Rationale for not Eating Meat in Buddhism

[Inshin]

Many of the Buddhist teachings are about not grasping, clutching, etc. I recently realized that I have been clutching to my idea of a vegetarian lifestyle.
I realized that I derived great pleasure from my identity as a vegetarian, and that I subconsciously judged people who were not so.

I can so relate to your experience. I've been vegetarian through all my teenage years and early twenties. Then I was vegan for almost 3 years and I've noticed what you did. The creation of a new identity "vegan", it is so much more than just diet and a lifestyle. I came back to eating meat due to health reasons. The truth is that strict vegan diet is hardly sustainable for majority of people.
The Middle Way cautions not only about greed but also warns against austerity that is another form of self indulgence.

Gassho
Sat

[Doshin]

I can so relate to your experience. I've been vegetarian through all my teenage years and early twenties. Then I was vegan for almost 3 years and I've noticed what you did. The creation of a new identity "vegan", it is so much more than just diet and a lifestyle. I came back to eating meat due to health reasons. The truth is that strict vegan diet is hardly sustainable for majority of people.
The Middle Way cautions not only about greed but also warns against austerity that is another form of self indulgence.

Gassho
Sat

Both of your comments gave me pause. . Though I said I was an omnivore I have “clutched” onto a resentment I have had for many decades. Specifically I avoid products made with soybeans. My resentment comes from having seen 80% of the Lower Mississippi Valley Bottomland Hardwood Forest eliminated primarily for agriculture which soybeans are a major crop. I worked on programs to protect restore that ecosystem . I saw the felled trees, drained wetlands and plowed ground as extermination of billions of organisms. But reading many of the ideas expressed here I see I am clutching to an experience that has good and bad connected with it. And yes there is a middle way that can feed our species and yet reduce the impact to other species. I have always known that but I let my anger cloud that knowledge.

Thank you.

Doshin
St

[Dogukan]

It's been a very useful discussion. Thank you, everyone.

I had stopped eating meat, even before I started to be intensely interested in Buddhism. So my justification and reason were not about precepts then. I never watched any kind of brutal videos about what's going on in the meat industry, and my decision was not about the possible benefits of vegetables for my skincare too. At a certain point, I just felt that eating meat was making me suffer.

And what's my approach to this issue now? As many people have indicated above, I also believe that this decision is up to the person herself/himself. And Personally, I think that there is a relation between the first precept and vegetarianism. I do not intend to say that this is the only way to interpret the precept. I am not a scholar of Buddhism, so I am not able to analyze whether Buddhism originally included vegetarianism or not. However, even though the reasons stated in the Lankavatara Sutra seem a little bit unlogical or incoherent, I especially give importance to this reason: "...as this will cause living beings to shake in fear." Whenever I read the First Precept, it whispers to me that I have to "refrain from causing living beings to shake in fear." That's my personal understanding of the precept. And if someone else understands it in a different way, that's completely OK.

At the end of the day, I believe there's one thing for sure: Whether we eat meat or not, we should raise awareness about our diet and its possible benefits and harms. That's not good to create a strict identity and judge people harshly because of their diets. However, we can do our best, we can realize the extreme brutality of the meat industry and make other people also realize that unpleasant fact and we can find a way to show our own compassion to our mute friends. It would be a tremendous achievement to even realize that we are not masters of the world and that not all sentient beings exist to serve us.

Sorry for this long post. I just wanted to share.

Gassho, Doğukan.
SatLaH

[Seiko]

I suppose, even though we know there is no self that separates us one from another, we retain a sense of individual self, because it is a useful tool to navigate through this life. And as individuals, our interpretation of precepts will always vary --sometimes by a wide margin.

I don't identify as vegan because I have met too many vegan animal activists who harbour a great deal of hate and anger. I have never been that angry. They scare me.

Do I eat meat or fish? Not since 1976.
Do I eat dairy - hardly ever.
Do people build statues of me because of my amazing virtue? No. If they ever did, they would be greatly mistaken.

My wife eats fish and meat. Does that make me hate her? No. In most ways she is a much nicer person then me.

Life off the cushion is fascinating, isn't it? And after all our opinions are exchanged, it's great to return to that silent cushion, isn't it?

Bows

In Gassho
Seiko
stlah

[Kokuu]

Hi all

In addition to Jundo and Kirk's podcast on animals, I listened to this talk from The Village Zendo on the subject of killing and eating animals and thought it might be of relevance here...

https://villagezendo.org/2021/10/28/talk-by-shinryu-roshi-the-precepts-writ-small/

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

[Seibu]

My biggest "turnoff" to becoming more involved in the Treeleaf community is a giant feeling of no cohesion in this sanghas teaching. It seems to be a lot of "you do you and I'll do me". How can "abstain from taking life" be so widely interpreted? And mostly it's interpreted to fit your own personal needs, from the wide variety of opinions I read here. I mean, it seems pretty clear cut, abstain from taking life (sentient beings). To compare farming to taking life, come on now. Growing lettuce to killing a cow are hardly on equal terms. I became vegan years ago for health reasons and became Buddhist after the fact, which only solidified the decision with the first precept to abstain from taking life. It really seems like there are a lot of folks here who try to justify their choices with this impossibly wide "interpretation" of the precepts.

Hi Jd,

A good starting point might be the introductory chapter The Nature of the Precepts found in The Mind of Clover by Robert Aitken.

Gassho,
Seibu
Sattoday/lah

[Gram]

I was speaking about most teaching in this sangha not just this subject. The general attitude that I'm seeing is "you do you". Ah, the precept about intoxicants, "just don't overdo it" and so forth. It's becoming hard to take the teachings here seriously when they are so liberally applied to fit everyone's needs and desires.

I think we should be more concerned with what comes out of our mouths than what we put into them.

Gassho
Gram
Sat2day

[Nengyoku]

Hi all

In addition to Jundo and Kirk's podcast on animals, I listened to this talk from The Village Zendo on the subject of killing and eating animals and thought it might be of relevance here...

https://villagezendo.org/2021/10/28/talk-by-shinryu-roshi-the-precepts-writ-small/

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

Thank you for sharing this.

Gassho,
William
Sat

[JacquesG]

My biggest "turnoff" to becoming more involved in the Treeleaf community is a giant feeling of no cohesion in this sanghas teaching. It seems to be a lot of "you do you and I'll do me". How can "abstain from taking life" be so widely interpreted? And mostly it's interpreted to fit your own personal needs, from the wide variety of opinions I read here. I mean, it seems pretty clear cut, abstain from taking life (sentient beings). To compare farming to taking life, come on now. Growing lettuce to killing a cow are hardly on equal terms. I became vegan years ago for health reasons and became Buddhist after the fact, which only solidified the decision with the first precept to abstain from taking life. It really seems like there are a lot of folks here who try to justify their choices with this impossibly wide "interpretation" of the precepts.

I used to be very much into religion, having been a Christian minister and teacher for most my adult life.

This sounds like you seem to be looking for some form of objective morality via Buddhist precepts.

There is no such thing as objective morality, especially in Buddhism. Objective morality requires, logically, an objective rulemaker that enforces those rules. Objective morality is literally meaningless in Buddhism.

If there is no "consequence" to breaking a precept, it can never be more than a guideline. The only (possible) consequence is an effect on karma, which we know isn't some kind of cosmic accounting ledger, but rather just cause and effect. The effect of the cause is not influenced by intent. If an adult loses their teeth due to too much candyfloss as a child, the adult is still toothless, irrespective of how selflessly that parent loved the child. The effect remains unchanged by the intent of the person who gave them the candyfloss. And that person does not accrue negative karma because they caused tooth decay in the child, even if they knew that excess sugar causes tooth decay. Even if we think that is unfair, and that there should be consequences for destroying another human's teeth.

If taking life (even unintentionally) has a Karmic effect (positive or negative), then we are all karmically screwed. I don't think intention plays into karma, as again, there is no adjudicator that decides what your intent was. The production of (all) food - even the lab that grows meat (as we destroy habitat for the space to build the lab) ends sentient life. Full stop.

And we sentiently know this beforehand.

Even Back to Eden / No Till / Permaculture based agriculture still happens on top of the homes of sentient beings, and kills them by removing their habitat. We know that and knowing that before we engage in it eliminates the intent pardon. Your choice to eat agriculture-based food is nothing but you estimating your life as more important / valuable than the life of the sentient beings who will die because of that choice.

If your worldview is correct, the only right action is only to eat whatever wild-grown food we can gather and hope that we only kill non-sentient creatures in the process. But then again, non-dualism eliminates the separation between sentience and non-sentience, so that distinction is moot. The only real option we have is to mindfully and humbly prepare and consume that food, whether plant or animal based, as there is really no difference between the two, if the teaching of non-dualism is correct. The one (cow) dies directly due to our actions. The other (the garden vole) dies indirectly, due to our actions, yet we are still the cause. Both are dead. The effect, both karmic and non-karmic, is the same.

The Buddha died from eating bad pork, as far as I know. Zen is, literally, "You do you, I do me." There are guidelines, but they are unavoidably personal and subjective. Wanting anything more, to my mind, is attachment to obedience to the precepts, for the sake of obedience (as religions do), as opposed to liberation and awakening (as Buddhism does.)

Sorry for the length.

Gassho

Jacques

ST/LAH

[Tairin]

Jacques


Tairin
Sat today and lah

[Doshin]

I used to be very much into religion, having been a Christian minister and teacher for most my adult life.

This sounds like you seem to be looking for some form of objective morality via Buddhist precepts.

There is no such thing as objective morality, especially in Buddhism. Objective morality requires, logically, an objective rulemaker that enforces those rules. Objective morality is literally meaningless in Buddhism.

If there is no "consequence" to breaking a precept, it can never be more than a guideline. The only (possible) consequence is an effect on karma, which we know isn't some kind of cosmic accounting ledger, but rather just cause and effect. The effect of the cause is not influenced by intent. If an adult loses their teeth due to too much candyfloss as a child, the adult is still toothless, irrespective of how selflessly that parent loved the child. The effect remains unchanged by the intent of the person who gave them the candyfloss. And that person does not accrue negative karma because they caused tooth decay in the child, even if they knew that excess sugar causes tooth decay. Even if we think that is unfair, and that there should be consequences for destroying another human's teeth.

If taking life (even unintentionally) has a Karmic effect (positive or negative), then we are all karmically screwed. I don't think intention plays into karma, as again, there is no adjudicator that decides what your intent was. The production of (all) food - even the lab that grows meat (as we destroy habitat for the space to build the lab) ends sentient life. Full stop.

And we sentiently know this beforehand.

Even Back to Eden / No Till / Permaculture based agriculture still happens on top of the homes of sentient beings, and kills them by removing their habitat. We know that and knowing that before we engage in it eliminates the intent pardon. Your choice to eat agriculture-based food is nothing but you estimating your life as more important / valuable than the life of the sentient beings who will die because of that choice.

If your worldview is correct, the only right action is only to eat whatever wild-grown food we can gather and hope that we only kill non-sentient creatures in the process. But then again, non-dualism eliminates the separation between sentience and non-sentience, so that distinction is moot. The only real option we have is to mindfully and humbly prepare and consume that food, whether plant or animal based, as there is really no difference between the two, if the teaching of non-dualism is correct. The one (cow) dies directly due to our actions. The other (the garden vole) dies indirectly, due to our actions, yet we are still the cause. Both are dead. The effect, both karmic and non-karmic, is the same.

The Buddha died from eating bad pork, as far as I know. Zen is, literally, "You do you, I do me." There are guidelines, but they are unavoidably personal and subjective. Wanting anything more, to my mind, is attachment to obedience to the precepts, for the sake of obedience (as religions do), as opposed to liberation and awakening (as Buddhism does.)

Sorry for the length.

Gassho

Jacques

ST/LAH

You captured many of my thoughts in words well chosen. Thank you

Doshin
St

[Ryumon]

This sounds like you seem to be looking for some form of objective morality via Buddhist precepts.

There is no such thing as objective morality, especially in Buddhism. Objective morality requires, logically, an objective rulemaker that enforces those rules. Objective morality is literally meaningless in Buddhism.

I think it's important to distinguish the difference between Buddhism and Christianity. The ten commandments are supposedly of divine origin (inherited from another religion); the Buddhist precepts are not. The latter are carefully thought out guidelines, rather than divine rules.

How many people know that the 5th commandment is not "Thou shalt not kill," but rather "Thou shalt not murder." There is a very big difference.

Gassho,
Ryūmon
Sat

[Risho]

I think the Ten Commandments are very well thought out as well and represent a significant psychological evolution of humanity; I don't think they are just willy nilly from God.

I believe, historically, the idea of some common law (some framework of conduct) to help avoid tribes from devolving into chaos was a major innovation.

Gassho

Risho
-stlah

[rj]

Jacques, thank you for your insight.


rj
st/lah

[Jundo]

Hi Jacques,

I am not sure about some of what you wrote. Of course, much of this has been topics for debate, for thousands of years, so often there are many perspectives on Karma.

I used to be very much into religion, having been a Christian minister and teacher for most my adult life.

This sounds like you seem to be looking for some form of objective morality via Buddhist precepts.

There is no such thing as objective morality, especially in Buddhism. Objective morality requires, logically, an objective rulemaker that enforces those rules. Objective morality is literally meaningless in Buddhism.

If there is no "consequence" to breaking a precept, it can never be more than a guideline. The only (possible) consequence is an effect on karma, which we know isn't some kind of cosmic accounting ledger, but rather just cause and effect.

Hmmm. I believe that, in traditional Buddhist belief, morality (e.g., do not kill sentient life, do not anger) is very much a natural system somehow built into the structure of the universe, and did function not unlike a cosmic accountant book, bad acts leading to bad effects in this or future lives after the heart stops in this one.

Also, in Buddhism, intent (sometimes called "volition"/cetanā) is vital, unlike with the non-Buddhist Jains, for example, who felt that we carry the weigh of any action, even if unintended and accidental. We are only responsible for our intentional acts, not killing someone accidently without intent for example (although some ambiguity if we intend to push a boulder off a hill knowing that there are people below, but not intending to kill them, for example.)

The effect of the parent's bad act is on the parent's Karmic stream, and the parent's future life or rebirth. The child's loss of a tooth is not usually considered the Karmic effect of the parent's Karmic action as cause. So, the child's tooth problem is not a good example.

I also don't think that, in traditional Buddhism, "non-dualism eliminates the separation between sentience and non-sentience, so that distinction is moot" for Karmic purposes. Most Buddhists still do make the distinction between killing a sentient being like a person versus eating a carrot or smashing a rock. While Dogen and others said that, from one perspective, all the differences vanish yet ... from another perspective ... rocks and carrots are not sentient (we can debate about dogs and worms).

I am also not sure that Karma or Zen is, literally, "You do you, I do me." Yes, Karma is "unavoidably personal and subjective" such that only your Karmic cause-effect stream is yours ... and yet Dogen and most other Buddhist teachers moralize, trying to get their students to act nice.

Much of the rest of what you wrote seems fine though.

Gassho, Jundo

Sorry to have run long.

STLah