Guest guest Posted September 8, 2008 Report Share Posted September 8, 2008 I don't agree with this post. Didn't Buddha insist that animals NOT be sacrificed? I believe the main influences of Vegetarianism were Lord Krishna and Lord Buddha. Try reading the Jataka tales and you will get an idea of how ancient Buddhists viewed meat eating. Nichiren, a Japanese Buddhist monk used to beat the monks if they ate meat. They were considered possessed. In Tibet, a person who slaughters meat is considered an evil person, and people avoid them. Tibetans only ate meat if the animal died of natural causes. You might be speaking of Chinese. They love meat, any sort of meat. Shanti Om! Shankari --- On Sun, 9/7/08, karen <karen wrote: karen <karen Years ago I had a manager who was from India, raised Hindu, and he once told me that he had made a religious vow that he would not eat meat on certain days. I don't recall which days but I think it was basically one day a week (at least). Buddhism has not always stipulated vegetarianism. During Shakyamuni Buddha's time, the monks were expected to accept any sincere offerings in their rounds for alms. That could include meat, so long as the animal was not slaughtered expressly for their use. In other words, they could accept meat out of the household's general food store. If they knew or believed the animal had been slaughtered for them, they were to decline. It was a balance between the principle of ahimsa on the one hand, and on the allowing merit to those who supported the sangha (originally, the community of monks) on the other hand. I read some time back that in fact the association of Buddhism with vegetarianism arose in China, where the monasteries became less dependent on support from the neighboring communities and more self-sufficient, producing their own food. Of course to raise and slaughter animals would violate basic vows of ahmisa, so they turned towards an exclusive vegetarian diet. I also read, interesting enough, that it was also the origin of food cut up sufficiently to eat with chop sticks: knives could not be possessed by the monks, as they are weapons. There was only one knife in the monastery, in the kitchen, for cooking. Hence the food was cut up by the cook so as to be eaten without need to cut any of it by the monks. More recently Tibetan Buddhists often eat meat. Many swear by it! Tibet has very few opportunities to raise other food sources, so traditionally they depended a lot on meat as a staple food in many areas. However, there has also been an ideal of vegetarianism as well. Now that many of the Tibetan lamas and monks live in other regions, there are more choices, which may be why the Karmapa has recently instructed that his monasteries not serve meat in their dining halls. I think perhaps it comes down to the fact that in these days, few of us are dependent on alms, and that we have access to a variety of foods and can choose or not to be vegetarian. I guess perhaps then it comes down to the answer I often heard from my lama on a number of questions I had, which was that it depends on your motivation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 2008 Report Share Posted September 8, 2008 Actually Shankari, Karen is quite right about the multiple views on meat eating in the history of Buddhism. And in fact, the Buddha in several scriptures explicitly states that eating meat is not wrong in and of itself. For example, the Jivaka Sutta quotes the Buddha as stipulating when one may eat meat vs. when one may not eat meat. The rules of vegetarianism are generally laid out according to interpretation, and the mythologies around the Buddha may be adjusted accordingly. Not to mention, there are various canons, the most well known being the Pali canon, but that can't be taken on its own as wholly authoritative. So we can't say with 100% certainty that the Buddha never ate meat. It is tempting to generalize and idealize history and culture, but Buddhism and Hinduism are intensely heterodox traditions, so it is impossible to generalize and be 100% correct. It's also not true that Tibetan Buddhists never eat meat (it may be true in some areas, but is definitely not true in others), and the idea that someone who slaughters is considered " evil " or somehow polluted is probably a leftover from a caste-like system; that is, low castes are made to do what are considered the dirty but necessary jobs of society, from butchering to cleaning latrines. Which is to say that although Buddhism was meant to destroy caste distinctions in India in theory, and may have done so to some extent in some areas, it absolutely did not in practice. -sundari On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Shankari Kali <shankari_kaliwrote: > I don't agree with this post. Didn't Buddha insist that animals NOT be > sacrificed? I believe the main influences of Vegetarianism were Lord Krishna > and Lord Buddha. Try reading the Jataka tales and you will get an idea of > how ancient Buddhists viewed meat eating. > > Nichiren, a Japanese Buddhist monk used to beat the monks if they ate meat. > They were considered possessed. In Tibet, a person who slaughters meat is > considered an evil person, and people avoid them. Tibetans only ate meat if > the animal died of natural causes. > > You might be speaking of Chinese. They love meat, any sort of meat. > > Shanti Om! > Shankari > > --- On Sun, 9/7/08, karen <karen<karen%40desertdakini.com>> > wrote: > karen <karen <karen%40desertdakini.com>> > > Years ago I had a manager who was from India, raised Hindu, and he once > told > > me that he had made a religious vow that he would not eat meat on certain > > days. I don't recall which days but I think it was basically one day a week > > (at least). > > Buddhism has not always stipulated vegetarianism. During Shakyamuni > Buddha's > > time, the monks were expected to accept any sincere offerings in their > > rounds for alms. That could include meat, so long as the animal was not > > slaughtered expressly for their use. In other words, they could accept meat > > out of the household's general food store. If they knew or believed the > > animal had been slaughtered for them, they were to decline. It was a > balance > > between the principle of ahimsa on the one hand, and on the allowing merit > > to those who supported the sangha (originally, the community of monks) on > > the other hand. > > I read some time back that in fact the association of Buddhism with > > vegetarianism arose in China, where the monasteries became less dependent > on > > support from the neighboring communities and more self-sufficient, > producing > > their own food. Of course to raise and slaughter animals would violate > basic > > vows of ahmisa, so they turned towards an exclusive vegetarian diet. I also > > read, interesting enough, that it was also the origin of food cut up > > sufficiently to eat with chop sticks: knives could not be possessed by the > > monks, as they are weapons. There was only one knife in the monastery, in > > the kitchen, for cooking. Hence the food was cut up by the cook so as to be > > eaten without need to cut any of it by the monks. > > More recently Tibetan Buddhists often eat meat. Many swear by it! Tibet has > > very few opportunities to raise other food sources, so traditionally they > > depended a lot on meat as a staple food in many areas. However, there has > > also been an ideal of vegetarianism as well. Now that many of the Tibetan > > lamas and monks live in other regions, there are more choices, which may be > > why the Karmapa has recently instructed that his monasteries not serve meat > > in their dining halls. > > I think perhaps it comes down to the fact that in these days, few of us are > > dependent on alms, and that we have access to a variety of foods and can > > choose or not to be vegetarian. I guess perhaps then it comes down to the > > answer I often heard from my lama on a number of questions I had, which was > > that it depends on your motivation. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 2008 Report Share Posted September 8, 2008 Wow! You guys sure do have a lot of knowledge about all this. I hope I can further my studies to be even close to what you know. I only recently started in this (like about 2 months ago) and have so many questions. , " Sundari Johansen Hurwitt " <sundarikali wrote: > > Actually Shankari, Karen is quite right about the multiple views on meat > eating in the history of Buddhism. [....] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2008 Report Share Posted September 9, 2008 Namaste Sundari: I think that the actions of monks and the actions of lay people in Buddhism can be different. Whole sections of the Pali Canon were written about the behavior of monks and nuns. The monks and nuns were held to stricter codes of living than lay people. I also know that in Thailand and in Japan, Buddhism is practiced differently. I have seen monks eat meat in Thailand. They were not allowed to handle money, however. Japanese Buddhist monks handled money, but were stricter with the diet. This is a cool site about vegetarianism in Buddhism: http://www.shabkar.org/scripture/sutras/index.htm As for me, I was influenced by a Hari Krishna guy handing out vegetarian cookbooks in a Japanese train station. Go figure. Sundari, you might be right about the caste system thing in Tibet, although, I believe that the caste system was another aspect of Indian culture that Buddhism specifically addressed as well. Some lower castes have turned to Buddhism to climb out of the birth status. Shanti Om, Shankari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2008 Report Share Posted September 9, 2008 Having spent time with Tibetan Lamas in the states I can verify that they DO eat meat. These are also NOT renegade monks. Shankari Kali uses the phrase : " Tibetans only ate meat if it died of natural causes " . Natural causes such as being hit by a vehicle or falling off a cliff? The term " natural causes " is one of ignorance. There is no such designation in human or veterinary medical literature. All death of the physical body is of the nature of a disease process or failure of the organs. Either of these would render the meat unfit for consumption. Anyone with the most basic knowledge of raising animals for food would know that or die soon. Whether one chooses vegetarianism for health, Ahimsa or both can be respected. Why cannot the person who chooses to eat meat occasionally not be accorded the right to make their own choices. By eating meat am I complicit in the death of the animal? I can't escape the ultimate reality that this is partly so. However, the meat I buy HAS already been slain, and to shun it, letting it rot in the store and claim (or believe) I am coming from some superior moral position, rather than gratefully honor the animal for its sacrifice and gift and appreciate the uniqueness of this complete protein for the continuty of my life and healing is a waste of this resource as well as the waste of the animal's life. Can one take antibiotics and still claim to practice ahimsa? Can one even breathe and still claim to practice ahimsa? Every breath we take draws in millions of microbes which our immune system KILLS to protect us. At every moment of life there are processes of destruction going on in the human body to preserve life. Thus, Shiva's position in the trimurti. And Kali's. Death and decay are as natural as birth and life. I expect someday to be food for worms as part of the cycle of life. Hope I taste good to them as I take MY turn nourishing another life. By the way, has anyone ever heard a carrot scream as it is torn from the belly of it's mother and cut up to be consumed? Simply (dare I say) food for thought. Namaste Nadananda - Shankari Kali Monday, September 08, 2008 8:57 AM Re: Re: Vegetarianism in Buddhism I don't agree with this post. Didn't Buddha insist that animals NOT be sacrificed? I believe the main influences of Vegetarianism were Lord Krishna and Lord Buddha. Try reading the Jataka tales and you will get an idea of how ancient Buddhists viewed meat eating. Nichiren, a Japanese Buddhist monk used to beat the monks if they ate meat. They were considered possessed. In Tibet, a person who slaughters meat is considered an evil person, and people avoid them. Tibetans only ate meat if the animal died of natural causes. You might be speaking of Chinese. They love meat, any sort of meat. Shanti Om! Shankari --- On Sun, 9/7/08, karen <karen wrote: karen <karen Years ago I had a manager who was from India, raised Hindu, and he once told me that he had made a religious vow that he would not eat meat on certain days. I don't recall which days but I think it was basically one day a week (at least). Buddhism has not always stipulated vegetarianism. During Shakyamuni Buddha's time, the monks were expected to accept any sincere offerings in their rounds for alms. That could include meat, so long as the animal was not slaughtered expressly for their use. In other words, they could accept meat out of the household's general food store. If they knew or believed the animal had been slaughtered for them, they were to decline. It was a balance between the principle of ahimsa on the one hand, and on the allowing merit to those who supported the sangha (originally, the community of monks) on the other hand. I read some time back that in fact the association of Buddhism with vegetarianism arose in China, where the monasteries became less dependent on support from the neighboring communities and more self-sufficient, producing their own food. Of course to raise and slaughter animals would violate basic vows of ahmisa, so they turned towards an exclusive vegetarian diet. I also read, interesting enough, that it was also the origin of food cut up sufficiently to eat with chop sticks: knives could not be possessed by the monks, as they are weapons. There was only one knife in the monastery, in the kitchen, for cooking. Hence the food was cut up by the cook so as to be eaten without need to cut any of it by the monks. More recently Tibetan Buddhists often eat meat. Many swear by it! Tibet has very few opportunities to raise other food sources, so traditionally they depended a lot on meat as a staple food in many areas. However, there has also been an ideal of vegetarianism as well. Now that many of the Tibetan lamas and monks live in other regions, there are more choices, which may be why the Karmapa has recently instructed that his monasteries not serve meat in their dining halls. I think perhaps it comes down to the fact that in these days, few of us are dependent on alms, and that we have access to a variety of foods and can choose or not to be vegetarian. I guess perhaps then it comes down to the answer I often heard from my lama on a number of questions I had, which was that it depends on your motivation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2008 Report Share Posted September 9, 2008 >I don't agree with this post. Didn't Buddha insist that animals NOT be sacrificed? You are quite correct about Shakyamuni Buddha's prohibition of animal sacrifice, which was of course contrary to some of the practices of his time. And as I also mentioned, it was prohibited for the monks to kill any animal (intentionally), nor to receive meat of an animal killed specifically for them. However, it was permissiable for them to receive meat in alms if it was part of a householder's general food store. This allowed them to offer any sincere offering and allow the offerer to receive the merit accruing from supporting the sangha. This precedent has, however, been taken out of that context perhaps to become an argument for it being ok for Buddhist practitioners to eat meat. The argument is that as long as it is ok so long as the meat has passed through so many hands before reaching our plate. It is not ok for us to kill the animal (even for a lay person, as killing breaks one of the five basic precepts for lay people), nor for it to be done on our behalf (which is complicit in the act). But when sitting in the grocery freezer available to the general public, killed in a commercial slaughter house intended for 'general consumption,' it is ok to purchase and take it home. Hmmmm. I've never been totally convinced of this argument myself, speaking truly. Tibetans have traditionally eaten meat because some regions at least provide little else in the way of agriculture. It is important to sustain our bodies and our health -- our 'mi-lam rinpoche,' our 'precious human bodies,' which we are endowed with -- to accomplish the dharma for the benefit of *all* beings. I've been told that it is considered then best to rely on larger animals, such as yaks, because one animal can benefit the lives of several, and that it be consumed with prayers for a higher rebirth for the animal. And yes, many Tibetan monks and lamas eat meat. Some relish it, rightly or not. But yes, as one might quite well argue, such rationales can become an excuse for acts that are basically rooted in greed. Few of us rely on alms, after all, and many of us also have access to adequate non-animal based foods as well. So these arguments that are sometimes raised in Buddhist circles may really not apply to our present situation. And awareness of the horrendous conditions and treatment of the animals that become commercially marketed meats do make us complicit in their suffering, does it not? We *can* make choices, so then, what is our motivation and resulting karma in those choices? What may have been appropriate in other times and places may not be today. And there are broader issues as well about food, and its role in our lives. Do our food choices arise out of genuine need to support our bodies and enable our religious practice, or do they arise from greed? How do we approach food in a world where many are without? And this relates to the even wider issues as to what foot print do each of us make, individually and collectively, on the planet, when many suffer? How sustainable are our individual life styles, and our collective life styles in countries such as the US? Aside from the suffering of the animals, the production of meat also takes a great deal of resources that could otherwise feed far more people were it used for non-meat food production. Is reliance on meat an appropriate, compassionate choice then? And thank you for the link you posted elsewhere. I was familiar with it before, and it contains much food for thought (no pun intended ). It's an issue I for one have thought about over some time. Personally, I feel that vegetarianism is an excellent way to go, but it has taken me a long time to put that ideal into practice... but I am working on it. Mostly I just thought to contribute that its not been as clear an issue within Buddhism as often non-Buddhists assume it to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2008 Report Share Posted September 13, 2008 I think the idea of Ahimsa is to do your best under the circumstances. Don't eat meat if you don't HAVE to. Eating vegetables and breathing etc. are things you can't help in order to live a healthy life....but meat? It's not something that's really high on the priority list of life. It is not even that healthy for you and takes killing a living, walking being to eat it. When you die, worms may eat your body, but that is what some types of worms are supposed to do. Not all types of worms will live off of a corpse...because they aren't supposed to. Debate can go on and on as to whether our bodies are supposed to consume meat or not, but one thing that is constantly showing up in research is that generally, the less meat you eat, the better. , " Cliff " <numinae wrote: > > Having spent time with Tibetan Lamas in the states I can verify that they DO eat meat. These are also NOT renegade monks. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.