Pure land & vegetarianism

[shaunc]

Lately, because of some advice I recieved on this board I've been trying to practise pureland. The subject of vegetarianism comes up with a bit of frequency. I'm not a vegetarian & never have been, does this admission nullify my pureland practise. Also, I can see why vegetarianism may be quite beneficial purely from a health point of view but from a buddhist perspective is there any benefit in being vegetarian occasionally (i.e. on full moon & new moon days) or one day/week or something along those lines. Good-luck & best-wishes. Shaun.

[jeeprs]

Mahayana Buddhism often recommends vegetarianism. There are East Asian Mahayana texts which proclaim that eating meat is bad. It is different to Theravada in that Theravada monks eat whatever is provided to them, with the caveat that no animal is to be killed for them. But there is not much about vegetarianism in the Pali texts.

My sangha includes both vegetarians and non-vegetarians, but we don't say that Buddhism prohibits meat-eating, and say it is a matter of personal choice.

My personal approach is that I have reduced meat consumption and have been able to mostly avoid many meat products for the last five years, especially lamb and beef. I still eat chicken, which really is also meat, as well as seafood, but have learned, and often cook, vegetarian meals. I don't think it has to be an 'all or nothing' choice. You can considerably reduce meat consumption without being strictly vegetarian. Even that has many benefits, not least because factory farming of animals is both cruel and detrimental to the environment. And just lately there have been some news articles about the benefits of reduced meat consumption. But again, I think it is good to do so for its own reasons, not because of Buddhism.

[plwk]

If the below if of any use...

I'm not a vegetarian & never have been, does this admission nullify my pureland practise.

Firstly, strictly speaking, if one reads through all of the standard Threefold Pure Land Sutras, there is no explicit order nor mandate for practitioners of this Dharma door to adopt vegetarianism. What would 'nullify' your practice however is engaging in self defeating attitudes & actions towards the Buddha Dharma in general and Amitabha Buddha/Sukhavati specifically.

Secondly, the 'but' factor. Since Pure Land teaching & discipline has its roots in the Mahayana, which generally speaking, has a ton load of scriptural and commentarial literature exhorting on vegetarianism, hence, it is not surprising to find that vegetarianism becomes a naturally adopted and adapted practice for Pure Landers as well, especially those who follow its East Asian streams. But in places like Japan, not all of the Pure Landers there adopt this but neither can I say with total certainty that adherents from other East Asian streams around the world are dedicated vegetarians but it does not diminish their practice either.

Thirdly, the East Asian Mahayana monastics and laity community (with the exception of Japan).
a. There are historical (& some say political) reasons for the adoption of vegetarianism amongst the monastics, especially in Chinese Mahayana history who have since made vegetarianism (in this case, monastic version of vegetarianism which goes further to exclude the intake of the pungent plants) as one hallmark of their monastic practice (although strictly speaking this isn't a feature from the Vinaya).
b. The laity however have a choice. Most would be spurred on to adopt similarly, depending on who they are associating with.
There are factions who take a literal and direct or what some would describe as a 'fatwa-like' approach who mandate it on even their lay followers to adopt this upon taking Refuge & Lay Precepts &/or Bodhisattva Vows as a Pure Lander. Then there are those who take a more gradual approach, encouraging more investigation, understanding and gradual practice, so whilst one is encouraged to take it up, there is no obligation to adopt vegetarianism to be tied up with taking of Refuge/Lay Precepts/Bodhisattva Vows or Pure Land practice.
c. So at the end of the day, one should choose carefully as to which is the more befitting option because the adoption of vegetarianism should be taken up with the clarity of wisdom and imbued with compassion to avoid causing duhkha, both for oneself and others. If one can do it immediately, fine. If one cannot, then there's always the gradual method.

...but from a buddhist perspective is there any benefit in being vegetarian occasionally (i.e. on full moon & new moon days) or one day/week or something along those lines.

Like any other Dharma based training, the goal of observing the New and Full Moon Days or for that matter any other day, is ultimately focused on duhkha and its cessation, what other 'benefit' is one looking for? The inclusion of vegetarianism to this observance is just another complementing facet of that observance. One can also look at other factors like reducing and transforming one's own klesas, dietary and daily habituations and attachments, developing and increasing one's Bodhicitta aspiration for all sentient beings and to other more mundane ones like health and greater awareness and respect for life and so forth.
Check out this link.

‎"And catching sight of others, think
That it will be through them
That you will come to Buddhahood.
So look on them with open, loving hearts."
Śāntideva, Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra, Chapter on Vigilance/Mindfulness, Verse 80

[LastLegend]

In my view, being a vegetarian is ideal for practice. It also goes with compassion such as not consuming meats of sentient beings.

[black_tea]

I ate a low meat diet (just had it a couple of times a week) for several years, but didn't completely give it up until reading the Pure Land sutras. Reading about Amida's compassion made it impossible for me to feel ok about eating (and therefore consigning to slaughter) other beings. However, that is my personal experience. I also realize that individuals have different dietary needs and living situations that may make being a vegetarian more difficult.

I don't think not being a vegetarian should preclude someone from practing Pure Land. I do think our eating habits are something we should all consider, however. What we eat, where we get our food, how it was produced effects not only our individual bodies, but also other people and animals through environmental and animal welfare concerns. There are ways of eating in a more sustainable and humane fashion that does not go so far as to completely give up meat. Issues like factory farming, and the mass environmental destruction we see today were not issues in the Buddha's time, but I think there are things that Buddhist ethics can and should be applied to (are we creating more suffering for others? are we acting in a compassionate way to other beings?).

[Son of Buddha]

Try being a vegetarian,if you cant do it then try having some days out of the week where you eat a vegitarian diet (50/50)

[shaunc]

Thanks for the replys everyone. I'm going to try observing vegetarianism occasionally. I do understand the cruelty involved in highly intensive animal farming which is one of the reasons I keep my own chickens for egg production. Because I live in a family enviroment it's unfair to my wife & kids to take this upon themselves because of me, but I don't think that every now & again is too much to ask.
Good-luck & best-wishes. Shaun.

[Kaji]

A few quick points:

If all humans are vegetarians, no animal will ever be slaughtered for human consumption. Any Buddhist would say that's a good thing, no? You cannot force the whole humankind to become vegetarians, but many of us have the choice to become one ourselves. (However, I myself don't have that choice yet.)

I have read that many Dharma protectors much prefer to help out vegetarian Buddhists (or any vegetarian human for that matter). Many have preference not only towards those who do not eat meat, but also animal products and pungent vegetables.

It has been taught that certain Dharma practices are effective if the practitioners follow certain conditions - and in some cases being vegetarian is one of them (others include not eating pungent vegetables, observing the Five Precepts, etc.) The Shurangama Mantra is one such practice. Others are explicit more lenient, e.g. the Cundi Mantra.

Animal farming contributes a terrible lot to carbon emission and therefore global warming.

[jmlee369]

Thirdly, the East Asian Mahayana monastics and laity community (with the exception of Japan).
a. There are historical (& some say political) reasons for the adoption of vegetarianism amongst the monastics, especially in Chinese Mahayana history who have since made vegetarianism (in this case, monastic version of vegetarianism which goes further to exclude the intake of the pungent plants) as one hallmark of their monastic practice (although strictly speaking this isn't a feature from the Vinaya).

While vegetarianism is not part of the Vinaya, all East Asian monastics are ordained with the Triple Platform Oridnation, thereby receiving bodhisattvas precepts as well, which are most often the precepts from the Brahma Net Sutra. The Brahma Net Sutra has vegetarianism as a secondary precept, and the abstention from pungent plants as another. Interestingly enough, the Vinaya does have a rule against the consumption of garlic.

b. The laity however have a choice. Most would be spurred on to adopt similarly, depending on who they are associating with.
There are factions who take a literal and direct or what some would describe as a 'fatwa-like' approach who mandate it on even their lay followers to adopt this upon taking Refuge & Lay Precepts &/or Bodhisattva Vows as a Pure Lander. Then there are those who take a more gradual approach, encouraging more investigation, understanding and gradual practice, so whilst one is encouraged to take it up, there is no obligation to adopt vegetarianism to be tied up with taking of Refuge/Lay Precepts/Bodhisattva Vows or Pure Land practice.

With the taking of the bodhisattva vows, and lay bodhisattva precepts are also almost always, but less than the monastics, from the Brahma Net Sutra, even laity are expected to maintain vegetarian diets and to abstain from the five pungent plants. If you take the precept, you are expected to keep it.

[plwk]

Thirdly, the East Asian Mahayana monastics and laity community (with the exception of Japan).
a. There are historical (& some say political) reasons for the adoption of vegetarianism amongst the monastics, especially in Chinese Mahayana history who have since made vegetarianism (in this case, monastic version of vegetarianism which goes further to exclude the intake of the pungent plants) as one hallmark of their monastic practice (although strictly speaking this isn't a feature from the Vinaya).

While vegetarianism is not part of the Vinaya, all East Asian monastics are ordained with the Triple Platform Oridnation, thereby receiving bodhisattvas precepts as well, which are most often the precepts from the Brahma Net Sutra. The Brahma Net Sutra has vegetarianism as a secondary precept, and the abstention from pungent plants as another. Interestingly enough, the Vinaya does have a rule against the consumption of garlic.

b. The laity however have a choice. Most would be spurred on to adopt similarly, depending on who they are associating with.
There are factions who take a literal and direct or what some would describe as a 'fatwa-like' approach who mandate it on even their lay followers to adopt this upon taking Refuge & Lay Precepts &/or Bodhisattva Vows as a Pure Lander. Then there are those who take a more gradual approach, encouraging more investigation, understanding and gradual practice, so whilst one is encouraged to take it up, there is no obligation to adopt vegetarianism to be tied up with taking of Refuge/Lay Precepts/Bodhisattva Vows or Pure Land practice.

With the taking of the bodhisattva vows, and lay bodhisattva precepts are also almost always, but less than the monastics, from the Brahma Net Sutra, even laity are expected to maintain vegetarian diets and to abstain from the five pungent plants. If you take the precept, you are expected to keep it.

Just my own musings...

You are aware right, if I may presume, that there are other versions of the Bodhisattva Sila that do not have the same provisions as the Mahayana Brahma Net Sutra version? And hence, one version's contents should not be made to sound like it should superimpose or supercede another version? That's why I kept my little analysis open ended as there are other considerations at play and even then I was told and have read that on this forum that even those who receive the Brahma Net Sutra version, most likely the laity, are given in gradual stages instead of a one go thing, though I am not sure which portions are given out first, middle and last.

And another factor is not all students or Bodhisattva Sila aspirants have teachers that follow a literal interpretation or 'mandating' vegetarianism on them, and I would reckon that these teachers would have also considered their aspirants'/students' mundane life situations of when and where it can be practicable, not about giving excuses at every turn and the trying / exceptional circumstances where proper motivation of the overall situation outweighs the actual observance? Look at the famed case of the self immolated Ven Thich Quang Duc back in 1963? Was his self immolation justified if I took a literal approach to the first precept of the Brahma Net Bodhisattva Sila? Or look at the many self immolations of the Tibetan monastics? Perhaps, a case by case basis consideration would be useful here?

And yes, I have heard of the thing on abstaining from garlic but did not the same Buddha allowed the three kinds of 'pure meat' as a gradual teaching and elsewhere also mentions on the monastic prohibition on 10 kinds of animals and humans not to be eaten, on usage of leather and so forth?

In Japan for instance, as I have read and been told, many of them receive the Brahma Net version of the Bodhisattva Sila yet they are not vegetarians or at the very least partial/gradual ones, does that make them a lesser Bodhisattva? Who am I to decide on their behalf when it comes to observance and 'non observance'? Do I know what life dynamics they face? Honen and Shinran, both with a Tendai past, surely they have received the Bodhisattva Vows back then yet do not have a reputation of being vegetarians yet look at their lives and dedication to the Pure Land path? Yes, they do practice an observance of shojin-bi on memorial days & every 16th Day of the month commemorating Shinran but for the rest of the year, they do not. How is this any different from the common East Asian Mahayana observance of the bi-monthly vegetarian Upavasatha and special annual liturgical days of observance? Besides, being a secondary precept, in the case of a violation, it's not a self defeating offense or parajika level and can be confessed & purified. See below as one example of 'exceptional cases'...

[shaunc]

[quote="plwk"]

And yes, I have heard of the thing on abstaining from garlic but did not the same Buddha allowed the three kinds of 'pure meat' as a gradual teaching and elsewhere also mentions on the monastic prohibition on 10 kinds of animals and humans not to be eaten, on usage of leather and so forth?



Could you please tell me about the 3 types of "pure meat" & the usage of leather. I am familiar with the 10 forbidden meats. Incidentally, I'm trying to go vegetarian today just for one day if anyone is interested.

[sinweiy]

i know if one take up the vegetarianism as a form of precept on full moon & new moon days, it's very beneficial, especially if that person fall into "lower realms", and everytime, it cames to full moon & new moon, they will experience somewhat libarated due to the merit of remembering that they had taken up the precepts in those dates.

[Nighthawk]

Vegetarianism is completely unnecessary in the path of pure land as it won't hinder or better your chances at attaining birth.

[plwk]

And yes, I have heard of the thing on abstaining from garlic but did not the same Buddha allowed the three kinds of 'pure meat' as a gradual teaching and elsewhere also mentions on the monastic prohibition on 10 kinds of animals and humans not to be eaten, on usage of leather and so forth?

Could you please tell me about the 3 types of "pure meat" & the usage of leather. I am familiar with the 10 forbidden meats. Incidentally, I'm trying to go vegetarian today just for one day if anyone is interested.

Jivaka Sutta & The Buddha's Threefold Rule and this curious passage from the Mahaparinirvana Sutra with regards to the above...

On leather usage...

[LastLegend]

I still eat meats myself, but I do think being a vegetarian is ideal. No need to feel guilty or justify why you eat meats. My parents also Pure Land practitioners still eat meats, but they eat mostly vegetarian diet.

[Nosta]

I eat less meat since I take Buddhism seriously.

I prefer poultry because the suffering of a chicken being killed is lesser than the suffering of a cow or a pork. A cow or a pork are more aware of themselves, are more inteligent animals, with a better nervous system, so I suppose they suffer more when being killed.

Sometimes I will eat just an healthy soup, without meat. Its much better for my Dharma practice, for the sake of beings. Besides, its less expensive (but money its not my first priority when eating less meat!).

[sinweiy]

it does help in the form of precept/discipline. just like why Buddha told the Queen to take up the 8 precepts, so that she can be reborn in pureland as she wanted, in Visualisation Sutra.

[shaunc]

Thanks for everyones help. I'm starting to understand much better now.

[Asoka1944]

Hi,
I'm happy to find discussion about vegetarianism, a topic much on my mind lately. I have a tendency to try to simplify -- perhaps oversimplify -- everything, but it seems to me that vegetarianism is at least implied in the first precept which suggests that we abstain from taking the life of sentient beings; from that point of view alone, I have taken up a vegetarian life style. Whether I'll be able to maintain it, I don't know. Realizing that people who live in areas where edible vegetable matter is scarce, and that accepting all offerings of the laity by monks can be considered the greater good, and that there are many points of view and rationales for what we eat, I can only speak for myself, hopefully free of judgement. It's interesting to find the discussion under Pureland Buddhism here. I've also been recently introduced to Pureland practice, so it's nice to find these two together.
with Metta,
Michael (Buddharuci)

[Kaji]

Hi,
I'm happy to find discussion about vegetarianism, a topic much on my mind lately. I have a tendency to try to simplify -- perhaps oversimplify -- everything, but it seems to me that vegetarianism is at least implied in the first precept which suggests that we abstain from taking the life of sentient beings; from that point of view alone, I have taken up a vegetarian life style. Whether I'll be able to maintain it, I don't know. Realizing that people who live in areas where edible vegetable matter is scarce, and that accepting all offerings of the laity by monks can be considered the greater good, and that there are many points of view and rationales for what we eat, I can only speak for myself, hopefully free of judgement. It's interesting to find the discussion under Pureland Buddhism here. I've also been recently introduced to Pureland practice, so it's nice to find these two together.
with Metta,
Michael (Buddharuci)

Thanks for bringing up this great point. I know there are Buddhists who likewise follow the second precept and take up a vegan diet and also not use animal products in all aspects of life, e.g. leather, feathers, silk.