the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4646
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

Dhammanando wrote:4. A person who resolves not to purchase the flesh of chickens, doing so out of compassion for chickens and in the hope that this will reduce the demand for chicken flesh and lead to fewer chickens being killed, performs wholesome mind-door kamma on account of his compassionate volition.
That does not look like ridiculing vegetarians to me. On the contrary, it says that they produce wholesome kamma by cultivating compassion for chickens.
Lyndon Taylor wrote:however no one ever tried to encourage me to eat meat.
I don't see anyone here encouraging you to eat meat.

I only encourage you to give up your wrong view that purchasing or eating meat is unwholesome kamma. If you cannot give that up, then at least give up insulting and ridiculing robertk or anyone else who disagrees with you.
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4646
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

My Foreword to the Ledi Sayādaw's Goṇasurā Dīpanī (Cow Dhamma)
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:This unique work by the late Venerable Ledi Sayādaw puts a strong case for vegetarianism, though the Sayādaw points out that the Buddha did not prohibit the eating of meat by monks. Had the Buddha done this, as Devadatta demanded, it would have caused an obstruction to the propagation of Buddhism wherever meat-eating was common. The overriding consideration for a monk is gratitude and contentment — so if people offer meat or fish he should accept it graciously. He need not eat it, if he does not wish to. If he eats it, reflecting wisely, he will be free from blame.

The Sayādaw stresses that ingratitude is the really harmful factor in eating meat. Beef-eating is especially blameworthy because cattle provide both labour and milk for mankind. Cattle are not used as draught animals in the West, but the practice is still common in Asia. Nevertheless, we do use a lot of dairy products, so the factor of gratitude is important here too.

During the time of the Buddha, the large scale trade in meat would not have been feasible without modern transport and refrigeration. Modern technology has given man unprecedented power over nature, and the consequent growth of ingratitude towards animals, trees, the environment, and material things is obvious. The BSE crisis was a stark reminder of the evil nature of the modern beef-trade. There is no trace of humanity in a system that can feed animal remains to cattle just to increase their body weight for slaughter.

If the Buddhadhamma is rightly understood and practised, people will surely become much more sensitive to the effect that they have on other living beings, and on their environment. The Buddha praised restraint and moderation in all things. He taught his disciples to take proper care of their bowl and robes, to eat almsfood respectfully, to clean and repair their dwellings, and not to damage trees or plants.

A Buddhist monastery or a Buddhist’s home should be a shrine to simplicity, cleanliness, beauty, serenity, harmony, thrift, and self-discipline. Though meat or fish may be taken in moderation, alcohol has no place in the home of a Buddhist. The Āmagandha Sutta, from the Suttanipāta, makes it clear that unwholesome kamma is stench, and not the eating of meat. However, monks have not reflected properly on their almsfood if they look down on vegetarian meals as inferior.

Our debt to cows is immeasurable, even in this modern age. Perhaps we should outlaw the killing of cows as well as the hunting of foxes. It would make for a more caring society.

Bhikkhu Pesala
July 2013
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: Becoming vegetarian

Post by seeker242 »

The key to a healthy vegetarian or vegan diet, assuming you are consuming the proper amount of calories, is simply to eat a wide variety of foods. Contrary to popular belief, vegetarians do not have a higher incidence of iron deficiency than do meat eaters. Good plant sources of iron include dried fruits, whole grains, nuts, green leafy vegetables, seeds and pulses.

:meditate:
Pinetree
Posts: 460
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:25 am

Re: Becoming vegetarian

Post by Pinetree »

Of course fresh fruit, greens and vegetables are important for everybody, not necessarily vegetarian.

A short advice for a vegetarian is to eat more of a variety of seeds (cereals, nuts, pulses).

Some of what I call shortly seeds are: wheat, barley, oats, corn, quinoa, buckwheat, amaranth, walnuts, pistachios, pecans, peanuts, almonds, cashew, sesame, pumpkin, sunflower, hemp, flax, chia, lentils, beans, mung, soy, chickpeas.

A kitchen tool useful for a vegetarian and not only is a blender. When I want to be really quick and easy about what I eat, I can "cook" almost only with my hand blender and hot water (heated with a water heater).

Other valuable vegetarian foods are bee pollen and bee bread, algae, mushrooms, and various "superfoods" which are often bought in powder form and are mixed with greens, fruits, etc as smoothies.

Also, it's healthier to eat or cook with fresh / unprocessed foods.

For milk and eggs, it's better if you can find locally produced. Depending on your digestion, you could consume milk, yoghurt (preferably homemade), favor fresh cheeses (cream and ricotta).

Limit consumption of sugar, sweets, white flour and various pastries and crackers, most solid fats (margarine, palm, etc).
D1W1
Posts: 619
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 5:52 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by D1W1 »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote: The Buddha Kassapa was clearly a monk who said that eating meat was not bad kamma, and of course, the Buddha Gotama agreed with him. I agree with them both that eating meat is not bad kamma, unless of course it is eaten with greed, in which case greed is unwholesome kamma.
There is also more than one monk who participated in this thread.
Dhammanando wrote:1. A person's purchase of chicken flesh does not amount to the akusala kamma of having someone kill chickens.

2. A person's knowledge that purchasing chicken flesh will be a contributory factor to more chickens being killed, or his ignorance of this, will not alter the fact that his purchase of chicken flesh does not amount to the akusala kamma of having someone kill chickens.

(The Vinaya principle that applies here is that the mere knowing about the probable outcome of an action does not in itself constitute the willing of that outcome. For example, in a forest monastery one of the bhikkhus' daily duties is to sweep the leaves on the forest paths. This sweeping will most probably, indeed almost inevitably, lead to the accidental injury or deaths of some ants and other small insects. But even though a bhikkhu knows that this is likely to happen, he does not incur any offence for the deaths that his sweeping causes, except in the unlikely event that his decision to sweep leaves is prompted by a desire that insects will be killed).

3. Whether the chickens were raised in battery farms, or in free range farms, or in sumptuous palaces waited upon by liveried footmen, has no bearing on the question of whether a person's purchasing their dead flesh would amount to the akusala kamma of having someone kill chickens.

4. A person who resolves not to purchase the flesh of chickens, doing so out of compassion for chickens and in the hope that this will reduce the demand for chicken flesh and lead to fewer chickens being killed, performs wholesome mind-door kamma on account of his compassionate volition.

5. But if this same person is the sort of militant vegetarian who alleges that those who don't do as he does are committing the unwholesome body-door kamma of having someone kill chickens, then he goes too far. He is disregarding the most elementary teaching on kamma, namely, that kamma is volition. In permitting such a view to persist within himself he commits the unwholesome mind-door kamma of nurturing a wrong view regarding the wholesome and the unwholesome. In propounding this view to others he commits the unwholesome speech-door kamma of misrepresenting the Tathāgata.

Best wishes,
Dhammanando Bhikkhu
Thanks for your reply, Bhante.
But what Buddha said is eating meat is ok Not purchasing meat, I think they are not the same. That's why monks are allowed to eat meat but lay people do not obtain meat on their plate as monks do, the meat is not given by anyone, they buy it. The money goes to the abattoir, butcher, this is said to contribute to the death of animals. Can I hear your thoughts on this?
Dhammapada 129:

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
So buying meat I guess will fit into "cause another to kill".

Just to make it clear, I think my thread is more about purchasing meat and eating meat rather than a great vegetarian or non-vegetarian debate. I am open to any thought or idea.

As with points No.1 and No.2 raised by Bhante Dhammanando. Does "does not amount to the akusala kamma of having someone kill chickens" mean the person who buys meat does create bad and vipaka for himself but not as akusala as the killer?
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4646
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

D1W1 wrote:So buying meat I guess will fit into "cause another to kill".

As with points No.1 and No.2 raised by Bhante Dhammanando. Does "does not amount to the akusala kamma of having someone kill chickens" mean the person who buys meat does create bad kamma and vipāka for himself but not as akusala as the killer?
No, buying meat does not create bad kamma, and does not fit into “Cause another to kill,” except in those rare cases where someone buys a live lobster in a restaurant or selects a live turkey on a farm. In the vast majority of cases, the animals were already killed, entirely by someone else's volition, and everyone is responsible for their own actions (kamma) and they inherit the results (vipāka) of their own actions, not those of others.

It is a totally different case to the hired hit-man, which is where one does “cause another to kill.” A hit-man would not kill a hated person unless someone pays him well to do the dirty deed.

No Evil Without Evil Intention
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
Meggo
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 2:42 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Meggo »

So buying meat then is similar to buying diamonds, if you know that people have been ensalved and killed to obtain them, aka "blood diamonds", there is still no moral obligation?
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4646
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

Meggo wrote:So buying meat then is similar to buying diamonds, if you know that people have been enslaved and killed to obtain them, aka "blood diamonds", there is still no moral obligation?
This thread is way too long already. Please read Dhammanando's reply above, especially point five.
Dhammanando wrote:5. But if this same person is the sort of militant vegetarian who alleges that those who don't do as he does are committing the unwholesome body-door kamma of having someone kill chickens, then he goes too far. He is disregarding the most elementary teaching on kamma, namely, that kamma is volition. In permitting such a view to persist within himself he commits the unwholesome mind-door kamma of nurturing a wrong view regarding the wholesome and the unwholesome. In propounding this view to others he commits the unwholesome speech-door kamma of misrepresenting the Tathāgata.
Last edited by Bhikkhu Pesala on Fri Apr 15, 2016 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by SDC »

Thank you, Bhante. And if we could not go off into the topic off blood diamonds in this thread it would be much appreciated.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
samseva
Posts: 3045
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by samseva »

lyndon taylor wrote:As I said at my temple we were taught that the Buddha was a vegetarian and that vegetarianism was the ideal option, however that few people could live up to the Buddha's ideal
That is flat out false. This was misinformation on their part.
User avatar
samseva
Posts: 3045
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by samseva »

Technically speaking, when you buy meat, you are sustaining a small portion of demand for it. Also, by buying meat, it is important to take into account that for you to have meat, a butcher needed to kill an animal. However, this does not necessarily mean that eating or buying meat is akusala kamma, which is what seems to be suggested.
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by lyndon taylor »

So its all settled then, eating meat is perfectly OK, its not bad kamma, but if perchance it contributes to you going to hell you can blame the monks who told you that, not your self.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by lyndon taylor »

samseva wrote:
lyndon taylor wrote:As I said at my temple we were taught that the Buddha was a vegetarian and that vegetarianism was the ideal option, however that few people could live up to the Buddha's ideal
That is flat out false. This was misinformation on their part.
Sorry but no one really knows for sure one way or the other whether the Buddha was a vegetarian or not. I'm just stating what was commonly taught at Therevada monasteries in my area. Certainly vegetarianism is looked at at an ideal, superior to eating meat, that is certainly not false. If you want to run a website on Buddhism I suggest you open your ears to more than just one sub-sect of Buddhism.
Last edited by lyndon taylor on Fri Apr 15, 2016 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by lyndon taylor »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:
Dhammanando wrote:4. A person who resolves not to purchase the flesh of chickens, doing so out of compassion for chickens and in the hope that this will reduce the demand for chicken flesh and lead to fewer chickens being killed, performs wholesome mind-door kamma on account of his compassionate volition.
That does not look like ridiculing vegetarians to me. On the contrary, it says that they produce wholesome kamma by cultivating compassion for chickens.
Lyndon Taylor wrote:however no one ever tried to encourage me to eat meat.
I don't see anyone here encouraging you to eat meat.

I only encourage you to give up your wrong view that purchasing or eating meat is unwholesome kamma. If you cannot give that up, then at least give up insulting and ridiculing robertk or anyone else who disagrees with you.
So you are saying its good kamma to cultivate compassion for animals by not eating, them, but its not bad kamma to eat them, only good kamma to not eat them.

Then you are saying its wrong view to disagree with you, since you are claiming to know what is right view on these topics.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
SarathW
Posts: 21232
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Post by SarathW »

Eating and drinking is not considered Kamma.
However greediness for any food may be bad kamma.
Eating a meat from a dead animal (natural death or killed by the butcher) can't be a kamma.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Post Reply