the great vegetarian debate

[PeterB]

I agree that Buddhism isn't vegetarianism, but it is also not against vegetarianism either.

That depends on a person's reasons for being a vegetarian, and how it affects the way that they relate to others. What Buddhism teaches is that attachment to views is obstructive to spiritual development. Can anyone be a strict vegetarian or vegan without clinging to views?

Its this over-scrupulous attitude and wrong understanding of what kamma is that makes some vegetarians so intolerant. Then there's the vegans who think that vegetarians are not truly ethical because they eat dairy products or wear leather shoes, etc.

There is a way that one can be a vegetarian or vegan, but without any attachment to views. One who makes pragmatic choices, and is not averse to accepting and eating meat or fish offered by others is the one who practices correctly. No greed for the taste, and right view regarding kamma are more important than what one eats.

Sadhu !
By far the most balanced and sensible post on the subject that I have read on the subject on this or any other Buddhist forum.
In my view nothing splits the Buddhist cyber community like this subject. Not even Rebirth.
It is a matter of personal choice.
It is a subject which invariably generates much heat and little light.
As such I think we need to consider carefully before adding to the debate, I think we should instead reflect on our own decisions regarding what we eat. Away from public view. It is simply not of the essence of Dhamma.

[Ben]

I agree that Buddhism isn't vegetarianism, but it is also not against vegetarianism either.

That depends on a person's reasons for being a vegetarian, and how it affects the way that they relate to others. What Buddhism teaches is that attachment to views is obstructive to spiritual development. Can anyone be a strict vegetarian or vegan without clinging to views?

Its this over-scrupulous attitude and wrong understanding of what kamma is that makes some vegetarians so intolerant. Then there's the vegans who think that vegetarians are not truly ethical because they eat dairy products or wear leather shoes, etc.

There is a way that one can be a vegetarian or vegan, but without any attachment to views. One who makes pragmatic choices, and is not averse to accepting and eating meat or fish offered by others is the one who practices correctly. No greed for the taste, and right view regarding kamma are more important than what one eats.

Sadhu!

[Ben]

I agree that Buddhism isn't vegetarianism, but it is also not against vegetarianism either.

That depends on a person's reasons for being a vegetarian, and how it affects the way that they relate to others. What Buddhism teaches is that attachment to views is obstructive to spiritual development. Can anyone be a strict vegetarian or vegan without clinging to views?

Its this over-scrupulous attitude and wrong understanding of what kamma is that makes some vegetarians so intolerant. Then there's the vegans who think that vegetarians are not truly ethical because they eat dairy products or wear leather shoes, etc.

There is a way that one can be a vegetarian or vegan, but without any attachment to views. One who makes pragmatic choices, and is not averse to accepting and eating meat or fish offered by others is the one who practices correctly. No greed for the taste, and right view regarding kamma are more important than what one eats.

Sadhu !
By far the most balanced and sensible post on the subject that I have read on the subject on this or any other Buddhist forum.
In my view nothing splits the Buddhist cyber community like this subject. Not even Rebirth.
It is a matter of personal choice.
It is a subject which invariably generates much heat and little light.
As such I think we need to consider carefully before adding to the debate, I think we should instead reflect on our own decisions regarding what we eat. Away from public view. It is simply not of the essence of Dhamma.

[tiltbillings]

Boca soy burger Ingredients: WATER, SOY PROTEIN CONCENTRATE, REDUCED FAT CHEDDAR CHEESE (PASTEURIZED PART-SKIM MILK, CHEESE CULTURE, SALT, ENZYMES, ANNATTO (COLOR), VITAMIN A PALMITATE), WHEAT GLUTEN, CORN OIL, CONTAINS LESS THAN 2% OF METHYLCELLULOSE, HYDROLYZED CORN PROTEIN, WHEAT GLUTEN AND SOY PROTEIN, SALT, CARAMEL COLOR, CHEESE POWDER (CHEDDAR CHEESE (MILK, CHEESE CULTURE, SALT, ENZYMES), CREAM, SALT, SODIUM PHOSPHATE, LACTIC ACID), DRIED ONIONS, YEAST EXTRACT, NATURAL FLAVOR (NON-MEAT), SESAME OIL, DISODIUM GUANYLATE, DISODIUM INOSINATE, BROWNED IN CORN OIL.

Morning Star vegie burgers Ingredients:
CARROTS, WATER CHESTNUTS (WATER CHESTNUTS, WATER, CITRIC ACID), CELERY, WATER, BAMBOO SHOOTS, ONION, SOY PROTEIN CONCENTRATE, CORN OIL, SOY SAUCE (WATER, SOYBEANS, SALT, WHEAT), EGG WHITES, CORNSTARCH, GREEN ONIONS, SUGAR, CONTAINS TWO PERCENT OR LESS OF WHEAT PROTEIN, SESAME SEED OIL, SALT, SOY PROTEIN ISOLATE, GARLIC, MALTODEXTRIN, YEAST EXTRACT, SPICES, NATURAL FLAVORS FROM NON-MEAT SOURCES WITH CHABLIS WINE SOLIDS, DEXTROSE, AUTOLYZED YEAST EXTRACT, METHYLCELLULOSE, DEHYDRATED PINEAPPLE JUICE, MALIC ACID, WHEY POWDER, CITRIC ACID, DISTILLED WHITE VINEGAR, DISODIUM INOSINATE, DISODIUM GUANYLATE, MODIFIED CORN STARCH, CARAMEL COLOR, LACTIC ACID, ASCORBIC ACID, CARRAGEENAN, TURMERIC FOR COLOR.

Dr Praeger's Meatless All American Burger Ingredients: Filtered water, textured vegetable protein (soy protein concentrate, carmel color), onions, expeller pressed canola oil, textured wheat protein (wheat gluten, wheat starch, phosphate, soybean oil, titanium dioxide, antioxidants), arrowroot, egg whites, soy protein concentrate, garlic, vegetarian natural meat flavor (yeast extract, maltodextrin, salt, natural flavoring), salt, black pepper.

[tiltbillings]

Which Veggie Burgers Were Made With a Neurotoxin?: http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010 ... neurotoxin

[PeterB]

Boca soy burger Ingredients: WATER, SOY PROTEIN CONCENTRATE, REDUCED FAT CHEDDAR CHEESE (PASTEURIZED PART-SKIM MILK, CHEESE CULTURE, SALT, ENZYMES, ANNATTO (COLOR), VITAMIN A PALMITATE), WHEAT GLUTEN, CORN OIL, CONTAINS LESS THAN 2% OF METHYLCELLULOSE, HYDROLYZED CORN PROTEIN, WHEAT GLUTEN AND SOY PROTEIN, SALT, CARAMEL COLOR, CHEESE POWDER (CHEDDAR CHEESE (MILK, CHEESE CULTURE, SALT, ENZYMES), CREAM, SALT, SODIUM PHOSPHATE, LACTIC ACID), DRIED ONIONS, YEAST EXTRACT, NATURAL FLAVOR (NON-MEAT), SESAME OIL, DISODIUM GUANYLATE, DISODIUM INOSINATE, BROWNED IN CORN OIL.

Morning Star vegie burgers Ingredients:
CARROTS, WATER CHESTNUTS (WATER CHESTNUTS, WATER, CITRIC ACID), CELERY, WATER, BAMBOO SHOOTS, ONION, SOY PROTEIN CONCENTRATE, CORN OIL, SOY SAUCE (WATER, SOYBEANS, SALT, WHEAT), EGG WHITES, CORNSTARCH, GREEN ONIONS, SUGAR, CONTAINS TWO PERCENT OR LESS OF WHEAT PROTEIN, SESAME SEED OIL, SALT, SOY PROTEIN ISOLATE, GARLIC, MALTODEXTRIN, YEAST EXTRACT, SPICES, NATURAL FLAVORS FROM NON-MEAT SOURCES WITH CHABLIS WINE SOLIDS, DEXTROSE, AUTOLYZED YEAST EXTRACT, METHYLCELLULOSE, DEHYDRATED PINEAPPLE JUICE, MALIC ACID, WHEY POWDER, CITRIC ACID, DISTILLED WHITE VINEGAR, DISODIUM INOSINATE, DISODIUM GUANYLATE, MODIFIED CORN STARCH, CARAMEL COLOR, LACTIC ACID, ASCORBIC ACID, CARRAGEENAN, TURMERIC FOR COLOR.

Dr Praeger's Meatless All American Burger Ingredients: Filtered water, textured vegetable protein (soy protein concentrate, carmel color), onions, expeller pressed canola oil, textured wheat protein (wheat gluten, wheat starch, phosphate, soybean oil, titanium dioxide, antioxidants), arrowroot, egg whites, soy protein concentrate, garlic, vegetarian natural meat flavor (yeast extract, maltodextrin, salt, natural flavoring), salt, black pepper.

I am reminded of my son when about 15 or 16 . His sister had asked him to read the ingredients in something or other. He read out a list like the above and them slipped in at the end of the list, while keeping the same vocal tone, " nuclear waste "...

[Sekha]

3. It is quite clear that approving the purchase of dead living beings is approving their slaughter, and therefore is a kamma that leads to hell, even if in a minor way.

By your faulty logic, it would also be quite clear that purchasing cabbages would be to approve of killing slugs and rabbits that farmers kill to grow cabbages. If it is OK to purchase the cabbages, why is it not OK to purchase the dead rabbit?

If an action leads to hell in a minor way, what does that mean? Either it does or it does not lead to hell. It is quite clear that the Buddha taught that it is volition that is called kamma, so one who purchases meat or cabbages does not thereby approve of the killing done to produce them.

The AN passage that you quote states that kamma is made in four ways:

1. Doing the dead oneself. That is, one kills living beings by one's own hand.
2. Urging another to do it. That is, one tells or urges someone to kill.
3. One permits or condones it. That is, one allows it to happen, even though it within one's power to prevent it.
4. One speaks in praise of it. That is, one expresses one's approval when killing is done for whatever reason.

By your faulty logic, it would also be quite clear that purchasing cabbages would be to approve of killing slugs and rabbits that farmers kill to grow cabbages.

absolutely. I don't see anything faulty in this logic. If one is aware that these cabbages come from a place where people kill rabbits or insects and if there is another easy alternative, then one should choose the other alternative.

Ultimately there is one thing we will never go beyond as humans unless we manage to live without eating: we are heterotrophs which means that we feed off of other forms of life, so we have to kill some form of life or the other to survive. Now one who is truly sympathetic for the welfare of all beings will try his best to minimize the killing. So if we can easily choose food which does not result in any way from the killing of animals, why not doing it?

As you said earlier, and as the Buddha says, we should not cling to views nor even to the precepts (can't find the exact reference yet - not the silabattupadana here), and it means here we should always remain reasonable. What can be reasonably be done should be done by one who wants to practice at the best of his abilities. What seems not reasonable should not be undertaken.

If an action leads to hell in a minor way, what does that mean? Either it does or it does not lead to hell.

it means someone undertaking it might or might not end in hell, but the sure thing is one is accumulating akusala kamma which is potentially responsible for a rebirth in hell. Then it belongs to every one to know if they find it ok to accumulate such a kamma. Personally I don't even want to take a chance.

so one who purchases meat or cabbages does not thereby approve of the killing done to produce them.

I would not be so categorical. To me there are cases where it might well be so and cases where it is not. I see two factors here:
1) one is well aware that life is destroyed in the process
2) there is another easy alternative
If both factors are present and someone would purchase the food anyway, then I don't see how the person is not approving the killing. If one of the factors is missing then the person could very well be disapproving of the killing in spite of making this purchase: either one buys unknowingly items whose production imply the killing of animals in which case there is no approval of killing, or one buys items whose production imply the killing of animals because there is no other reasonable way to get food, in which case there is also no approval of killing, like in the simile of sn 12.63.

In the case of meat, both factors are present in most countries nowadays. So this attempt to debunk the argument earlier stated by me is not successful:

3. It is quite clear that approving the purchase of dead living beings is approving their slaughter, and therefore is a kamma that leads to hell, even if in a minor way.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I might need to rectify anyway my earlier statement in the 2 following way:

1) A lay person who seeks to live in line with the teaching of the Buddha to the best of his abilities should be vegetarian. One who thinks it is ok to do so only roughly might remain a meat eater. But to the least the latter should expect more difficulties on his way to enlightenment. My whole position is also clearly supported by the words of the Buddha at AN 10.176:

There is the case where a certain person, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from the taking of life. He dwells with his rod laid down, his knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, compassionate for the welfare of all living beings.

2) The quotation of AN 3,164 I made earlier does not actually resolve the matter for every one. It resolves it only for those who wish to undertake the Dhamma to the best of their abilities.

Metta & Mudita


PS: I quote down here the simile given by the Buddha about the way the monks consider food, and which also explains why meat is allowable for them:

"And how is physical food to be regarded? Suppose a couple, husband & wife, taking meager provisions, were to travel through a desert. With them would be their only baby son, dear & appealing. Then the meager provisions of the couple going through the desert would be used up & depleted while there was still a stretch of the desert yet to be crossed. The thought would occur to them, 'Our meager provisions are used up & depleted while there is still a stretch of this desert yet to be crossed. What if we were to kill this only baby son of ours, dear & appealing, and make dried meat & jerky. That way — chewing on the flesh of our son — at least the two of us would make it through this desert. Otherwise, all three of us would perish.' So they would kill their only baby son, loved & endearing, and make dried meat & jerky. Chewing on the flesh of their son, they would make it through the desert. While eating the flesh of their only son, they would beat their breasts, [crying,] 'Where have you gone, our only baby son? Where have you gone, our only baby son?' Now what do you think, monks: Would that couple eat that food playfully or for intoxication, or for putting on bulk, or for beautification?"

"No, lord."

"Wouldn't they eat that food simply for the sake of making it through that desert?"

"Yes, lord."

"In the same way, I tell you, is the nutriment of physical food to be regarded.

[Nicro]

If you don't want to eat cabbages because the farmer kills rabbits and insects, then you can't eat anything. All vegetables and fruit entail tilling the soil, killing many creatures, and protecting the crops from small animals and insects via killing them.

I'm vegetarian, but it has nothing to do with Dhamma.

[Sekha]

If you don't want to eat cabbages because the farmer kills rabbits and insects, then you can't eat anything. All vegetables and fruit entail tilling the soil, killing many creatures, and protecting the crops from small animals and insects via killing them.

I'm vegetarian, but it has nothing to do with Dhamma.

read my post in full. I give the solution to this problem, which also occured to me:

If there is any other reasonable option, that option should be chosen. If there is no other reasonable option, one would truly purchase food without approving the killing of animals, even though killing is performed in the process independently from his will.

Metta & Mudita

[rowyourboat]

Hi David,

Good post by Bhikkhu Pesala - I have read the forum rules - there is nothing there preventing a vegetarian entering and posting on this forum. But I have a suggestion - please consider changing the name of this form to something other than 'Dhammic' free-for all' ...because if dhammic as well as a-dhammic views are equally valid on this forum we shouldn't promote confusion- it is having an argument on apples and oranges.



With metta

Matheesha

[morning mist]

As I see it , Buddhist teaching is not against non-vegetarians nor is it against vegetarians. Vegetarians are not un-Buddhist and vice-versa. There are cases that vegetarians put down other's spiritual practices or judge their progress on the spiritual path based on what they eat. In the Maha-sihanada Sutta, the Buddha listed the unnecessary practices he picked up from other practitioners around the region during that time which includes being quite specific about what they eat. He said " by such conduct, by such practice, by such performance of austerities, I did not attain any superhuman states, any distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones." Therefore, he left out all these practices from the formula when teaching disciples and establishing his sangha:


"I thought: 'Suppose I were to practice going altogether without food.' ........."

"I thought: 'Suppose I were to take only a little food at a time, only a handful at a time of bean soup, lentil soup, vetch soup, or pea soup.' So I took only a little food at a time, only a handful at a time of bean soup, lentil soup, vetch soup, or pea soup. ....."

" I did not accept food brought or food specially made or an invitation to a meal; I received nothing from a pot, from a bowl, across a threshold, across a stick, across a pestle, from two eating together, from a pregnant woman, from a woman giving suck, from a woman lying with a man, from where food was advertised to be distributed, from where a dog was waiting, from where flies were buzzing; I accepted no fish or meat, I drank no liquor, wine or fermented brew. I kept to one house, to one morsel; I kept to two houses, to two morsels;... I kept to seven houses, to seven morsels. I lived on one saucerful a day, on two saucerfuls a day... on seven saucerfuls a day; I took food once a day, once every two days... once every seven days, and so on up to once every fortnight; I dwelt pursuing the practice of taking food at stated intervals. ........"Such was my scrupulousness, Sariputta, that I was always mindful in stepping forwards and stepping backwards. I was full of pity even for (the beings in) a drop of water thus: 'Let me not hurt the tiny creatures in the crevices of the ground.' Such was my scrupulousness.
........ "Sariputta, there are certain recluses and brahmans whose doctrine and view is this: 'Purification comes about through food.' They say: 'Let us live on beans'... 'Let us live on sesamum'... 'Let us live on rice,' and they eat rice, they eat rice powder, they drink rice water, and they make various kinds of rice concoctions. Now I recall having eaten a single rice grain a day........."Yet, Sariputta, by such conduct, by such practice, by such performance of austerities, I did not attain any superhuman states, any distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones. Why was that? Because I did not attain that noble wisdom which when attained is noble and emancipating and leads the one who practices in accordance with it to the complete destruction of suffering." ( Maha Sihanada Sutta)

What people eat doesn't help or hinder their progress on the path to Enlightenment.

When it comes to the practice of compassion there are many outlets to put compassion into practice, eating vegetarian is just one of these outlets. Some might choose this as an outlet, but then there are numerous other outlets to practice compassion. There are people who are vegetarian due to being raised that way or because it is a rule instead of because they are practicing compassion. For this reason, you do see people eat vegetarian but encourage others to practice animal sacrifice, and no sign of compassion although being a vegetarian. This defeat the purpose of developing compassion and it does not help people develop compassion when it is made a rule or forced on people. If they choose to become vegetarian even when they are not required or criticized by authorities , then their eating vegetarian is more likely to be an expression of compassion. When you forbid people from being non-vegetarian , even if everyone in the country eat only vegetarian it still doesn't mean that these people are compassionate.

I would encourage people to eat less meat but for it to actually be an outlet to practice compassion , it should remain a free choice.

[morning mist]

For example, Hitler was a vegetarian.

By most accounts, Hitler just reduced meat from his diet for health reasons (no care for the animals). By some other accounts he ate meat all his life. Just google "hitler vegetarian myth" and you will see numerous references from his personal chef and other sources that he loved to eat Bavarian sausages and game pie ("game" meaning wild meat from birds and other creatures).

Otherwise, good post, good balanced points.

Maybe Hitler was a bad example, because it can be controversial. There are sources telling that during a meal with his subjects, some people ate chicken and he was said to say oh you're eating dead corpses , or something like that. But maybe you're right that his diet is not completely without animal product.

"The April 14, 1996, Sunday magazine edition of The New York Times, includes this description of Hitler's diet in an article first published on May 30, 1937, 'At Home With The Führer.' "'It is well known that Hitler is a vegetarian and does not drink or smoke. His lunch and dinner consist, therefore, for the most part of soup, eggs, vegetables and mineral water, although he occasionally relishes a slice of ham and relieves the tediousness of his diet with such delicacies as caviar ..."[18]

Traudl Junge, who became Hitler's secretary in 1942, reported that he "always avoided meat" but that his Austrian cook Kruemel sometimes added a little animal broth or fat to his meals. "Mostly the Fuehrer would notice the attempt at deception, would get very annoyed and then get tummy ache," Junge said. "At the end he would only let Kruemel cook him clear soup and mashed potato."[20]

In 1943, Marlene von Exner became Hitler's dietician and reportedly added bone marrow to his soups without his knowledge because she "despised" his vegetarian diet.[8]

[DNS]

Good post by Bhikkhu Pesala - I have read the forum rules - there is nothing there preventing a vegetarian entering and posting on this forum. But I have a suggestion - please consider changing the name of this form to something other than 'Dhammic' free-for all' ...because if dhammic as well as a-dhammic views are equally valid on this forum we shouldn't promote confusion- it is having an argument on apples and oranges.

Hi Matheesha,

a-dhammic according to who? It is a-dhammic according to you, which again is a view. So, no we are not going to censor or delete any posts which you don't agree to, nor are we going to change the name of the forum.

There are sutta references that can be used to support either view on this highly controversial subject. Bhikkhu Pesala has done an excellent job at providing sutta references and support for one position and Dukkhanirodha has done an excellent job at providing sutta references and support for the other position. As well as some other posters who have made use of sutta references and dhammic teachings.

So all opinions and views are allowed here. In the end, we each must decide; but I suspect this will not be the end of this debate no matter how many of us repeat this point.

[morning mist]

I agree that Buddhism isn't vegetarianism, but it is also not against vegetarianism either.

That depends on a person's reasons for being a vegetarian, and how it affects the way that they relate to others..........
Its this over-scrupulous attitude and wrong understanding of what kamma is that makes some vegetarians so intolerant.

I think it is great that vegetarians motivate others to eat other types of food and we shouldn't put them down or think that it is un-buddhist. I think we should join in and eat less meat. Being vegetarian is compatible with Buddhism rather than going against it in any way . The Buddha would accept food from a vegetarian just as he would accept food from a non-vegetarian, without any preference. Ideally, if everyone follow "Right Livelihood" of the Eightfold Path then there would be no butcher selling meat, no one would kill an animal for meat if everyone follow the first precept, and there is no meat to buy. The result is a society of vegetarians, or at least something similar because there are animals who die naturally and people could eat that. So vegetarian is quite compatible with Buddhism and we should definitely support that.

However I see what you mean , I have seen cases of vegetarian put down other's spiritual practice simply because they eat meat as if a person who eat meat can't become enlightened or somehow failed in their practice or a person who is a vegetarian is more developed spiritually. This is clearly a misconception. There are also vegetarians asking the restaurant if their food was cooked with the same frying pan used for cooking non-veg food after they brought the food out. As if non-veg food is polluted. There are vegetarians who need eggs in their diet to recover from illnesses and made a great fuss with the doctor when they were given eggs. Some say, I rather die then to pollute my body with these substances. There are vegetarians that are very mean and rude to flight attendants and gave her a very hard time because the airline does not have enough kinds of vegetarian food. Some people are very strict about what they eat yet does not put any effort in wholesome moral conduct such as keeping the moral precepts at all. This is even worst than a meat eater who practice the 5 precept. There are vegetarians who doesn't eat meat but burn a poor person over an argument about a dog. There are vegetarians who treat "lower class " people like an animal. The reason for such person being a vegetarian is not out of compassion but as an attachment to rules and rituals. It does not make them more spiritually advanced in any way. In this case being a vegetarian does not help a person develop compassion in anyway.

[mikenz66]

... please consider changing the name of this form to something other than 'Dhammic' free-for all' ...because if dhammic as well as a-dhammic views are equally valid on this forum we shouldn't promote confusion- it is having an argument on apples and oranges.

The DFFA is a place where essentially all views of some relevance to the Dhamma can be discussed. In particular, it is the appropriate place to compare different Buddhist schools, or Buddhist paths with other paths (ancient or modern). Since some Buddhist schools do promote vegetarianism, it seems appropriate to discuss it here, just as it is appropriate to discuss Theravada vs Mahayana interpretations of Bodhisatt(v)as, etc.


Mike