Rationale for not Eating Meat in Buddhism

[Ryumon]

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.

Some people want rules, so they can do what they're told, and others understand that nothing is totally black and white and that they have freedom within a framework of ideals. Treeleaf is very much about shades of gray, and there aren't many fundamentalist viewpoints here (aside from, perhaps, the need to sit zazen).

I live next to a farm, and I see the farmers working year round. They don't set out to kill small animals when they harvest their wheat, but many get killed. They do set out to get rid of pests on their cabbage and brussels sprouts, however. So with that killing in mind, would you eat their wheat or their brussels sprouts?

Gassho,

Ryūmon

sat

[Shinshou]

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've been a vegetarian for 26 years, and I fully understand that even so, my consumption of food - and yours as well, being a vegan - results in the massive loss of sentient beings. The vow to "abstain from taking life" is impossible to adhere to. Just the tilling of once acre of a vegetable field kills countless beings from worms, voles, moles, gophers, etc., not to mention the killing of insects after the planting. It sounds like you are looking for a hard-and-fast rule to cling to. "Abstain from taking life" is not that rule. Each step, breath, meal, etc. kills or has the potential to harm and kill. We all draw the line at what is acceptable to us. You've drawn it very conservatively; I've drawn it less so; most draw it even less.

Sorry for running over.

Shinshou
Sat Today

[Amelia]

When you say there there is no clear direction in the sangha on this matter, just know that this is a Soto Zen Buddhist sangha in the Japanese tradition. This tradition is not strictly vegetarian. Some Soto groups are, but it is not clearly defined in this tradition, hence everyone making their own choices on the matter.

Gassho
Sat, lah

[Jundo]

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.

Okay, you are right. If you wish to be strictly vegan/vegetarian, please do.

As a matter of fact, if you would like to be strict and regimented in practice, I support this and I now tell you now to be celibate, totally, give up all alcohol and any other mind altering substances, and avoid all curse words ... thoroughly ... in addition to avoiding all meat products. I am serious about this, Jd. I mean it. Will you commit? I will too if you do. Let's do it!

But let me also ask, are you calling the Buddha in India also not "clear cut" because he allowed meat eating for his monks? Was he wrong for not being a vegan?

Master Dogen, someone often seen as a "by the rules" fellow, had something surprising to say about the Precepts in general [in Shoaku Makusa]:

[T]he principle exists that what is right differs from world to world, just the same [as with wrong]. What is seen to be [right] is called right, just as the manner in which the Buddhas of past, present and future preach the same Dharma each in their own way. It is just the same although their preaching of the Dharma in the world accords with the occasion of the times. Even their life span and physical size are said to depend totally upon the occasion, yet they always preach the Dharma that is beyond differences. Thus, the right seen by a person of faith in devotional practice and a right by a practitioner of Dharma practice may seem far different from each other, yet they are not different. It is like how the keeping of the Precepts by a disciple [who follows the precepts literally] may be a violation of the Precepts for a Bodhisattva.

Gassho, J

STLah

[Amelia]

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.

It comes down to the individual making conscious choices not to just do that they want, but to really see if the choices they make are helpful or harmful in their lives, with honesty. There is no great diety here judging our decisions. Only ourselves, our own lives.

Telling a group of people that they are not allowed to have sex because Buddha says no, has never, EVER resulted in no one having sex, for example. In fact, it creates the opposite. By making it forbidden, people coerce each other in harmful, manipulative ways. This is what we avoid by not drawing a line in the sand of us versus them.

Gassho
Sat, lah

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Jundo]

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 believe that you may do well with a stricter interpretation of the Precepts.

It is the same in the Jewish world in which I was raised: I was raised in a very liberal home, in which there was no requirement to grow beards, not turn on the lights on the Sabbath, not even strictly avoid ham (of course, most Jews eat other meat). On the other hand, my cousin became very Orthodox and follows hundreds of precise rules to be close to his sense of God. (Another funny story is my other friend, an Israeli Hassid, who married a Japanese woman who became even stricter than he did! It drives him crazy! He won't eat meat and dairy products within 3 hours of each other, as forbidden in their tradition, but she insists on 6 hours, etc.! Oye.).

My conclusion is that some people do better with a looser, more flexible, less rule based practice with a good deal of focus on keeping a sense of some "blacks and whites" and many gray areas between. Within those "black and whites," one can still be a good and kind, decent person. There are definitely some absolutes: Do not do violence in anger, do not use drugs or alcohol to excess or in a way that is harmful, do not rob money simply to buy luxury goods (stealing, however, to feed the starving like Robin Hood is not so clear). Others need detailed, much stricter, precise and inflexible rules. Perhaps a more Orthodox Chinese or Theravadan approach to the Precepts would suit you (although, not Theravadan ... as they are not strictly vegetarian! )

Dogen, a stickler for rules, also surprisingly wrote this in Zuimonki (1-18), encouraging an examination of inner worth over outer lifestyle (although, he does not mean to donate to a monk who robs banks, gets in bar fights and is a drug pusher, for we all have limits!):

Lay people offer donations to monks who seem to keep the Precepts and eat only what is allowed by the rules, keeping strict discipline while seen in public, but they begrudge offerings to monks who shamelessly violate the Precepts, drinking wine and eating meat, judging them as unworthy. Such discrimination in thinking truly goes against Buddhist principles … You should make offerings to monks regardless of their seeming virtue or its lack. Specifically, never decide someone’s inner virtue based upon their outward appearance …

Gassho, Jundo

STLah
Sorry to run long

[Jundo]

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.

Also, one of are harder rules here, Jd, which I ask of you: Would you sign a first human name to your posts, and indicate "sattoday" before posting? Thank you:

SatToday - Make sure you have sat before joining in forum chat!

https://www.treeleaf.org/forums/showthread.php?12995-SatToday-Make-sure-you-have-sat-before-joining-in-forum-chat%21

You are breaking our rules!

Gassho, J

STLah

[Meian]

Treeleaf is a global Japanese zendo; we have members here from all over the world, different cultures, backgrounds, etc. Insisting that one way of eating, farming, or living must be accepted and followed by all is unreasonable and untenable.

As mentioned before, the main rule here is Zazen -- "sat before chat."

It is nice that you have found a farming practice that supports your personal beliefs. This does not give you the right to judge or criticize any of us for practicing or living differently. One of the Precepts cautions against unconstructively criticizing or judging others. (Not the exact wording -- I'm paraphrasing, please forgive me.) This precept is probably the most difficult for me, so I especially work on this one daily!

This is a Japanese Zendo. It is the season of Ango, and we are studying the Precepts of Zen Buddhism. We aim for the Middle Way.

I ask to be corrected if my words are wrong or misguided. [emoji120]

Gassho2 meian st lh

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Jundo]

Where was I judging or criticizing? Are we not allowed to question teaching that we find to be contradictory? If not that should be a huge red flag.

And I have followed all rules pertaining to sitting or lack thereof, and posting.

Questioning is, of course, encouraged! But there will also be questioning back sometimes.

Thanks for your patience, Jd.

Gassho, Jundo

SatTodayLAH

[Nengyoku]

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 asked myself what it would be like if one day a doctor told me I needed meat in my diet to remain healthy. Would the loss of that conditional happiness cause me suffering?

The answer was yes.

So now I am not vegetarian.

Now I shop for meat, and I make an effort to purchase products where the animals are treated carefully and in environments matching their origin. It is nearly impossible where I live.
But before - where I felt disappointed in my fellow man - now I feel great sorrow, and compassionate thankfulness, for the animals I consume.

Sometimes the only rule we need is whether our practices come from grasping. This is, after all, what all of these liberally applicable precepts are pointing towards.

I would also quickly add that if we truly attempt to see the world without conditions and divisors, then there is no cow for me to consume, just as there is no me to do the consuming. The things that I consider myself or the cow are conditional. The decision to be vegetarian, vegan, or what have you, exists totally in the relative.

Gassho,
William
Sat

[Rousei]

Like all precepts, I think this boils down to creating a life style that reduces possible internal/external conflicts to make our way smoother.

Eating meat is inflammatory, eating a plant based diet results in better overall health, a reduction in cardiovascular conditions, people with type 2 diabetes can come off all medication and potential no longer have diabetes, recovery times from injuries are reduced and the list just goes on and on. This is before we mention the harm done to beings to support such mass meat eating.

People in the past lived very different lives to the lives we live today and they had much less access to information than we do. I truly believe people today choose to willingly live in ignorance about their diet, which they could change. Change seems to be difficult for many people, lots of attachments to things they identify with. I myself lived in ignorance for a very long time, it's easy and it's often how the people around us live so its comfortable. However, there reached a point for me, as a result of ease of access to information, where I couldn't not stop and look at my diet.

It was really difficult at first. How do you change such a core part of your life, your eating habits, when you only know a singular way. I grew up in a relatively poor and uncultured household. We ate very basic and affordable typical meals of the region, all of which involved meat. I'd never experienced purely vegetable cooking until I was an adult. That lack of exposure results in ignorance, no awareness also meant I couldn't grown a budding interesting. How can I be interested in something I don't know existed. While I could have imagined why would I imagine such a thing? Something so counter to how I lived my life. Only once conditions aligned and I finally had both awareness and opportunity did I begin to learn about the negative sides to eating meat, not to mention just the idea that there are negative sides to it. I still see the macho vibe of "men eat meat" all around me, a mirror of Santa Clause wearing red and evidence that marketing is truly scary. House wives tales litter our cultural landscapes and influence our beliefs.

I cannot turn back now. I do what I can to the best of my ability. As time passes it's easier and easier. I now know a ton of veggie only meals, quick ones and fancy ones. My day to day life is now on a new normal. This is what all the precepts are to me. Making it so my daily life is smooth, that there is nothing at the back of my mind whispering away.

Its up to all of us to find our own life balance.

I have a friend who has a medical condition where he can't digest anything, he has a very limited life span. He wont live more than, christ it's scary to think but maybe 5 years. He eats organs, liver and such because they're very dense in nutrients. He throws up very often, so eating has become very un fun to him. He eats meat, it is the right thing for him to do. His situation and my situation are different. I don't think it's right for me to eat meat. I think this is the point of not grasping. Don't grasp so that it become one size fits all. Look at each situation and judge.

Gassho
Mark
ST

[Bion]

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.

Hey there, friend! Just keep in mind, buddhism does not deal with absolute values of things and since everything is empty, it means everything relies upon conditions to arise. That includes our moral judgments of good and bad. Buddhism is very much about “you do you”, BUT “here’s the guideline for that”. If the way is the “Middle Way”, then even “rules” are subjected to a “middle way” . Even enlightenment can be poisonous when one mindlessly chases it

I am with you in the sense that I too take a much stricter interpretation of the precepts, especially considering that aiming for more means achieving more. I do find it more beneficial for a sangha to open the precepts up for debate so that members can see how others interpret and understand them rather than to try to make them an absolute rule and then watch everyone break them.

So, in accordance with the dharma, I know that my karma comes from my own actions and thoughts so I can control and adjust that. That means I expect a lot from myself. It is not however the duty of a boddhisatva to be judge and executioner of other’s interpretation of the precepts. One of the precepts warns us against pointing out the faults of others. So I am harsh with myself and easy on others, since I don’t know their circumstances or struggles.

It’s not that Treeleaf does not have cohesion, it’s that individuals are different and what causes one to suffer does not do that to another. So there needs to be choice based upon a deep understanding of the buddhist concepts. That choice is individual.

Please don’t feel discouraged. Rather, wholeheartedly follow your own interpretation of the precepts to the best of your abilities and be a comforting presence for others, regardless of how they live their lives.


Excuse the long rant please!

[emoji1374] SatToday

[Ryumon]

Eating meat is inflammatory, eating a plant based diet results in better overall health, a reduction in cardiovascular conditions, people with type 2 diabetes can come off all medication and potential no longer have diabetes, recovery times from injuries are reduced and the list just goes on and on. This is before we mention the harm done to beings to support such mass meat eating.

Eating meat does not cause type 2 diabetes, eating carbs, and especially sugar, does. In fact, people with type 2 diabetes who switch to a high-protein, high meat diet do better.

https://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/53/9/2375

Gassho,

Ryūmon

sat

[Bion]

Eating meat does not cause type 2 diabetes, eating carbs, and especially sugar, does. In fact, people with type 2 diabetes who switch to a high-protein, high meat diet do better.

https://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/53/9/2375

Gassho,

Ryūmon

sat

Ah, but it does … also cancer. That’s a fact.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2018/03/23/how-meat-is-cooked-may-affect-risk-of-type-2-diabetes/

https://www.nus.edu.sg/uhc/resources/articles

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3942738/

[emoji1374] SatToday

[Rousei]

Eating meat does not cause type 2 diabetes, eating carbs, and especially sugar, does. In fact, people with type 2 diabetes who switch to a high-protein, high meat diet do better.

https://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/53/9/2375

Gassho,

Ryūmon

sat

I didn’t say it causes diabetes though [emoji53]

But that a plant based diet will take you off medication and in many people make them not diabetic. That is a fact, and is reproducible. My friend who is 70 is currently going through a diet change process and improvement can already be seen. Specifically type 2. It can help people with type 1 as well.

Gassho
Mark
ST


Buddhists conclude: “I am aware, therefore I neither am nor am not”