Was the Buddha a vegetarian?

[Rick O'Shez]

If your government uses your tax money to kill, are you responsible for those deaths?

Yet another straw-man, this is not comparable with choosing to buy meat regularly when alternatives are available.

This is typical of these discussions, those who are attached to eating meat try to justify their craving with lame straw-men. The sub-text is: "I LIKE meat, how DARE anyone suggest it is an ethically questionable choice."

 

[buddhist]

Hi George and buddhist,





Apologies if this thread already delved into this, I don't have the time to go through 13 pages at present, but...

I must agree with George's sentiments on this issue. Indeed, I think the Buddha's intentions were a bit different than you're thinking, buddhist. Even from the vantage point of the early Buddhist community alone. I agree Siddhartha's teachings were intention-oriented, but I think they did also point us to vegetarianism at least. Yes, the monastic discipline he described did allow some meats and fish to be consumed when the animal was not specifically killed for the monk or nun. The first relevant fact we need to remember however is that this was devised for a very different culture and time period than we know today. The early Buddhist monks and nuns did not prepare or grow their own food, they were required to passively beg (as per the Buddha's own code, and in a way consistent with preexisting Indian ascetic traditions) on a daily basis for their food. If they were restricted from eating meat, most of the food offered to them would have been forbidden, and they would not have survived as an order. So there was a practical concern in the allowance. Furthermore, the concept of generosity on the part of laypeople is another intrinsic Buddhist virtue. The giving of food to bhikkus was karmically important for laypeople, and not just a matter of supporting the monks and nuns. Placing restrictions on what they could give would therefore impair their spiritual practice. Ultimately, I think this allowance adds up to a compromise with the lay world and the times, and not a positive moral assertion. The allowance for meat if not specifically killed for the person was a way to allow laypeople to give what they had available, not a statement of the moral acceptability of meat consumption.

I think George is correct here with respect to a modern society as well. The argument that meat bought in a supermarket should be morally acceptable to a Buddhist since the animal was not butchered with the specific individual in mind ignores the clear logic that paying the butcher for the meat supports and encourages the further slaughtering of animals. It creates a demand for the violence and death of the animal, which is not at all dissimilar to the consequences of buying something specifically killed and prepared for you. And technically, monks and nuns did not purchase their food, so when the Buddha allowed the monastic discipline's acceptable meat rules, they did not financially support the killing of those animals. Furthermore, factory farming and its horrors did not exist in the Buddha's time, but it seems clear to me that we can easily interpolate his teachings to look down upon this institution.

Thank you for your respectful post. I understand your position, but disagree with it.

I do not perceive a realm of "life" which is opposed to other realms of "no life". What I mean by that is this: Whereas I perceive many vegetarians and vegans who promote their lifestyle as a way to avoiding killing, I on the other hand see them as killing vegetables.

I see vegetables and other plant life, and things like trees, as possessing a form of consciousness. I do not condemn them for killing vegetables in order to justify their vegetable cravings. When I eat, I thank all of the life - whether vegetable or otherwise - and wish them much positive metta for their sacrifice.

I understand most vegetarians and vegans here might disagree with my understanding, and I respect them for following their personal convictions. I can only wish that they would respect mine as well, but so far I've largely only seen quite the condescending, "holier than thou", "I'm the only right and authorized interpreter of the Buddha," disrespectful attitude from their camp. I am not proclaiming that my position is or should be the only position for all Buddhists, but just that it is the position for me.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What beats me is some of the pushiest outspoken meat advocates call themselves Buddhists, what gives, along with Hinduism, Buddhism is one of the most pro vegetarian religions on the planet, I guess SDA would be about the most.

Guess that puts the Dali Lama alongside all of us non Buddhist predators pretending to be Buddhists.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Tell everyone what.

You veggies somehow get all meat eating animals to stop their unethical slaughter permanently, and I'll happily convert to eating veggies for the rest of my life.

I like spaghetti and tomatos and spinach tons.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yet another straw-man, this is not comparable with choosing to buy meat regularly when alternatives are available.

This is typical of these discussions, those who are attached to eating meat try to justify their craving with lame straw-men. The sub-text is: "I LIKE meat, how DARE anyone suggest it is an ethically questionable choice."

What about all the animals killed for planting?

 

[Kartari]

Hi buddhist,

Thank you for your respectful post. I understand your position, but disagree with it.

I do not perceive a realm of "life" which is opposed to other realms of "no life". What I mean by that is this: Whereas I perceive many vegetarians and vegans who promote their lifestyle as a way to avoiding killing, I on the other hand see them as killing vegetables.

I see vegetables and other plant life, and things like trees, as possessing a form of consciousness. I do not condemn them for killing vegetables in order to justify their vegetable cravings. When I eat, I thank all of the life - whether vegetable or otherwise - and wish them much positive metta for their sacrifice.

I understand most vegetarians and vegans here might disagree with my understanding, and I respect them for following their personal convictions. I can only wish that they would respect mine as well, but so far I've largely only seen quite the condescending, "holier than thou", "I'm the only right and authorized interpreter of the Buddha," disrespectful attitude from their camp. I am not proclaiming that my position is or should be the only position for all Buddhists, but just that it is the position for me.

I am seriously interested in tracking down the research which has supposedly established that plant life is sentient. Do you happen to have a link to an abstract at least, if not the actual study (or studies)?

I do find it difficult to take this claim seriously, to be honest. If it were true, I'm not afraid to reexamine my worldview. But I see a serious twofold problem with this outlook that makes it seem very implausible.

First, I have yet to come across any serious, peer-reviewed science which has shown this to be the case. I've actually spoken with intelligent people, friends, who tease me with this info (I am actually vegan), calling me a murderer for killing and eating defenseless vegetables. Lol. Yet I've only come across mere claims that science has done so, and not actual published science articles in scientific journals. The links you provide are to two news articles, not peer-reviewed science journals, I'm afraid... they may as well be opinion pieces.

Once I find a peer-reviewed article in support of this view, the second issue for me is that I can think of a variety of valid, alternative explanations for phenomena that merely appear to make plants seem intelligent under superficial scrutiny, phenomena which really seem to boil down to other factors which do not require sentience to achieve. I'd love to see how a scientific research project which asserts intelligence of some kind accounts for such factors, if at all. I've heard people say, for instance, that some plants are known to "communicate" with one another. A particular tree (the name of which escapes me at present) is known to release a chemical into the air when its leaves are being torn and chewed up, a chemical which causes other trees of the same species to react by becoming bitter and taste bad to the attacking species, a clear survival-favoring reaction. Must this be a sign of intelligence though? Not at all. It simply seems to be a chemical reaction which naturally evolved in that species. And that some people fail to comprehend how this can be so only reinforces in me the impression that these people simply fail to understand what they are perceiving and merely believe (rather than know) that plants must somehow be intelligent. I'm not even sure how it's physically expected for this to even work. Why haven't we found any evidence of the plant equivalent to neurons, let alone brains or neural clusters, for instance?

 

[buddhist]

I have yet to come across any serious, peer-reviewed science which has shown this to be the case?

Check out the Plant Signaling & Behavior Journal.

Besides that, in various places in the Tipitaka, the Buddha speaks of devas and spirits in the Catummaharajika heaven who dwell in natural habitats like trees.

Must this be a sign of intelligence though? Not at all. It simply seems to be a chemical reaction which naturally evolved in that species. And that some people fail to comprehend how this can be so only reinforces in me the impression that these people simply fail to understand what they are perceiving and merely believe (rather than know) that plants must somehow be intelligent. I'm not even sure how it's physically expected for this to even work. Why haven't we found any evidence of the plant equivalent to neurons, let alone brains or neural clusters, for instance?

I suspect that plants do have a consciousness, but a far lower form of consciousness than humans do, just as devas have a higher (more purified) consciousness than humans in comparison. (Yes, in like manner, even rocks might have their own consciousness IMO, but far lower than any plant.)

 

[Aupmanyav]

As I am then an avatara of Brahman, why not accept my interpretation?

You are definitely an avatara - form of Brahman. You are what constitutes the whole universe. Hindu scriptures accept this clearly when they say "Tat twam asi" (That is what you are). But when you use your mind you become a human and as another human with another mind, my views may differ from yours, though not necessarily.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Guess that puts the Dali Lama alongside all of us non Buddhist predators pretending to be Buddhists.

Beg your pardon. Two things. Kindly correct the spelling, it is Dalai Lama. Secondly, I do not see predators around. Some of us are great admirers of Buddha (he is my guru), though we may not agree with all what he said. Buddha himself gave us the permission to differ with him in Kalama Sutta (Samano no garu).

Sure, plants also are life. One CANNOT BE a 100% 'ahimsa' person. This is clearly mentioned in Bhagawat Purana some 2,000 years ago in the story of 'Dharmavyadha' (the pious butcher). It is all about avoiding violence if we can.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Beg your pardon. Two things. Kindly correct the spelling, it is Dalai Lama. Secondly, I do not see predators around. Some of us are great admirers of Buddha (he is my guru), though we may not agree with all what he said. Buddha himself gave us the permission to differ with him in Kalama Sutta (Samano no garu).

Sure, plants also are life. One CANNOT BE a 100% 'ahimsa' person. This is clearly mentioned in Bhagawat Purana some 2,000 years ago in the story of 'Dharmavyadha' (the pious butcher). It is all about avoiding violence if we can.

Kindly accept apologies for spelling my friend. Fingers tend to be big. *grin*

The focus was intentionally directed towards peoples denial as to our collective nature as a species relating with ones individual makeup and convictions.

Deriding people over their particular nature like the pechant for eating meat won't change the fact that people will continue to do so, nor will things "improve" the the overall state of affairs through personal practices of abstinence either. Nor will placing ones views on a "higher" pedestal in hopes of "seeing the light" will affect the state of affairs overall.

It's understanding and compassion for all beings by which we live is of paramount importance I think. Even the act of killing is not devoid of that in light of the reality we find ourselves in and those of varying nature and penchant for things like meat. It sounds dark, but I think Buddhist teachings apply in the lowest Hell realms as much as the highest Heavenly realms are.


I have a fondness for the story of the Monk and the Scorpion, as well as the fable of the Scorpion and the Frog, as there is a perspective people often miss as to what repulses and frightens us in face of uncomfortable truths.

 

[Ana.J]

If your government uses your tax money to kill, are you responsible for those deaths?

No, I'm not. My responsibility ends when they take the money out of my check. The difference is that when you consciously buy animal corpses to eat though you have the alternative. That is your choice. If my government ever forces me to go kill someone...this is where my responsibility starts - I will have to make my choice.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What about all the animals killed for planting?

Yet another straw-man which was dealt with earlier in the thread. Meat farming is very inefficient, so you need to grow a lot more grain to feed animals for meat, more grain fields means more animals killed for planting.

I haven't seen a single valid pro-meat argument in this thread, it is just a succession of lame straw-men and self-justifying rhetoric. The sub-text is: "I LIKE meat, how DARE anyone suggest it is an ethically questionable choice."

 

[buddhist]

No, I'm not. My responsibility ends when they take the money out of my check. The difference is that when you consciously buy animal corpses to eat though you have the alternative. That is your choice. If my government ever forces me to go kill someone...this is where my responsibility starts - I will have to make my choice.

Do you buy vegetable corpses to eat?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You veggies somehow get all meat eating animals to stop their unethical slaughter permanently, and I'll happily convert to eating veggies for the rest of my life.

Yet another straw-man. This is about the ethics of personal decision making. If you choose to buy meat regularly you are causing more animals to be slaughtered, therefore you are adding to the harm rather than minimising it. There is no getting away from this simple truth.

So here's a challenge for the meat-addicts. Come up with an argument which is not a straw-man. Come up with an argument which is more than self-justifying rhetoric. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Do you buy vegetable corpses to eat?

Yet another straw-man. Vegetables don't have a nervous system and cannot feel pain like animals do. Vegetables don't have a brain and cannot experience fear and suffering like animals do.

Can you come up with a single pro meat-buying argument which is not a self-justifying straw-man? I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Ana.J]

Do you buy vegetable corpses to eat?

I buy fruits that do not cause any death. And again, you cannot just put animals and plants in one row here.

 

[Lyndon]

Potatoes are buried alive, they will thank you for rescuing them and putting them to good use.

Would you rather they rot in the ground and be eaten by worms????

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Potatoes are buried alive, they will thank you for rescuing them and putting them to good use.

I love spuds!

 

[Smart_Guy]

What are you guys doing? I mean seriously, the thread is about Buddha's diet and all you guys care about is hey I'm better than you because I eat this and that? Deal with it, both sides are not innocent if you look at the whole picture. Not my profile picture. I know I'm super good looking, but I mean that picture over there.

Note:
By both sides I mean the side that eats only plants and the side that eats both plants and meats. This note clearly shows who usually starts trouble

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What are you guys doing? I mean seriously, the thread is about Buddha's diet and all you guys care about is hey I'm better than you because I east this and that? Deal with it, both sides are not innocent if you look at the whole picture. Not my profile picture. I know I'm super good looking, but I mean that picture over there.

It is not about who is "better", it is a debate about the ethics of dietary choices. Buddhist ethics are based on the principle of harmlessness.

But don't worry, Buddhists are not cannibals, so you are safe.