1.
From John Kahila (talk.religion.buddhism newsgroup):
Are
all Buddhists vegetarians?
No.
The First Precept admonishes us to refrain from killing, but
meat eating is not regarded as an instance of killing, and
it is not forbidden in the scriptures. (We are speaking here
mainly of the Pali scriptures. Some of the Mahayana scriptures,
notably the Lankavatara Sutra, take a strong position in favor
of vegetarianism. Also see Note below)
As
recorded in the Pali scriptures, the Buddha did not prohibit
consumption of meat, even by monks. In fact, he explicitly
rejected a suggestion from Devadatta to do so. In modern Theravada
societies, a bhikkhu who adheres to vegetarianism to impress
others with his superior spirituality may be committing an
infringement of the monastic rules.
On
the other hand, the Buddha categorically prohibited consumption
of the flesh of any animal that was "seen, heard or suspected"
to have been killed specifically for the benefit of monks
(Jivaka Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 55). This rule technically
applies only to monastics, but it can be used as a reasonable
guide by devout lay people.
To
understand this "middle path" approach to meat-eating,
we have to remember that there were no "Buddhists"
in Shakyamuni's time. There were only mendicants of various
kinds (including the Buddha's disciples), plus lay people
who gave them alms out of respect without necessarily worrying
about the brand name of the teachings.
If
meat was what a householder chose to offer, it was to be accepted
without discrimination or aversion. To reject such an offering
would be an offense against hospitality and would deprive
the householder of an opportunity to gain merit -- and it
could not benefit the animal, because it was already dead.
Even the Jains may have had a similar outlook during the same
period of history, despite the strict doctrine of ahimsa.
Vegetarianism
could not become a source of serious controversy in the bhikkhu
sangha until the rise of fixed-abode monastic communities
in which the monks did not practice daily alms-round. Any
meat provided to such a community by lay people would almost
certainly have been killed specifically for the monks. That
may be one reason for the difference in Mahayana and Theravada
views on meat eating -- the development of monastic communities
of this type occurred principally within Mahayana.
The
issue of meat eating raises difficult ethical questions. Isn't
the meat in a supermarket or restaurant killed "for"
us? Doesn't meat eating entail killing by proxy?
Few
of us are in a position to judge meat eaters or anyone else
for "killing by proxy." Being part of the world
economy entails "killing by proxy" in every act
of consumption. The electricity that runs our computers comes
from facilities that harm the environment. Books of Buddhist
scriptures are printed on paper produced by an industry that
destroys wildlife habitat. Worms, insects, rodents and other
animals are routinely killed en masse in the course of producing
the staples of a vegetarian diet. Welcome to samsara. It is
impossible for most of us to free ourselves from this web;
we can only strive to be mindful of entanglement in it. One
way to do so is to reflect on how the suffering and death
of sentient beings contributes to our comfort. This may help
us to be less inclined to consume out of mere greed.
All
of that having been said, it cannot be denied that the economic
machine which produces meat also creates fear and suffering
for a large number of animals. It is useful to bear this in
mind even if one consumes meat, to resist developing a habit
of callousness. Many Buddhists (especially Mahayanists) practice
vegetarianism as a means of cultivating compassion.
The
Jivaka Sutta hints that one could also make a good case for
vegetarianism starting from any of the other brahmaviharas
(loving-kindness, sympathetic joy, equanimity). Interestingly,
it is loving-kindness rather than compassion that is mentioned
first in the Jivaka Sutta.
If
you are considering trying out vegetarianism for the first
time, we suggest discussing it with someone who has experience.
There are a few issues that ought to be considered regarding
balanced diet, etc.
Note
(by Binh Anson): The Lankavatara Sutra, although
recorded the Buddha's teaching in Lanka (Sri Lanka), is essentially
a product of later Mahayana development. According to H. Nakamura
(Indian Buddhism, 1987), there are several versions of this
sutra, one fairly different in content from the other. Most
scholars concluded that this sutra was likely compiled in
350-400 CE. In addition, according the the popular Zen master
D.T. Suzuki (The Lankavatara Sutra - A Mahayana Text, 1931),
the chapter dealing with meat eating was indeed added much
later in subsequent versions. He also agreed that this sutra
was not the authentic words by the Buddha, but was compiled
much later by unknown authors following Mahayana's philosophy.
2. From Ven. S. Dhammika (Australian BuddhaNet):
Vegetarianism
There
are differences of opinion between Buddhists on this issue
so we will attempt to present the arguments of those who believe
that vegetarianism is necessary for Buddhists and those who
do not.
Vegetarianism
was not a part of the early Buddhist tradition and the Buddha
himself was not a vegetarian. The Buddha got his food either
by going on alms rounds or by being invited to the houses
of his supporters and in both cases he ate what he was given.
Before his enlightenment he had experimented with various
diets including a meatless diet, but he eventually abandoned
them believing that they did not contribute to spiritual development.
The
Nipata Sutta underlines this point when it says that it is
immorality that makes one impure (morally and spiritually),
not the eating of meat. The Buddha is often described as eating
meat, he recommended meat broth as a cure for certain types
of illness and advised monks for practical reasons, to avoid
certain types of meat, implying that other types were quite
acceptable.
However,
Buddhists gradually came to feel uncomfortable about meat
eating. In 257 BC King Asoka said that in contrast to before,
only two peacocks and a deer were killed to provide food in
the royal kitchens and that in time even this would be stopped.
By the beginning of the Christian era meat eating had become
unacceptable, particularly amongst the followers of the Mahayana
although the polemics against it in works like the Lankavatara
Sutra indicates that it was still widespread or a least a
point of controversy (see footnote in the previous section).
Tantric text dating from the 7th and 8th centuries onward,
frequently recommend both drinking alcohol and eating meat
and both are considered fit to offer to gods. This was probably
as much an expression of the freedom from convention which
Tantra taught as it was a protest against Mahayanists to whom
practices like abstaining from drink and meat had become a
substitute for genuine spiritual change.
Today
it is often said that Mahayanists are vegetarian and Theravadins
are not. However the situation is a little more complex than
that. Generally Theravadins have no dietary restrictions although
it is not uncommon to find monks and lay people in Sri Lanka
who are strict vegetarians. Others abstain from meat while
eating fish. Chinese and Vietnamese monks and nuns are strictly
vegetarian and the lay community try to follow their example
although many do not. Amongst Tibetans and Japanese Buddhists,
vegetarianism is rare.
Buddhists
who insist on vegetarianism have a simple and compelling argument
to support their case. Eating meat encourages an industry
that causes cruelty and death to millions of animals and a
truly compassionate person would wish to mitigate all this
suffering. By refusing to eat meat one can do just that.
Those
who believe that vegetarianism is not necessary for Buddhists
have equally compelling although more complex arguments to
support their view: (1) If the Buddha had felt that a meatless
diet was in accordance with the Precepts he would have said
so and in the Pali Tipitaka at least, he did not. (2) Unless
one actually kills an animal oneself (which seldom happens
today) by eating meat one is not directly responsible for
the animal's death and in this sense the non- vegetarian is
no different from the vegetarian. The latter can only eat
his vegetables because the farmer has ploughed his fields
(thus killing many creatures) and sprayed the crop (again
killing many creatures). (3) While the vegetarian will not
eat meat he does use numerous other products that lead to
animals being killed (soap, leather, serum, silk etc.) Why
abstain from one while using the others? (4) Good qualities
like understanding, patience, generosity and honesty and bad
qualities like ignorance, pride, hypocrisy, jealousy and indifference
do not depend on what one eats and therefore diet is not a
significant factor in spiritual development.
Some
will accept one point of view and some another. Each person
has to make up his or her own mind.
REFERENCES:
(1) Ruegg, D.S. "Ahimsa and Vegetarianism in the History
of Buddhism" in Buddhist Studies in Honour of Walpola
Rahula. S. Balasooriya,(et.al) London, 1980;
(2) P. Kapleau, To Cherish All Life, London, 1982.
3.
From Samanera Kumara Liew ( [email protected],
06 June 1999)
Is
there something spiritually wholesome about being a vegetarian?
I'm
aware there are some people whom are vegetarians here. Being
somewhat health conscious myself, I'm almost one too. However,
I can see that there are some seem to hold a view that I think
they might like to reconsider -- i.e. the view that there
is something spiritually wholesome about being a vegetarian.
As
the suttas (discourses) clearly shows, the Buddha himself
-- with his great wisdom -- did not ask his disciples, renunciate
or lay, to be vegetarians. And so, you might like to reconsider
that view that there is something spiritually wholesome about
being a vegetarian.
The
Buddha himself was not a vegetarian. And so, you might like
to reconsider that view that there is something spiritually
wholesome about being a vegetarian.
Some
may argue that somewhere along the line someone might have
modified the suttas. It would seem quite unlikely, as the
Suttas (of the Theravada tradition at least) are brought to
the present by a very large group of monks, not individuals.
As such they can check each other for deviations. One person
can't change anything without the agreement from others. For
about 500 years the purity of the suttas was maintained by
the oral tradition by large groups of chanting monks. When
it eventually had to be put into writing in the first century
due to wars, the monks who have such faith and respect for
the Buddha would certainly have made much effort to ensure
accuracy.
Assuming
that despite all that, some people did attempt to modify the
suttas, it wound have been quite impossible as there's *not*
even a *single* trace in the voluminous Tipitika (the Vinaya,
Sutta, and Abhidhamma Pitakas) which even suggests that the
Buddha advised on being vegetarians. And so, you might like
to reconsider that view that there is something spiritually
wholesome about being a vegetarian.
Even
if the above cannot convince you, try asking yourself this:
"Why do I consider being a vegetarian to be spiritually
wholesome?" You may say that "If I eat meat, I would
be indirectly encouraging killing of animals"; or that,
"If I eat meat, I would be indirectly a killer";
or that "If I'm a vegetarian, it would mean that less
animals will be killed."
Noble
considerations, I must admit. But let's examine this further
to gain a better perspective. Try asking yourself this: "Where
do my vegetables come from?" "From farms,"
you might say. To prepare the soil for cultivation, wouldn't
it have to be tilled? And when the plants are grown, wouldn't
pesticides have to be sprayed? Wouldn't all that kill lots
of animals, though they may be smaller and seem insignificant
to humans? Don't they suffer too?
Some
may still continue to argue that one should get one's vegetables
from hydroponic farms. A good argument, I must admit. But
let's examine this further to gain a better perspective. Such
farms use much water -- for the sake of the plants, for the
sake of washing things, for the sake of keeping the place
clean, and others. Wouldn't such use of water kill lots of
animals too, though they may be smaller and seem insignificant
to humans? Don't they suffer too?
And
let's consider the boxes and pipes in which such farming is
so dependent upon, and also the materials to built the green
houses. They need to be manufactured. And so indirectly factories
are needed; and so lands need to be cleared. Wouldn't all
that kill lots of animals too, though they may be smaller
and seem insignificant to humans? Don't they suffer too?
The
machines and equipment needed by the factories too needs to
be manufactured. And so indirectly more factories are needed;
and so more lands need to be cleared. Wouldn't all that kill
lots of animals too, though they may be smaller and seem insignificant
to humans? Don't they suffer too?
Let's
also further consider the supply of electricity, water, telecommunication
services, and other infrastructures. Just consider all that
needs to be done to supply those things. Wouldn't all that
kill lots of animals too, though they may be smaller and seem
insignificant to humans? Don't they suffer too?
And
consider all those transporting this and that here and there
that goes about to set up the factories and the factories
for the factories, the infrastructures for all those factories,
so that materials can be supplied to them, so that the boxes
and pipes and the material to build the green houses can be
made for the hydroponic farms, and that they may be sent to
the farms, so that hydroponic vegetables can be cultivated,
so that you may buy and eat them. Wouldn't all that kill even
lots more animals, though they may be smaller and seem insignificant
to humans? Don't they suffer too?
Wouldn't
it then be proper to consider that "If I eat only vegetables
I too would be indirectly encouraging killing of animals;"
or that, "If I don't eat meat, I would be indirectly
a killer too;" or that "If don't eat meat, it wouldn't
mean that less animals will be killed. And in fact perhaps
more are killed."
I
could go on and on, but I should assume that you should get
the message by now. And so, you might like to reconsider that
view that there is something spiritually wholesome about being
a vegetarian. We must understand: We live in 'samsara'; and
it's not called 'samsara' for no reason. In this world, there
IS suffering. That the Buddha has declared. Its cause too
has been declared. So has its end. And so has the way to the
end of sufferings.
Having
drawn such reasonable arguments, some may *still* insist on
arguing further that eating meat may reduce our craving (tanha),
and so there must be something spiritually wholesome about
being a vegetarian. I'd ask: "Who says meat tastes better
than vegetables?" Have you tasted meat without any additives
before? A raw carrot would taste much better. I myself can
easily have more craving for chocolates than meat. I'd say
durian (a local fruit) tastes much better. So it would not
be proper to say that eating meat may reduce our craving.
Besides, having aversion over a neutral thing such as meat
seems quite unnecessary and even obstructive to one's spiritual
progress. And so, you might like to reconsider that view that
there is something spiritually wholesome about being a vegetarian.
Consider
what the Buddha said: "Action (kamma) is intention (cetana)."
When we eat meat we do not think: "Oh, may they kill
more animals so that I may have more meat to eat. Never mind
if being have to suffer and die." When we eat vegetables,
fruits and other non-meat food, we do not think: "Oh,
may they plant more of such food. Never mind if beings have
to suffer and die." When we eat, our intention is to
eat.
However,
we may try practicing a few things:
-
We may be moderate with our intake. Not indulge more than
what we really need. That's what the Buddha advised, and
there is something spiritually wholesome about this; and
not simply not eat meat.
-
We may choose to eat only "at the right time"
(dawn to noon). This is encouraged even for lay people on
certain days. That's what the Buddha advised, and there
is something spiritually wholesome about this; and not simply
not eat meat.
-
When we eat we may eat mindfully, chew mindfully, taste
mindfully and swallow mindfully. This would then help us
eat without craving and strengthen our mindfulness. That's
what the Buddha advised, and there is something spiritually
wholesome about this; and not simply not eat meat.
If
you choose to be a vegetarian, well go ahead. Do check with
other knowledgeable vegetarians about having a balanced vegetarian
diet. You need to make sure that you have adequate protein,
B12, and zinc.
But
for your own sake, do not hold to that view that there is
something spiritually wholesome about being a vegetarian.
Also, it would certainly not be wise to think oneself superior
due to one's choice of food. Check yourself whenever you see
others eat meat. Furthermore, it would be definitely improper
to impose such wrong view upon others.
This
message has been written to inform, and not criticize or offend.
Hope it has been regarded in proper light.
Samanera
Kumara Liew
06 June 1999
