Rationale for not Eating Meat in Buddhism

[JacquesG]

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.

This is where my (admittedly personal) worldview runs into problems. I always come back to "How does this work, then." In my worldview, that which cannot be measured cannot be said to exist. So my issue is this. I understand that I do things that have an effect. But that is bound to naturalistic checks and balances. If I push a rock down a hill, the rock is no longer at the top of the hill, and there is no way for me to reverse that without a physical-world bound action.

What I have a problem with is the idea that, sans evidence supporting the fact, I struggle to see the "how" of that "karmic ledger." I know that the rock could roll over a nest of foxes, but I fail to see the "how" of that "coming back to me" or my karmic stream, even if I knew it was likely to roll over a nest of baby foxes. The only way I could conceive me rolling that rock over a nest of foxes having an influence on me, is if I suddenly have a plague of whatever those foxes natural food source was, because they are no longer there to hunt them. But what I cannot see, is, for example, the "how" of me having my car break down because I rolled a rock over a nest of baby foxes.

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 can see how the parent's bad act could have the karmic effect of, say, a high dentist bill, and the roll-on effect of that parent, for example, now not having enough money to take care of their own teeth or paying the electricity bill. But anything beyond that, to me, is mystical, and loses me entirely. In other words, I can agree that there can be an effect on the parent's present life. But I reject the notion of rebirth and a karmic effect on that as I do not see rebirth as a Buddhist teaching, but an-after-the-fact add-on having it's source in Hinduism being pasted onto the Buddha's central teaching. Much like the use of prayer beads in Catholicism was pasted on from other religious traditions.

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 see it as this: When eating a steak, I am both the eater, and the eaten. And the eaten is also the eater. I see myself as a merely yet another expression of the whole. I know that might be a bit Daoist, but then Zen is very Daoist in flavor. I also have a bit of a logical issue with sentience being the mark of distinction between what we should put to death and consume or not. To me, a more logical line of distinction would be Sapience. Also known as Sagacity (from sage) - meaning the ability to *contemplate* the self and the existence of self. The reason I make that distinction is because of the difference between volition and instinct. I think non-sapient animals can only act instinctively, and are irrevocably driven by pure instinct. For example, humans, and a very small set of animals such as Chimps, can become depressed and commit suicide as a result. That indicates sapience. Yet other animals, even if sentient, can only act according to the survival instinct and really have no choice otherwise. Even fighting to the death to defend a cub is just instinct driven.

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.

I understand the why of Dogen and other teachers trying to get students to act nice. I think it is because not acting nice has a negative (butterfly) effect in the here and now - in this reality - but that is as far as it goes. By "You do you, I do me" I mean that eating meat is not "not acting nice." All is one. The cow is just an expression, this universe wanting to experience itself in a "cow-ey, I exist as I do to chew grass and possibly be chewed on" way. I exist in this form of expression in order to possibly chew on the cow, and as part of the cycle, eventually become what the cow chews on, in turn. I see no moral issue with this.

Gassho and thank you for taking your time to help me out here.

Jacques

ST

[Jundo]

Hi Jacques

In my worldview, that which cannot be measured cannot be said to exist. ... I struggle to see the "how" of that "karmic ledger." ... anything beyond that, to me, is mystical, and loses me entirely.

I offered the traditional interpretation that Karma is a kind of Cosmic Accounting Sheet. I did not say that is true or not true. I myself am rather skeptical of overly literal interpretations like that. But if we want to change it, we must be honest that we are imposing a new and modern view on Karma. The traditional interpretation is that, if you do a bad action intentionally, it is bound to result in a bad effect in your "Karmic stream" later in this life or in a future life after the heart stops in this one. By traditional view, if you intentionally kill foxes, maybe you will be reborn as a fox in the next life, or possibly have your car break down.

But I reject the notion of rebirth and a karmic effect on that as I do not see rebirth as a Buddhist teaching, but an-after-the-fact add-on having it's source in Hinduism being pasted onto the Buddha's central teaching.

Stephen Batchelor tries to argue that, but he is kind of a fundamentalist himself in that regard. The evidence is pretty overwhelming that very literal post-mortem rebirth was a central teaching of Buddhism from the very earliest period. We can now doubt it, and change it, but we should honor and respect that we are changing something that was very central to Buddhism for a long time.

I see it as this: When eating a steak, I am both the eater, and the eaten. And the eaten is also the eater. I see myself as a merely yet another expression of the whole. I know that might be a bit Daoist, but then Zen is very Daoist in flavor. I also have a bit of a logical issue with sentience being the mark of distinction between what we should put to death and consume or not. To me, a more logical line of distinction would be Sapience. Also known as Sagacity (from sage) - meaning the ability to *contemplate* the self and the existence of self. The reason I make that distinction is because of the difference between volition and instinct. I think non-sapient animals can only act instinctively, and are irrevocably driven by pure instinct. For example, humans, and a very small set of animals such as Chimps, can become depressed and commit suicide as a result. That indicates sapience. Yet other animals, even if sentient, can only act according to the survival instinct and really have no choice otherwise. Even fighting to the death to defend a cub is just instinct driven.

I understand the why of Dogen and other teachers trying to get students to act nice. I think it is because not acting nice has a negative (butterfly) effect in the here and now - in this reality - but that is as far as it goes. By "You do you, I do me" I mean that eating meat is not "not acting nice." All is one. The cow is just an expression, this universe wanting to experience itself in a "cow-ey, I exist as I do to chew grass and possibly be chewed on" way. I exist in this form of expression in order to possibly chew on the cow, and as part of the cycle, eventually become what the cow chews on, in turn. I see no moral issue with this.

Fine, but this is all your own ideas. It is not a traditional Buddhist teaching. Do not lose yourself in Emptiness, thinking that there is no killed or killer. Better said, in Emptiness there is no killed or killer ... and yet there are.

Gassho, J

STLah

Sorry to run long.

[Nanrin]

Hello Jacques,

Karma is not a rigid, deterministic law like cause and effect of physics - traditionally, it is basically impossible to tell exactly when and how karma will come to fruition, and speculation on the matter is usually discouraged. It may be helpful for you to think of karma as being more about psychological processes than material results: how does the intent/volition behind your thoughts, words, and deeds affect your mind now and in the future?

Gassho,

Nanrin

ST

[JacquesG]

Hi Jacques

...But if we want to change it, we must be honest that we are imposing a new and modern view on Karma....

...We can now doubt it, and change it, but we should honor and respect that we are changing something that was very central to Buddhism for a long time...


...Fine, but this is all your own ideas. It is not a traditional Buddhist teaching...

Jundo Sensei

Thank you for this. I will make one last comment. I fully agree that I must acknowledge that I am changing what is traditional Buddhist teaching. But what I do not think I am treading on, is the Buddha's core teaching. I think there is a vast difference between what I call "early Buddhist teaching" and "traditional Buddhist teaching."

To me, there is a central core to Buddhism and it was what the Buddha taught in the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold path. I do not think Buddhism is (or should be, or was intended to be) a religion, no matter how much later traditions and people attempt to add religion to it. I think you will notice a central core to my thinking - that religiosity exists purely to obfuscate truth for the purposes of someone's agenda. Usually being an attempt to turn it into mysticism and themselves the enlightened revealers of said mystery.

Everything the Buddha teaches after the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path, is just him explaining that central teaching, but (importantly) according to the needs of each hearer. He does not, in my reading, teach reincarnation at all, except as a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down. It is not mentioned once in his core teaching unless you want to hear it.

He also does not mention traditional Karma (of the Hindu or Vedic kind) in that core teaching, that I can see, without my mind pasting it on after the fact. And that is what I think happened with many Buddhist traditions. A lot of other people (Hindus especially) took The Buddha speaking to them on their level (i.e the teaching where the Buddha tells one person there is a God and to the next person that there isn't) as him expanding his teaching, instead of him meeting them where they are at. And they took that and ran with it and made a religious tradition of what they thought they had heard.

I have a problem with traditional this and traditional that. Tradition is (probably?) good for those who need it, and I respect that completely. I just do not need it or want it, because I have seen the harm that insistence on religious-tradition-as-truth can do. That is why I keep going back to the core of any teaching and try to remove whatever any other person pasted onto it after the fact. Unless it re-opens and redirects us back to the core, which is how I interpret Master Dogen, but also why I tend to gloss over his religious bits.

Gassho

ST

Jacques

[Jundo]

Jundo Sensei

Thank you for this. I will make one last comment. I fully agree that I must acknowledge that I am changing what is traditional Buddhist teaching. But what I do not think I am treading on, is the Buddha's core teaching. I think there is a vast difference between what I call "early Buddhist teaching" and "traditional Buddhist teaching."

To me, there is a central core to Buddhism and it was what the Buddha taught in the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold path. I do not think Buddhism is (or should be, or was intended to be) a religion, no matter how much later traditions and people attempt to add religion to it. I think you will notice a central core to my thinking - that religiosity exists purely to obfuscate truth for the purposes of someone's agenda. Usually being an attempt to turn it into mysticism and themselves the enlightened revealers of said mystery.

Everything the Buddha teaches after the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path, is just him explaining that central teaching, but (importantly) according to the needs of each hearer. He does not, in my reading, teach reincarnation at all, except as a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down. It is not mentioned once in his core teaching unless you want to hear it.

Hi Jacques,

You are entitled to such belief, right or wrong, for it is religion after all. Whether an historian would agree with you, personally, I have some doubt. However, the Buddha is long gone, though present all around.

In the meantime, whatever we each believe, let us now put it all down and JUST SIT!

And, after sitting, let us try to live as gently as we can, avoiding harm ... however we may define such.

Gassho, J

STLah

[Angel]

This is my first post. Let me preface it by saying that I hold very lightly anything that comes out of my mouth beyond the words, "I am". You might find value in treating my words similarly.

I think there is a vast difference between what I call "early Buddhist teaching" and "traditional Buddhist teaching."

My understanding is that all true teachings point us toward direct experience.

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.

William Penn, for whom the state of Pennsylvania was named, converted to Quakerism as an adult and became very devout. As time went on, he became increasingly troubled by his habit, as was a fashionable custom of the day, of wearing a sword on his side. Eventually, he went to speak to his teacher, the man who had introduced him to Quakerism, and explained his discomfort with wearing a sword while espousing nonviolence. His teacher advised him, "Wear it as long as you can."

Likewise, my goal is not to become a vegetarian. My goal is to pay very close attention to my experience of life. As I have done this, my ability to do so has matured and certain things have fallen away effortlessly - including my desire to eat meat.

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!

This is my lifestyle, but there is nothing strict or regimented about it, for me. I simply am choosing not to do each of those things in the moment and it has been many moments since I made a different choice.

Angel - sat

[Gregor]

I dont know. I have been practicing a vegan/nutritarian diet again for a month. Doing it for selfish reasons, my health. I have lost a lot of weight and feel better than I have in many years. The more I think about it the more I appreciate the aspect of it not harming other sentient creatures. I saw a video of a woman petting and nuzzling with and a sheep today on a vegan twitter channel. It really affected me.

I don't want to make any great declarations about my lifestyle or judgements about anyone else's.

Gassho

Gregor

Sat Today