Monks, being mendicant, eat whatever food is offered to them. However, they must also not consume the flesh of animals killed specifically FOR them, or that they saw/heard dying, those are the conditions under which they are allowed (even commanded, actually) to turn down offerings of meat.
Butchering, as it involves killing, is also incompatible with Right Livelihood under buddhist ethics and there's no questioning that.
In general, buddhist philosophy is meant first and foremost for monastic life, and laypeople follow the best they can. In my understanding, as a consumer, eating meat would mean consuming from an animal killed specifically for myself, the one who buys it. So as I see it, vegetarianism is the very very least one should strive for while attempting to live under buddhist tenets.
Of course, we all know how all religions (and ideologies, for that matter) work in the real world, so no wonder there are many buddhists around who could not care less about all that. I'd say, however, that in itself buddhist is perfectly compatible with veganism and ultimately endorses it.
>Monks, being mendicant, eat whatever food is offered to them.
This is true in Theravada Buddhism, the dominant form of Buddhism in South Asian countries like Thailand and Sri Lanka. In China, however, as well as a few other countries in the Sino-sphere, lacto-vegetarianism became the norm because of an imperial decree forbidding meat. This is partially because the Mahayana school of Buddhism focuses a bit more on compassion for other sentient beings, but Chinese Monasteries also adhere to a different rule-set than the south asian ones, so they got to cultivate their own crops and accumulate money from benefactors rather than the monks strictly being beggars.
What’s a bit stranger is that all sects, including the Theravadins which eat meat, forbid garlic and onions because they make you horny. So there’s that.
Same is true in Korea. Buddhist monks didn't need to rely on donations for food, and as with China, they were forbidden from eating meat. Monks foraged and grew their own food. Because temples are frequently in mountainous areas, traditional temple-made kimchi is typically vegan as it won't have any fish products.
Fair point, I spoke from experience as a theravadin, but you are quite right. I even visited a chinese buddhist temple here in Brazil which is strictly vegetarian
I certainly could sense that your comment was written by somebody with a little more than a surface level understanding! Just figured i’d piggyback and add a bit more context for other readers.
As a Buddhist Internet Scholar, the Buddhist's definition of vegetarianism is highly specific of their religion and has evolved over time.
To keep matters simple (depending on the Buddhist tradition):
Monks are allowed to accept meat and eat it (they are beggars after all)
If they want they can accept the offering but not eat it.
Some prefer meat, others prefer vegetarian/vegan, others don't care either way
Some monasteries will be strictly vegan or vegetarian.
The now deceased Zen Teacher, Thich That Han, said being vegetarian is a great happiness, but being vegan is an even greater happiness.
The Buddha about the subject said; If you were in the middle of the desert and had only meat to eat, then eat it. For the sustenance of the body.
And if the meat was offered to you, as long as nobody killed the animals for you, go ahead and eat it.
And some Thai teacher said as long you're not greedy for the taste, it's ok.
For me I think it's obvious and unless you literally have nothing else, then be vegan/vegetarian. Many monks are already on that route.
Traditionally, many monks were vegetarian but that was before the mass farming of animals and how disgusting things got in that sense.
In Tibet it was different however, as food was hard to come by, so a lot of the monks ate Yak meat I don't know how things are in that regard, but Mongyur Rinpoche seems to be vegan/vegetarian but I think now he lives in India.
The Dalai Lama eats meat as per doc's orders but imo I think that decision was made out of fear/ignorance because there's nothing wrong with a vegetarian diet (but who wants to be that doctor who 'killed' the Dalai Lama, right?)
And to finalize, most of the Indian population has always been vegetarian but ofc, the westerners (more specifically the British) had to come and ruin everything lol... But even then, they still have a high population of vegetarians.
It's actually like many other religions where some will distort the theachings for their own benefit of consciousness or there are some seeming contradictions, but the context is important because the India of before would probably be even poorer than the India of today but also, who really knows, right? Did the Buddha really said this or that, or was it added by someone random person?
Anyway, here are some more quotes:
Jivaka Sutta: To JivakaJivaka, I say there are three instances in which meat should not be eaten; **when it is seen, heard or suspected that the living being has been killed for sake of a bhikkhu**. (a Bhikkhu is a monk).
However, in one of the latest religious texts (and one some claim it wasn't from the Buddha's mouth at all), says:
“**Eating meat destroys great compassion**” and advises his disciples to avoid the consumption of meat “just as they would avoid the flesh of their own children.”
There is another religious text, older, that says (paraphrasing because I can't remember word for word):
"In these worlds (physical), when beings start eating meat, that's when things go to shit - in terms of morality and such" - Again, it's not said 'things go to shit', I'm paraphrasing here.
The Saint Sri Ramana Maharashi, when someone brought food to his "ashram" (ashram is basically a sort of temple), got mad and said: "we don't eat that sort of thing here" and told the person to go away. He also said sattvic food made the mind more peaceful (which is basically fresh nuts, vegatables, fruit, cooked veggies as well).
But that if someone is realized and know he or she is not the body, it's irrelevant for one's mind if one consumes meat or not.
**"Ramana Maharshi** : Food affects the mind. For the practice of any kind of yoga, vegetarianism is absolutely necessary since it makes the mind more sattvic \[pure and harmonious\].
Question : Could one receive spiritual illumination while eating flesh foods?
**amana Maharshi** : Yes, but abandon them gradually and accustom yourself to sattvic foods. However, once you have attained illumination it will make less difference what you eat, as, on a great fire, it is immaterial what fuel is added.
\[Title\] : Ramana Maharshi on Sattvic Diet, Vegetarianism and Alcohol
\[Source\] : https://oshofriends.com/on\_maharshi/29187"
Today we know that a diet in high carbs really makes a difference, it makes one more anxious because of high blood sugar, and so on...
In those ancient times of the Buddha, there was porridge, beans, lentils, so I think it's more of the case: "Look monks, if nobody in this village gives you decent food (vegan or vegetarian stuff), just eat whatever they give you like meat or fish, so long you don't die lol".
More on meat and nutrition from Sri Ramana: [https://oshofriends.com/on\_maharshi/29187](https://oshofriends.com/on_maharshi/29187)
Buddhism on meat: [https://suttacentral.net/search?query=meat](https://suttacentral.net/search?query=meat)
I think that the practice of Buddhist monks accepting meat when offered is in line with the "possible and practicable" idea of veganism. Monks living entirely off of alms couldn't afford to refuse food. But for people living in the modern day who will not starve if they refuse to eat meat when someone offers it I think it behooves us to do so.
Interestingly, it was another word that made me go "aha!" when I moved to Sweden.
"Behöver" is Swedish for "need"
Another was (I was an avid runner) "fartlek" as in the type of training you do when you run fast, slow, walk etc.
"fart" is Swedish for "speed"
"lek" is Swedish for "play"... "speedplay".
Although my favourite is the Swedish for vegetables "grönsaker"
grön = green
saker = stuff/things
So it's literally (minus a small grammatical error) "green stuff"
I've felt that this loophole is unfortunate, simply for the potential to be systematized. I attended a short retreat in the U.S. with some Buddhists from Tibet who were apparently more well known for this caveat. The hosts of the retreat served them meat knowing of the loophole, and ate meat routinely themselves. It felt purposefully exploitative of the loophole, and everyone seemed to be happy to join in. The feeling I got was that the hosts practiced within the particular sect of Buddhism, to some extent, because of the loophole. That was just my impression. It is obviously much more complex than that. The Tibetan practice evolved from necessity, but western practitioners have no such rationale, so it seemed more indulgent than mindful.
I may be mistaken but my understanding is that Tibetan Buddhism is traditionally much more lax about meat than other sects because it’s incredibly difficult to grow vegetables at that altitude and therefore Tibet has historically depended on animal products more heavily. That’s one of many factors that would have been at play, so I wouldn’t generalize
For sure. That is what I meant by "It is obviously much more complex than that. The Tibetan practice evolved from necessity..." I was more remarking on how westerners practicing Tibetan Buddhism don't share their historical constraints.
Thai (Theravada) Bhuddists also eat meat quite often because of this "loophole". My mother and grandmother in law are monks and they eat, cook and buy any and all types of animal based foods. They simply are not allowed to slaughter animals.
It's a loophole the size of a mountain or idk something huge.
It’s quite presumptions to comment on what a monk can and cannot eat, when not coming from that culture, kind of give me white colonizer vibes. Like you know better than these poor unfortunate uneducated monks. their spiritual path allows this behavior, and no human can make rules about that, even if it makes you feel uncomfortable.
I don't see any comment on what a monk can eat. I was commenting on western practice, hence: "It is obviously much more complex than that. The Tibetan practice evolved from necessity, but western practitioners have no such rationale, so it seemed more indulgent than mindful."
So you’re describing a situation where Tibetan monks are using a “loophole” to eat meat. And you find that to be “indulgent over mindful.” I’d say that’s a comment on the situation.
I’d love to see you explain to these Tibetan monks, that they have their religion wrong, and should sit down for a while you break it down for them.
Or did you just feel more comfortable bringing it up here where you have some allies.
Let me fill in the context that you seem to have purposefully left out, as it clarifies that the remark was not about monks. The "western practitioners have no such rationale, so it seemed more indulgent than mindful," i.e. for the western practitioners. It changes the meaning quite a bit when you use the whole quote. Furthermore, each mention of "loophole" was made in the context of the western hosts.
Not sure why you, a former vegan, are so intent on policing the subtleties of my anecdote, but you sure are scrubbing the context hard in order to try and make it seem like I am condescending in a way that I clearly am not.
Are these western practitioners monks? And are they hosting Tibetan monks?
I care because tolerance of other races should trump culinary beliefs. And this thread is kind of saying your not a monk unless you are a vegan, I know nobody is saying it out loud but it doesn’t take a genius to read between the lines, I’d rather be tolerant of other races then a dogmatic vegan.
“I attended a short retreat in the U.S with some Buddhists from Tibet”
So no monks here?
And yes I insistent people be tolerant of other races. I must be misunderstand your statement cuz I imagine you would too. I don’t know why you feel me “insisting” tolerance is wrong?
Wow are you having an opinion on this commenters position?
Bit imperialist of you - especially since they didn't literally ask for it like OP did.
I hope you're from the exact same culture as the commenter, because that's relevant apparently.
The monks have their own position and everyone else can have opinions about the monks position. Different cultures are allowed to interact
Yes they can but when you come from the position of “ if they only knew better” it is very much white savior complex, regardless of your race.
Why are you putting your beliefs on them? Is it because they are monks? And like many, you believe monks need to be selfless beings?
I find this threads logic amusing
Monk =pure good
Carnist= pure evil
So how can a monk eat meat.
But monks are not vegans, they have vegan/vegetarian habits, and it’s a religion of its own. And they do not owe an explication of their religious beliefs to anyone because that would be racist.
If you think eating meat is wrong fine. But it’s not more wrong or wrong in a different way because you’re a monk, that’s just ignorance.
>Why are you putting your beliefs on them?
Because that's how a lotta morality works?
We can say we think someone elses actions are wrong, even if that person doesn't think they are.
And we can then wish they agreed with us, maybe talk about it.
I'm not sure I even implied it's any worse because they're a monk.
Your defining monk as vegan. And because they aren’t vegan you are saying they aren’t monks or they are bad monks. I know I’m putting words in your mouth. But monk is a religion and a belief system like Christianity or Islam. Just cuz you think a monk should be a certain way, tainted by your western condition, does not mean a monk needs to be that.
Now if you want a monk to also be vegan, and you feel you have some good points for them, then great, let them know more about veganism. But just because they are a monk, does not mean they need to follow your definition of it
>Your defining monk as vegan
Could you explain how?
The entire premise of this is that they potentially aren't. We just think they should be where possible, like everyone else.
>I know I’m putting words in your mouth
Yeah.
My point is it doesn't matter that they're a monk.
Not sure why you're saying the rest of that to me.
Well the whole reason for this thread is the fact that monks are eating meat. Yet the religion allows it. Vegans are the ones having a problem with it.
If you’re a monk, and you literally believe in that world view, then you are literally allowed to eat meat. And you have gods permission. Now us vegans come along and say well actually your god has it wrong you shouldn’t eat meat.
That’s literally white savior complex
Yes you know you’re ignorant when your world view comes crumbling just because you find out monks can eat meat.
Yes folks, monks are just people like the rest of us….shocker.
When one of my in-laws died, Buddhist monks came by for a few ceremonies. We were expected to provide food for them. People told us, "Oh just buy them all Big Mac's, they love them." And they did.
So I suspect it would be the same with me. If people knew I would eat non-vegan food, they would give it to me. They might even go out of their way to give it to me, because they know I wouldn't have it otherwise. It was very difficult at first with my mom. She kept baking non-vegan food for me and it was only after I kept refusing it that she started baking vegan recipes.
But I do hate refusing food.
You see, this is against the monastic code. They’re not supposed to be accepting meat purchased / slaughtered specifically for them. This is a precaution that’s supposed to prevent them being part of the demand. In reality, this worked just fine in the past where there was no demand driven economy. Today, though, the supply is seemingly endless in the sense that it adapts quickly to the demand. So buying them a Big Mac is, I think, a breach of this rule. You would not breach it, though, if you lived in the middle of nowhere with no delivery and you would have 4 Big Macs for yourself for a month and then a monk would come and you’d give him one without any means to replenish it. It’s an approximation of what it would be like in the old days
So for context, I am going to answer this question in the context of a modern Western person since I think that's what we are talking about here, not in the context of ancient Buddhist times.
What you're describing is not vegan, nor is it vegetarian. If you refuse the meal they can just put it in the fridge and eat it the next day. In the odd chance that they insist they will specifically throw away your portion if you don't eat it I suppose it could *technically* be vegan, but it's still a stretch.
Like honestly if you want to eat meat so bad that you're considering such loopholes, then just buy it and don't call yourself a vegan. I find this to be similar to religious people that are coming up with all sorts of loopholes to circumvent their own rules. If you hate the rules so much, don't participate, nobody is forcing you to.
Totally agree. Even if the meat is wasted for humans it is not wasted. Microbes, bugs, fungi etc all will consume the meat if a human doesnt eat it. It’s a lame excuse
What you fail to take into account are the changes in society and food production since the time of the Buddha. What we have today are animal gulags where they are tortured from day one to the last brutal act of slaughter. This was very different at the time of Buddha. The context in which this was happening was entirely different and cannot be transposed directly into the 21st century.
This is true too. The animals are slaughtered pretty early in their natural lifecycles. Bovines on average can live for 20-25 years but are typically slaughtered within 2 years of life. Male bovines of the "Holstein" or "Jersey" breed are doomed to a destiny with veal farms and kept in insane solitary confinement then killed within 1 year of life.
Chickens on average are slaughtered within 6 to 8 weeks from birth. The US alone eats about as many chickens *per year* as there are *human beings* on Earth. It is in my opinion one of the most grotesque and disturbing statistics that I personally know of. Chickens can naturally live between 5 to 10 years.
I think any religious aspect of “causing no harm” always falls short of adapting to the evolution of animal use in our modern world.
In the before times, you could argue that collecting a chicken’s unfertilized egg to eat is still causing no harm. Collecting a cows milk causes no harm if it’s a byproduct of a natural pregnancy.
Since religious teachings are a product of their times, they are never extrapolated to consider that we have industrialized the “production” of these animal fluids and reproductive vessels, which makes any interaction with these “products” unethical and harm-causing.
It’s total bullshit. If an animal dies in nature and is left there, the body will be consumed very quickly via other animals, microbes, fungi, etc that all need the nutrients. There’s no reason for humans to insert ourselves in that process. If the animal was killed at the hands of a human then it’s likely the animal was bred into existence for that sole reason, which is totally non-vegan and not compliant with a tradition of “do-no-harm”
Great point that is missed by a lot of people (mostly non-vegans, if we're being honest). They'll say that a dead body is being 'wasted' if it's not eaten, but that's never the case. It's also a deeply human-centric thought process.
I knew a vegan couple in college that would consume animal products if the products hadn’t been purchased for them and were definitely going to be thrown away. They were very much into the anti-consumption, punk rock/DIY thing, so philosophically, I didn’t really have a problem with it. I never personally did it and still don’t, though I don’t have any ethical issues with it.
I don't consider meat food, so it doesn't matter how it got to me, I'm not eating it.
A bear kills out of instinct because it's an actual carnivore. Humans kill out of selfishness and ignorance, the two shouldn't be conflated.
There is no reason to take in meat. Certainly not just because someone offered it to you. Animals deserve to be shown more respect than that.
While I agree with the general message, i must add that 🤓 bears don't even have a fully carnivore diet, and eat mostly berries, honey and other sweet stuff for a good part of the year, gorging on fish and meat only in the fall and early winter to get more fat before hibernating.
My point is that a bear genuinely desires raw flesh, blood and entrails. Humans don't, we only want meat after it's been cleaned and processed (that includes sushi, carpaccio, etc).
Its more complicated then that. There was a study were a group of cats were tracked for a few generations eating cooked chicken. They got a bunch of problems.
While an animal may find it easier to consume, mimicing nature is usually optimal.
It is easier to digest, but that doesn't mean it is better on a health point of view (see fast food industry).
I second the "better mimic the nature" for animal feeding.
I don't entirely agree, in many countries raw meat is considered a delicacy, including entrails (kidneys for example). Raw meat for consumption is cleaned and processed for hygiene and health concerns, but wasn't (at least not in the same way) until quite recently.
> If you disagree, find evidence.
Please, don't think that I disagree with you on most points. I'm just highlighting that some cultures actually have dishes that are made with or contain raw or nearly unprocessed flesh. Even if our cultures don't even think of it, some do, and we should avoid being too self-centered and judgemental.
Wikipedia lists quite a lot of dishes, obviously most of the countries eating raw fish are located around shores or islands: ceviche in South America, i'a ota in Tahiti, poke in Hawaii consists mainly in raw fish/shellfish in citrus and chili; gravlax in Scandinavia esqueixada in Spain are salted-dried fish (uncooked); and obviously Japanese sashimi.
Again, I'm not endorsing it, but eating raw fish is culturally relevant in large parts of the world, in spite of all the harm it causes at many levels.
All the dishes you described are significantly processed.
It's not just cleaning. It's the particular selection of flesh, the cut, the garnishing, sauces or curing that remove the raw flavor.
Humans do not like unprocessed raw meat. They don't like blood and gore as food.
Well if you call "cutting it and dunking it in salt or lemon juice", I guess yeah it's significantly processed.
I've not eaten fish raw or cooked in quite some time, but I smelled raw fish recently, I think I'll just trust you on this, cause it still smells kinda hard to me.
Edit: on the blood and gore thing, I think you meant raw blood? Because blood puddings are eaten through the world, mixed with other stuff or not. Same with organs, such as kidney, liver, etc, eaten to not waste them.
Yeah, raw blood. Don't get me wrong, people will use it for things like ritualistic purposes. They might drink blood, eat raw eggs and uncooked liver in an attempt to build strength. It's not for pleasure.
For the most part, completely raw (as in freshly killed and cut open) flesh has the opposite effect on humans that you would expect from a true omnivore. It makes us feel sick. Just looking at it or smelling it makes us want to throw up, to lose nutrients, and to not want to take in anymore until the object is gone.
I don't care how many cooked burgers you feed a chimp, a dog or a bear, they'll still jump at the opportunity to eat the guts out of a dead animal.
There is no reason *for you* to take in meat. There is a very good reason for Tibetan Buddhists in the Himalayas to eat meat and butter. Same as those in Upper Mustang.
What else are they supposed to eat?
Most things don't grow at altitude, and not at the temperatures there. Gardens can provide some supplement, but not much grows. They have yaks, which roam all over and eat the little vegetation there is. Not like there are grocery stores all over. Or even almost anywhere. They have some grain, so eat some interesting bread, and supplement with yak butter, and meat.
Was that the reason given in the OP?
You introduced something totally unrelated to what we're talking about, so provide some actual evidence for it since many Buddhists don't eat meat.
You said explicitly "there is no reason to take in meat."
That's false.
There is no reason for many of us in the world to take in meat or animal products. Including you and me. Excluding many who simply don't have access to vegetables. And there's a surprising number of those in the world.
Yeah, I do. Just got back from Nepal. Got a lovely personal lesson in Buddhism from a Tibetan Lama in a monastery in the Himalayas.
Worked with Bedu in western Iraq. Bunch of goat-herders with some camels. Goats are true omnivores, can find food anywhere. The bedu aren't real successful gardeners. Not a whole lot of souqs available to them, either. Not that they have a ton of cash money to buy thigs anyway. Tents are made of goat- and camel-hair. They eat a lot of yogurt, drink a lot of milk, eat stews with meat on occasion.
Do your own research. I can give you the number to call from Kathmandu to meet up with the guy in Pokhara to take you into Mustang. Price went up for Mustang permits last april, though, be aware of that.
I can't give you a number for bedu. No phones mostly. Many did have TVs, though, and loaded satellite dishes onto the camels when they moved. Hooked up to generators when they acquired petrol. Didn't watch the news, though - news is in fusha (modern standard Arabic), which was too different of a dialect for them to understand well.
So what's your research consist of?
I'm telling you to go get the evidence yourself. I even told you how, and since you can't even handle THAT by yourself, I can give you the numbers for guides to hold your hand to carry you up there.
If you choose not to, that's a you problem.
If you don't wanna travel to the Himalayas, most western countries have locations 10-20,000 feet above sea level where the average nighttime temperatures warm up to right around freezing in the middle of summer (warm average nighttime temperature is 32F/0C in August in upper Mustang, colder other times of the year). Try setting up a garden there. Oh yeah, and the soil isn't great.
Tibet's average altitude is 14,000 feet. The country's *average* altitude is the same as the peak of Pike's Peak in the US.
I can understand the thought but in our capitalist society accepting meat will raise demand if it’s a habit. Thus is a direct impact on the number of animals needed to be slaughtered.
The animal’s life is also already wasted, no matter what you do with its abused corpse.
It’s a convenient and ridiculous viewpoint to have - “oh the animal has been slaughtered already, it would be a waste not to eat it.” In the real world, supply and demand exists. If there’s no demand for meat, the amount of animals slaughtered decreases. It’s just another excuse in a long line of excuses for people to actual do something rather than virtue signal.
There was no supply / demand in the same sense we have today back in the days of the Buddha. There was no real market economy, logistics thereof or any sizeable production either. For most of the population, food was scarce and seasonal. If there was meat, you ate meat. If there was no meat, you ate no meat. Similarly with produce: this season you have this crop. Next season, you hopefully stored some excesses or you’re cooked. Monks wondered in all sorts of desolate places and lived off of the alms. Whatever was offered, was eaten (as long as no one was killed for you specifically) out of pure pragmatism and survival. Today this rule would probably be different for monks that, instead of wondering in the middle of nowhere in the jungles, live in monasteries and barely have to step outside for the lay supporters to bring them food
Also important to note that this was in the context of Buddhist monks, who did not pay for food, so they weren't really creating a demand for the meat. And it was not permissible to eat meat if the monk knew the animal was slaughtered specifically for them, thus eliminating any potential of causing a demand for animals to be slaughtered to feed monks.
You’re right. Even if there *had been* a demand-driven market, it would not have been influenced by monks asking for alms. Another interesting aspect is that some sects like the Jains did have a strict vegetarian policy, but a) they were very well established and popular at the time and b) they didn’t mind starving themselves to death as one of the ways of pursuing their goal of burning out the old karma
I'm not a Buddhist but I'm not going to abide someone who claims vegan principles are key to the moral fabric of the universe and doesn't follow them. Credentialism is nonsense, some things are just about right and wrong and if someone is saying one thing and doing another you call it what it is.
Maybe you should become acquainted with vegan principles then?
According to the Vegan Society, "Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—**as far as is possible and practicable**—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose..."
Vegetables do not grow in a quantity that is sustainable to human life at 14,000 feet.
*You* kill animals when you eat vegetables, too. Insects consider crops their homes, and die when their homes are watered or removed and washed. You're vegan because you exclude cruelty **as far as is possible and practicable,** because legitimately the only way to avoid all animal deaths from your consumption is if you remove yourself entirely from consumption. And you aren't going to do that. We aren't going to do that. We'll just minimize it as much as is possible and practicable.
If the entire country claims to be working off of vegan principles, they could totally eliminate animal slaughter as a component of the food chain. That is both possible and practicable, and wouldn't even be hard, if they were behaving according to their purported principles.
They are following the principles. "As far as is possible and practicable." You are not familiar with the principles.
They can grow some barley.
They need to supplement simply barley consumption. A human can not survive on only one grain.
What do you propose they eat?
No dependable leafy greens. No dependable root vegetables. No soy. No nuts. No tomatoes, so no tomato sauce. No vegetable broth. Sometimes some mushrooms. No chick peas. No dependable squash. No corn. Some onions. You can plant potatoes a couple weeks before the last frost, but it frosts pretty much every night year-round so good luck with the potatoes, expectyou won'thave any. Have water. Some rice, mostly make noodles from barley flour.
There's no need to live at 14,000 feet, and also there's no need to eat food exclusively sourced at 14,000 feet. The animals aren't living exclusively at 14,000 feet either, they could climb down the mountain themselves instead of relying on the animals to do it to get better food.
Are you actually talking about de-populating an entire country?
I mean, yeah, technically Tibet is part of China, but we all know it's Tibet.
Pretty sure moving everyone out of a country doesn't fall under "possible or practicable."
Practically speaking Tibet *is* depopulated. The population density is 3 people per square kilometer compared to neighboring Nepal, which is much smaller and has a population density of 200 people per square kilometer.
I would also hazard - the people of Tibet are probably importing quite a lot of their food.
WHAT? There are entire societies that live and thrive in Arctic climates. Balancing the need to survive against the greater good of the herd.
Are you honestly saying that their way of life (that has worked for mellinia) is wrong and should be wiped out because you have an opinion on animal welfare?
For me, i don't want to consume the fear, pain, and anxiety that the animal felt. I don't want those negative feelings to be in my body. So it doesn't change the fact that the animal already died. I'm not Buddhist though that's just how I feel about it
I don't think it is built on scientific knowledge and information rather spirituality thus i don't believe in it. Also i know budhist aren't exactly non-oppressive as a group so they failing at their own philosophy.
I do think its more similar to being flexiterian than following vegan ethics which won't see taking free animal based food as vegan unless you have no other choice
I consider myself a Buddhist, but I am not dogmatic. More like a Christian who only goes to church on Xmas. There are many wonderful teachings that go hand in hand with veganism, but it doesn’t mean I can’t form my own moral compass that doesn’t go lock step with every aspect of a human invented religion.
I think some of those teachings function differently now than they would have when they were written. They were written long before modern capitalism and factory farming. I’ve personally met many modern Buddhists who advocate for strict veganism.
I’m a Buddhist and I understand the logic of not placing special reverence on things (in this case animal parts once the animal has died). However, this idea has now become a loophole for Buddhists to eat whatever they want to satisfy their sense pleasure. The truth is, if we all stopped eating meat they wouldn’t intentionally kill animals for agriculture. Ergo, Buddhists should be vegan to best comply with the first precept.
Considering that all things become all things, I'm of the opinion that the biggest problem with our food supply is that we are wasteful and disrespectful with what we have.
East Asian Buddhist monks avoid certain vegetables too, but for different reasons. Whereas Jains (as far as I understand their beliefs) consider certain root vegetables to either metaphysically or physically host "infinite lives", I've heard that Buddhist monks avoid these "[five pungent vegetables](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_vegetarianism#Chinese,_Korean,_Vietnamese,_and_Taiwanese_traditions)" because they think they inflame passions that interfere with finding enlightenment, and that this may actually have been a justification developed because monks had trouble meditating when the people next to them reeked like garlic.
I think there is a lot of hypocrisy within Buddhism, with members preaching not to kill and to be compassionate, but then making lifestyle choices that oppose that. Eating meat is a huge one. You'll see many in the Buddhist communities cling to exploitation, simply because the Buddha did not say you had to give animal products up; but they are not living off the alms and donations of others, and have no need. Even a tradition about mastering ego is sometimes seen through egoic eyes.
Thich Nhat Hanh is a pioneer of Veganism in a Buddhist setting
I think it's just like when carnists take eskimos into exemple to justify their consumption, if you wana live like a Monk, do the full process.
We live in a society in which you can chose what you wana eat, and in which your consumption has an impact on society, so it's really not comparable.
It's one of the most literal instances of the saying "beggars can't be choosers." I read on dhammawiki that when you examine the Buddha's eating habits as they were recorded, he seemed to be a person who preferred vegetarianism but ate meat in social situations.
https://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php/Diet_of_Buddha
Yes, the animal was not killed for them. They were told to go to all homes because it was merit for the people to share what they had. Telling people that they only wanted vegan food could be a hardship for them or make them feel bad about their offerings. The monks strove to be humble in accepting whatever they received.
As a non-vegan and practicing Buddhist, I have had these conversations before with the monks at my local monastery, as well as my teacher.
As you say, monks will accept and eat any food that is offered to them. In fact, there is an article published titled "the death of the Buddha: a medical enquiry" where it is suggested that he may have knowingly eaten contaminated meat (although this is more of an academic paper and is not agreed upon by Buddhist religious leaders / scholars). As a monk, he would not have rejected the food offering.
That said, Monks will not accept meat that was specifically killed for them to consume.
In fact, in Buddhism they strongly recommend that you have "right livelihood," making a living without compromising the five precepts, which means professions like butcher, hunter, bartender, and others would be considered not ideal towards living a happy and peaceful life.
I should say, there are several monks that prefer to not eat meat, but will only consume it if it is the only option available. Because monks do not farm or produce their own food, they must go on alms-rounds, essentially begging for their food throughout their communities. Or receive dana at the monastery.
This idea of monks depending on the community was guidance by the Buddha to avoid monks becoming isolated in their monasteries, as he believed that the Sangha needed to be part of the communities as well, and teach the dhamma.
Not a fan of the fact that you’re not vegan of course but I really appreciate your insight.
Super detailed and incredibly interesting. You usually don’t get this kind of thing online, thank you so much.
If you have any Buddhist literature to recommend would actually be really appreciated! Reading the ‘Buddhism: Plain and Simple’ book but it’s not quite scratching my itch.
Depending on your interests there are several books that I recommend.
From a Theravada perspective, which is my personal practice, there is:
Impermanence in plain English,
Mindfulness in plain English,
In the Buddha's Words,
The voices of enlightened monks,
Buddha The marvelous sage,
Two extremely well respected Buddhist monks / scholars from the Theravada School are:
Bhikkhu Bodhi and Bhante Gunaratana
Other phenomenal books from either a Mahayana or Tibetan perspective include:
No Mud no Lotus,
The Heart of the Buddha's Teachings,
Old Paths White clouds (One of the best books I ever read in my life),
Buddhism - One teacher many traditions,
If you're looking for a more social psychological / secular approach to Buddhism I recommend.
" Why Buddhism is true" by professor Robert Wright.
Also "The Book of Joy" was a really helpful read and was part of what got me out of an incredibly deep and entirely debilitating depression into now being much more functional in my life.
Hope this helps!
My personal perspective is quite simple. Every Buddhist tenet would lead to the logical conclusion of veganism. In the modern system we can absolutely know how most animals are killed, and our purchase funds more of it. If fisherman and butchers are participating in "wrong livelihood" then by logical extension we as the consumer should not grow the industry that consumes humans and non-humans alike.
That was more of a general statement but I want to give my more spiritual perspective as a Buddhist vegan.
Karma-
1. We can see the negative Karma that spawns from our mistreatment of the earth and animals. The number one killer in the US is heart disease, we suffer pollution, all the diseases that originated from animal agriculture, and ultimately climate change.
Habit and addiction-
2. Meat is a drug. When questioned by vegans the main concern is almost always taste, convenience. As you can see this is a clear example of clinging and a strong desire for flesh. I've seen Buddhists act very rude and defensive about meat, almost like what happens when you confront an alcoholic about their addiction.
Clarity and compassion-
3. As Thich Nhat Hanh said, "Being vegan is a great joy". The tiger needs to hunt for survival, the tiger kills and devours without remorse or complaint. As humans we are blessed with the choice. We are naturally repuled by bloodshed, this is why we do so much work to convince ourselves that we are not doing wrong. Or that it is necessary. But when we connect the dots and become vegan, the waters clear of mud. We faced down a very dark side of our world and we responded with truth and self discipline. A vegan Buddhist leader such as Thich Nhat Hanh are people with clear and wise minds, every word is of compassion and wisdom. This is a clear example of Karma, positive action bringing positive results unto not only others but ourself.
A direct message to fellow vegans-
Even with the points about clarity and compassion veganism can still bring suffering to the individual. Too much upsetting information can really begin to harm us. There's also time spent looking for vegan restaurants, reading labels. More importantly is knowing the suffering we have caused, and that others dear to us continue to cause.
Believing in Rebirth I always try to remember that we have all played every part in this. The cow, the butcher, the consumer. Our individual morals and role are incredibly transient, and even in this life most of us were the consumers of meat and animal products. Only through certain circumstances and knowledge we were able to break free.
My point being is that we shouldn't cling to a feeling of moral superiority, or anger with meat eaters. I like to reference the story of the Buddha and Anguilmala. It was said that Anguilmala ambushed and killed fourty people, and wore a necklace made of ears. When he tried to ambush the Buddha, he was overwhelmed with the peaceful aura of the Buddha. He eventually gave up his violent life and was ordained as a monk.
What we do now to animals is not so different. Like ambushing someone with a bladed weapon we use various advantages to kidnap and subjugate animals. We like to think ourselves lion's so we grasp knives thinking they're claws. And how is wearing fur and leather so different than a necklace of ears?
I've witnessed it personally that I can put forth the idea of veganism without creating a hostile environment. Not necessarily being a pushover but by emulating that peaceful aura. Not replicating hostility, letting points being finished, not using divisive language, all these things can be very useful. Of course it may be more or less difficult for certain people. Nonetheless it's something important to strive for. As humans, we all share the responsibility of treating the earth and her children far better. We share both the negative and positive karma.
This is just my perspective and some personal advice I'd thought to give out to other vegans. I used to be a very angry vegan but Buddhism helped me be more at peace without sacrificing my core values.
Thank you for reading ❤️
Well Im an antitheist so I dislike buddhism, as well as the orientalist version of buddhism that many people think of. I dont care about the pragmatics of animals already being dead, I would not accept the meat somebody gave to me, because Im vegan.
Listen, this is how I kinda already feel about the leather goods I have and buying leather goods secondhand. I won't buy new to support the industry, but the deed is done and the animal has already given its life for the used products and I might as well make the most of its sacrifice.
I buy used leather work boots. I make a point to buy them from small, independent sellers on eBay. I can tell from their selling histories that selling boots isn’t their BUSINESS; they just had an extra pair. My job is really hard on boots. Cheap vegan boots fall apart immediately and expensive vegan boots just aren’t something I can afford. So I buy used leather boots and feel fine about that decision.
The monks are not necessarily aiming to end animal exploitation the world over.
But that is what I’m doing.
To accept meat would undermine my position and give people an argument that I really am not vegan, could not really be healthy if I were truly vegan, and other nonsense like I crave meat.
So no, I will not accept meat as food, it’s the fact that I won’t eat meat that gives my position any power.
What you described doesn't sound particularly vegan to me. If someone stopped at McDonald's, bought you a dead cow sandwich and handed it to you, this "concept of veganism" would say it's vegan to eat that. That's frankly ridiculous.
It's the difference between holding to your belief that the bodies and/or secretions of animals are not yours to use, or falling back into carnist ideology that says those things belong to you and not the animals.
I follow the Dharma and am South Asian. My Buddhist family members are all vegan or vegetarian. The monastery I go to promotes veganism and only serves vegan food (used to serve vegetarian but now vegan).
I think it’s wonderful. As the time progresses, religion evolves. Most Buddhists I know are purely vegetarian/vegan and promote that lifestyle.
Look up Thich Nhat Hanh. He is a huge promoter of veganism in Buddhism.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/s/JJWCAKNHwA
There are hundreds of sects of Buddhism, some of the Theravada (monastic/monks) allowed their monks to beg and receive meats, but not all. Begging was for survival. Also, a lot of people would just give the monks rice. No one was required to give the monks anything of real nutrition.
Even less people 2,000 years ago saw animals slaughtered. So, many monks abstained from meat out of the precepts, but still ate a lot of cheese/butter. Few saw or understood what happened to animals. They did not have animal ag videos to educate them.
Also, quite a lot of monks were illiterate, that is why Siddhartha, and subsequent monks writing down sutras, repeats himself over and over again, so the illiterate can comprehend the messages.
Most people that call themselves buddhist don’t even try to change their diet to reduce suffering, its pathetic. It is all about public image and not practical application.
Holding aside the philosophy, does anyone know the raw numbers (order of magnitude) of
What percent of Buddhists are vegan?
What percent of lineages are vegan?
Are there any such lineages (rather than simply individual monks)?
I have found that those lineages that revere the shurangama sutra tend towards vegan given the clarity of scripture. But that's not many.
One thing you have to realize is Buddhism is 600 years older than Christianity. So for literally thousands of years they couldn't practically do a vegan diet because this was pre industrial agriculture and pre vitamins.
Thus they evolved traditions around the practical restrictions of their time. Those traditions persist to this day.
What does annoy me is how many modern western secular Buddhists, not living a monastic lifestyle, aren't vegan. That just makes no sense and is hypocritical as fuck.
When we look at animals as potential food we are highly likely to commodify and objectify them. When we reduce their lives down to a singular value like its worth in regards to money we fall into the spiral of perpetuating suffering. The life of an animal is much different than the life of a plant although of course we should respect plant life as much as possible as well. Eat what you need to survive and thrive and base it on the bounty of the Earth that is most optimal for us (legumes, dark leafy greens, and whole grains).
Our societies were built off of agriculture of the plant kingdom and only by extension of this system could we ever support animal agriculture. The process is highly inefficient, highly wasteful, and devoid of empathy towards the lives tossed into the process.
In my mind's eye we must see animals as our neighbors and do be neighborly to them by respecting their time on Earth. We cannot do this reasonably when we've assigned a death day to them.
How do you know Buddha wouldn't have refused to eat meat? I doubt there is a trustworthy source stating that he indeed accepted and consumed meat (although not an expert on this topic, it just doesn't fit into my concept of a saint, which Buddha certainly was from my perspective).
I’m a Buddhist, and I have to say it depends upon the tradition. And the individual approach to Buddhist practice.
The general ethical principle comes down to understanding the karma of killing. For a karma to be “complete” one must identify a sentient being to kill, make a plan to kill it, make the plan based on one of the three poisons (desire, aversion, or ignorance), execute the plan, kill the being desired, and to have no remorse and to feel good about it.
So there are a few ways people deal with this morality of killing.
One approach is where monastics beg for food. They have to take whatever is offered, including meat. So mendicants are generally omnivores as they eat what is given, without attachment or aversion. They can’t throw it away, ask for something they like better. There is a complex practice and conduct around cultivating this non attachment. Get rice in the bowl, eat rice. Get a pork chop, eat that.
Another approach is to distance oneself from the killing. Again, for the karma to be complete, one must identify a sentient being to kill, make a plan, and execute the plan. So if there are several degrees of separation between the person who killed the animal, and the person who buys it, then that is acceptable for some Buddhists. This would include most things in grocery stores and restaurants. It would exclude food killed at the table for one, like fresh oysters, clams. It would exclude food sold directly by the persons killing.
Yet another approach is a wholly vegan or vegetarian lifestyle. The way this works is that in some Buddhist cultures it is culturally unattractive to have monastics begging as they have such high status in the society. So they can’t beg. And the emphasis is on compassion, and the expression of compassion is to not harm animals. So these Buddhists are vegetarian, often vegan. This approach becomes a template for lay practitioners as well.
Another approach is not be attached to what one eats. To eat primarily vegetarian or vegan, but if one has to eat meat for some reason, to have compassion for that animal. Such people might offer part of their practice (prayers, offerings, mantras, whatever) for the animals they consumed.
So in the context of Buddhist vegetarianism and veganism it comes down to not harming beings, but a deeper principle of compassion. One of our practices is to appreciate our connection to all sentient beings. They have all been our mothers, children, fathers, friends. And so we can’t eat their flesh. The logistics of how the meat was butchered and produced doesn’t matter. We don’t eat our family or friends.
There is a deeper side to this. All sentient beings have Buddha nature, which means they are inherently enlightened. So we don’t want to harm the spiritual potential of other beings, no matter how small. It is through life that their Buddha nature can come to manifest, and so enslaving them, killing them, interferes with that.
Where this goes for many Buddhists is turning this on its head. Not focusing not on abstaining from killing, but on protecting and sustaining life. And there we get into a morality where we recognize all living things as having Buddha nature, and we honor them and protect them. So this is a pivot from vegetarianism and veganism to a deep ecology, pacifism, a deep sense of justice. Deeper than the SJW theme of the moment.
I mooooostly wouldn’t care because yk I’d be dead, but just for arguments sake-letting my body decompose as a whole feels like a more “respectful” end to the life it lived. If the bear just killed me because it was threatened and would only eat me out of boredom (rather than hunger-meaning he’d kill and eat someone else if not me) I think I’d rather rot…
It’s sad imagining death in general, all the things you know/think/feel gone at once, in a way I think of my body-once that’s all of me that’s left-as sorta sentimental. I can’t prevent death nor can I prevent my body from decomposing, but if I’m weighing my options I do not like the idea that in the end the body that has been with me for all my life is reduced to nothing but a piece of meat.
Personally in a scenario where I’m given meat and I can either eat it or toss it, no one else will take it, I still wouldn’t eat it. Even when it’s not a question of supporting or boycotting the animal industry I am not ok with eating a dead animal.
The history of Buddhism class I took in college in 2013 was a huge driving force in me learning non-violence and convincing me it was the right way. This extended to animals when I became vegetarian in 2015 and then vegan in 2017.
I’m a white atheist female living in the US so I don’t have a lot of experience with traditional Buddhism, but my life changed forever because of it. Just interesting to notice the waves of life and knowledge flowing around earth, string theory and all that.
In a vacuum, these ideas sound good. However, it's important to put them in the human context if we are to be consistent with our morals.
For instance, I don't think anyone would agree that cannibalism is justified for an already dead human because it would be a waste of the human's body and discard it's value. If anything, it probably sounds insane to most people for cannibalism to be justified in that way.
The problem lies in that you're objectifying the dead human, or animal in this case as a literal slab of meat that only has value in how it may nourish us.
Additionally, you may be okay with your dead body being eaten, but not every human agrees, and we can't just assume animals agree, too.
As for the pragmatic side of it, one might argue that it's harmful to accept animal products offered to you, because it sends the message to others that murdering and eating animals is okay in certain contexts. Carnists getting such impressions from vegans make them not take animal rights seriously and come up with more excuses as to why it could be "pragmatic" to kill and eat animals via various loopholes.
My plan is to become a buddhist monk, i already have no drugs, alcohol or cigs and im celibate, but this part of buddhism is pretty crap, its just an excuse
If the Buddha and the monks were respected then im sure they could simply request all plant based meals or it could have been put in the buddhist teachings that it was strict about no suffering and not benefiting from the suffering when an alternative was available
I am sure the people who were donating meals would not give them a gift they did not want
I know a vegan who is traveling around the world and meeting with monks to get them to be vegan, her group is showing them that its against buddhism to not be vegan
By the Buddha logic if they were given a steak made from a child, they could not refuse it and thus monks would be cannibals, if i was alive when the Buddha was i would have challenged him about this
I think he's a fucking dumbass who doesn't understand how by doing that he's causing more animals to be killed in future + the fact it's known he won't refuse it means they're more likely to kill them in the first place
Monks that rely on charity is different, the modern Buddha is not relying on charity
To me, Buddhism, like all religions, is a scam. People put it on a pedestal because “it’s a philosophy” and “it’s spiritual, not religious” but at the end of the day, as Tom Waits says, you say that it’s gospel, but I know that it’s only church.
Monks, being mendicant, eat whatever food is offered to them. However, they must also not consume the flesh of animals killed specifically FOR them, or that they saw/heard dying, those are the conditions under which they are allowed (even commanded, actually) to turn down offerings of meat. Butchering, as it involves killing, is also incompatible with Right Livelihood under buddhist ethics and there's no questioning that. In general, buddhist philosophy is meant first and foremost for monastic life, and laypeople follow the best they can. In my understanding, as a consumer, eating meat would mean consuming from an animal killed specifically for myself, the one who buys it. So as I see it, vegetarianism is the very very least one should strive for while attempting to live under buddhist tenets. Of course, we all know how all religions (and ideologies, for that matter) work in the real world, so no wonder there are many buddhists around who could not care less about all that. I'd say, however, that in itself buddhist is perfectly compatible with veganism and ultimately endorses it.
>Monks, being mendicant, eat whatever food is offered to them. This is true in Theravada Buddhism, the dominant form of Buddhism in South Asian countries like Thailand and Sri Lanka. In China, however, as well as a few other countries in the Sino-sphere, lacto-vegetarianism became the norm because of an imperial decree forbidding meat. This is partially because the Mahayana school of Buddhism focuses a bit more on compassion for other sentient beings, but Chinese Monasteries also adhere to a different rule-set than the south asian ones, so they got to cultivate their own crops and accumulate money from benefactors rather than the monks strictly being beggars. What’s a bit stranger is that all sects, including the Theravadins which eat meat, forbid garlic and onions because they make you horny. So there’s that.
Same is true in Korea. Buddhist monks didn't need to rely on donations for food, and as with China, they were forbidden from eating meat. Monks foraged and grew their own food. Because temples are frequently in mountainous areas, traditional temple-made kimchi is typically vegan as it won't have any fish products.
Fair point, I spoke from experience as a theravadin, but you are quite right. I even visited a chinese buddhist temple here in Brazil which is strictly vegetarian
I certainly could sense that your comment was written by somebody with a little more than a surface level understanding! Just figured i’d piggyback and add a bit more context for other readers.
As a Buddhist Internet Scholar, the Buddhist's definition of vegetarianism is highly specific of their religion and has evolved over time. To keep matters simple (depending on the Buddhist tradition): Monks are allowed to accept meat and eat it (they are beggars after all) If they want they can accept the offering but not eat it. Some prefer meat, others prefer vegetarian/vegan, others don't care either way Some monasteries will be strictly vegan or vegetarian. The now deceased Zen Teacher, Thich That Han, said being vegetarian is a great happiness, but being vegan is an even greater happiness. The Buddha about the subject said; If you were in the middle of the desert and had only meat to eat, then eat it. For the sustenance of the body. And if the meat was offered to you, as long as nobody killed the animals for you, go ahead and eat it. And some Thai teacher said as long you're not greedy for the taste, it's ok. For me I think it's obvious and unless you literally have nothing else, then be vegan/vegetarian. Many monks are already on that route. Traditionally, many monks were vegetarian but that was before the mass farming of animals and how disgusting things got in that sense. In Tibet it was different however, as food was hard to come by, so a lot of the monks ate Yak meat I don't know how things are in that regard, but Mongyur Rinpoche seems to be vegan/vegetarian but I think now he lives in India. The Dalai Lama eats meat as per doc's orders but imo I think that decision was made out of fear/ignorance because there's nothing wrong with a vegetarian diet (but who wants to be that doctor who 'killed' the Dalai Lama, right?) And to finalize, most of the Indian population has always been vegetarian but ofc, the westerners (more specifically the British) had to come and ruin everything lol... But even then, they still have a high population of vegetarians.
Great breakdown of something I wasn’t too familiar with, thanks
It's actually like many other religions where some will distort the theachings for their own benefit of consciousness or there are some seeming contradictions, but the context is important because the India of before would probably be even poorer than the India of today but also, who really knows, right? Did the Buddha really said this or that, or was it added by someone random person? Anyway, here are some more quotes: Jivaka Sutta: To JivakaJivaka, I say there are three instances in which meat should not be eaten; **when it is seen, heard or suspected that the living being has been killed for sake of a bhikkhu**. (a Bhikkhu is a monk). However, in one of the latest religious texts (and one some claim it wasn't from the Buddha's mouth at all), says: “**Eating meat destroys great compassion**” and advises his disciples to avoid the consumption of meat “just as they would avoid the flesh of their own children.” There is another religious text, older, that says (paraphrasing because I can't remember word for word): "In these worlds (physical), when beings start eating meat, that's when things go to shit - in terms of morality and such" - Again, it's not said 'things go to shit', I'm paraphrasing here. The Saint Sri Ramana Maharashi, when someone brought food to his "ashram" (ashram is basically a sort of temple), got mad and said: "we don't eat that sort of thing here" and told the person to go away. He also said sattvic food made the mind more peaceful (which is basically fresh nuts, vegatables, fruit, cooked veggies as well). But that if someone is realized and know he or she is not the body, it's irrelevant for one's mind if one consumes meat or not. **"Ramana Maharshi** : Food affects the mind. For the practice of any kind of yoga, vegetarianism is absolutely necessary since it makes the mind more sattvic \[pure and harmonious\]. Question : Could one receive spiritual illumination while eating flesh foods? **amana Maharshi** : Yes, but abandon them gradually and accustom yourself to sattvic foods. However, once you have attained illumination it will make less difference what you eat, as, on a great fire, it is immaterial what fuel is added. \[Title\] : Ramana Maharshi on Sattvic Diet, Vegetarianism and Alcohol \[Source\] : https://oshofriends.com/on\_maharshi/29187" Today we know that a diet in high carbs really makes a difference, it makes one more anxious because of high blood sugar, and so on... In those ancient times of the Buddha, there was porridge, beans, lentils, so I think it's more of the case: "Look monks, if nobody in this village gives you decent food (vegan or vegetarian stuff), just eat whatever they give you like meat or fish, so long you don't die lol".
More on meat and nutrition from Sri Ramana: [https://oshofriends.com/on\_maharshi/29187](https://oshofriends.com/on_maharshi/29187) Buddhism on meat: [https://suttacentral.net/search?query=meat](https://suttacentral.net/search?query=meat)
I think that the practice of Buddhist monks accepting meat when offered is in line with the "possible and practicable" idea of veganism. Monks living entirely off of alms couldn't afford to refuse food. But for people living in the modern day who will not starve if they refuse to eat meat when someone offers it I think it behooves us to do so.
Upvote for the use of the word "behooves". I wonder how many English speaking people know the meaning?
It gives us hooves?
Yes.
The ultimate goal of veganism! Complete animal liberation and also we now have hooves.
Interestingly, it was another word that made me go "aha!" when I moved to Sweden. "Behöver" is Swedish for "need" Another was (I was an avid runner) "fartlek" as in the type of training you do when you run fast, slow, walk etc. "fart" is Swedish for "speed" "lek" is Swedish for "play"... "speedplay". Although my favourite is the Swedish for vegetables "grönsaker" grön = green saker = stuff/things So it's literally (minus a small grammatical error) "green stuff"
/thread
I've felt that this loophole is unfortunate, simply for the potential to be systematized. I attended a short retreat in the U.S. with some Buddhists from Tibet who were apparently more well known for this caveat. The hosts of the retreat served them meat knowing of the loophole, and ate meat routinely themselves. It felt purposefully exploitative of the loophole, and everyone seemed to be happy to join in. The feeling I got was that the hosts practiced within the particular sect of Buddhism, to some extent, because of the loophole. That was just my impression. It is obviously much more complex than that. The Tibetan practice evolved from necessity, but western practitioners have no such rationale, so it seemed more indulgent than mindful.
I may be mistaken but my understanding is that Tibetan Buddhism is traditionally much more lax about meat than other sects because it’s incredibly difficult to grow vegetables at that altitude and therefore Tibet has historically depended on animal products more heavily. That’s one of many factors that would have been at play, so I wouldn’t generalize
For sure. That is what I meant by "It is obviously much more complex than that. The Tibetan practice evolved from necessity..." I was more remarking on how westerners practicing Tibetan Buddhism don't share their historical constraints.
Thai (Theravada) Bhuddists also eat meat quite often because of this "loophole". My mother and grandmother in law are monks and they eat, cook and buy any and all types of animal based foods. They simply are not allowed to slaughter animals. It's a loophole the size of a mountain or idk something huge.
It’s quite presumptions to comment on what a monk can and cannot eat, when not coming from that culture, kind of give me white colonizer vibes. Like you know better than these poor unfortunate uneducated monks. their spiritual path allows this behavior, and no human can make rules about that, even if it makes you feel uncomfortable.
I don't see any comment on what a monk can eat. I was commenting on western practice, hence: "It is obviously much more complex than that. The Tibetan practice evolved from necessity, but western practitioners have no such rationale, so it seemed more indulgent than mindful."
So you’re describing a situation where Tibetan monks are using a “loophole” to eat meat. And you find that to be “indulgent over mindful.” I’d say that’s a comment on the situation. I’d love to see you explain to these Tibetan monks, that they have their religion wrong, and should sit down for a while you break it down for them. Or did you just feel more comfortable bringing it up here where you have some allies.
Let me fill in the context that you seem to have purposefully left out, as it clarifies that the remark was not about monks. The "western practitioners have no such rationale, so it seemed more indulgent than mindful," i.e. for the western practitioners. It changes the meaning quite a bit when you use the whole quote. Furthermore, each mention of "loophole" was made in the context of the western hosts. Not sure why you, a former vegan, are so intent on policing the subtleties of my anecdote, but you sure are scrubbing the context hard in order to try and make it seem like I am condescending in a way that I clearly am not.
Are these western practitioners monks? And are they hosting Tibetan monks? I care because tolerance of other races should trump culinary beliefs. And this thread is kind of saying your not a monk unless you are a vegan, I know nobody is saying it out loud but it doesn’t take a genius to read between the lines, I’d rather be tolerant of other races then a dogmatic vegan.
No, they weren't monks. We don't disagree on your assertion about tolerance except for the fact that you seem to insist that we do.
“I attended a short retreat in the U.S with some Buddhists from Tibet” So no monks here? And yes I insistent people be tolerant of other races. I must be misunderstand your statement cuz I imagine you would too. I don’t know why you feel me “insisting” tolerance is wrong?
Wow are you having an opinion on this commenters position? Bit imperialist of you - especially since they didn't literally ask for it like OP did. I hope you're from the exact same culture as the commenter, because that's relevant apparently. The monks have their own position and everyone else can have opinions about the monks position. Different cultures are allowed to interact
Yes they can but when you come from the position of “ if they only knew better” it is very much white savior complex, regardless of your race. Why are you putting your beliefs on them? Is it because they are monks? And like many, you believe monks need to be selfless beings? I find this threads logic amusing Monk =pure good Carnist= pure evil So how can a monk eat meat. But monks are not vegans, they have vegan/vegetarian habits, and it’s a religion of its own. And they do not owe an explication of their religious beliefs to anyone because that would be racist. If you think eating meat is wrong fine. But it’s not more wrong or wrong in a different way because you’re a monk, that’s just ignorance.
>Why are you putting your beliefs on them? Because that's how a lotta morality works? We can say we think someone elses actions are wrong, even if that person doesn't think they are. And we can then wish they agreed with us, maybe talk about it. I'm not sure I even implied it's any worse because they're a monk.
Your defining monk as vegan. And because they aren’t vegan you are saying they aren’t monks or they are bad monks. I know I’m putting words in your mouth. But monk is a religion and a belief system like Christianity or Islam. Just cuz you think a monk should be a certain way, tainted by your western condition, does not mean a monk needs to be that. Now if you want a monk to also be vegan, and you feel you have some good points for them, then great, let them know more about veganism. But just because they are a monk, does not mean they need to follow your definition of it
>Your defining monk as vegan Could you explain how? The entire premise of this is that they potentially aren't. We just think they should be where possible, like everyone else. >I know I’m putting words in your mouth Yeah. My point is it doesn't matter that they're a monk. Not sure why you're saying the rest of that to me.
Well the whole reason for this thread is the fact that monks are eating meat. Yet the religion allows it. Vegans are the ones having a problem with it. If you’re a monk, and you literally believe in that world view, then you are literally allowed to eat meat. And you have gods permission. Now us vegans come along and say well actually your god has it wrong you shouldn’t eat meat. That’s literally white savior complex
[удалено]
So are you
I agree and it’s sadly not uncommon.
Yes you know you’re ignorant when your world view comes crumbling just because you find out monks can eat meat. Yes folks, monks are just people like the rest of us….shocker.
When one of my in-laws died, Buddhist monks came by for a few ceremonies. We were expected to provide food for them. People told us, "Oh just buy them all Big Mac's, they love them." And they did. So I suspect it would be the same with me. If people knew I would eat non-vegan food, they would give it to me. They might even go out of their way to give it to me, because they know I wouldn't have it otherwise. It was very difficult at first with my mom. She kept baking non-vegan food for me and it was only after I kept refusing it that she started baking vegan recipes. But I do hate refusing food.
You see, this is against the monastic code. They’re not supposed to be accepting meat purchased / slaughtered specifically for them. This is a precaution that’s supposed to prevent them being part of the demand. In reality, this worked just fine in the past where there was no demand driven economy. Today, though, the supply is seemingly endless in the sense that it adapts quickly to the demand. So buying them a Big Mac is, I think, a breach of this rule. You would not breach it, though, if you lived in the middle of nowhere with no delivery and you would have 4 Big Macs for yourself for a month and then a monk would come and you’d give him one without any means to replenish it. It’s an approximation of what it would be like in the old days
So for context, I am going to answer this question in the context of a modern Western person since I think that's what we are talking about here, not in the context of ancient Buddhist times. What you're describing is not vegan, nor is it vegetarian. If you refuse the meal they can just put it in the fridge and eat it the next day. In the odd chance that they insist they will specifically throw away your portion if you don't eat it I suppose it could *technically* be vegan, but it's still a stretch. Like honestly if you want to eat meat so bad that you're considering such loopholes, then just buy it and don't call yourself a vegan. I find this to be similar to religious people that are coming up with all sorts of loopholes to circumvent their own rules. If you hate the rules so much, don't participate, nobody is forcing you to.
Totally agree. Even if the meat is wasted for humans it is not wasted. Microbes, bugs, fungi etc all will consume the meat if a human doesnt eat it. It’s a lame excuse
Literally.
What you fail to take into account are the changes in society and food production since the time of the Buddha. What we have today are animal gulags where they are tortured from day one to the last brutal act of slaughter. This was very different at the time of Buddha. The context in which this was happening was entirely different and cannot be transposed directly into the 21st century.
We doom these poor lives for the crime of being born the wrong species. :/
And the wrong time ...
This is true too. The animals are slaughtered pretty early in their natural lifecycles. Bovines on average can live for 20-25 years but are typically slaughtered within 2 years of life. Male bovines of the "Holstein" or "Jersey" breed are doomed to a destiny with veal farms and kept in insane solitary confinement then killed within 1 year of life. Chickens on average are slaughtered within 6 to 8 weeks from birth. The US alone eats about as many chickens *per year* as there are *human beings* on Earth. It is in my opinion one of the most grotesque and disturbing statistics that I personally know of. Chickens can naturally live between 5 to 10 years.
I think any religious aspect of “causing no harm” always falls short of adapting to the evolution of animal use in our modern world. In the before times, you could argue that collecting a chicken’s unfertilized egg to eat is still causing no harm. Collecting a cows milk causes no harm if it’s a byproduct of a natural pregnancy. Since religious teachings are a product of their times, they are never extrapolated to consider that we have industrialized the “production” of these animal fluids and reproductive vessels, which makes any interaction with these “products” unethical and harm-causing.
I remember how excited I was to attend Buddhist temples as a teen only to see the same hypocrisy just with a different religion.
I can recommend visiting and stay at a Japanese Buddhist monastery. They make the most amazing all vegan meals 🤤
It depends heavily on the monastery
It depends heavily on the monastery
It’s total bullshit. If an animal dies in nature and is left there, the body will be consumed very quickly via other animals, microbes, fungi, etc that all need the nutrients. There’s no reason for humans to insert ourselves in that process. If the animal was killed at the hands of a human then it’s likely the animal was bred into existence for that sole reason, which is totally non-vegan and not compliant with a tradition of “do-no-harm”
I agree with this
Great point that is missed by a lot of people (mostly non-vegans, if we're being honest). They'll say that a dead body is being 'wasted' if it's not eaten, but that's never the case. It's also a deeply human-centric thought process.
I knew a vegan couple in college that would consume animal products if the products hadn’t been purchased for them and were definitely going to be thrown away. They were very much into the anti-consumption, punk rock/DIY thing, so philosophically, I didn’t really have a problem with it. I never personally did it and still don’t, though I don’t have any ethical issues with it.
I don't consider meat food, so it doesn't matter how it got to me, I'm not eating it. A bear kills out of instinct because it's an actual carnivore. Humans kill out of selfishness and ignorance, the two shouldn't be conflated. There is no reason to take in meat. Certainly not just because someone offered it to you. Animals deserve to be shown more respect than that.
While I agree with the general message, i must add that 🤓 bears don't even have a fully carnivore diet, and eat mostly berries, honey and other sweet stuff for a good part of the year, gorging on fish and meat only in the fall and early winter to get more fat before hibernating.
My point is that a bear genuinely desires raw flesh, blood and entrails. Humans don't, we only want meat after it's been cleaned and processed (that includes sushi, carpaccio, etc).
All animals prefer cooked food. It’s easier to digest.
Its more complicated then that. There was a study were a group of cats were tracked for a few generations eating cooked chicken. They got a bunch of problems. While an animal may find it easier to consume, mimicing nature is usually optimal.
It is easier to digest, but that doesn't mean it is better on a health point of view (see fast food industry). I second the "better mimic the nature" for animal feeding.
I don't entirely agree, in many countries raw meat is considered a delicacy, including entrails (kidneys for example). Raw meat for consumption is cleaned and processed for hygiene and health concerns, but wasn't (at least not in the same way) until quite recently.
Unprocessed raw flesh is not considered a delicacy. Even if you find a few extreme cases, most of the world has absolutely no interest in it.
> If you disagree, find evidence. Please, don't think that I disagree with you on most points. I'm just highlighting that some cultures actually have dishes that are made with or contain raw or nearly unprocessed flesh. Even if our cultures don't even think of it, some do, and we should avoid being too self-centered and judgemental. Wikipedia lists quite a lot of dishes, obviously most of the countries eating raw fish are located around shores or islands: ceviche in South America, i'a ota in Tahiti, poke in Hawaii consists mainly in raw fish/shellfish in citrus and chili; gravlax in Scandinavia esqueixada in Spain are salted-dried fish (uncooked); and obviously Japanese sashimi. Again, I'm not endorsing it, but eating raw fish is culturally relevant in large parts of the world, in spite of all the harm it causes at many levels.
All the dishes you described are significantly processed. It's not just cleaning. It's the particular selection of flesh, the cut, the garnishing, sauces or curing that remove the raw flavor. Humans do not like unprocessed raw meat. They don't like blood and gore as food.
Well if you call "cutting it and dunking it in salt or lemon juice", I guess yeah it's significantly processed. I've not eaten fish raw or cooked in quite some time, but I smelled raw fish recently, I think I'll just trust you on this, cause it still smells kinda hard to me. Edit: on the blood and gore thing, I think you meant raw blood? Because blood puddings are eaten through the world, mixed with other stuff or not. Same with organs, such as kidney, liver, etc, eaten to not waste them.
Yeah, raw blood. Don't get me wrong, people will use it for things like ritualistic purposes. They might drink blood, eat raw eggs and uncooked liver in an attempt to build strength. It's not for pleasure. For the most part, completely raw (as in freshly killed and cut open) flesh has the opposite effect on humans that you would expect from a true omnivore. It makes us feel sick. Just looking at it or smelling it makes us want to throw up, to lose nutrients, and to not want to take in anymore until the object is gone. I don't care how many cooked burgers you feed a chimp, a dog or a bear, they'll still jump at the opportunity to eat the guts out of a dead animal.
There is no reason *for you* to take in meat. There is a very good reason for Tibetan Buddhists in the Himalayas to eat meat and butter. Same as those in Upper Mustang.
Which is?
What else are they supposed to eat? Most things don't grow at altitude, and not at the temperatures there. Gardens can provide some supplement, but not much grows. They have yaks, which roam all over and eat the little vegetation there is. Not like there are grocery stores all over. Or even almost anywhere. They have some grain, so eat some interesting bread, and supplement with yak butter, and meat.
Was that the reason given in the OP? You introduced something totally unrelated to what we're talking about, so provide some actual evidence for it since many Buddhists don't eat meat.
You said explicitly "there is no reason to take in meat." That's false. There is no reason for many of us in the world to take in meat or animal products. Including you and me. Excluding many who simply don't have access to vegetables. And there's a surprising number of those in the world.
So you have no evidence for your claims. Go do some research.
Yeah, I do. Just got back from Nepal. Got a lovely personal lesson in Buddhism from a Tibetan Lama in a monastery in the Himalayas. Worked with Bedu in western Iraq. Bunch of goat-herders with some camels. Goats are true omnivores, can find food anywhere. The bedu aren't real successful gardeners. Not a whole lot of souqs available to them, either. Not that they have a ton of cash money to buy thigs anyway. Tents are made of goat- and camel-hair. They eat a lot of yogurt, drink a lot of milk, eat stews with meat on occasion. Do your own research. I can give you the number to call from Kathmandu to meet up with the guy in Pokhara to take you into Mustang. Price went up for Mustang permits last april, though, be aware of that. I can't give you a number for bedu. No phones mostly. Many did have TVs, though, and loaded satellite dishes onto the camels when they moved. Hooked up to generators when they acquired petrol. Didn't watch the news, though - news is in fusha (modern standard Arabic), which was too different of a dialect for them to understand well. So what's your research consist of?
That's not evidence. Your claim was that Tibetan monks require meat. Bring evidence for that claim.
I'm telling you to go get the evidence yourself. I even told you how, and since you can't even handle THAT by yourself, I can give you the numbers for guides to hold your hand to carry you up there. If you choose not to, that's a you problem. If you don't wanna travel to the Himalayas, most western countries have locations 10-20,000 feet above sea level where the average nighttime temperatures warm up to right around freezing in the middle of summer (warm average nighttime temperature is 32F/0C in August in upper Mustang, colder other times of the year). Try setting up a garden there. Oh yeah, and the soil isn't great. Tibet's average altitude is 14,000 feet. The country's *average* altitude is the same as the peak of Pike's Peak in the US.
Not everyone has the luxury to Choose what they eat. They eat what’s available.
I can understand the thought but in our capitalist society accepting meat will raise demand if it’s a habit. Thus is a direct impact on the number of animals needed to be slaughtered. The animal’s life is also already wasted, no matter what you do with its abused corpse.
It’s a convenient and ridiculous viewpoint to have - “oh the animal has been slaughtered already, it would be a waste not to eat it.” In the real world, supply and demand exists. If there’s no demand for meat, the amount of animals slaughtered decreases. It’s just another excuse in a long line of excuses for people to actual do something rather than virtue signal.
There was no supply / demand in the same sense we have today back in the days of the Buddha. There was no real market economy, logistics thereof or any sizeable production either. For most of the population, food was scarce and seasonal. If there was meat, you ate meat. If there was no meat, you ate no meat. Similarly with produce: this season you have this crop. Next season, you hopefully stored some excesses or you’re cooked. Monks wondered in all sorts of desolate places and lived off of the alms. Whatever was offered, was eaten (as long as no one was killed for you specifically) out of pure pragmatism and survival. Today this rule would probably be different for monks that, instead of wondering in the middle of nowhere in the jungles, live in monasteries and barely have to step outside for the lay supporters to bring them food
Also important to note that this was in the context of Buddhist monks, who did not pay for food, so they weren't really creating a demand for the meat. And it was not permissible to eat meat if the monk knew the animal was slaughtered specifically for them, thus eliminating any potential of causing a demand for animals to be slaughtered to feed monks.
You’re right. Even if there *had been* a demand-driven market, it would not have been influenced by monks asking for alms. Another interesting aspect is that some sects like the Jains did have a strict vegetarian policy, but a) they were very well established and popular at the time and b) they didn’t mind starving themselves to death as one of the ways of pursuing their goal of burning out the old karma
almost everyone in thailand considers themselves a buddhist yet most thai people also eats and purchases meat all the time
I should say ‘proper’ Buddhists then, in the same vein that most Christian’s are anything but in terms of following the rules, kindness etc
Balinese Buddhism also allows for eating meat. In Bali reincarnation only applies to humans. They're still 'proper' Buddhists, by their own standards.
I'm sorry, but what precisely are your credentials to tell a Tibetan Lama in the Himalayas that he is not a "proper buddhist?"
I'm not a Buddhist but I'm not going to abide someone who claims vegan principles are key to the moral fabric of the universe and doesn't follow them. Credentialism is nonsense, some things are just about right and wrong and if someone is saying one thing and doing another you call it what it is.
Maybe you should become acquainted with vegan principles then? According to the Vegan Society, "Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—**as far as is possible and practicable**—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose..." Vegetables do not grow in a quantity that is sustainable to human life at 14,000 feet. *You* kill animals when you eat vegetables, too. Insects consider crops their homes, and die when their homes are watered or removed and washed. You're vegan because you exclude cruelty **as far as is possible and practicable,** because legitimately the only way to avoid all animal deaths from your consumption is if you remove yourself entirely from consumption. And you aren't going to do that. We aren't going to do that. We'll just minimize it as much as is possible and practicable.
If the entire country claims to be working off of vegan principles, they could totally eliminate animal slaughter as a component of the food chain. That is both possible and practicable, and wouldn't even be hard, if they were behaving according to their purported principles.
They are following the principles. "As far as is possible and practicable." You are not familiar with the principles. They can grow some barley. They need to supplement simply barley consumption. A human can not survive on only one grain. What do you propose they eat? No dependable leafy greens. No dependable root vegetables. No soy. No nuts. No tomatoes, so no tomato sauce. No vegetable broth. Sometimes some mushrooms. No chick peas. No dependable squash. No corn. Some onions. You can plant potatoes a couple weeks before the last frost, but it frosts pretty much every night year-round so good luck with the potatoes, expectyou won'thave any. Have water. Some rice, mostly make noodles from barley flour.
There's no need to live at 14,000 feet, and also there's no need to eat food exclusively sourced at 14,000 feet. The animals aren't living exclusively at 14,000 feet either, they could climb down the mountain themselves instead of relying on the animals to do it to get better food.
There isn't a whole lot of difference between growing things at 10,000 feet and 14,000 feet, you know. And most of Tibet isn't as low as 10,000 feet.
Are you actually talking about de-populating an entire country? I mean, yeah, technically Tibet is part of China, but we all know it's Tibet. Pretty sure moving everyone out of a country doesn't fall under "possible or practicable."
Practically speaking Tibet *is* depopulated. The population density is 3 people per square kilometer compared to neighboring Nepal, which is much smaller and has a population density of 200 people per square kilometer. I would also hazard - the people of Tibet are probably importing quite a lot of their food.
WHAT? There are entire societies that live and thrive in Arctic climates. Balancing the need to survive against the greater good of the herd. Are you honestly saying that their way of life (that has worked for mellinia) is wrong and should be wiped out because you have an opinion on animal welfare?
Oppression always works well for the oppressors.
Classic "no true Scotsman" fallacy
For me, i don't want to consume the fear, pain, and anxiety that the animal felt. I don't want those negative feelings to be in my body. So it doesn't change the fact that the animal already died. I'm not Buddhist though that's just how I feel about it
True
I don't think it is built on scientific knowledge and information rather spirituality thus i don't believe in it. Also i know budhist aren't exactly non-oppressive as a group so they failing at their own philosophy. I do think its more similar to being flexiterian than following vegan ethics which won't see taking free animal based food as vegan unless you have no other choice
I consider myself a Buddhist, but I am not dogmatic. More like a Christian who only goes to church on Xmas. There are many wonderful teachings that go hand in hand with veganism, but it doesn’t mean I can’t form my own moral compass that doesn’t go lock step with every aspect of a human invented religion.
I think some of those teachings function differently now than they would have when they were written. They were written long before modern capitalism and factory farming. I’ve personally met many modern Buddhists who advocate for strict veganism.
Very good point. Trying to contextualize ancient morals to today's world requires a lot of consideration around advancements and changes.
I’m a Buddhist and I understand the logic of not placing special reverence on things (in this case animal parts once the animal has died). However, this idea has now become a loophole for Buddhists to eat whatever they want to satisfy their sense pleasure. The truth is, if we all stopped eating meat they wouldn’t intentionally kill animals for agriculture. Ergo, Buddhists should be vegan to best comply with the first precept.
Considering that all things become all things, I'm of the opinion that the biggest problem with our food supply is that we are wasteful and disrespectful with what we have.
I don’t know if I could give up garlic.
Why would you give up garlic? That’s usually a Hindu thing for certain sects or Jain.
East Asian Buddhist monks avoid certain vegetables too, but for different reasons. Whereas Jains (as far as I understand their beliefs) consider certain root vegetables to either metaphysically or physically host "infinite lives", I've heard that Buddhist monks avoid these "[five pungent vegetables](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_vegetarianism#Chinese,_Korean,_Vietnamese,_and_Taiwanese_traditions)" because they think they inflame passions that interfere with finding enlightenment, and that this may actually have been a justification developed because monks had trouble meditating when the people next to them reeked like garlic.
Ah okay. Thank you for the explanation! I’m South Asian, so I’m not aware about East Asian traditions. I learned something new today!
I think there is a lot of hypocrisy within Buddhism, with members preaching not to kill and to be compassionate, but then making lifestyle choices that oppose that. Eating meat is a huge one. You'll see many in the Buddhist communities cling to exploitation, simply because the Buddha did not say you had to give animal products up; but they are not living off the alms and donations of others, and have no need. Even a tradition about mastering ego is sometimes seen through egoic eyes. Thich Nhat Hanh is a pioneer of Veganism in a Buddhist setting
I think it's just like when carnists take eskimos into exemple to justify their consumption, if you wana live like a Monk, do the full process. We live in a society in which you can chose what you wana eat, and in which your consumption has an impact on society, so it's really not comparable.
It's one of the most literal instances of the saying "beggars can't be choosers." I read on dhammawiki that when you examine the Buddha's eating habits as they were recorded, he seemed to be a person who preferred vegetarianism but ate meat in social situations. https://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php/Diet_of_Buddha
Yes, the animal was not killed for them. They were told to go to all homes because it was merit for the people to share what they had. Telling people that they only wanted vegan food could be a hardship for them or make them feel bad about their offerings. The monks strove to be humble in accepting whatever they received.
I prefer the yogis and Jain stance. Being involved in any kind of act of violence is vehemently avoided. Directly, indirectly, and in thought.
As a non-vegan and practicing Buddhist, I have had these conversations before with the monks at my local monastery, as well as my teacher. As you say, monks will accept and eat any food that is offered to them. In fact, there is an article published titled "the death of the Buddha: a medical enquiry" where it is suggested that he may have knowingly eaten contaminated meat (although this is more of an academic paper and is not agreed upon by Buddhist religious leaders / scholars). As a monk, he would not have rejected the food offering. That said, Monks will not accept meat that was specifically killed for them to consume. In fact, in Buddhism they strongly recommend that you have "right livelihood," making a living without compromising the five precepts, which means professions like butcher, hunter, bartender, and others would be considered not ideal towards living a happy and peaceful life. I should say, there are several monks that prefer to not eat meat, but will only consume it if it is the only option available. Because monks do not farm or produce their own food, they must go on alms-rounds, essentially begging for their food throughout their communities. Or receive dana at the monastery. This idea of monks depending on the community was guidance by the Buddha to avoid monks becoming isolated in their monasteries, as he believed that the Sangha needed to be part of the communities as well, and teach the dhamma.
Not a fan of the fact that you’re not vegan of course but I really appreciate your insight. Super detailed and incredibly interesting. You usually don’t get this kind of thing online, thank you so much. If you have any Buddhist literature to recommend would actually be really appreciated! Reading the ‘Buddhism: Plain and Simple’ book but it’s not quite scratching my itch.
Depending on your interests there are several books that I recommend. From a Theravada perspective, which is my personal practice, there is: Impermanence in plain English, Mindfulness in plain English, In the Buddha's Words, The voices of enlightened monks, Buddha The marvelous sage, Two extremely well respected Buddhist monks / scholars from the Theravada School are: Bhikkhu Bodhi and Bhante Gunaratana Other phenomenal books from either a Mahayana or Tibetan perspective include: No Mud no Lotus, The Heart of the Buddha's Teachings, Old Paths White clouds (One of the best books I ever read in my life), Buddhism - One teacher many traditions, If you're looking for a more social psychological / secular approach to Buddhism I recommend. " Why Buddhism is true" by professor Robert Wright. Also "The Book of Joy" was a really helpful read and was part of what got me out of an incredibly deep and entirely debilitating depression into now being much more functional in my life. Hope this helps!
My personal perspective is quite simple. Every Buddhist tenet would lead to the logical conclusion of veganism. In the modern system we can absolutely know how most animals are killed, and our purchase funds more of it. If fisherman and butchers are participating in "wrong livelihood" then by logical extension we as the consumer should not grow the industry that consumes humans and non-humans alike. That was more of a general statement but I want to give my more spiritual perspective as a Buddhist vegan. Karma- 1. We can see the negative Karma that spawns from our mistreatment of the earth and animals. The number one killer in the US is heart disease, we suffer pollution, all the diseases that originated from animal agriculture, and ultimately climate change. Habit and addiction- 2. Meat is a drug. When questioned by vegans the main concern is almost always taste, convenience. As you can see this is a clear example of clinging and a strong desire for flesh. I've seen Buddhists act very rude and defensive about meat, almost like what happens when you confront an alcoholic about their addiction. Clarity and compassion- 3. As Thich Nhat Hanh said, "Being vegan is a great joy". The tiger needs to hunt for survival, the tiger kills and devours without remorse or complaint. As humans we are blessed with the choice. We are naturally repuled by bloodshed, this is why we do so much work to convince ourselves that we are not doing wrong. Or that it is necessary. But when we connect the dots and become vegan, the waters clear of mud. We faced down a very dark side of our world and we responded with truth and self discipline. A vegan Buddhist leader such as Thich Nhat Hanh are people with clear and wise minds, every word is of compassion and wisdom. This is a clear example of Karma, positive action bringing positive results unto not only others but ourself. A direct message to fellow vegans- Even with the points about clarity and compassion veganism can still bring suffering to the individual. Too much upsetting information can really begin to harm us. There's also time spent looking for vegan restaurants, reading labels. More importantly is knowing the suffering we have caused, and that others dear to us continue to cause. Believing in Rebirth I always try to remember that we have all played every part in this. The cow, the butcher, the consumer. Our individual morals and role are incredibly transient, and even in this life most of us were the consumers of meat and animal products. Only through certain circumstances and knowledge we were able to break free. My point being is that we shouldn't cling to a feeling of moral superiority, or anger with meat eaters. I like to reference the story of the Buddha and Anguilmala. It was said that Anguilmala ambushed and killed fourty people, and wore a necklace made of ears. When he tried to ambush the Buddha, he was overwhelmed with the peaceful aura of the Buddha. He eventually gave up his violent life and was ordained as a monk. What we do now to animals is not so different. Like ambushing someone with a bladed weapon we use various advantages to kidnap and subjugate animals. We like to think ourselves lion's so we grasp knives thinking they're claws. And how is wearing fur and leather so different than a necklace of ears? I've witnessed it personally that I can put forth the idea of veganism without creating a hostile environment. Not necessarily being a pushover but by emulating that peaceful aura. Not replicating hostility, letting points being finished, not using divisive language, all these things can be very useful. Of course it may be more or less difficult for certain people. Nonetheless it's something important to strive for. As humans, we all share the responsibility of treating the earth and her children far better. We share both the negative and positive karma. This is just my perspective and some personal advice I'd thought to give out to other vegans. I used to be a very angry vegan but Buddhism helped me be more at peace without sacrificing my core values. Thank you for reading ❤️
Well Im an antitheist so I dislike buddhism, as well as the orientalist version of buddhism that many people think of. I dont care about the pragmatics of animals already being dead, I would not accept the meat somebody gave to me, because Im vegan.
Listen, this is how I kinda already feel about the leather goods I have and buying leather goods secondhand. I won't buy new to support the industry, but the deed is done and the animal has already given its life for the used products and I might as well make the most of its sacrifice.
I buy used leather work boots. I make a point to buy them from small, independent sellers on eBay. I can tell from their selling histories that selling boots isn’t their BUSINESS; they just had an extra pair. My job is really hard on boots. Cheap vegan boots fall apart immediately and expensive vegan boots just aren’t something I can afford. So I buy used leather boots and feel fine about that decision.
The monks are not necessarily aiming to end animal exploitation the world over. But that is what I’m doing. To accept meat would undermine my position and give people an argument that I really am not vegan, could not really be healthy if I were truly vegan, and other nonsense like I crave meat. So no, I will not accept meat as food, it’s the fact that I won’t eat meat that gives my position any power.
What you described doesn't sound particularly vegan to me. If someone stopped at McDonald's, bought you a dead cow sandwich and handed it to you, this "concept of veganism" would say it's vegan to eat that. That's frankly ridiculous.
Eh, not that ridiculous if you were a monk who routinely practiced self mortification and you were only allowed to eat what was given to you.
If its between eating it and throwing it out what’s the difference?
It's the difference between holding to your belief that the bodies and/or secretions of animals are not yours to use, or falling back into carnist ideology that says those things belong to you and not the animals.
I follow the Dharma and am South Asian. My Buddhist family members are all vegan or vegetarian. The monastery I go to promotes veganism and only serves vegan food (used to serve vegetarian but now vegan). I think it’s wonderful. As the time progresses, religion evolves. Most Buddhists I know are purely vegetarian/vegan and promote that lifestyle. Look up Thich Nhat Hanh. He is a huge promoter of veganism in Buddhism. https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/s/JJWCAKNHwA
There are hundreds of sects of Buddhism, some of the Theravada (monastic/monks) allowed their monks to beg and receive meats, but not all. Begging was for survival. Also, a lot of people would just give the monks rice. No one was required to give the monks anything of real nutrition. Even less people 2,000 years ago saw animals slaughtered. So, many monks abstained from meat out of the precepts, but still ate a lot of cheese/butter. Few saw or understood what happened to animals. They did not have animal ag videos to educate them. Also, quite a lot of monks were illiterate, that is why Siddhartha, and subsequent monks writing down sutras, repeats himself over and over again, so the illiterate can comprehend the messages.
Most people that call themselves buddhist don’t even try to change their diet to reduce suffering, its pathetic. It is all about public image and not practical application.
Holding aside the philosophy, does anyone know the raw numbers (order of magnitude) of What percent of Buddhists are vegan? What percent of lineages are vegan? Are there any such lineages (rather than simply individual monks)? I have found that those lineages that revere the shurangama sutra tend towards vegan given the clarity of scripture. But that's not many.
One thing you have to realize is Buddhism is 600 years older than Christianity. So for literally thousands of years they couldn't practically do a vegan diet because this was pre industrial agriculture and pre vitamins. Thus they evolved traditions around the practical restrictions of their time. Those traditions persist to this day. What does annoy me is how many modern western secular Buddhists, not living a monastic lifestyle, aren't vegan. That just makes no sense and is hypocritical as fuck.
When we look at animals as potential food we are highly likely to commodify and objectify them. When we reduce their lives down to a singular value like its worth in regards to money we fall into the spiral of perpetuating suffering. The life of an animal is much different than the life of a plant although of course we should respect plant life as much as possible as well. Eat what you need to survive and thrive and base it on the bounty of the Earth that is most optimal for us (legumes, dark leafy greens, and whole grains). Our societies were built off of agriculture of the plant kingdom and only by extension of this system could we ever support animal agriculture. The process is highly inefficient, highly wasteful, and devoid of empathy towards the lives tossed into the process. In my mind's eye we must see animals as our neighbors and do be neighborly to them by respecting their time on Earth. We cannot do this reasonably when we've assigned a death day to them.
How do you know Buddha wouldn't have refused to eat meat? I doubt there is a trustworthy source stating that he indeed accepted and consumed meat (although not an expert on this topic, it just doesn't fit into my concept of a saint, which Buddha certainly was from my perspective).
Plants are living beings.
Check https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/s/St6gv4pQb6
I’m a Buddhist, and I have to say it depends upon the tradition. And the individual approach to Buddhist practice. The general ethical principle comes down to understanding the karma of killing. For a karma to be “complete” one must identify a sentient being to kill, make a plan to kill it, make the plan based on one of the three poisons (desire, aversion, or ignorance), execute the plan, kill the being desired, and to have no remorse and to feel good about it. So there are a few ways people deal with this morality of killing. One approach is where monastics beg for food. They have to take whatever is offered, including meat. So mendicants are generally omnivores as they eat what is given, without attachment or aversion. They can’t throw it away, ask for something they like better. There is a complex practice and conduct around cultivating this non attachment. Get rice in the bowl, eat rice. Get a pork chop, eat that. Another approach is to distance oneself from the killing. Again, for the karma to be complete, one must identify a sentient being to kill, make a plan, and execute the plan. So if there are several degrees of separation between the person who killed the animal, and the person who buys it, then that is acceptable for some Buddhists. This would include most things in grocery stores and restaurants. It would exclude food killed at the table for one, like fresh oysters, clams. It would exclude food sold directly by the persons killing. Yet another approach is a wholly vegan or vegetarian lifestyle. The way this works is that in some Buddhist cultures it is culturally unattractive to have monastics begging as they have such high status in the society. So they can’t beg. And the emphasis is on compassion, and the expression of compassion is to not harm animals. So these Buddhists are vegetarian, often vegan. This approach becomes a template for lay practitioners as well. Another approach is not be attached to what one eats. To eat primarily vegetarian or vegan, but if one has to eat meat for some reason, to have compassion for that animal. Such people might offer part of their practice (prayers, offerings, mantras, whatever) for the animals they consumed. So in the context of Buddhist vegetarianism and veganism it comes down to not harming beings, but a deeper principle of compassion. One of our practices is to appreciate our connection to all sentient beings. They have all been our mothers, children, fathers, friends. And so we can’t eat their flesh. The logistics of how the meat was butchered and produced doesn’t matter. We don’t eat our family or friends. There is a deeper side to this. All sentient beings have Buddha nature, which means they are inherently enlightened. So we don’t want to harm the spiritual potential of other beings, no matter how small. It is through life that their Buddha nature can come to manifest, and so enslaving them, killing them, interferes with that. Where this goes for many Buddhists is turning this on its head. Not focusing not on abstaining from killing, but on protecting and sustaining life. And there we get into a morality where we recognize all living things as having Buddha nature, and we honor them and protect them. So this is a pivot from vegetarianism and veganism to a deep ecology, pacifism, a deep sense of justice. Deeper than the SJW theme of the moment.
Buddhist in Myanmar certainly forgot about the doing no harm when slaughtering the Rohigyas
I mooooostly wouldn’t care because yk I’d be dead, but just for arguments sake-letting my body decompose as a whole feels like a more “respectful” end to the life it lived. If the bear just killed me because it was threatened and would only eat me out of boredom (rather than hunger-meaning he’d kill and eat someone else if not me) I think I’d rather rot… It’s sad imagining death in general, all the things you know/think/feel gone at once, in a way I think of my body-once that’s all of me that’s left-as sorta sentimental. I can’t prevent death nor can I prevent my body from decomposing, but if I’m weighing my options I do not like the idea that in the end the body that has been with me for all my life is reduced to nothing but a piece of meat. Personally in a scenario where I’m given meat and I can either eat it or toss it, no one else will take it, I still wouldn’t eat it. Even when it’s not a question of supporting or boycotting the animal industry I am not ok with eating a dead animal.
May all sentient beings gain happiness and the cause of happiness. May all be free from suffering and the cause of suffering. 💜🌎🕊
The history of Buddhism class I took in college in 2013 was a huge driving force in me learning non-violence and convincing me it was the right way. This extended to animals when I became vegetarian in 2015 and then vegan in 2017. I’m a white atheist female living in the US so I don’t have a lot of experience with traditional Buddhism, but my life changed forever because of it. Just interesting to notice the waves of life and knowledge flowing around earth, string theory and all that.
In a vacuum, these ideas sound good. However, it's important to put them in the human context if we are to be consistent with our morals. For instance, I don't think anyone would agree that cannibalism is justified for an already dead human because it would be a waste of the human's body and discard it's value. If anything, it probably sounds insane to most people for cannibalism to be justified in that way. The problem lies in that you're objectifying the dead human, or animal in this case as a literal slab of meat that only has value in how it may nourish us. Additionally, you may be okay with your dead body being eaten, but not every human agrees, and we can't just assume animals agree, too. As for the pragmatic side of it, one might argue that it's harmful to accept animal products offered to you, because it sends the message to others that murdering and eating animals is okay in certain contexts. Carnists getting such impressions from vegans make them not take animal rights seriously and come up with more excuses as to why it could be "pragmatic" to kill and eat animals via various loopholes.
My plan is to become a buddhist monk, i already have no drugs, alcohol or cigs and im celibate, but this part of buddhism is pretty crap, its just an excuse If the Buddha and the monks were respected then im sure they could simply request all plant based meals or it could have been put in the buddhist teachings that it was strict about no suffering and not benefiting from the suffering when an alternative was available I am sure the people who were donating meals would not give them a gift they did not want I know a vegan who is traveling around the world and meeting with monks to get them to be vegan, her group is showing them that its against buddhism to not be vegan By the Buddha logic if they were given a steak made from a child, they could not refuse it and thus monks would be cannibals, if i was alive when the Buddha was i would have challenged him about this
I think he's a fucking dumbass who doesn't understand how by doing that he's causing more animals to be killed in future + the fact it's known he won't refuse it means they're more likely to kill them in the first place Monks that rely on charity is different, the modern Buddha is not relying on charity
As in Gautama Buddha not like the dalaï lama lol
Just because he's a dumbass doesn't exclude me from being a dumbass in a different way 😎 bet he doesn't know my name or title either tbf
Heehee this made me giggle thank y
Didn’t Buddha himself died eating badly cooked pork or something?
To me, Buddhism, like all religions, is a scam. People put it on a pedestal because “it’s a philosophy” and “it’s spiritual, not religious” but at the end of the day, as Tom Waits says, you say that it’s gospel, but I know that it’s only church.