The First Precept and Eating Meat

[Shinshou]

Jundo, thank you for your response. After reflecting on this most of the afternoon, it seems taking life to live is unavoidable. What is up for debate is simply where we draw the line on the continuum of consciousness for acceptable versus unacceptable death.

Sat today

[Jundo]

Jundo, thank you for your response. After reflecting on this most of the afternoon, it seems taking life to live is unavoidable. What is up for debate is simply where we draw the line on the continuum of consciousness for acceptable versus unacceptable death.

Sat today

Please do not misunderstand. I believe that non-violence of all kinds, and vegetarianism, is generally the better way.

It is such a day. I happen to have two wild cats this morning fighting each other in the back field over a bird. Nothing I can do but watch and bow. As I cleaned the Altar this morning, found a lovely grasshopper that, apparently, had spent its last moments in there. Nothing to do but return his remains outside and bow again.

Mahayanists have a strange way of looking at this. We also believe that, ultimately, there is no killer and no victim to be killed in Emptiness. Nonetheless, there are both killer and killed in Samsara (this world of cause and effect), and our excess desire, anger and divisive thinking hides that fact of "original non-killing" from us. Human beings create much of the ugliness in this world. One should be as non-violent as possible, and avoid anger and excess desires.

I found an interesting essay this morning by Bikkhu Bodhi, a Western born Theravadan monk, who speaks of the balance sheet of Karma, and a sliding scale. It may be so.

1. THE FIRST PRECEPT: ABSTINENCE FROM TAKING LIFE

The first of the five precepts reads in Pali, Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami; in English, "I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life." Here the word pana, meaning that which breathes, denotes any living being that has breath and consciousness. It includes animals and insects as well as men, but does not include plants as they have only life but not breath or consciousness. ...

A complete act of killing constituting a full violation of the precept involves five factors: (1) a living being; (2) the perception of the living being as such; (3) the thought or volition of killing; (4) the appropriate effort; and (5) the actual death of the being as a result of the action. The second factor ensures that responsibility for killing is incurred only when the perpetrator of the act is aware that the object of his action is a living being. Thus if we step on an insect we do not see, the precept is not broken because the perception or awareness of a living being is lacking. The third factor ensures that the taking of life is intentional. Without the factor of volition there is no transgression, as when we kill a fly while intending simply to drive it away with our hand. The fourth factor holds that the action must be directed to the taking of life, the fifth that the being dies as a result of this action. If the life faculty is not cut off, a full violation of the precept is not incurred, though in harming or injuring living beings in any way its essential purpose will be violated.

The taking of life is distinguished into different types by way of its underlying motivation. One criterion for determining the motivation is the defilement principally responsible for the action. Acts of killing can originate from all three unwholesome roots — from greed, hatred, and delusion. As the immediate cause concomitant with the act of killing, hatred together with delusion functions as the root since the force which drives the act is the impulse to destroy the creature's life, a form of hatred. ... Killing motivated primarily by greed is seen in such cases as killing in order to gain material benefits or high status for oneself, to eliminate threats to one's comfort and security, or to obtain enjoyment as in hunting and fishing for sport. ...

Acts of taking life are differentiated by way of their degree of moral gravity. Not all cases of killing are equally blameworthy. All are unwholesome, a breach of the precept, but the Buddhist texts make a distinction in the moral weight attached to different kinds of killing.

The first distinction given is that between killing beings with moral qualities (guna) and killing beings without moral qualities. For all practical purposes the former are human beings, the latter animals, and it is held that to kill a fellow human being is a more serious matter ethically than to kill an animal. Then within each category further distinctions are drawn. In the case of animals the degree of moral gravity is said to be proportional to the animal, to kill a larger animal being more blameworthy than to kill a smaller one. Other factors relevant to determining moral weight are whether the animal has an owner or is ownerless, whether it is domestic or wild, and whether it has a gentle or a vicious temperament. The moral gravity would be greater in the former three alternatives, less in the latter three. ...

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a...282.html#prec2

I would say that some adjustment had to be made for lay folks as opposed to priests. In Thailand and other South Asian countries, the monks eat meat if they have not killed it themself ... Another Western born Theravadan priest writes ...

The Buddha laid down several rules forbidding monks from asking for the food that they liked. As a result, they would receive just the sort of meals that ordinary people ate - and that was often meat.

...

Towards the end of the Buddha's life, his cousin Devadatta attempted to usurp the leadership of the Order of monks. In order to win support from other monks, Devadatta tried to be more strict than the Buddha and show Him up as indulgent. Devadatta proposed to the Buddha that all the monks should henceforth be vegetarians. The Buddha refused and repeated once again the regulation that he had established years before, that monks and nuns may eat fish or meat as long as it is not from an animal whose meat is specifically forbidden [human meat, for obvious reasons; meat from elephants and horses as these were then considered royal animals; dog meat - as this was considered by ordinary people to be disgusting; and meat from snakes, lions, tigers, panthers, bears and hyenas - because one who had just eaten the flesh of such dangerous jungle animals was thought to give forth such a smell as to draw forth revenge from the same species!], and as long as they had no reason to believe that the animal was slaughtered specifically for them.

The Vinaya, then, is quite clear on this matter. Monks and nuns may eat meat. Even the Buddha ate meat. Unfortunately, meat eating is often seen by westerners as an indulgence on the part of the monks. Nothing could be further from the truth - I was a strict vegetarian for three years before I became a monk. In my first years as a monk in North-East Thailand, when I bravely faced many a meal of sticky rice and boiled frog (the whole body bones and all), or rubbery snails, red-ant curry or fried grasshoppers - I would have given ANYTHING to be a vegetarian again! On my first Christmas in N.E. Thailand an American came to visit the monastery a week or so before the 25th. It seemed too good to be true, he had a turkey farm and yes, he quickly understood how we lived and promised us a turkey for Christmas. He said that he would choose a nice fat one especially for us... and my heart sank. We cannot accept meat knowing it was killed especially for monks. We refused his offer. So I had to settle for part of the villager's meal - frogs again.

Monks may not exercise choice when it comes to food and that is much harder than being a vegetarian. Nonetheless, we may encourage vegetarianism and if our lay supporters brought only vegetarian food and no meat, well... monks may not complain either!

May you take the hint and be kind to animals.

https://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/meat.html

Gassho, J

SatTodayLAH (concerned about the cats outside)

[Shinshou]

Fascinating, thank you.

sattodaylah

[Hoko]

Someone just gave me a $50 gift card to a local BBQ joint.
You guys are killing me...

Gassho,
Hoko
#SatToday/LAH

[Enjaku]

Thanks everyone, interesting thread.
I choose not to eat meat but I eat fish.

The Ajahn Brahmavamso excerpt was really interesting. Food can easily become a source of greed and craving. I try to enjoy and appreciate food. A couple of times I've been served meat unexpectedly (typically in a restaurant on holiday, or at an event where the catering is limited). I've eaten it and appreciated it. The world kept turning.

I remember reading somewhere about a strict vegetarian monk who was forced by his teacher to eat a sausage. Clearly the teacher felt the monk was becoming too attached to his self-concept of being a vegetarian - too narrow. The same happened to me with alcohol. I kept hearing myself say, "I don't drink alcohol", so a few weeks ago I had a beer. Again, the world continued to turn. This was a lesson for me.

Gassho,
Enjaku
Sat LAH

[Jishin]

Enjaku,

You are attached to not being attached.

[emoji4]

Gasho, Jishin, _/st\_

[Jundo]

I remember reading somewhere about a strict vegetarian monk who was forced by his teacher to eat a sausage. Clearly the teacher felt the monk was becoming too attached to his self-concept of being a vegetarian - too narrow. The same happened to me with alcohol. I kept hearing myself say, "I don't drink alcohol", so a few weeks ago I had a beer. Again, the world continued to turn. This was a lesson for me.

This reminds me of this Suzuki Roshi story from "Crooked Cucumber," his biography by his long time archivist David Chadwick ...

Once when Tassajara, a mountain retreat center, was being built, a carpenter was working on it; he was not a Zen student but a yoga student; he kept a strict vegetarian diet, eating mostly fruit and nuts. He was driving Roshi back to San Francisco, along the Coast highway, when they both got hungry. Roshi wanted to stop right away but the carpenter kept on driving, looking for a place where he could get pure food. All they passed, however, were hot-dog and hamburger and taco joints. Roshi kept saying, How about stopping at this place? But the carpenter kept saying, No let's go on a little more. Looking for his fresh fruit meal. Finally Roshi told him to just stop at the next hamburger stand. The carpenter ordered a grilled cheese sandwich. Roshi ordered a cheeseburger. When the food came Roshi took one bite out of his cheeseburger. The carpenter took a bite out of his grilled cheese. Then Roshi made a face and said, I don't like this. He handed the cheeseburger to the carpenter, and took the grilled cheese for himself. You eat it, said Roshi.

[I told Rick the prior story a long time ago. A close version to this is in Crooked Cucumber on Page 299. I say it happened to Bob Halpern, but it actually happened to another Bob who didn't want his name used and the book didn't need a new character at that point anyway. --DC]

http://www.cuke.com/Cucumber%20Project/suzuki%20stories/fields-naj.html

Gassho, J

SatTodayLAH

[Doshin]

I eat meat. I hunt to put meat on the table and try to obtain meat from animals that were treated well during their lives. I see that as my evolutionary heritage. As I discussed a year or so ago on a similar Jukai thread, I worked for 35 years trying to reduce the numbers of animals (wildlife...insects to eagles, lizards to bears) destroyed by agriculture. And also to restore previous croplands to once again support wildlife. As mentioned above by Jundo and Joyo, annual farming practices result in animal deaths. However the major impact (destruction of life) is creating cropland. Before the land was cropland it was a forest, wetland, prairie or some other ecosystem that supported billions of living things that were destroyed when the land was converted. In fact I do not eat anything made from soybeans (unless it is offered to me) because of my memories of the destruction of so much bottomland hardwood forests and the diverse wildlife that once lived there. Nor do I believe others are wrong for doing so...i just have experiences that affect my choices. When I see the word organic I do not feel joy because I know as the demand grows ecosystems with their animals are being destroyed to meet the criteria to label the product as organic.

These are "my" feelings based on my biocentric view of the world that my brain attached itself too when i was very young. My life has always been surrounded by animals both wild and domestic. And yet that perspective does not prevent me from taking a deer anymore than the mountain lion that hunts the same area as I. I see humans as art of the ecosystem not separate from it which determined my life''s path and profession. To me the choices others make regarding What to eat is basd on their own paradignms and I respect them There are many paths, we each choose ours.

With this said i also embrace the precept "Do no kill". I do not take any life needlessly. I move all insects outside my house. I move rattlesnakes and other animals off the road before others kill them purposely or not.

Death gives life. None of us are free from that.

Gassho

Doshin
Sattoday/LAH

[Jika]

In fact I do not eat anything made from soybeans (unless it is offered to me)

Most soy (can't remember exact number, but more than 90%) is fed to animals.

I find this thread interesting in how different we all are.

I don't lecture people what they should eat.
In fact, only yesterday I had a slice of vegetarian pizza (with cheese), because a co-worker was inviting everyone to celebrate the birth of his daughter.
There was no vegan option, and accepting his joy and gift felt important to me.

But I often feel (just a personal impression) we have Gojo bodhisattva to say we helped an animal or gave someone a sandwich.
But we wriggle in all directions to avoid this other responsibility we have through what we consume.

Eating vegetarian or vegan a day, avoiding plastic, stopping ourselves from buying things we would like but that were produced under terrible conditions, this all should qualify for "LAH".

If there is "LAH", it must be helping slugs on drying out pavement (I do that), giving a sandwich - and facing up to our own responsibility in the production chain.

That we can't tell a tiger not to be a tiger does not justify us being humans by mass torturing animals and destroying our planet.

Gassho,
Jika
#sattoday, LAH

[Enjaku]

Enjaku,

You are attached to not being attached.

[emoji4]

Gasho, Jishin, _/st\_

[Meian]

If you buy the chicken in the grocery store today, another will be killed to restock the shelves tomorrow.


Gassho,
Joyo
sat today

This has been haunting me. People say it doesn't matter and is beyond my control, but phrased differently it does matter, and i could never articulate the sense i had of it. My sense was, maybe i can't stop the barbaric industry, but i don't have to participate in it or tacitly give energy to it.

This thread has given me much insight, information, ideas and perspectives on how to make this an easier path in American culture. I am grateful for the wisdom shared here.

Gassho,
Kim

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[Tairin]

For my part we started with a designated meatless day a week as part of minimizing our carbon footprint. A few years later it became two days a week. Now we are down to under 1/5 of our weekly meals have any meat. Even then usually only one meal a week might have meat as the centrepiece of the meal. We try to buy organic and local whenever possible. Otherwise lots of veggie based proteins. We do still consume eggs and milk though. Those would be very hard to give up.

I think each has to come to their own conclusion. 20 years ago I never would have guessed about what my diet would look like today. We changed because we educated ourselves about the impact to the environment.

Gassho
Warren
Sat today & LAH

[gilles]

would like to add this ... way before i knew about the buddhist precepts i was really careful about what i was killing ( or eating ).still am.grow my own vegggies ... i kill insects,bugs,worms,& many more micro organisms.

IMG_2279.JPG

Peace
Gilles

SAT2DAY

[Catherine]

Fascinating thread and clearly one that attracts much interest. The view that by one's very existence one kills , while logical, is often used to counter vegetarianism and veganism. However, I believe that the real argument is that of compassion. I do believe in the bond of sentience and that the human ego is the root of most human and non-human suffering. The dualism of anthropocentrism, in my view, is very destructive and causes much suffering. The Great Chain of Being, with its focus on the hierarchy of earthly and celestial creatures, was a medieval concept and, I believe, still influences our cultural attitudes to animals in that we claim dominion over all that is non-human. In saying that, the decision to eat meat or not, is the prerogative of individual conscience. I respect that many meat-eater do so with much respect and compassion for animals.

Gassho
Cathy
Sat today


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Eishuu]

I became vegetarian at 12 for ethical reasons. By 18 I was having energy problems and immune issues. My health declined throughout my 20s and I ended up with severe ME/CFS for my thirties on onwards. I didn't make the connection for a long time but now I believe that years of vegetarianism was definitely a factor for me. I have vegan and veggie friends who seem to thrive on it, but equally have known quite a few vegetarians become ill with similar conditions. I now believe that while that diet suits some people, it doesn't suit others. I went back to eating meat and fish for my health. I still believe that every life is precious and miraculous and do what I can to save insects and plants whenever possible. But I have made a choice for my own health and well being to give up being vegetarian. It's not a decision I made lightly.

I have gone dairy-free recently though so feel at least I am making some contribution to lessoning the suffering of animals.

Gassho
Lucy
sat today/LAH