Buddhism, Animal Rights and Vegetarianism...Urgent

Hi,

As I am very interested in the Buddhist way of life, for my final coursework essay for my Philosophy and Ethics A level, I have chosen to write about Buddhisms contributions to the animal rights debate.
Through all my research so far into this, the issue of vegetarianism seems to be one of great controversy. Being a vegan myself, I find it hard to see how a belief-structure (I am trying hard not to call Buddhism a religion!) that holds compassion about all other virtues can allow for meat eating. However, having looked at the Buddhist scriptures and other topical essays and articles on the matter, it seems that meat-eating is almost justified, especially in the Theravadan school of Buddhism.
So I was wondering, how many of you out there who would consider yourselves Buddhist are vegetarian or vegan, and can you justify it using scriptures? And also, if you eat meat, please clarify why exactly that is. From an outsider's (very biased) view, I'm finding it difficult to understand.
Also, could anyone else give me some help with the other aspects of animal welfare, such as animal testing? Does anyone know of any Buddhist associations for this type of thing that I could contact or research. At the moment, my essay is very heavily based around the consumption of meat, with little reference to other aspects of the question.

Thank you very much for your time and hopefully your help.
Mercy

 

well, not too sure how much of a help i can be, but i´ll try.

as far as eating meat, the Buddha ate meat and i dont really think he ever said not to. with eating any food, the idea is to go for the least sentient being. for example, a buddhist may not eat chicken because you´re taking one life for not that much food, yet a buddhist would probably eat beef or something because that´s one life for lots of food that can feed many.
for vegetarianism, i´m sure there are some stricter schools out there that would argue to eat the least sentient beings of the plant world (if you can figure that out).
in Tibetan buddhism, i know that most people DO eat meat because of the fact that you cant grow that much stuff in that high of an altitude.

the buddha did recognize that you need to eat to live, so by whatever means you do that, just do it just enough so you can live.

oh, also, if a monk is begging for food and someone gives them meat, yet they are a vegetarian (this is all hypothetical), they would pretty much have to eat the meat because the person gave it to them. monks have to eat what´s given to them (beggars cant be choosers)
there´s some story out there in some scripture of a leper that´s going to make an offering to a buddhist monk and his finger falls off into the monk´s begging bowl. so the monk takes the bowl to the buddha and asks him what to do with the finger. in the end, the buddha said, "eat it, because it was given to you" (something along those lines).


there - that´s pretty much all i know on the subject.

 

Well, as far as I am aware there are different interpretations of this. The only real mention of the Buddha eating meat was when he choked on a piece of bad pork and died. However, the exact translation of the scriptures does not say pork, it says 'pig's delight', which could easily be interpreted as truffles or other foods preferred by pigs. I know this seems like a justifying actions through loopholes, but it is something to consider.

Ok, another thing I have learnt from my research is that all beings are of equal worth. The ethical foundation of the Buddhadharma is that of boundless compassion for ALL sentient beings. Is it not taught that the Buddha nature of every living being without exception is identical? There is no difference between the Buddha nature of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and a homeless dog on the street. So why should there be a preference over which animals are more disposible and therefore ok to eat?

This is true, the Buddha taught the monks to be grateful of anything placed in their begging bowls, and I can understand this. I don't understand the story about the finger in the bowl, because as far as I aware, the Buddha forbade the consumption of humans, horses, elephants, lions, tigers, cobras, panthers and bears. A lot of people take this to mean that all other forms of meat are ok.


I'm so sorry to seem like I'm picking your answer apart, I truely am grateful for you help and contribution to my research, but I am really trying to piece together what seems like, in theory, a fantastic way of live, and yet seems to have so many contridictions which truely let it down in my opinion.

But thank you so much for taking the time to share your knowledge with me

 

maybe some info somewhere @:

www.tricycle.com

(there are some who claim buddha's last meal (rice & "pig's ear") was a lethal overdose of the mushroom Amanita muscaria...)

 

I'm a buddhist, former vegetarian, and now butcher. :-D

The foundation of all buddhist ethics is the idea that nothing can be 'wrong' a priori. Acts only become 'wrong' when/if they cause negative mental states to arise in the wrongdoer. This is Buddhism's biggest contribution to the world of secular philosophy - the only ethical system that maintains a strict and comprehensive code, while also removing the need for a greater power to supply the "why" part of it.

Also, one has to consider the different types of budhhist. When Gotama spoke, he spoke to monks. All the scriptures we have were meant for monks. So, when we try to 'be buddhists', we must be *very* carefull not to try (and fail, as we must without teachers, monasteries &c.) to be monks. Look for the word "householder" in the tripakta. The 'rules' for householders are very different to those for monks. Monks are devoting their whole lives to the search for enlightenment; for any of us to do so would be a gross desertion of our loved ones. (apologies to any actual monks reading this... ;-)

So, to wrap up: All life is sacred. Take life with sadness and joy; you are killing a sentient being that may once have been a relative of yours, or even a Buddha. But on the other hand, what are you killing? Only ashes and dust. The world we see around us is just that; don't take it too seriously!

 

I'm a Buddhist but I became a vegetarian for instinctive, rather than scriptural-type reasons.I don't mean it to sound emotive because everybody has to make up their own mind according to the level of their understanding (or they WILL make up their own mind,since there's no compulsion anywhere).I've always believed that every animal had as much right to life as I do and I didn't want to be the cause of the terror an animal had to experience before it was killed.Having said that,I have killed fleas to protect cats when I had them,so there's an inconsistency when it comes to animal rights.

I know the Dalai Lama's view,expressed in one of his books,was that it was unreasonable to impose the expectation on people in developing countries that they should not eat meat when they don't have the technology or the infrastructures or the money to develop alternatives.But I also recall in one of the scriptures - I think it was the Dhammpada - something along the lines of "You should not kill or cause to kill." And I've always thought if you ate meat and didn't kill the animal yourself you were putting a potential karmic stain on whoever had to kill it on your behalf.
But as I've said, that's just an interpretation, and not one I've checked out with a teacher.
The good thing about Buddhism,is that it rises above doctrinal differences - largely - and remains chilled and beneficent.Like one of the previous posters said,it's all emptiness anyway, in the long run.

 

Wow, that's a very interesting combination of mindframes. A combination that I find very difficult to understand, but I guess its up to you!

Yep, Gypsy Dave,I believe the Buddha said 'All beings tremble before danger, all fear death. When a man considers this, he does not kill or cause to kill'.

Personally, I can't understand how one can follow teachings that base themselves around compassion and kindness to all and yet still eat meat. I don't mean to offend anyone by saying this, but surely it is just the easy way out. We try to justify our decisions through loopholes and technicalities in the scriptures to ease our minds, when really all it is is that we westerners live in societies that seek pleasure by any measure. We have become so used to the killing of animals for food that WE HAVE STOPPED REALISING IT IS KILLING. So many people do not even question the fact that they eat dead creatures, because it is considered normal. Surely when one thinks about what it actually is that they are doing, they wouldn't automatically go for the steak everytime they sit down in a restaurant. The choice to eat meat is not taken seriously enough I believe. It is the choice to ingest the corpse of a creature that has been killed just to satisfy our tastebuds. How is that compassionate?

I had a very high opinion of Buddhism because I thought it was based around the importance of compassion and kindness. And yet the attitude of some of you ('it's all emptiness anyway') is really something that really disappoints me.

I guess no religion is ever what its cracked up to be.

 

I apologise for such a rant. I truely am grateful for your help and your contribution. I guess I just had a very different idea of what Buddhism was, and I guess I was just shocked and disappointed. That does not give me the right to be rude and perhaps offensive to anyone. Sorry!

 

The buddha preached about living and fullfilling YOUR dharma, and if meat is available and healthy then by all means it is fine. Its part of our culture, to eat meat, this is all part of the dharma concept. If you feel that in your dharma being a vegetarian is better suited for you then do it.

 

no, that´s good to do that. i´m trying to piece it all together, too - what gets me is the often opportunity for paradoxes. a lot of what i replied with was stuff that i had been talking about that day with someone on this very same topic, so it was fresh in my mind. to be honest, what i said doesnt really reflect with how i personally feel, it´s just coming from things that i remember reading or talking about.

you know, that makes a lot of sense. the whole process has been so far removed from our eyes that a lot of people probably dont know where this meat is actually coming from. but along with that, since there is a need to eat in order to stay alive and since it is a part of western culture (where i am right now) to eat meat, i think it´s more OK. of course, it´s not a necessity to eat meat to stay alive, but if you choose to, you can give thanks to that animal for giving up its life for your nourishment and things like that.
see, this is where the paradox thing always gets me. whenever i get in between the ambivalence of things, i tend to just stop thinking about it because it´s all useless mind-chatter.

 

(quote)
WE HAVE STOPPED REALISING IT IS KILLING
(end quote)

exactly. that's why I went from one extreme to the other. The reason I was a veggie was that I realized one day that each peice of meat on my plate had come from killing something. This led to the immediate emotional response of not eating it. Eight years later, I've come to terms with it. Now I think that there are only two acceptable ways to live; either fully veggie, taking every care possible not to kill (very hard, and ultimately doomed to - at least partial - failure), or eating meat *but* being as fully involved in the process of slaughter &c. as possible. Hiding the death in a slaughter house is just moral idiocy, as we can all agree, veggie or no! I have the utmost respect for animals (more so than when i was a veggie), and I'm involved in food and farming. You see, it is easy for veggies to sit back and think they've done their bit, but when you actively kill things, you are forced always to think about the issues involved. Anyway, that's just my 2p-worth.