Queequeg wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:48 pm
I'm not aware of any question in Mahayana that eating meat involves taking life. By definition, meat is what's left over when a sentient being in either the human or animal realms dies. The distinctions come with the karma, the intentional activity, involved with the consumption of meat. Not taking life is one of those cardinal Mahayana precepts. There are considerations of necessity, also. But again, not interested in discussing the morality.
There is no universal agreement amongst Mahayana practitioners or teachers on vegetarianism and the first precept. This doesn't even need to be debated, it is just fact.
What I find curious is the way that the ritual rules around consuming meat seem to be presented in a way that conveniently justifies developed world consumer choices. I would expect that to really practice tsok, it really demands a very high degree of seriousness, and the casualness of picking out a weekday night dinner seems incongruent.
Actually, modern veganism and vegetarianism (at least as practiced in the frist world) are very much "developed world" consumer choices, and ones which are not always as harmless as they are sometimes presented.
First, let me respond to this refrain that keeps popping up - "You're not a vajrayana practitioner". With respect to the forum in which this discussion is taking place, that seems to be a uniquely Tibetan retort. If any of you has been to Japan, meat is consumed in almost every meal, and there are black boxes to deal with it that sound pretty much like what you guys are describing in your practices. There are also strict Buddhist vegetarian diets, which are, by the way, amazing culinary experiences if you get a chance. Shojin ryori, the cuisine developed by Shingon monks on Mt. Koya - a center of exclusively Vajrayana practice - is delicious. And vegan. My point is, transforming one's existing lifestyle into Dharma is not a uniquely Tibetan Vajrayana thing.
Hmm well, I'm not gonna be in the business of meta-defending my "retorts", accept them or don't, I have a lot of confidence in my practice and don't feel the need to justify it beyond being willing to have a friendly conversation that might explain some things to people outside of Vajrayana.
Shingon AFAIK practices at a different level of Tantra, I believe most of their practices are Kriya, and for Kriya practices indeed external modification and purification is part of deal. So, in this particular instance it is a poor comparison to what we are talking about within Tibetan Buddhism. There are of course, plenty of Tibetan teachers and practitioners who do similar things - but it is not universal, and likely never will be due to the nature of Vajrayana. I have taken teachings with teachers who are fairly strict vegetarians. My own main teachers don't care much, and tend to give a different kind of advice altogether. There is nothing wrong with the first category of teacher, I just don't consider their advice particularly applicable to me because I follow the advice primarily of my root Guru, and the secondarily of the other close teachers I have.
That said, I feel like there is a good argument just conventionally to reduce one's meat consumption, so I have. I also spent chunks of my life as vegetarian, so it's not some foreign thing to me. In fact, I am a kick-ass vegetarian cook.
That said, you seem to be suggesting that transforming one's existing lifestyle eliminates the necessity of considering the impact of one's activities. If we do it right, then raping and pillaging is just as valid a path, so long as its done in a manner that transforms it into dharma. Is there no compulsion toward the modification of behavior? Say an incantation, cast a spell, and the karma of a psychopathic serial killer becomes acts of kindness.
Sure of course, we do not just do whatever we want and should pay attention to our conduct, there's no need to bring up these hyperbolic examples. I also covered this question by saying that many Vajryana practitioners start with, and typically retain at least -some- of the common Mahayana viewpoint and teachings.
Here's a theoretical example that hopefully simplifies things:
Jane Vajra is 49 years old, a Vajrayana practitioner and single Mom. She has an ongoing issue with uterine fibroids that cause anemia, two teenage kids to look after, and a busy job as a social worker. She tried vegetarianism for a few years but found both that focus on diet was a pain in the ass due to logistics - shopping and cooking for her kids who want to eat meat, and that due to her anemia, it wasn't a bad idea to have some beef every now and then in her diet.
For Jane, the Vajrayana methods allow her to fold these life circumstances into her practice, instead of it just being a random act. Similarly, for Jane, ideas about hard and fast external rules on diet simply do not fit her life situation - her energies are likely better spent elsewhere. She can work with her present circumstances, but causing herself the additionally difficulty of living a vegetarian lifestyle arguably does not pass a cost/benefit analysis of what is most beneficial for her, her family, or her Dharma practice. Similarly, a bunch of hoity-toit Buddhists or college vegan Buddhist activists criticizing Jane's decision to not focus on a vegetarian diet are just being unrealistic and judgemental.
That is an ultra simplified example, but an easy to follow one that illustrates how this concept plays out in daily life, that involves no need to explaining the mechanics of Vajrayana practice or anything like that. There is no one set of circumstances for Dharma practice, and therefore no one argument that applies to all practitioners, certainly not on something as circumstance - dependent and complex as dietary choice in the modern world.