The Debate

Vegetarianism

    As the majestic Himalayas are the
    source of innumerable rivers
    That nourish the land and empty into the ocean,
    So, too, is the Buddha the source of innumerable
    paths
    That benefit all beings and lead them to
    enlightenment.

People possess a wide range of needs and propensities. In order to accommodate these, the Buddha  devised 84,000 methods to lead us to the truth. Like clothing, if there was only one style, few people would find something suitable. Irrespective of the design, however, the articles must possess a common factor that defines them as clothing. The teachings of the Buddha are similar. Outwardly, they may take various forms, and in some cases even appear contradictory; nevertheless, the essence is the same. All the traditional schools, whether Theravadin, Mahayana or Vajrayana, are expedient paths of the Buddha. Practitioners of all these schools take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma （70） and Sangha （71） and the teachings conform to the four seals （72） that identify a path as Buddhist. Like a tree, the roots are the same, but the branches grow in many different ways as they adapt to their specific environment.
    
In addition, the Buddha was very flexible in accommodating local customs and beliefs. As long as they did not contradict the basic teachings or cause harm to others, they would not be rejected, but
incorporated into the path. The great Thai master Ajahn Chah（73） instructed his students in this same spirit. Once, however, a new disciple criticized him for being inconsistent. The master responded by saying that teaching Buddhism was like instructing people to walk down a road. Some people veered to the left, so he would shout: ‘Go right. Go right!’ Others, on the other hand, would veer to the right, so the opposite instruction would be given. To our uninitiated eyes, the teachings are contradictory, but in reality, they are tailor-made for a specific person at a specific time.
   
As practitioners on a path of wisdom, we should avoid the narrow-mindedness of sectarian disputes, and appreciate the teachings of all the major schools as skilful means of the Buddha. Indeed, we should be grateful that we have such a wide choice — here, I am referring to the recognized teachings of the major schools, not to individual teachers and their interpretations, which indeed need scrutiny. If we do have a tendency to believe that only our chosen path is authentic and all the others are false or inferior, we should question whether our practice is really leading us towards the open and spacious mind of enlightenment or whether we are burying ourselves deeper in the narrow and dualistic world of samsara.
    
Vegetarianism is a subject that often stirs these kinds of sectarian debates. Rather than seeing it emotionally, we might investigate the arguments from various angles. Furthermore, we should avoid claiming that the validity of a text recognized by one school automatically invalidates the authenticity of a doctrinally different one, but see each as one of the Buddha's 84,000 expedient paths.
    
In this chapter, I shall briefly discuss the views on vegetarianism according to the Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana schools.
    
The source of instruction for the Theravada tradition is the Pali Canon, which is divided into three distinct volumes.（74） Within these volumes, there are no rules stating that meat cannot be eaten, though there are restrictions regarding the conditions under which it can be received.
    
As stated above, the Buddha was a master of expedient means; therefore, in order to understand these restrictions, they need to be examined in the context of the environment in which they were
introduced. At the time of the Buddha, there were no great Buddhist monastic institutions, and the monks were mendicants. Householders provided them with sustenance, and monks, on their part, gave   the householders an opportunity to gain merit and form a karmic link with the Dharma. Furthermore, they would receive whatever food they were given with gratitude, without showing either pleasure or displeasure. Basically, the monks shared the food that a household had prepared for its own consumption. Whether this food consisted of vegetables, meat or fish, or was of high or inferior quality, was not a consideration; all offerings were accepted with equanimity. To refuse an offering would not only have been impolite, but more importantly, it would have deprived a household of an opportunity to gain merit.
   
Thus, when the Buddha was accused of causing the death of animals by allowing his monks to eat meat, he refuted the accusation, stating that the monks ate only the flesh of animals not killed especially for their consumption. This was not merely an ideal, but a prohibition guaranteed by the Buddha's three conditions under which his monks could not eat meat: namely, when an animal had been seen, heard or suspected to have been killed specifically to feed them. Should a monk believe that the meat being offered contravened any of these conditions, he should refuse it.（75）
    
Some people argue that these conditions are mere hair-splitting, and that it is hypocritical for monks as well as lay people to take a vow that explicitly forbids killing （76） while continuing to eat meat. However, as stated above, the monks shared what the lay people ate. They did not choose to eat meat, and nowhere does the Buddha encourage meat-eating. They just received a portion of what had already been prepared to be eaten by the household.
    
In addition, the Buddha was very pragmatic in his doctrine. Due to a lack of vegetation or because of ingrained cultural habits, the Buddha was aware that in certain regions or at certain times it might be impossible to live on a purely vegetarian diet. Therefore, to stipulate that meat could not be eaten under any circumstances may not only have caused great hardship, but perhaps even death. Imagine how Inuits who live in a barren and frozen land, for example, could survive on a purely vegetarian diet! In addition, as stated above, a restriction of this nature would have prevented meat-eating households from making offerings to the Sangha, and thereby have deprived them of an opportunity to gain merit and make a karmic connection with the Dharma.

As we have discussed earlier, Buddhism identifies mind as the engine, and words and deeds as the carriages that follow behind. While manipulating the carriages can affect the direction a vehicle takes, focusing on the engine is obviously the more effective means. The conditions pertaining to meat-eating established by the Buddha follow this logic. According to Buddhist psychology, a mind that wishes to deliberately deprive another being of its life must have a degree of hate and delusion as its root,（77） and as hate and delusion are two of the hallmarks of the ego, taking life reinforces it.（78） However, the intention behind eating meat is to eat, not to kill. One may think that by eating meat one is killing by proxy; however, from a psychological and karmic point of view, there is a great difference.
    
When I walk down a garden path, for example, I may kill numerous insects, but the intention is to leave the property, not to kill insects. Likewise, a person who eats meat does so to feed himself, not because he wants to cause the death of animals. Similarly, eating the flesh of a bird found dead in the road, and purposely hunting and killing a bird, are very different acts, producing an entirely different result. Even strict vegetarians take life indirectly. The planting of vegetables and fruit requires huge areas of land to be cleared and ploughed, which results in the indirect killing of many small creatures. However, the motivation for eating the vegetables and fruit is to sustain one's life, not to cause more land to be cleared and ploughed, and thereby kill more creatures. In fact, there is probably nothing we use on a daily basis that has not caused the loss of life of some creature in its preparation.
    
While only monastics are officially bound by the three conditions regarding meat, the rules provided a guideline for the lay community. Thus, in countries where the Theravada form of Buddhism is prevalent,（79） meat-eating is not only accepted, but is in total accord with the teachings of the Buddha.
   
The Mahayana school, however, take a very different stand on meat-eating, and among the scriptures it follows, there are specific and clear prohibitions on the consumption of meat. For example, the Lankavatara Sutra （80） states:

    For fear of causing terror to living beings, let
    the Bodhisattva who is disciplining himself to
    attain compassion refrain from eating meat

The sutra continues with a stronger injunction:

    Meat-eating is forbidden by me everywhere
    and all time for those who are abiding in
    compassion.（81）

All monastic followers of the Mahayana receive the Bodhisattva vows of the Brahma-Net Sutra.（82） The third precept of the forty-eight secondary precepts is an injunction against eating meat:

    A disciple of the Buddha must not deliberately
    eat meat. He should not eat the flesh of any
    sentient being. The meat-eater forfeits the seed
    of Great Compassion, severs the seed of
    Buddha Nature and causes (animals and
    transcendental) beings to avoid him. Those
    who do so are guilty of countless offences.
    Therefore, Bodhisattvas should not eat the flesh
    of any sentient beings whatsoever. If instead,
    he deliberately eats meat, he commits a
    secondary offence.（83）

To gain some understanding of the reason for the total prohibition against meat consumption in the Mahayana, let us examine the specific doctrines of this school and consider the circumstances in which it evolved. Firstly, the Mahayana path is based on compassion. This is not merely a passive ideal, but one that is actively pursued by its followers. The basic Theravadin tenet of non-harming has been expanded and infused with vigour and purpose. Passive abstention has been replaced by dynamic preservation.
    
In addition, you will remember that the conditions for receiving meat in the Theravada were that it should not come from an animal that has been seen, heard or suspected to have been killed specifically to offer to a monk. In the Theravada tradition, this worked because the monks lived by collecting alms. However, because the Mahayana Sangha developed later, it was larger, and the monks generally lived in monasteries. Therefore, offerings were brought to the monasteries rather than collected on alms rounds. In this case, meat offerings would not have come from the dining-room table; rather, the animal would inevitably have been killed especially for the monks' consumption. Even under Theravada  restrictions, this would be unacceptable.

Like in Theravadin countries, monastics in predominantly Mahayana countries set the standard for the lay community. Therefore, in those countries, especially in areas populated by people of Chinese and Vietnamese descent, vegetarian fare became the accepted norm for the laity. This continues even today. In a modern city like Taipei, for example, it is not uncommon for a Buddhist who is unable to follow a strict vegetarian diet to compromise by forgoing meat at one meal of the day, usually breakfast, or by being a vegetarian on special Dharma occasions only. The ultimate goal of the good Mahayana Buddhist, however, is to adhere to a pure vegetarian diet at all times. This not only accords with the Mahayana understanding of practice, but is clearly stipulated in the particular scriptures and vows of this tradition.
   
Finally, we examine the Vajrayana view of meat-eating. By philosophy, the Vajrayana is classified as Mahayana. Compassion and bodhichitta are its guiding forces and the goal, to reach Buddhahood, is identical. To realize this goal, however, the Vajrayana utilizes special methods that are unique to this tradition.

Through visualizing the ordinary as sacred — for example, buildings are seen as palaces, sounds perceived as mantra — the Vajrayana student is trained to cultivate pure vision at all times. This is not a fabrication, but accords with what is actually the nature of reality — namely, that everything is intrinsically pure; it is our ordinary view, which divides phenomena into good and bad, that is the fabrication. Take, for example, a broken cup. To a man with a preconceived idea of a cup, it is an inferior and less than perfect item. On the other hand, for a person who has no impression of a cup and does not know its function, a whole and a broken cup are equally perfect. Likewise, a butterfly is as happy to rest on one as on the other. The idea of imperfection thus arises as the result of clinging to a fixed concept, rather than seeing phenomena directly as they are. Imperfection is therefore merely a product of the mind. The division between samsara and nirvana is the same.(84) When the mind is impure, phenomena appear as samsara. When it is pure, they are nirvana. The special methods of the Vajrayana are thus intended to bring about a transformation of impure perception into pure view.
    
At the time of the rise of the Vajrayana school, there was a tendency in the religions of the day, including Buddhism, to be overly attached to discriminatory concepts. Certain objects were viewed as inherently bad. On a relative level, actions and phenomena can definitely be identified as beneficial or non-beneficial, but this classification must be examined in the light of a deeper understanding. Rather than exploring the true nature of self and phenomena, practitioners clung to a relative and dualistic view of the world. In order to correct this and possibly to shock practitioners into seeing reality, the Vajrayana introduced foods that were nominally considered    impure, such as meat and wine, into their practice.
    
The image of the Vajrayana is coloured by tales of the carefree lives of those who have attained the fruits of the Tantric path. Liberated from the narrow interpretation of the phenomenal world imposed by projections of the mind, these realized beings often led unconventional lives that expressed their freedom. In addition, the power of their realization enabled them to establish a connection with the consciousness of the animals whose flesh they consumed, and through this, they were able to transfer the beings to a Buddha pureland.(85) The enduring image of the mahasiddhas (86) Tilopa (87) and Saraha,(88) for example, is of crazy yogis who ate meat, drank wine, and often shocked the establishment by their eccentric behaviour. Also, when the fully ordained monk Gampopa (89) met Milarepa, he was offered a glass of wine as a symbolic initiation into Vajrayana. In fact, the Vajrayana is replete with stories of meat-eating and wine-guzzling practitioners. These masters serve as a great inspiration, but their outer lifestyle is not to be imitated by those who have not reached their inner level of attainment. The path is not characterized by following one's whims and acting unconventionally, but requires complete non-discrimination in every aspect of life. If one chooses to eat meat, then one should also be prepared to eat ‘foul’ and ‘disgusting’ food. The Tantric path offers an effective way to challenge our ingrained concepts, and requires courage in order to meet every situation directly and with equanimity. It is not a vehicle designed to pander to worldly bias.
   
The highly respected Nyingma master Patrul Rinpoche,(90) in particular, took to task those monks who used the example of meat-eating yogis and the ritual use of flesh as an excuse to please their palate. In his work The Words of My Perfect Teacher,(91) the following admonishments were uncompromisingly metered out:

    In Buddhism, once we have taken refuge in the
    Dharma we have to give up harming others. To
    have an animal killed everywhere we go, and to
    enjoy its flesh and blood, is surely against the
    precepts of taking refuge, is it not? More
    particularly, in the Bodhisattva tradition of the
    Great Vehicle (Mahayana), we are supposed to
    be the refuge and protector of all infinite beings.
    The beings with unfortunate karma that we are
    supposed to be protecting are instead being
    killed without the slightest compassion, and
    their boiled flesh and blood are being presented
    to us and we -— their protectors, the
    Bodhisattvas — then gobble it up gleefully,
    smacking our lips. What could be worse than
    that?（92）

Rinpoche continues by imploring those who eat meat to think of the suffering that is being caused:

    Think of an individual animal — a sheep, for
    example — that is being slaughtered. First, as it
    is dragged from the flock, it is struck with
    paralysing fear. A blood-blister comes up
    where it had been grabbed. It is thrown on its
    back; its feet are tied together with a leather
    thong and its muzzle bound till it suffocates.（93）
    If in the throes of its agony, the animal is slow
    in dying, the butcher, the man of evil actions,
    just gets irritated. ‘Here's one who doesn't want
    to die!’ says he, and hits it...（94）

Rinpoche did not oppose the use of meat in Vajrayana rituals and practice, nor was he against the unorthodox ways of enlightened masters, but he wanted ordinary monks and lay practitioners to use meat in a responsible way that accords with the manner and spirit prescribed in the texts. Being a Vajrayana student is not a pretext for a lack of compassion or an excuse to reinforce habitual patterns.
   
Another reason for the prevalence of meat-eating among Vajrayana students is that the Bodhisattva vows of this tradition,（95） unlike those of the Mahayana, do not contain injunctions against the eating of meat — though practitioners do adhere to the restrictions on meat consumption adopted in the Theravada tradition. Although Vajrayana is philosophically a part of the Mahayana, its adherence to this less stringent indictment is no doubt primarily a concession to the unique view and skilful means adopted by the school. Some people may wonder how a practice steeped in compassion could justify using meat as a means of accomplishment. We should remember, however, that the reason for gaining enlightenment in both the Mahayana and Vajrayana is not for oneself, but to be more effective in benefiting beings on a profound level. To achieve this aim, the Vajrayana offers swift and precise methods — among which the adoption of a pure or sacred vision of phenomena as well as the self is key. The meat consumed, though, should at least conform to the restrictions of the Theravada. The killing of sentient beings for whatever purpose is never accommodated in any Buddhist tradition.
    
Later, the rule of tolerance towards meat consumption found fertile ground in the special needs of the people in the regions where the Vajrayana spread and took root. The climate and soil of the high Tibetan plateau, the land of the snows, and the Himalayan mountain passes are not conducive to the cultivation of edible vegetation, and the primary diet of the inhabitants of these areas is basic: roasted barley flour, cheese, yoghurt, butter tea and meat. Elimination of the latter from this already spare diet would likely mean the total elimination of the human population in that region.
 
In conclusion, we can see that each tradition has its own reasons for accepting or rejecting the consumption of meat. It is not that one school is lax or another too obsessive. All the reasons have a sound scriptural basis, and suit the specific practice and the environmental or cultural requirements of the adherents. Furthermore, one cannot generalize that Mahayanists are vegetarian while Theravada and Vajrayana students are not. Within the Mahayana, for example, it is rare to find vegetarians among any school in Japan, while in Sri Lanka, it is not uncommon to find strict vegetarians among both the monks and laity. The Vajrayana, too, has its notable exceptions. The dying words of the Great Rime （96） Master Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Thayé (97) were, '...I pray that I will be reborn where I don't have to eat meat.’(98) In contemporary times, the great Dzogchen master Chatral Rinpoche (99) is a strong advocate of vegetarianism.
   
So, where do students of the Dharma who live outside traditional Buddhist societies stand? Rather than stating categorically that one should or should not be vegetarian, we might instead look at the motivation for our decision. Every Buddhist needs to cultivate compassion and wisdom. This is the root of Buddhist practice. Lacking these, it is doubtful that even outwardly kind deeds will be beneficial.
    
If the development of compassion leads to a feeling of empathy with other beings, it is natural to wish to protect them from harm. Becoming a vegetarian is one way to channel such an aspiration. Furthermore, the development of wisdom leads us to become aware of the consequences of our actions. Purchasing meat in the supermarket may not be the direct cause of the slaughter of the animal whose flesh we are eating, but certainly we will not be blind to the connection. It is obvious that if meat is bought, it will be replaced. We are not the killers, but we are perpetuating an industry
of slaughter. If a country has a high meat consumption, many lives are being taken on a daily basis, and we are definitely not exempt from the common karma. These points might be considered. However, our decision to become vegetarian should not cause us to be hostile to those who eat meat. Whether one eats meat or not is a personal choice, but as long as it is made as an expression of compassion and understood in the light of emptiness, then it accords with the sentiments of the Buddha's teachings, especially those of the Mahayana school. Being a vegetarian is not an option for everyone. Nevertheless, those who eat meat should not do so callously, blind to the animal's suffering. Instead, with a compassionate heart, one should pray to establish a positive connection with the animal whose flesh is to be consumed, and vow to repay its kindness for giving one the strength to practise. In the Vajrayana tradition, it is customary to chant the mantra Om Ahbirakay Tsara Hung seven times and then blow over the meat. This is said to overcome the fault of meat-eating and ensure an auspicious rebirth for the animal.

———————————————————————
(70) The teachings of the Buddha.
(71) The assembly of those who practise and teach the Dharma.
(72) For detailed information regarding these seals, see appendix 4, ‘The Four Seals of Buddhism’.
(73) (1919-1992). Ajahn Chah's direct and modern way of presenting the Dharma attracted many overseas students; consequently, the roots of several well-known Theravadin Dharma centres in the West are found at his forest monastery in northern Thailand.
(74) The Vinaya Pitaka, Suttanta Pitaka and the Abhidhamma Pitaka, which deal, respectively, with the rules for the monastic community, the discourses taught by the Buddha and the Buddhist system of philosophy and psychology.
(75) A full account of the dialogue where the Buddha discusses these conditions can be found in the Jivaka Sutta.
(76) The complete wording of this vow is ‘I undertake the training rule not to kill any living creature’.
(77) In order for the full force of karma to be activated, an act of killing must consist of the following five components: There is a living being. The perpetrator perceives it as such. There is thought of killing. There is an assault. The being actually dies as a result of the assault.
(78) For an in depth discussion of Buddhist psychology v. killing, see the paper entitled, Can killing a living being ever be an act of compassion? The analysis of the act of killing in the Abhidhamma and Pali commentaries, Rupert Gethin, (Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies - International Conference - Taipei, 2002).
(79) Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka and Thailand.
(80) An important text in the Mahayana, especially the Zen tradition. It is said to be the scripture that Bodhidharma presented to his successor, Hui-K'o, as containing the essence of the Buddha's teachings.
(81) Lan. chapter VIII, 213 & 231.
(82) Skt. Brahmajala Sutra. This is a sutra of great importance in the Mahayana and contains a list of the Bodhisattva precepts.
(83) The Brahma-net Sutra lists ten major and forty-eight secondary precepts. BNS. p. 18.
(84) Another name for Vajrayana is Tantra (Tib. gyu), which means ‘continuity’. This refers to the fact that the inner nature of a being is the same in samsara and nirvana.
(85) A place or world spontaneously manifested by a Buddha or great Bodhisattva as a sphere of their activity. There beings can steadily progress towards enlightenment without the possibility of falling into a lower realm. The pureland of Amita Buddha is the most well known.
(86) Tantric yogis renowned for their spiritual prowess and ability to teach beings of all calibres and inclinations.
(87) (988-1069) Teacher of Naropa and first human to expound the teachings of Mahamudra.
(88) (17th Century) Lived as an arrow maker and was famous for his three cycles of songs — those for the king, queen and ordinary people.
(89) (1079-1153) Originally trained in the Kadam tradition. Later, he studied under Milarepa and became his principle disciple. His is the author of The Jewel Ornament of Liberation, which represents a fusion of the Kadam and Kagyu teachings.
(90) (1808-1887) One of Tibet's greatest and most loved teachers. He eschewed high monastic positions, in favour of living as a homeless wanderer.
(91) Tib: Kunzang Lama'i Shelung.
(92) Patrul Rinpoche, 1996: 207
(93) In Tibet, it is common to slaughter animals by suffocation.
(94) Patrul Rinpoche, 1996: 203.
(95) Two Bodhisattva lineages were transmitted into Tibet — one from Nagarjuna and the other from Asanga.
(96) Lit. ‘without bias’. A non-sectarian movement that began in Tibet in the 19th century.
(97) (1813-1899) Also known as Jamgon Kongtrul the Great. Extremely talented in his youth, he went on to be a prolific writer leaving an immense heritage of five treasures of commentaries and personal writings.
(98) Jamgon Kongtrul, 2003: 378.
(99) (1913-) See supplement ‘The Benefits of Saving the Lives of Other Beings: A Teaching by Chatral Rinpoche’.

related post:  The Method

Source Of Information:
《Releasing Life: An Ancient Buddhist practice in the Modern World》, by Shenphen Zangpo (Stephen Powell), distributed by: Persatuan Penganut Agama Buddha Amitabha Malaysia, 90 & 92, Jalan Pahang, Gombak, 53000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.)
*** The information provided above does not contain personal opinion of this blog.