I think it's clearly wrong to try to twist the Dhamma into saying that all Buddhists must be vegans as the Buddha didn't make it compulsory. However I shall be taking the stance that all Buddhists who has compassion and wisdom should be vegans, highly encouraged to be vegans, and it's ok for social pressure to push every humans to be vegans, just short of making it compulsory.
For those who hide behind the excuse that Buddha was not a vegan, why should I be? Do these vegans think that they are morally superior to the most moral being (Buddha)? I say that those excuse are cowardly in this day and age. In the time of the Buddha, there was no issue of global warming caused by human activities, in particular, the meat industry plays a huge role. It's also clear that while the Buddha didn't ban meat althoughter, he does make an effort to not encourage meat eating as well.
My suspicions of why the Buddha didn't outright say veganism is compulsory is for the consideration of the beginners to Buddhism. Clearly the Dhamma food is more valuable compared to physical food. So to set the bar high that all who converts to Buddhism must be vegans would turn people away from the Dhamma rather than towards it. Also, he might have foreseen that for some parts of human history and location where Buddhism goes, it might be impractical for those people to become vegan, and thus Buddhism would not take root there with the vegan requirement.
Now, however, the world has a lot of strong secular reason to go vegan: environment, to avoid cruelty to animals and for their own personal health. It's possible one day to have everyone on earth to be vegan, and thus Buddhism shouldn't be a bastion for the last meat eaters to justify continuing eating meat. And now, it's very practical for most humans in all locations of the world to turn to veganism, as long as there exist a supermarket nearby. For as long as the whole world is not vegan yet, I would agree that it's too high a bar to set to beginners to ask them to be vegans in order to be Buddhists.
But for those of you Buddhists who had been in the Dhamma for years. Maybe say 5 years is a lot already, those of you who are serious in the practise of generating metta, boundless loving kindness towards all beings. Do direct your loving-kindness towards the animals now trapped in factory farming, due to being slaughtered, those male chicks in egg industry due to being killed immediately because they are deemed worthless. Those cows who gets raped repeatedly just to produce milk and their baby who gets killed soon after birth. Use that as a motivation to go vegan and align your actions with what you profess to believe.
Here are some reasons why Buddhism strongly encourages veganism:
1. The first precept: It's to avoid killing. To reconcile the ability to eat meat while practising the first precept, the precept means no direct killing. So don't eat live food, like insects, seafood, osters, octopus etc. Also, don't order for a fish to be killed just to be served for you. But that's only the basic step.
If we go beyond the first precept, it's logical to try to develop avoiding indirect killing as much as possible too. That means going vegan. Even if there is some blood in the harvesting process for plants, it's much less compared to the meat industry, as the animals eat much more plants and then get killed too. That's also a natural result of practising loving-kindness. We want to be able to reduce other's suffering as much as possible.
2. Right livelihood: avoid trading in meat, living beings, weapons, poison, alcohol, also avoid livelihood which breaks the 5 precepts. How is one able to still eat meat then? It's to eat meat prepared by butchers of other religions. It's to have cognitive dissonance that buying has nothing to do with the trade.
So a Buddhist majority country like Thailand, Myanmar who are not also majority vegans do have to deal with uncomfortable truths. The meat they enjoy is due to the presence of some butchers of other religions, regardless of whether the meat comes from outside or inside their borders. So is that not a bit hypocrite? To have others bear the kamma of killing just so that one can enjoy meat?
To link up the act of buying with trade, it's obvious that if we buy meat, we are the paymasters of the butchers, even if it goes through several layers of middle man, the intention is still clear. Meat buyers send a message to those involved in the trade of meat, living beings that their livelihood is ok, is supported by them. It's like buying guns from weapons dealers, you give money for them to continue operate to cause a lot of harm in the world. Is that really ok with your conscience?
3. Jivaka Sutta:In three cases I say that meat may not be eaten: it’s seen, heard, or suspected. These are three cases in which meat may not be eaten.
In three cases I say that meat may be eaten: it’s not seen, heard, or suspected. These are three cases in which meat may be eaten.
Keep in mind that the Buddha was referring to the monks and nuns when applying this sutta. So it's not the case that all meat are allowed to be eaten by them. Many lay Buddhists do try to apply the same sort of standard to them and it's pretty good too, at least it means one will not participate in eating live food. How people can continue eating meat is when eating meat, one does not give rise to unwholesome intentions, not harm others, not wishing for any sort of particular food, eg. meat. In the sutta too, the Buddha said those who deliberately kills to prepare meat for him and his disciples have great unwholesome kamma.
“Jīvaka, anyone who slaughters a living creature specially for the Realized One or the Realized One’s disciple makes much bad karma for five reasons.
When they say: ‘Go, fetch that living creature,’ this is the first reason. When that living creature experiences pain and sadness as it’s led along by a collar, this is the second reason. When they say: ‘Go, slaughter that living creature,’ this is the third reason. When that living creature experiences pain and sadness as it’s being slaughtered, this is the fourth reason. When they provide the Realized One or the Realized One’s disciple with unallowable food, this is the fifth reason.
So the usual logic for lay people to continue offering meat to the monks and nuns is that they didn't personally do the slaughtering.
Now, let's extend this principle further. Not seen, heard or suspected. Does it have to be seen and heard the exact animal being killed, so I cannot eat that particular animal if I go visit a slaughterhouse? But then I can eat another animal, prepared from different slaughterhouse? Does seeing and hearing needs to be live, in person? Or is a recording of it is sufficient? If a recording of it is sufficient, then those who watched youtube videos of animal slaughters should know better than to continue eating meat. And on suspect, does that imply knowledge? So anyone who's not a kid, who knew that meat comes from killing animals should suspect that this meat had been killed.
Yet, the usual come back is that it's not killed specifically for you. But who are the animals killed for then? The consumers, the customers, those who buy. We can clearly say that monks who don't have the power to buy food is not what the meat is killed for. But the layperson who has the power to buy food would clearly suspect that this meat is killed for them. That happens the moment one exercises the power to buy and choses the cruel option. So one way of practising this is that monks and nuns can eat meat, but it should be only been offered by those who had not specifically buy meat for them, but by those who had already gotten meat, didn't have anything else to offer, then they have generosity to offer to the monks and nuns. That's a pretty rare occasion. Especially if the lay persons who wishes to follow the Jivaka sutta should themselves refrain from buying meat. Basically the only meat available are maybe roadkill, or their friends offer to them.
4. Metta: loving-kindness. And applied to beings who suffer, it's compassion. Compassion crucially is not only wishing that other's suffering is gone, but to act to help reduce suffering. One way to continue eating meat despite having practise these is to have cognitive dissonance, one does not have these feelings outside of meditation or that it's not universally applied. More applied to humans than the animals due to be slaughtered. Those not yet to be born, but due to be slaughtered in the future as well.
As highlighted above, it's a pretty powerful tool to help set the motivation for going vegan by applying metta towards the animals to be slaughtered, and those to be born to be killed. The reason why so many animals can be killed in the first place is because humans force breed them to meet the demands of meat. So going vegans is having compassion for those to be born. Also, when it comes right down to it, all three reasons for going vegans are compassion. Environment is compassion for the humans and animals of this planet, to avoid them from facing worse global warming. Health is compassion for oneself to have the best interest of one's health at heart when choosing to go vegan. And of course the animals themselves.
5. The Buddha didn't ban monks from being vegans. When meat eater Buddhists respond to vegan promoters, they usually bring up the story of Devadatta trying to convert the monks and nuns to be vegetarians.
Looking closely at the story, it's clear that the Buddha also didn't say that lay Buddhist cannot be vegans. The Buddha allowed for pure meat (not seen, heard or suspected), but he didn't outright say that monks and nuns themselves cannot choose to be vegans. He just didn't make it compulsory for them to be one. Granted it's super hard for monks and nuns to be vegans at the time. However, in many places now the Theravada meal offerings are in buffet style, so the monks can choose what food to eat by themselves. The choice of food may be interpreted by the lay people who are offering it as oh this monk likes that meat, next time we should always prepare that meat for them. So it can cause indirect harm in this way. One way for monks and nuns to help is to declare themselves as vegans and have Dhamma talks encouraging veganism, and only choosing the vegan dishes at meal offerings which are buffet styles. This way of living by example can encourage a lot of the disciples to offer only vegan food and maybe even turn vegan themselves, helping with reducing suffering in the world.
6. Dependent Origination: buying creates demand which drives future killing, present killing is due to future demands. Some people use this time lag and distance from the killing from the mass of economic process of transferring meat to lay aside the responsibility of meat eating to killing of the animal. While it's true that in the story of the serial killer who was demanded by the people to be caught and then sentences the serial killer to death, the kamma of killing is due to the executioner and the judge rather than the public who demanded safety. So it is with the meat. However, it's also possible to imagine a world without capital punishment. Thus no killing is done. It's possible to imagine a world of vegans, thus minimizing killing. As a world of vegans involves the work of everyone, is it not better to choose to go vegan in pursuit of that hope rather than base our actions only on kamma? Don't say that it's impossible to have a world of vegans. Slavery used to be common place. Women used to be inferior to men. LGBT used to be known as unacceptable behavior. Social change is coming, and it's the vegan time.
7. Rebirth in the animal realms. As we had undergo beginningless rebirth, it's hard to find anyone who had not been our relatives in the past. Thus most if not all of the meat eaten had at one point in the past been our father, mother, spouse, children, relatives. It's disgusting to think about it and can be a good motivation to abandon meat due to this reason. One way of continuing eating meat is to don't think too much.
8. The banning of certain animals to the monks and nuns. The meat of these animals are not to be consumed by monks or nuns. Human beings, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, and hyenas. Ignorance is not an excuse as the Buddha did scold the monk who eat human flesh without inquiring about it. For the dog's case it's that society find it unacceptable for monks and nuns to eat dogs. You can clearly see that cats is missing from the list. Yet it's also easy to imagine such an uproar from people if cat's flesh is served to the monks and is consumed. One way to continue eating meat is to stick to the rules. Meat not of these animals can be eaten. However, an easier way around to go would be just to go vegan.
In conclusion, many of the articles which discourages the link between Buddhism and vegetarianism does end with that the most effective way to end suffering is to practise the Dhamma rather than to go vegan. I agree with it. But since most people are not going to become instant arahants, or even in this life, on the journey towards enlightenment, one has to eat on the way to enlightenment, with each meal comes a choice. Why not choose a compassionate diet too? Further reading: https://sujato.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/why-buddhists-should-be-vegetarian-with-extra-cute/
No comments:
Post a Comment