
One for animals, one for humans.
On the one hand, we are humans,
and can construct all sorts of moral and ethical justifications
for doing--or not doing certain things.
So, we live by those rules.
But, we are also animals.
So, how does one justify the rules we set up for ourselves as humans
without condemning ourselves for the opportunities we enjoy as animals?

"Why is it wrong to eat meat?"
"because it causes the animal to suffer".
"is it ethically wrong for a lion to kill a zebra?"
"no, because that's what they do. To condemn a lion for killing would be to force a human value system on another species. But it is wrong for humans to think they are superior to animals and can just kill them and eat them if the want to."
"why is it wrong?"
"because, as humans, we can make ethical choices
(in other words, we are still superior to animals)".
"What if the animal is already dead?"
"you are still contributing to the killing."
"how?"
"because all these activities are linked together."
"what if my kid grows up and becomes a butcher?
Since I raised that kid, am I also responsible for the death of that cow?
How far does the chain of blame extend, especially if we are all interconnected"

Moo!


So, that's why I say if a person doesn't eat meat, that's great,
but don't give yourself a medal for it.
As soon as you think "oh what a good buddhist I am"
you should drop that.
(just my opinion)
.
.
.

[seeker242]

Being a vegetarian or a vegan, in Samsara, is a very nice thing to do, but that's really about all it is. So, thanks anyway, but don't act like it's some big deal, because it isn't.

Would a cow or pig consider it to be a big deal? I think they would.

But if you ask a cat or dog, they would say eating meat is fine.

If it was cow meat, then yea probably. If it was meat from their own body where cats and dogs are harvested for their body meat, like what happens in China, I doubt it would be considered fine with them.

And if you ask the insect who drowns when you water the vegetable garden, what would they say? So, how does one justify the rules we set up for ourselves as humans without condemning ourselves for the opportunities we enjoy as animals?

With regards to food, it is justified by considering the alternative to eating meat or vegetables, which would amount to eating no food at all, AKA suicide. But since suicide is completely unreasonable and abstaining from meat is often quite reasonable. It's quite easy to justify eating vegetables because it's necessary.

So, that's why I say if a person doesn't eat meat, that's great,
but don't give yourself a medal for it.
As soon as you think "oh what a good buddhist I am"
you should drop that.
(just my opinion)

Agreed! That should be dropped if it is there. However, saying that it is unethical to unnecessarily kill and eat animals, is not equivalent to putting yourself on a high horse or giving yourself a medal. Especially when the statement has nothing whatsoever to do with yourself. Some people mistakenly believe that all statements on behalf of animals emanate from "myself" and the "high horse" as you call it. But nothing could be further from the truth.

[PadmaVonSamba]

With regards to food, it is justified by considering the alternative to eating meat or vegetables, which would amount to eating no food at all, AKA suicide. But since suicide is completely unreasonable and abstaining from meat is often quite reasonable. It's quite easy to justify eating vegetables because it's necessary.

No argument there, and from a vegetarian viewpoint, it makes sense ethically.
My point (again) is merely that from the buddhist point of view,
one shouldn't think that if they don't eat meat that they are generating "less bad karma" or whatever,
or that by consuming meat if it is offered to them, or if that is what is available,
that they are generating "more bad karma".
Most of us are not ready to throw ourselves off a cliff in order to feed a pack of hungry tiger cubs
(a reference to a story about one of the Buddha's past lives)
although starving to death rather than harming any living creature certainly would be the selfless thing to do.
But it is often recommended that we sort of "make up the difference" whenever possible,
by acquiring animals that are destined for slaughter (such as worms at a fishing bait shop)
and releasing them.
.
.
.

[seeker242]

With regards to food, it is justified by considering the alternative to eating meat or vegetables, which would amount to eating no food at all, AKA suicide. But since suicide is completely unreasonable and abstaining from meat is often quite reasonable. It's quite easy to justify eating vegetables because it's necessary.

No argument there, and from a vegetarian viewpoint, it makes sense ethically.
My point (again) is merely that from the buddhist point of view,
one shouldn't think that if they don't eat meat that they are generating "less bad karma" or whatever,
or that by consuming meat if it is offered to them, or if that is what is available,
that they are generating "more bad karma".

.
.
.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. However, the Nirvana Sutra, and others disagree with that. So by saying "one shouldn't think that if they don't eat meat that they are generating "less bad karma", is essentially saying "You should not believe the Nirvana Sutra". There is a reason why the Brama Net Sutra declares it to be a secondary offense. The reason is karma.

Brahmajala Sutra The Forty-eight Secondary Precepts #3. On Eating Meat

A disciple of the Buddha must not deliberately eat meat. He should not eat the flesh of any sentient being. The meat-eater forfeits the seed of Great Compassion, severs the seed of the Buddha Nature and causes [animals and transcendental] beings to avoid him. Those who do so are guilty of countless offenses. Therefore, Bodhisattvas should not eat the flesh of any sentient beings whatsoever. If instead, he deliberately eats meat, he commits a secondary offense.

See also the following passage from the Lankavatara Sutra:

all meat-eating, in any form, in any manner, and in any place, is unconditionally and once for all, prohibited for all. Thus, Mahamati, meat eating I have not permitted to anyone, I do not permit, I will not permit. Meat eating, I tell you, Mahamati, is not proper for homeless monks (D.T. Suzuki, Lankavatara Sutra, p. 219).

Karma is the reason behind those statements. You said

"My point (again) is merely that from the buddhist point of view,
one shouldn't think that if they don't eat meat that they are generating "less bad karma" or whatever,"

I think it would be more appropriate for you to change the statement "the Buddhist point of view" to "my Buddhist point of view". Millions of Buddhists take the view that just eating meat makes bad karma, because of what it says in these scriptures and these are certainly Buddhist scriptures. If someone wants to try to discount the Nirvana Sutra as not Buddhist, sure they can try to do that. Good luck with that though!

[ocean_waves]

As long as the dialogue remains about this or that the middle way is not open [even for discussion].

Life is sustained by death, both are illusions.

The Buddha said to Subhuti, "This is how the bodhisattva mahasattvas master their thinking. However many species of living beings there are--whether born from the womb, from moisture, or spontaneously; whether they have form or do not have form; whether they have perceptions or do not have perceptions; or whether it cannot be said of them that they have perceptions or that they do not have perceptions--we must lead all these beings to the ultimate nirvana so that they can be liberated. And when this innumerable, immeasurable, infinite number of beings has been liberated, we do not, in truth, think that a single being has been liberated.
"Why is this so? If, Subhuti, a bodhisattva holds on to the idea that a self, a person, a living being, or a life span exists, that person is not an authentic bodhisattva."
~The Diamond Sutra

We are all being eaten. Right now there are microbes and bacteria dining on our bodies as we speak/type [some of these bacteria help the bodies function, some may cause it dis-ease and produce suffering]. Some function in a very intelligent manner and could be defined as "sentient". When the many elements that compose our bodies dissipate we will be feasted upon by many of life's forms. Resistance is futile.

Nothing and no one escapes the food chain because life as we define it is a result of interdependent co-arising/dependent origination.

Keep in mind... I am not advocating one dietary choice over the other. I am saying that they are simply dietary choices, when we cling to either one we often lose sight of the dharma

Question: Has the Dalai Lama severed the seed of his buddha-nature by eating meat?

Sometimes we spend so much time looking at the "pointing fingers" and trying to decipher their meaning we forget to look at the moon, denying ourselves its light and beauty!

[uan]

As long as the dialogue remains about this or that the middle way is not open [even for discussion].

Life is sustained by death, both are illusions.

The Buddha said to Subhuti, "This is how the bodhisattva mahasattvas master their thinking. However many species of living beings there are--whether born from the womb, from moisture, or spontaneously; whether they have form or do not have form; whether they have perceptions or do not have perceptions; or whether it cannot be said of them that they have perceptions or that they do not have perceptions--we must lead all these beings to the ultimate nirvana so that they can be liberated. And when this innumerable, immeasurable, infinite number of beings has been liberated, we do not, in truth, think that a single being has been liberated.
"Why is this so? If, Subhuti, a bodhisattva holds on to the idea that a self, a person, a living being, or a life span exists, that person is not an authentic bodhisattva."
~The Diamond Sutra

We are all being eaten. Right now there are microbes and bacteria dining on our bodies as we speak/type [some of these bacteria help the bodies function, some may cause it dis-ease and produce suffering]. Some function in a very intelligent manner and could be defined as "sentient". When the many elements that compose our bodies dissipate we will be feasted upon by many of life's forms. Resistance is futile.

Nothing and no one escapes the food chain because life as we define it is a result of interdependent co-arising/dependent origination.

Keep in mind... I am not advocating one dietary choice over the other. I am saying that they are simply dietary choices, when we cling to either one we often lose sight of the dharma

Question: Has the Dalai Lama severed the seed of his buddha-nature by eating meat?

Sometimes we spend so much time looking at the "pointing fingers" and trying to decipher their meaning we forget to look at the moon, denying ourselves its light and beauty!

"Why is this so? If, Subhuti, a bodhisattva holds on to the idea that a self, a person, a living being, or a life span exists, that person is not an authentic bodhisattva."
~The Diamond Sutra

This about sums it up (the all encompassing "it" of pretty much anything - at least from a Mahayana pov).

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

[LastLegend]

Consider taking 'super' food such as maca powder, chia seeds, goji berries, acai powder, yacon syrup, etc. These things contain more nutrition than your body ever need if you consider becoming a vegetarian or eating less meats. Buy them organic-sunfood.come sell them.Also google super food to learn more.

[eatmeatgross]

http://www.kagyuoffice.org/#VVI2013-10

Gyalwang Karmapa explained two key reasons that he personally does not eat meat. The first reason is the intense suffering that the animals who are killed go through. Every single day millions of animals are killed to feed us, and many are subjected to terrible conditions to provide us with food. Just a few days previously the Gyalwang Karmapa had shared a story of how, as a child in Tibet, when animals were killed for his family's food he felt unbearable, pure compassion for them.

The second reason he doesn't eat meat, the Gyalwang Karmapa continued, is because of his Mahayana training in seeing all sentient beings as his mothers. "We say I am going to do everything I can to free sentient beings from suffering. We say I am going to do this. We make the commitment. We take the vow. Once we have taken this vow, if then, without thinking anything about it, we just go ahead and eat meat, then that is not okay. It is something that we need to think about very carefully."

The Gyalwang Karmapa revealed that meat can only be consumed when an ill person needs to eat meat in order to strengthen his body. Even then, there are three conditions which the ill meat eater must abide by when eating meat.

1) we must not have seen, heard, or thought that the animal was killed particularly for us to eat it.

2) meditate on compassion for one session—compassion for all sentient beings in general, but especially for this particular animal whose flesh is in front of you. Then you should recite the mantras of the Buddha's name, as well as mantras that can help purify misdeeds. Only then should you start eating the meat.

3) When you start eating the meat you have to think about it in a particular way. You should think of it as being the meat of your mother or your father or your child. You should think of eating it in that way, and so it's when you think of it as being your mother's or your child's meat, then that is when you can eat it.

We must also have a pure motivation when we eat the meat, the Gyalwang Karmapa continued. "We should not eat the meat in order to enjoy it, because it is delicious. We should not eat it because we want to enjoy the great flavor and savor what we are eating. Instead we should eat the meat only in order to keep ourselves alive."

[eatmeatgross]

On the sixth day of his Spring Teachings the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, cut straight to the core of an issue that is vital not only for the sustainability of our contemporary world, but also within our individual lives as Buddhist practitioners. Exploring the topic from many different angles, the Gyalwang Karmapa discussed his views on whether Buddhist practitioners should eat meat or not, and if so, when and how it may be acceptable to do so.

"A few years ago at one of the Kagyu Monlams I spoke about the topic of vegetarianism, giving up eating meat. You could say it was an announcement, but it was really like making a suggestion. Since then many years have passed, and over the years I've heard people say various things. Some people have even said, 'Oh, Ogyen Trinley Dorje says that if you don't give up eating meat then you're not a Kagyupa.' Now, it actually wasn't me who said that. It was the 8th Karmapa Mikyo Dorje who said that. So it wasn't my idea, and it's not like I said you better give up meat or else you're not a Kagyupa."

In fact, there are different ways we can interpret the 8th Karmapa's advice, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa continued. If we take a looser interpretation of Mikyo Dorje's words, then by eating meat you can say that you're not a truly pure Kagyu practitioner. "There are many great Kagyu masters who have eaten meat, so it is very difficult to merely say that eating meat means that you have faults. But eating meat is something that all of us who practice the dharma need to think about very carefully."

The Gyalwang Karmapa, himself a pure vegetarian, then turned to his own life as an example. "When I spoke about this, I was primarily thinking about the way I lead my own life. I can't really do anything about how other people lead their lives, but in terms of thinking about myself there are some reasons for this." He then explained two key reasons that he personally does not eat meat. The first reason is the intense suffering that the animals who are killed go through. Every single day millions of animals are killed to feed us, and many are subjected to terrible conditions to provide us with food. Just a few days previously the Gyalwang Karmapa had shared a story of how, as a child in Tibet, when animals were killed for his family's food he felt unbearable, pure compassion for them.

The second reason he doesn't eat meat, the Gyalwang Karmapa continued, is because of his Mahayana training in seeing all sentient beings as his mothers. "We say I am going to do everything I can to free sentient beings from suffering. We say I am going to do this. We make the commitment. We take the vow. Once we have taken this vow, if then, without thinking anything about it, we just go ahead and eat meat, then that is not okay. It is something that we need to think about very carefully."

The Gyalwang Karmapa then acknowledged that there are some circumstances in which eating meat is allowed, or even necessary. He explained that within the Buddhist Vinaya, or rules for monks and nuns, eating meat is allowed mainly when one is ill, but only if three conditions are met: we must not have seen, heard, or thought that the animal was killed particularly for us to eat it. Meat is allowed when a person is sick, the Gyalwang Karmapa clarified, or for those people who need more nourishment and have great difficulty nourishing themselves without it.

"But when you eat meat in these situations you should not just eat it in an ordinary sort of way," he continued. "You first need to meditate on compassion for one session—compassion for all sentient beings in general, but especially for this particular animal whose flesh is in front of you. Then you should recite the mantras of the Buddha's name, as well as mantras that can help purify misdeeds. Only then should you start eating the meat."

Yet his guidance did not stop there. Returning to the Mahayana training of seeing all sentient beings as mothers, the Gyalwang Karmapa explained further. "When you start eating the meat you have to think about it in a particular way. You should think of it as being the meat of your mother or your father or your child. You should think of eating it in that way, and so it's when you think of it as being your mother's or your child's meat, then that is when you can eat it."

We must also have a pure motivation when we eat the meat, the Gyalwang Karmapa continued. "We should not eat the meat in order to enjoy it, because it is delicious. We should not eat it because we want to enjoy the great flavor and savor what we are eating. Instead we should eat the meat only in order to keep ourselves alive."

To avoid any misunderstanding, the Gyalwang Karmapa repeated the need for each individual to reflect deeply on the issue: "Now, I did not say that we need to immediately give up eating meat. I understand that it's difficult to give up eating meat. But I did say that we need to think about it carefully. When we eat meat, if we are someone who has entered the path of the Mahayana, someone who has begun to think of all sentient beings as their father, their mother, or their child, in terms of someone who practices in this way it's really something that we need to consider very carefully."

[eatmeatgross]

Most people eat meat because they enjoy eating meat and they can't destroy their desires and attachments to eating meat even though their bodies are obese and their health would increase by leaps and bounds if they turn to a purely vegetarian diet.

Most people are not old, sickly people like the dalai lama who have to eat meat for medical purposes yet the same "meat-eaters" dare to criticize the dalai lama for eating meat and thus claim that since the dalai lama, the most compassionate person on the planet is eating meat, why can't the rest of the common citizens do the same?

I would like to see every meat-eater see every piece of meat as meat belonging to their mother, father or child and consume every mouthful of meat imagining that the same piece of meat is flesh from their own mother, father or child.

Then i like to see the same meat-eaters think about the enjoyment of the taste of eating meat from their own mother, father and child and then we see if such acts still change their way of thinking about meat-eating in general.

Most meat-eaters would never dare to think of the meat which they are putting in their mouths as meat from their mother, father or child because how can anyone enjoy the taste of meat if they know that it is meat from their own parents or children's bodies?

Rather, they want to ignore the fact that the very same animals which they are eating could very well be their own parents or children in previous life-times so they can enjoy the great fantastic sauces and seasoning being spread on their meats.

[eatmeatgross]

Most meat-eaters eat meat for pleasure but the dalai lama eat meat for medical purposes as he is old and ill and to save the souls of the dead animals. This is the main difference between most meat-eaters the the dalai lama!

[greentara]

I'm very drawn to the Dalai lama but ....."Most meat-eaters eat meat for pleasure but the dalai lama eat meat for medical purposes as he is old and ill and to save the souls of the dead animals. This is the main difference between most meat-eaters the the dalai lama" I don''t particularly believe this last statement, it doesn't ring true!

[Johnny Dangerous]

I've always been curious, what is the doctrinal position explaining why the historical Buddha was not a vegetarian from people who believe it's so central to Buddhism?

[Konchog1]

The Pali canon opinion

http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2012/10/b ... anism.html
http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2012/11/m ... -meat.html
http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2012/11/m ... stent.html
http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2012/11/p ... anism.html
http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2012/11/t ... upper.html

[heart]

The Pali canon opinion

http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2012/10/b ... anism.html
http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2012/11/m ... -meat.html
http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2012/11/m ... stent.html
http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2012/11/p ... anism.html
http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2012/11/t ... upper.html

This is an interpretation of the Pali Canon, hardly the opinion of the Pali Canon itself. Buddhist monks are beggers, they it whatever is put in their bowl. The Buddha never said "don't eat meat". But I think vegetarianism motivated by compassion is wonderful.

/magnus

[Johnny Dangerous]

I like Bhante Dhammika alot, and those are well reasoned positions..still doesn't answer the question for me fully from the more stringent vegetarian position though.

HIs words are encouraging though..if only my family I would eat this way lol, I keep feeling lately like I should return to vegetarianism when it's possible.

The "problematic vegetarianism" link describes some of my exact feelings.

[kirtu]

As it turns out, when humans digest so-called red meat, the gut bacteria turns carnitine found in the meat into a substance that clogs the arteries. As people eat more red meat, the effect becomes pronounced because the long term gut ecology supports more of the bacteria that help digest red meat and thus turn carnitine into an artery clogging substance.

From this article at the Washington Post.

Kirt

[Johnny Dangerous]

I just read this, interesting stuff. red meat is a real rarity for me anyway, but it's good to know.

Interesting because the correlation between heart disease and red meat has been claimed for a long time, with many disputing it...I guess now the dispute is over.

On a related note, does anyone have a "fake chicken" recommendation? There are a few Asian restaurants I've been to that use this kind of fake chicken product that's really quite good, and sometimes almost indistinguishable from chicken.

[kirtu]

On a related note, does anyone have a "fake chicken" recommendation? There are a few Asian restaurants I've been to that use this kind of fake chicken product that's really quite good, and sometimes almost indistinguishable from chicken.

"Mock meat" restaurants have been increasing in popularity in the past 15 or so years. It really depends on where you live of course. There used to be an amazing place (based on one visit and one dish alone) in Philadelphia that was totally vegetarian and kosher. I stumbeled on it completely by accident many years ago.

There is a totally vegan place in Boston, My Thai Vegan Cafe in Chinatown, that has mock meat that is IMO indistinguishable from meat in taste. I actually had to ask them to confirm that I hadn't misunderstood that it was mock meat. When I visit Boston I eat there.

Kirt