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 ( dhamma-list@quantrum.com.my, 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.
To all those who hold such
a view, please read this:
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
4.
From John Bullitt (Access-to-Insight, http://www.accesstoinsight.org )
Are
Buddhists vegetarian?
Some are, some aren't. As far as I know, there is no
evidence in the Pali Canon to suggest that the Buddha prohibited his lay followers
from eating meat. The first of the five precepts concerns the intentional act
of depriving a living being of life, but has nothing to do with consuming the
flesh of an animal that is already dead. From the Theravada Buddhist perspective,
the choice of whether or not to eat meat is thus purely a matter of personal preference.
Although Theravada monks are indeed forbidden to eat certain kinds of meat,[1]
they are not expected to practice vegetarianism, since their food is provided
by the generosity of lay supporters,[2] who may or may not themselves be vegetarian.[3]
Theravada monks are not required to eat everything that is placed in their alms-bowl,
so a monk intent on pursuing vegetarianism may simply ignore the meat in his bowl.
In parts of Asia where vegetarianism is unheard of, however, vegetarian monks
would soon face a choice: eat meat or starve.
Taking part in killing for food
(hunting, fishing, trapping, etc.) is definitely incompatible with the first precept,
and should be avoided.
But what if I eat -- or just purchase -- meat: aren't
I simply encouraging someone else to do the killing for me? How can this possibly
be consistent with the Buddhist principle of non-harming, that cornerstone of
Right Resolve? [4] This is tricky. I personally believe it would be wrong to order
someone, "Please kill that chicken for me!", since it incites that person
to break the first precept.[5] Surely this is unskillful kamma. (Keep this in
mind whenever you're tempted to order fresh shellfish at a restaurant.) But purchasing
a piece of dead animal meat is another matter. Although my purchase may indeed
help keep the butcher in business, I am not asking him to kill on my behalf. Whether
he kills another cow tomorrow is his choice, not mine. This is a difficult but
important point, one that reveals the fundamental distinction between personal
choices (choices aimed at altering my own behavior) and political ones (those
aimed at altering others' behavior). Each one of us must discover for ourselves
where lies the boundary between the two. It is crucial to remember, however, that
the Buddha's teachings are, first and foremost, tools to help us learn to make
good personal choices (kamma); they are not prescriptions for political action.
We could not survive long in this world without bringing harm of one sort
or another to other creatures. No matter how carefully we trod, countless insects,
mites, and other creatures inadvertently perish under our feet with every step.
Where, then, do we even begin to draw the line between "acceptable"
and "unacceptable" harm? The Buddha's answer was very clear and very
practical: the five precepts. He didn't ask his followers to become vegetarian
(although many do gradually lose an appetite for meat); he simply asked us to
observe the precepts. For many of us, this is challenge enough. This is where
we begin.
Notes:
[1]. Theravada monks are forbidden to eat the flesh of
humans, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, hyenas,
and panthers. A monk is also forbidden to eat raw fish or meat, or any fish or
meat that he sees, hears, or suspects was killed specifically for him (see the
description of "staple foods" in The Buddhist Monastic Code, by Bhikkhu
Thanisaro). A monk who eats any of those kinds of meat commits an offense that
he must then confess to his fellow monks. These rules do not imply that a monk
must not eat meat -- only that a monk must be careful as to which kinds of meat
he does eat.
[2]. See "The Economy of Gifts" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
[3]. Monastics within some schools of Mahayana Buddhism do practice vegetarianism.
See The Buddhist Religion: A Historical Introduction (fourth edition) by R.H.
Robinson & W.L. Johnson (Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1997), pp. 213-14.
[4]. "And what is right resolve? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom
from ill-will, on harmlessness: This is called right resolve." -- SN XLV.8
[5]. This is in line with the monks' rule about not eating meat that he sees,
hears, or suspects was killed specifically for him. See The Buddhist Monastic
Code.