|
|
Post by samuel on Aug 15, 2013 12:20:30 GMT 1
I can’t seem to understand the Buddhist perception and practice of vegetarianism and hope my fellows here can perhaps enlighten me and those who are ignorant on this subject. Why do Buddhists strive (if I am not wrong) to be vegetarians?
Also, the sensitivity towards consuming beef! I know for a fact that followers who seek enlightenment and succour from The Goddess of Mercy or Avalokiteshvara steadfastly do not consume beef. Many Buddhists don’t eat beef either. Is this a reflection of Buddhism’s root in India where cows are not eaten because of a covenant they share with the Indians? In our forum I will keep it exclusive Buddhist and not quote or bring in other religions whether as a comparison or adopted paradigm.
My take on vegetarianism from a religious and not social point of view is respecting the sanctity of life. I perceive that all life has soul and the “shedding of blood” as food renders us complicit to life taking or life destroying just to eat. Well, at least let’s not adopt other life forms like plants yet. Maybe we look at it differently like when we look at insects because insects move around, have brains and expectedly have various senses like humans too. For one thing, they have eyes.
So I shudder to think that my soul has terminated the bodies of so many other souls by devouring all the animals, fouls and fishes I have eaten so far and eradicating countless of insects. I have destroyed so many lives while I am alive. But not human lives though many people have killed humans in their course of living.
Is there a Buddhist explanation for this and can anybody comment? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rudy on Aug 15, 2013 16:33:41 GMT 1
You can find a reply on the FAQ page of the website, at viewonbuddhism.org/faq.html#10 . The main point about killing is that according to the Buddha, we can be (and we have all been) born in the various other realms of existence (hells, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, demi-gods and gods). In that sense, the only difference between a human and an animal is a few negative deeds and time... Buddhism does make a distinction though between sentient life (animals) and plants (which are considered to have no mind or sentience). Insects also count as sentient life, but it is hard to establish exactly where the line between sentience and plant life lies. Anyway, we cannot eat and survive without relying on at least plants... Eating meat as such is no problem, but obviously some sort of killing is almost always connected to it. Strictly spoken, eating meat would be no problem if the animal has died of old age or sickness; but who wants to eat that?  Another practical consideration may be the animal we do chose to eat; obviously when we eat beef, we can eat many meals from just one cow. When we eat a shrimp coctail, or insects (as is common in Thailand), many animals need to die for just one bite...  |
|
|
|
Post by samuel on Aug 18, 2013 12:17:03 GMT 1
I have great respect for plants. They hold cures for many diseases, create balance to our harmony and even recycle our carbon dioxide and convert it to our oxygen – the very thing that keeps us alive. In my view although plants are not sentient beings they nevertheless are life. Immobile and rooted their existence seems like a penitentiary too. We can’t say for sure that they don’t feel pain nor are incapable of thinking or feeling. We just don’t know.
Hence, I feel that the only right we have to food without consuming life is to be a “frutian” and consume only fruits which are seeds of reproduction but shan’t be allowed to grow to become plants. It’s akin to eggs. But unless eggs are fertilized it would soon rot away. So by right that is our food. And with fruits, we should consumer only a portion and let the rest grow into trees. After all the laws of probability and conception always see that some seeds, eggs etc. just rot away – much like a woman’s ova that is disposed-off through menstrual cycle. Hence not all ova turn to babies.
It’s only there that we should be looking for our food and it appears that fruits and eggs are the sure ones. If we uproot and consume plants in whole, we kill them before consuming them. As a matter of fact, they might still be alive when we chew them because plants die slow deaths. If we take some leaves then well and good but not kill the entire plant.
So can we say being a vegetarian is being prejudicial to plants?
|
|
shaun
Full Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by shaun on Aug 18, 2013 12:42:51 GMT 1
Hi Samuel, in life we have to survive, that's samsara. Yes it probably is prejudicial to eat plants, but to survive we must be prejudicial towards something. The Buddha taught that no bad karma is accumulated through killing plant life. He also taught that vegetarianism is not essential for Buddhism. Personally I'm not vegetarian but I do try to do it for a day now & then. Health requires a balanced diet & I don't think you could get all you need from fruit & eggs.
|
|
|
|
Post by samuel on Aug 18, 2013 15:20:16 GMT 1
Hi Shaun, I have been thinking about what you said. The following first passage is from Buddha.net and the 2nd from Wikipedia. I expect both are in line with Buddha's teachings too. So actually my comments are rather Buddhist.
• How do I Become a Buddhist?
Buddhist teachings can be understood and tested by anyone. Buddhism teaches that the solutions to our problems are within ourselves not outside. The Buddha asked all his followers not to take his word as true, but rather to test the teachings for themselves. ln this way, each person decides for themselves and takes responsibility for their own actions and understanding. This makes Buddhism less of a fixed package of beliefs which is to be accepted in its entirety, and more of a teaching which each person learns and uses in their own way.
Furthermore, and particularly in Tibetan Buddhism and Japanese Buddhism, all beings (including plant life and even inanimate objects or entities considered "spiritual" or "metaphysical" by conventional Western thought) are or may be considered sentient beings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rudy on Aug 19, 2013 19:03:12 GMT 1
Actually, in Tibetan Buddhism, plants and inanimate objects are not considered sentient. Some Tibetans even consider stones as 'living', but obviously, they use a different definition of life as westerners do.
|
|
|
|
Post by samuel on Aug 25, 2013 4:32:58 GMT 1
The Tibetans are mountain people and surrounded by mountain and remote hinterland. At one time, their lands covered a great swathe of what is now present day China. So animism has been ingrained into their culture and religious practices way before Buddhism reached them. We ought to also remember that Hinduism has already spread probably 2,000 years before the birth of Gautama Buddha. So for sure those mountain people have some mythical practices and beliefs. These in turn got fused into Buddhism when it came along sometime in the 6th. century CE.
But I also see the significance of the cow. Why do devoted followers of Guan Yin abstain from it absolutely. They may eat other meats and not necessarily be vegetarian but will give beef a miss.They are Buddhist too. As far as the Hindus are concerned, they were practical people who put poetry and drama into religion. If we are going to eat our cows, we are not going to get milk supplies and we would have to plough the fields ourselves. In the same context, without a production line in a factory then management would have to go. So the influence of Hinduism into Buddhism is inarguable and hence, some old ways and habits stayed on.
To me, plants are sentient beings but rocks are not. If we want to create a separate division we can call it "plantient" beings and this would of course cover fungus like mushrooms. In whatever way we want to deny it, we can't in that this is a predatory world. Vegetarians are predators for "plantients" a combination of life forms that has got destined duties and vocations just like sentient beings. Like I said, we don't have to kill the plant but perhaps can harvest without killing them and since their parts (like leaves) can grow again then it would not be a permanent damage.
|
|
|
|
Post by bristollad on Aug 25, 2013 10:32:40 GMT 1
Samuel, it seems your ideas of what is an acceptable diet are quite close to the traditional Jain diet. Maybe check out their dietary approach and rationale. Jains and Buddhists share many common beliefs and if I remember rightly, Siddhartha Gautama's second teacher, when he first left the palace and became a wandering ascetic, was a Jain hermit called Udaka Ramaputta.
|
|
|
|
Post by samuel on Aug 26, 2013 7:42:19 GMT 1
Thanks Bristollad. I know a few things about Jainism and in fact it's as old as Buddhism itself. Thanks for pointing out the similarities. I think I will read up more. A friend of mine who is a Muslim had a bit of a Jain fusion when he grew up. His father a Muslim himself from Northern India would chide him whenever he stomps on grass. That's unusual coming from a Muslim family but you can certainly see that their roots were Northern Indian and were influenced by Jainism. Jains will walk with a straw broom and sweep the floor as they walk so as not to accidentally stomp on any ants or such like life forms. So grass is certainly respected.
|
|
