Changes are coming to Dhammanet...

Stay tuned!

Thank you for being with Dhammanet over the last five years.

Traditional Buddhist Positions   

The approach to vegetarianism is different among Buddhist communities due to the various cultural influences and traditions.   We have Mahayana Buddhist communities who practice strict vegetarianism perhaps mainly due to the core teachings of the Mahayana Buddhist ideal of helping all sentient beings. These monks and nuns do not appear to have any problems with support from the lay communities whose traditional diet generally includes many varieties of meat.   Then we have Theravada Buddhist communities where offering of cooked animal flesh to monks and nuns is not considered a major issue. However, it is interesting to note that offering of meat and meat products is less prevalent in countries influenced by Hinduism – e.g. Sri Lanka where offering of fish is more acceptable, whereas offering of beef, pork is more common in countries such as Thailand.   It is also interesting to note that in countries such as Sri Lanka, most forest monasteries are strictly vegetarian. The lay supporters do not even offer fish or fish products which is an integral part of  traditional cuisine.   Vinaya rules specifically prevent monks and nuns consuming certain types of meats – eating the meat of humans, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears and hyenas considered to be for the purpose of self protection (avoiding danger from wild animals when walking through forests and jungles) and self respect.   There are some Theravada monasteries here in Australia who do not explicitly request offering of vegetarian food but the message is conveyed in a subtle way to discourage the lay people from offering meat. It appears at these monasteries the lay people have no problem accepting this position for the sake of reducing cruelty to animals. Quite clearly the monks and nuns in these monasteries were using their influence to promote compassion towards all living beings at the expense of being seen as 'transgressing' Vinaya rules in a strictly technical sense.   I also recall seeing on a website of a certain monastery about their position in consuming meat. In this write up, the Vinaya rules associated with consumption of meat was very clearly articulated but reading between the lines I felt that this was more a justification or even an invitation to continue supplying meat for consumption of monks and nuns. No doubt compassion towards living beings are considered slightly less important compared to keeping a cultural tradition alive at these monasteries. I am glad to note that this particular website has recently taken off this page hopefully with the long term intention of moving towards vegetarianism!   

Traversing the Spectrum   

All Buddhas supposed to have stated that to abstain from all evil and cultivating the good is the starting point in their teachings. Abstaining from killing living beings and being compassionate towards them lie on different ends of the same spectrum of human activity.   First we try to abstain from killing living beings and then we can improve on this by being kind to living beings and avoiding harm and cruelty to them. For most Buddhists this is not a problem – being kind to animals, especially pets or domesticated animals, is just as easy as not killing them for many Buddhists in this world. In fact, most Buddhists, and of course some non-Buddhists, will find it not only impossible to kill animals but even watching animals being killed by others abhorrent.   Some time ago, I sent an email to my friends about a video available on Youtube titled, 'Earthings' (http://www.earthlings.com/earthlings/video-full.php) which gives graphic descriptions on how humans inflict cruelty on animals – not just killing for meat consumption but also raising them for animal products, entertainment and scientific research. Most of the people I sent the email to later told me that they could not bring themselves to watch such cruelty on video and hence did not even want to watch it!   Yet, somehow, we do not appear to have a moral problem consuming meat as long as the animal has been killed by others. Our compassion appear to come to an abrupt halt when others do the killing for us.   We tend to justify this dilemma simply by coming out with clever arguments like, whether one eats meat or not, animals will be killed anyway, one cannot correct injustices in this world or if everyone stops eating meat what would happen to the meat/fish industry? and so on.   

Supply  & Demand   

Of course, no one is under any delusion that if one becomes a vegetarian that the killing of all animals will come to a halt. However, the fact remains that even a few people becoming vegetarians can make a significant difference to the number of animals being killed.   For example, WikiAnswers claims that “In the US in 2008 the number of cattle, pigs, chickens, layer hens, broiler chickens and turkeys slaughtered in total was 18,573,833,400 (18.5 billion). That is 35,338 animals slaughtered every minute in the US alone. That excludes fish.”   Assuming only 150,000,000 people (50% of the US population) consumed meat this would mean over 120 animals per year being killed per person in the US alone.   If we become more conservative in our calculations, and take the position that 50 animals will be saved  per year per person around the world then even a small group of people abstaining from consuming meat would amount to a significant saving of lives.   It is not just the saving of lives – it also helps reduce untold cruelty that goes along in raising animals for meat production.   So the statistics are very clear – even one person becoming a vegetarian or even making a conscious effort to reduce the consumption of meat will have a significant impact on the lives of the animal and their well being.   So, what is stopping us taking a more compassionate attitude towards animals? I put to you that it has to be our inability to part with the desire for the taste of meat although we may be willing to show compassion to animals by not killing them ourselves.   

Killing will still happen   

Those who use the argument that 'killing of animals will still happen anyway therefore why bother?' should only ask themselves how come most countries do not kill dogs and cats for meat? It is simply because most people love dogs and cats and therefore do not want even to entertain the idea of hurting such lovely creatures let alone killing them for consumption. Those who have had pet cows, goats, chickens etc will feel the same way about these animals.   Essentially, killing will still happen simply because people want that process to continue not because of some mysterious force of nature. We want that process to continue because it fulfills a need for a particular type of a taste or a need for some form of nutrition which we believe we cannot get otherwise.   

Protein Factor   

Many use the argument of lack of protein can affect human health if we did not consume meat. This probably can be a valid argument in remote parts of the world such as in the Himalayas or in some desert habitats, but by and large there is an abundance of products which can be used as protein alternatives in most countries especially in the developed countries.   Ironically, most animal slaughter is done in the developed nations of the world with the rest of the developing world catching up fast with this cruelty.   

Intention is what matters   

There is no argument that the intentions behind killing and eating meat are significantly different and that those who eat meat do not do so with the intention of killing animals. However, it is also clear that eating meat directly contributes to cruel methods of farming and killing of animals. Therefore, any attempt at avoiding eating meat to reduce the cruelty and killing of animals amounts to actively developing compassion – one of the cornerstones of the Buddha's noble path. Hence when and where possible all Buddhists should be encouraged to avoid eating meat or at least reduce the consumption of meat.   

Forcing the view on others   

Another often used excuse for Buddhist organizations not opting to go vegetarian is due to the fear or not wanting to, force their views about consuming animal flesh on others. Superficially, this looks a very sound and a noble argument.   However, there are plenty of other instances where Buddhists do force their views on others – for example, Buddhist organizations do not allow the sale of alcohol, gambling or other forms of dubious activities to raise funds although preventing such activities will no doubt will force our view on others who may see them, rightly or wrongly, as harmless.   Similarly, helping reduce animal slaughter, while may have some impact on those who prefer to eat meat, undertaken with the right intentions will result in a good outcome.     

No Vinaya rule   

People often say that the Buddha did not lay down a Vinaya rule prohibiting eating meat as a defensive argument. This is probably right – that the Buddha did not specifically proscribe eating meat but then the Buddha also did not proscribe many other forms of human activities, some of them which even did not exist at the time of the Buddha – for example, the fact that Vinaya does not ostracize bull fighting does not make this cruel activity acceptable to Buddhists. In fact, it should be the responsibility of lay Buddhists to condone such actions where possible with the hope of putting an end to them.   While lay Buddhists certainly do not have to follow the controntational path of organizations such as Sea Sheppard, Greenpeace etc we certainly should not maintain the silence when mass scale cruelty takes place and take non-violent action to  alleviate the suffering. Moving towards vegetarianism certainly is a small contribution we all can make to stop mass scale killing of animals.   

Historical perspective   

While strictly adhering to the word of the Buddha is a noble act, as Buddhist we should also view issues in terms of today's socio-economic conditions. Urging people avoid consumption of meat may not have been such a major issue in the days of the Buddha where it is highly unlikely that abattoirs and large scale animal farming would have existed. People would have killed animals for meat on a needs basis rather than the need to fill the supermarket shelves as done today.   'Animal Auschwitzs' which kill billions of cattle or modern day hatcheries where young live male chicks are put through the grinder for meat (as only female chicks are used for egg industry) definitely would not have existed during the time of the Buddha.   Would it be too unreasonable to assume that such a compassionate person like the Buddha would have made a more definite stand on the consumption of meat had he lived today?  

Traditions cannot be changed   

An often used excuse is that some cultural traditions where offering of meat is the norm cannot be changed or is, almost impossible. to change. There is no doubt that this is a hard thing to do but Buddha's own life and those of his followers were full of stories and anecdotes where traditions were challenged and were successfully changed for the sake of development of wisdom and compassion.   The Buddha's own work in social reform are classic examples where he boldly and skillfully challenged the traditions however sacred they were considered to be at the time – two of the greatest events of course, were the ordination of women and low caste people – certainly a very radical reform in a society which held very definite and uncompromising views on such matters.   I have heard a story where Ajahn Chah helped a traditional Thai fisherman abandon his profession so that he could lead a better, more harmless, life. Obviously the great Thai master did not think that helping people become more compassionate is a difficult thing to do.   

People come first   

Yet another justification for continuing a non-vegetarian life style in Buddhist organizations is the argument that by going fully vegetarian we may disappoint the supporters who are non-vegetarian and who are happy providing deliciously cooked meat dishes.   If the guiding principle is people's welfare why is that we do not even think of the poor souls who day in day out have to kill animals for a living? Why doesn't our compassion extend to those people who have to slaughter animals and are unknowingly making such bad kamma but is just limited to some supporters who get the pleasure out of cooking meat dishes and offering them to the Sangha?   I presume that there may be a few supporters who misguidedly believe that offering more expensive meat dishes to Sangha will bring them a lot more merit than if they were to offer a vegetarian meal. But then isn't it time that such Organizations challenge these views just like what the great teacher did?       

Obligations of the laity   

As discussed earlier, in strictly keeping with Vinaya, monks and nuns cannot be expected to set guidelines as to what type of food should be offered by the lay people. While some monks and nuns have used their personal skills to guide the lay supporters towards compassion by encouraging them to offer only vegetarian food it is impossible for us to expect such an approach would work in all cases.   However, on the other hand the lay supporters clearly can make a choice – there is nothing preventing them from making the organizations they belong to become more humane and compassionate.   Ajahn Brahm in one of his talks[1] quite succinctly summed up the options available for the laity. In his talk he said, “Monks may not exercise choice when it comes to food and that is much harder than being a vegetarian. Nonetheless, we may encourage vegetarianism and if our lay supporters brought only vegetarian food and no meat, well...monks may not complain either! May you take the hint and be kind to animals”.  As Buddhists we should  ask ourselves, why the lay Buddhist supporters are hesitant in  acting upon this hint?   Clearly the lay Buddhist supporters can set a more compassionate standard and they have an obligation to do so.   

All or Nothing   

I guess one of the problems of making a shift towards vegetarianism is due to having high expectations or ideals – people wanting it to be all or nothing.   This does not have to be so. It is certainly not only impossible but also undesirable that such major shifts in habits be undertaken straight away. However, if this is done in smaller steps so that the entire community is behind such a noble cause then such a course of action is likely to succeed and accepted by all supporters.   What is important is to take the first step and continue moving forward so that the organization can help prevent cruelty to animals.   For example, firstly the membership can be alerted to the fact that in keeping with the principle of universal compassion, the organization prefers to offer only vegetarian food for its monks and nuns. Most organizations will be surprised how well its membership will accept such a position – all it requires is a bold person to make the first call.   As time goes by, serving non-vegetarian food will become a rarity and eventually it will come to a point where no one will want to offer non-vegetarian meals to monks and nuns.   With regards to fund raising events, Buddhist organizations can make a significant impact by making its food fairs and fund raising dinners vegetarian events. If Buddhist events can take place without serving alcohol, gambling and other sleazy activities, why is that vegetarian events are considered such massive obstacles?   One of the Vietnamese Centers in Canberra regularly run food stalls to raise funds at public events and guess what? They only offer vegetarian meals. In fact they also run a restaurant (which is aptly called,   Karuna Restaurant) which offers vegetarian meals which is popular among the local community. Those who doubt the ability to raise funds without the sale of meat should consider meeting the abbot of this monastery who has undertaken massive building projects at this location.   

Compassion for our environment   

By becoming vegetarians not only we show compassion to animals but also we will be contributing to the healing of our global environment. There are enough research showing the highly adverse impact of modern day animal farming methods on our fragile global environment. Thus, any reduction in the consumption of meat is also a way to show compassion to our environment and to future generations of  human and animals in this world.   

Let's get the ball rolling   

We do not have to wait for the entire world to agree to go vegetarian before we can start doing something ourselves. In fact, we do not need to wait for all Buddhist communities to agree to this – we can start the process locally – within our communities, irrespective of how small or big they may be.   It is as simple as taking the following three steps;   1.    Discourage consumption of meat which can be promoted by the local community leaders, committees and ideally with the blessing of the members of the Sangha. 2.    Committees taking an active role in discouraging the offer of meat to monks and nuns 3.    No 'blood money' to be raised by selling meat dishes at Buddhist food fairs and social events.   All we need is the commitment of a group of people to make it happen so that lives of animals can be spared every year and in the process Buddhists can develop greater compassion and greater letting go of desire for meat which will all help towards their spiritual goal.   There is no doubt that we all contribute to killing of animals in some form or the other, whether we are vegetarians or not – everyone agrees that fruits and vegetables are grown by killing billions of insects. However, it is equally true that simply by cutting back on our craving for meat we could simply save some millions of life. In a world where animal farming and cruelty to animals is growing at a ever faster rate shouldn't we Buddhists set the example by promoting vegetarianism? Just for the sake of compassion towards these innocent animals who share this world with us?   I urge you to read this article carefully and consider actively promoting vegetarianism or at least reduce the consumption of meat for the sake of the innocent animals who otherwise will have to lead a miserable life and have a torturous death in order to become food for our consumption.

Dhammanet wishes a Happy and Prosperous New Year 2012!

You can now download the commemorative ebook marking the 60th birthday of Ajahn Brahm. The book contains original material written specially for this publication. Likewise, many of the
images were taken during recent Dhamma tours in Thailand, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Norway and Germany. The book also includes extracts from two of Ajahn's
Dhamma talks as well.

Download it from here...

Ajahn Brahm is not only one of the most inspiring, funny and experienced Dhamma and meditation teachers in Australia, but is one of the most popular Buddhist teachers, teaching in English anywhere in the world. Everywhere he goes he draws huge crowds with his wit, clarity, insight and a remarkable capacity to bring the most profound of the Buddha’s teachings, within reach of all of us.

 

The Friday's talk Ajahn Brahm gave at the Don Moore community centre in Sydney is now available for download from Dhammanet.

 

 

Time: Thursday, 14th July 2011 at 7.00PM

 

Place: Buddhist Library, Camperdown

 

Panel: Bhante Sujato, Winton Higgins and Lizzie Turnbull as MC

 

Price: $20 for those who can afford it. All proceeds will go towards Buddhist Library’s Project Cambodia

 

For decades a growing number of lay individuals and groups have been practising, studying and teaching the dharma outside Buddhist institutions, and without rituals and received beliefs. More recently some of those involved have claimed – or had affixed to them – the ‘Secular Buddhism’ label. And they have thereby attracted considerable criticism from those claiming to represent and defend ‘true’ Buddhism. So what is secular Buddhism all about? It’s not a school, still less an orthodoxy, but can we discern some major themes that might make the label meaningful and allow for informed evaluation?

 

So far the debate has generated a great deal of heat (and bad manners), but very little light. During the evening we intend to remedy that by exploring this emerging secular tendency and its relation to older forms of Buddhism in a spirit of mutually respectful inquiry, so that we might learn from each other.

Dhammanet has moved to a more reliable server. Please inform us if you have any difficulties accessing content on the website.