Unlike Sid, Lodro's dog Tillie is a big fan of the turkey
by Lodro Rinzler
Before Siddhartha Gautama attained enlightenment at age 35 he was a confused twenty and thirty-something looking to learn how to live a spiritual life. He had an overbearing dad, expectations for what he was supposed to do with his life, drinks were flowing, lutes were playing, and the women were all about him. Some called him L.L. Cool S. I imagine close friends just referred to him as Sid.
Many people look to Siddhartha as an example of someone who attained nirvana, a buddha. But here we look at a younger Sid as a confused guy struggling with his daily life. What would he do as a young person trying to find love, cheap drinks, and fun in a city like New York? How would he combine Buddhism and dating? We all make mistakes on our spiritual journey; here is where they're discussed.
Each week I'll take on a new question and give some advice based on what I think Sid, a confused guy working on his spiritual life in a world of major distraction, would do. Because let's face it, you and I are Sid.
Have a question for this weekly column? E-mail it here and Lodro will probably get to it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After a delicious Thanksgiving meal I saw the carnage of a leftover turkey and felt great remorse. It became very clear to me that my family had killed a living being and eaten it. Unfortunately, it was delicious. What would Sid do? Would he become a vegetarian in today's world?
---
The simplest (and perhaps most satisfying) answer is yes. I believe that if he lived in today's world Sid would be a vegetarian. When he became a buddha he was pretty clear that the first of the five main precepts of his disciples should be "I undertake a vow to abstain from taking life."
The surprising thing is that the no-meat stance is not generally agreed upon, despite that precept. Theravadin schools of Buddhism say that the Buddha allowed his monastic students to eat pork, chicken and beef if the animal was not killed for the purpose of providing food specifically for them. And that was just for monastics; lay people could eat whatever sort of elephant or horse meat they could find. So to be clear: the act of eating meat was deemed karmically neutral. The act of killing or having something killed for you to eat was karmically negative.
Over time though many savvy consumers (Happy Black Friday everyone) have raised a finger and said, "But what about supply and demand?" At first it may appear that the Buddha did not buy into that particular logic when making this decision. Since alms were basically leftovers from lay households it was argued that the meat was not directly linked to the monks or nuns' karma. It's as if I showed up at your home yesterday and you gave me whatever leftover turkey you were putting in the fridge. By this argument I would take whatever you gave me and not be karmically responsible.
Some people may find that argument convincing. I myself think that it's a bit of a cop out; if I eat the last of your turkey who's to say you won't wake up the next day, wish it were still there, and go out and get another one?
Over time different schools of Buddhism have placed differing levels of importance on vegetarianism. Certain Vajrayana practices actually call for the consumption of meat. Add this religious context to the existing cultural one (it's incredibly hard to grow vegetables in Tibet, whereas yaks are all over the place) and you develop a certain flexibility for Tibetan monastics. Tibetan Buddhists generally respect the "three condition" rule where it's a neutral act if the meat is not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed for you. I've also heard a three hand rule where if the meat is slaughtered by one person, sold to another, and cooked by another before it reaches you your karma is not directly related to the death of the animal.
Even His Holiness the Dalai Lama continues to eat meat. While some people have taken him to task for doing so he has stated that his doctors have recommended it and continues to be a carnivore while still imploring other Buddhists to become vegetarians.
While I understand someone having to eat meat for health reasons I think that in modern Western society it's not too hard to be a vegetarian. I think if Sid were not collecting alms but held a job and bought all his own meals he would likely choose a falafel over a Big Mac. I personally believe that Sid would hold the life of animals in such high regard that he would go out of his way to be a vegetarian.
However, I think that if he were out in the middle of nowhere at a friend's barbecue with no vegetarian options in sight he would accept a burger if it were passed his way. He would then eat said burger with appreciation in his heart for the animal that gave his or her life to feed him and his friends.
As with everything on this spiritual path we need to determine what makes sense for us. While discussing becoming vegetarian with my girlfriend she pointed out that as I am not the best chef in the world I may find it a somewhat more expensive lifestyle than a cheap meat based diet. While I am still on the fence about going cold turkey (pun intended) I do intend to be more mindful of my meat intake, relying on meatless options more readily. For me, that is what makes sense for now. Best of luck determining what makes sense for you.
The simplest (and perhaps most satisfying) answer is yes. I believe that if he lived in today's world Sid would be a vegetarian. When he became a buddha he was pretty clear that the first of the five main precepts of his disciples should be "I undertake a vow to abstain from taking life."
The surprising thing is that the no-meat stance is not generally agreed upon, despite that precept. Theravadin schools of Buddhism say that the Buddha allowed his monastic students to eat pork, chicken and beef if the animal was not killed for the purpose of providing food specifically for them. And that was just for monastics; lay people could eat whatever sort of elephant or horse meat they could find. So to be clear: the act of eating meat was deemed karmically neutral. The act of killing or having something killed for you to eat was karmically negative.
Over time though many savvy consumers (Happy Black Friday everyone) have raised a finger and said, "But what about supply and demand?" At first it may appear that the Buddha did not buy into that particular logic when making this decision. Since alms were basically leftovers from lay households it was argued that the meat was not directly linked to the monks or nuns' karma. It's as if I showed up at your home yesterday and you gave me whatever leftover turkey you were putting in the fridge. By this argument I would take whatever you gave me and not be karmically responsible.
Some people may find that argument convincing. I myself think that it's a bit of a cop out; if I eat the last of your turkey who's to say you won't wake up the next day, wish it were still there, and go out and get another one?
Over time different schools of Buddhism have placed differing levels of importance on vegetarianism. Certain Vajrayana practices actually call for the consumption of meat. Add this religious context to the existing cultural one (it's incredibly hard to grow vegetables in Tibet, whereas yaks are all over the place) and you develop a certain flexibility for Tibetan monastics. Tibetan Buddhists generally respect the "three condition" rule where it's a neutral act if the meat is not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed for you. I've also heard a three hand rule where if the meat is slaughtered by one person, sold to another, and cooked by another before it reaches you your karma is not directly related to the death of the animal.
Even His Holiness the Dalai Lama continues to eat meat. While some people have taken him to task for doing so he has stated that his doctors have recommended it and continues to be a carnivore while still imploring other Buddhists to become vegetarians.
While I understand someone having to eat meat for health reasons I think that in modern Western society it's not too hard to be a vegetarian. I think if Sid were not collecting alms but held a job and bought all his own meals he would likely choose a falafel over a Big Mac. I personally believe that Sid would hold the life of animals in such high regard that he would go out of his way to be a vegetarian.
However, I think that if he were out in the middle of nowhere at a friend's barbecue with no vegetarian options in sight he would accept a burger if it were passed his way. He would then eat said burger with appreciation in his heart for the animal that gave his or her life to feed him and his friends.
As with everything on this spiritual path we need to determine what makes sense for us. While discussing becoming vegetarian with my girlfriend she pointed out that as I am not the best chef in the world I may find it a somewhat more expensive lifestyle than a cheap meat based diet. While I am still on the fence about going cold turkey (pun intended) I do intend to be more mindful of my meat intake, relying on meatless options more readily. For me, that is what makes sense for now. Best of luck determining what makes sense for you.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Hello all,
I just wanted to chime in and say that I'm appreciating this debate. As has been stated above I doubt we will find a definitive answer on whether it is okay for Buddhists in today's world to eat meat. What has been stated thus far has given me a lot to think about.
The few comments I don't agree with are those along the lines of "Who cares about meat? Your mind is the only thing that matters!" I disagree. Yes, on an absolute level working with your mind can lead to enlightenment. On a relative level we need to eat to support our body and practice.
Conduct is important. There are too many Buddhists out there who sit everyday for 30 years but are unkind to their spouse, co-workers, or dry cleaner. If we consider our mindfulness and compassion practice only as the time we are on the cushion, ignoring the rest of our daily life, then I believe we are missing the point.
Thanks and please keep commenting,
Lodro
There is a Buddhist verse "don't comdemn the butcher if your family eats the meat."
On the whole ... wading warily past some of the icky ego, anger and judginess above ... I cannot eat meat without knowing I took a life. I do think about the fact that we all die. I do think of native american cultures and their honor for the life taken and the way they used everything; but I still have guilt.
I could not personally kill an animal, I could not kill a bird, I could not kill a fish. I have seen the cows grazing on the hillsides,I have seen the birds crammed into crates on their way to market, I have stroked a fish as it swam alongside ... like a friend ... as I snorkeled.
In my mind, I am a hypocrite when I eat the creatures I love.
If I don't want to live with the guilt, I don't eat the meat. Over Thanksgiving I ate what was offered to please my parents, but I was anxious to be away from it. It no longer FEELS RIGHT.
Dawn - that is my struggle. I can easily make my own choices, but my dogs are carnivores. One has to be hyper-vigilant to choose the products that will do the least harm.
good post,go on your good job,guys.
I've been away from this site for the past two and a half weeks because of Thanksgiving and then a retreat and final-studying afterward so I'm a little late to this discussion but I do have some thoughts I'd like to add.
I've recently switched to a vegetarian diet for a variety of reasons, including for health and ethical considerations. I also agree that Sid would be a vegetarian in today's world. In the West, those of us in the middle-class really have no reason to eat meat aside from pleasure and habit. We can get all of our essential nutrients from plant-based sources and there are many many meat and egg substitutes out there for those who are interested. Of course, becoming vegetarian just isn't financially possible for many people in this country because of the food production and distribution system we have set up here, but I digress.
The reason I'd be inclined to think that Sid would prefer a plant-based diet if he lived in the West today is because of the factory farm practices that Jon mentioned in his comment. I know that I personally would like to to invest less of my money in an industry that is clearly responsible for the suffering of billions (yep, with a 'b' I've read figures of about 10 billion/year) of sentient beings every year in the US. I'd think that Sid would want to see that system reformed.
As with all things Buddhist, I agree that we should use "The Middle Way" as our guide. All that any of us can do is the best we can to reduce suffering in this world. For me, that means choosing a plant-based diet but for others that may mean eating local or volunteering or some other means. I would just encourage people to do what they can.
@Lordo, re: the cooking issue. I was a little worried about that as well when I chose to go vegetarian earlier this year but I'm finding that many of the recipes I enjoyed pre-vegetarian were easily converted and learning to cook vegetarian and vegan has actually opened me up to a whole new world of food and flavors that I'd never tried before. It's actually made me a better cook, I think.
@Dawn: re: what to feed your dogs. I've personally kept my dog on his normal kibble diet but at this point I don't have a huge problem with it. I recently heard an interesting podcast on this issue from Vegan Chef Colleen Patrick-Goudreau: Vegetarian Food for Thought episode "What do vegetarians feed their cats and dogs?"dated 3/20/07. Dogs are omnivores and essentially scavengers.. apparently, they can live on a plant-based diet if it's planned correctly. Cats - on the other hand - are carnivores and really should have a meat-based diet. podcastalley link: http://www.podcastalley.com/podcast_details.php?pod_id=38546&allEpisodes=
So, my bottom-line: I agree with Anan, "If vegetarianism serves the spiritual path and its goals, then it is good. If it becomes an obsessive obstruction, it is bad. And to the extent it serves inculcating non-violence, love and compassion, it is excellent. If it becomes an obsessive search for perfect purity to the detriment of the rest of the spiritual life...it is bad."
Well said. I've chosen to be a vegetarian because I feel that it helps support my spiritual and physical fitness. However, if someone chooses to become a vegetarian out of some sort of guilt or pressure to try and be "perfect," I don't really think that would be "skillful means."
Apologies if this was a bit rambling.. I have a lot of thoughts on this subject and I do think it is an important question for spiritual people of any ilk to explore.
Gassho
Here is a good video on the subject: http://meat.org
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.