Vegetarianism in Buddhism

[Guest guest]

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. [....]

[Guest guest]

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>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.

[Guest guest]

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.

>