Buddhism and Veganism Read online

  Few people, at least in my culture, are raised vegetarian or vegan, and each person’s path leading to the decision to refrain from eating animals is unique and forged by a combination of emotional and intellectual influences often at odds with each other. From a Buddhist perspective, the inquiry begins with a comprehensive examination of the scriptures, both as they address animals directly and as they illuminate universal truths that guide our behavior. When it comes to the foundational teachings, the two major lineages – Mahayana and Theravada – are identical. There is no disagreement that the First Precept’s edict of not-killing extends to animals as well as humans. As the Buddha says in the Theravadan Cula-hatthipadopama Sutta:

  When he has thus gone forth, endowed with the monks’ training and livelihood, then — abandoning the taking of life — he abstains from the taking of life. He dwells with his rod laid down, his knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, compassionate for the welfare of all living beings.

  Not only should one not kill, but one should not cause another to be killed. In the Dhammapada, verse 129, the Buddha instructed:

  All tremble at the rod; all are fearful of death. Drawing the parallel to yourself, neither kill nor get others to kill.

  The qualities of compassion and loving-kindness are extolled in both lineage’s scriptures, with the traditional Theravada metta (loving-kindness) meditation serving as a mainstay of many modern practices. Right livelihood in both traditions prohibits trade in living beings and in animal flesh. Other shared teachings, such as that all beings have at one time been your mother, and the workings of karma in which killing animals leads to a rebirth either as a creeping animal or in the hell realms, also lead to the conclusion that eating animals is inconsistent with the Dharma.

  It is in the specific teachings about eating animals where the two lineages diverge. In the Mahayana scriptures, the prohibition against eating animals is unequivocal, stated explicitly and repeatedly. For example, in the Lankavatara Sutra the Buddha instructs:

  Thus, Mahamati, whenever and wherever there is evolution among sentient beings, let people cherish the thought of kinship with them, and holding the thought intention of treating them as if they were our only child, and therefore refrain from eating their flesh.

  So much more should Bodhisattvas, who are committed to being compassionate towards all sentient beings, and whose inner nature is compassion itself, choose to refrain from eating animal flesh.

  The subject is also addressed in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra:

  There is no animal flesh to be regarded as pure by any exception. It does not matter if the giving of animal flesh for us to eat is premeditated or not, asked for or not, or whether extreme hunger is present or not. Therefore it is wise to not eat animal flesh in any circumstance which naturally arises within our life.

  Let yogis not eat any animal flesh.

  Animal flesh eating is forbidden by me everywhere and for all time for those who abide in compassion.

  Some Mahayana teachings go further, suggesting veganism as the wise practice, as discussed in the Surangama Sutra:

  How can a bhikkshu, who hopes to become a deliverer of others, himself be living on the flesh of other sentient beings? Pure and earnest bhikkshus, if they are earnest and sincere, will never wear clothing made of silk, nor wear boots made of leather, because it involves the taking of life.

  The Theravada scriptures, however, provide no such clarity, and there are some instances, according to the vinaya (monastic code) and discourses, where the Buddha accepts and eats animals. The main teaching on the eating of animals is a principle known as the three purities found, among other places, in the Jivaka Sutta, where the Buddha responds to the accusation that he eats animals killed for him:

  Jivaka, I say that there are three instances in which meat should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected [that the living being has been slaughtered for the bhikkhu]. I say that meat should not be eaten in these three instances. I say that there are three instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is not seen, not heard, and not suspected [that the living being has been slaughtered for the bhikkhu]. I say that meat may be eaten in these three instances.

  Much could be questioned about this doctrine, including its authenticity, but even if taken as authentic, its purpose was not to generally condone the eating of animals but instead to narrowly proscribe circumstances under which this was allowed – when the eating of an animal does not contribute to the killing of an animal. It’s also significant that this instruction was aimed specifically at monks who then, as now, relied on alms for their food. Most modern laypeople have any number of choices when going to a market or restaurant.

  There’s a common misconception articulated when meateaters, both monastics and laypeople, sometimes say that they are simply taking what is offered. The Buddha never gave the instruction to eat what is offered without inquiry or consideration of the moral implications. On the contrary. In a story in the vinaya, a woman named Suppiya cuts off a piece of her thigh to make broth for a sick monk, who unknowingly eats it. The Buddha reprimands the monk, saying “Nor, monks, should you make use of flesh without inquiring about it.” Just as a monk would not consume alcohol simply because it is offered, he should not simply accept meat. Eating, like all of our actions, has moral implications, and the question for the three purities is whether by eating an animal you are causing an animal to be killed, and the answer in virtually every instance is yes.

  While the teachings are certainly instructive, in my experience the decision to eat or refrain from eating animals is a much more complicated process than a simple scriptural analysis. Food plays a pre-eminent role in our lives, satisfying not only our physical needs, but also impacting our emotional and psychological ones. Whether through karma, DNA, or societal influences, most of us are deeply conditioned to eat animals. In many ways the spiritual practice of Buddhism is a process of re-conditioning, and we all know how difficult that is. When we are faced with the question of whether or not to continue to eat animals, there are ingrained and often unrecognized patterns that inform our decision and potentially act as hindrances to eating wisely. We need look no further than the Dalai Lama, an occasional meat-eater who admits to an inability to abide by his own lineage’s teachings. It is one thing to know the right thing, and quite another to do it.

  In the end, it may all come down to one simple fact – people like eating meat. We desire, even crave it, and like most desires we don’t want to give it up. The very thought of renouncing meat can produce an onslaught of unpleasant emotions, including a profound sense of loss. I remember how difficult it was when I made the transition to a vegetarian diet. But over time, not just with meat but as with many forms of renunciation, a transformation occurs. Rather than being borne as a burden, it is experienced as liberating. One feels the bliss of freedom both from desire and from any vestige of moral blameworthiness. For many, what was formerly a desire to eat meat is replaced by an aversion to do so. While this may have the effect of replacing one unwholesome root with another, at least the only suffering you cause is your own.

  The Buddha obviously understood the power of desire, and he anticipated that people would be resistant to the practice of not eating animals. He discussed this in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra:

  Let a person not give power to the many rationalizations given to justify animal flesh eating. What logicians say under the influence of their addictive craving for animal flesh is sophistic, delusional, and argumentative. What they imagine that they witnessed, heard, or suspected that the Blessed One has said, or another Buddha said or did, is grossly distorted.

  As greed is a hindrance to liberation, so are the objects of greed a hindrance to liberation. Objects of greed like animal flesh eating and consuming alcohol are hindrances to liberation.

  A time may come when deluded people may say, “Animal flesh is appropriate food to eat, has no karmic consequences, and is permitted by the Buddha.”

  Some will eve
n say that eating animal flesh can be medicinal. It is more like eating the flesh of your only child. Let a yogi be attuned to what is balanced and nourishing to eat, be adverse to consuming animal flesh and alcohol, and with this clarity go about peacefully begging for food, trusting that what is wanted and needed to sustain a healthy life will be supplied.

  As with all of the teachings, each person must determine for herself or himself the right path when it comes to eating animals. It is a question that demands an open and honest inquiry and an unflinching willingness to face dukkha head-on, both our own and that of others. It requires that we confront our limitations and, if we are to live the practice, put our beliefs into action, however uncomfortable that may be. My hope is that in making this inquiry, others reach the conclusion I’ve reached – that eating animals and animal products is inconsistent with the Dharma, and that wisdom, in today’s world, means adopting a plant-based diet and lifestyle.

  Buddhism and Vegetarianism: What the Sutras State

  TONY PAGE

  Buddhism and vegetarianism constitute for me one great, integrated path, the path of compassion, kindliness and peace. I owe my Buddhism to vegetarianism and my vegetarianism to Buddhism. How did that come about?

  Ever since my childhood in Kennington, London, I have always felt an instinctive love for, and rapport with, animals. I remember an old hen who used to wander around a neighbour’s garden and who would not allow anyone to touch her; she would bite their fingers if they tried. I, a little six-year-old boy, was the only person in the neighbourhood that this old hen would permit to stroke and caress her.

  I regarded animals as my friends. I viewed them as “people,” just as any human being whom I had ever encountered and I took a delight in trying to make them happy. A cat’s purring would fill me with joy. To know that I held in my hands the power of bringing happiness to other sentient beings was an awe-inspiring and soul-enriching thought for me.

  Like many children, I had an instinctive aversion to meat. My parents had to force me to eat the hateful stuff. Sadly, this enforced and ingrained habit lasted until I was a student at Oxford University in the early 1980s. It was then that, with a growing awareness of animal rights awakening within me, I came upon a small, life-changing book entitled A Buddhist Case for Vegetarianism by the American Zen monk, Roshi Philip Kapleau. His vivid and harrowing descriptions of the terror that animals experience as they are dragged into the slaughter-house, smelling the blood and death that awaits them, so horrified and appalled me that I decided there and then that I no longer wished to be a part of this monstrous and murderous system. I became a Buddhist and a vegetarian the very next day. Much later, I would become a vegan.

  That book by Roshi Philip Kapleau radically changed my life. It led me deeply both into vegetarianism and Buddhism to which I had already been introduced to some extent by the late celebrated English Buddhist, Justice Christmas Humphreys. I would never look back. In fact, in 1999 (if I might be permitted a moment’s lapse into immodesty!) I wrote what turned out to be the first large-scale study of Buddhism and animal rights, Buddhism and Animals: A Buddhist Vision of Humanity’s Rightful Relationship with the Animal Kingdom.

  Now, a couple of decades later, I can reflect upon a journey of exploration into the Buddhist suttas and sutras which give a solid spiritual underpinning to my instinctive vegetarianism and to veganism as well.

  Where to begin? Shortage of space compels me to mention only a few scriptural examples of the Buddha’s disapprobation of meat consumption; there is much more that could be cited. Let me start with the Pali suttas, the basis of Theravada Buddhism. These are the reputedly earliest record of the Buddha’s teachings that we have. What do they say?

  Most Theravadins believe that meat eating is permitted by the suttas, while others say carnivorism is a transgression of the spirit of the Dharma, the spiritual Truth. The second view would seem to be the more logical of the two.

  In the Jivakasutta of the Majjhima-Nikaya, the Buddha states: “I … say that in three cases, meat may not be used: if it is seen, heard, suspected.”1 Meat-eating Buddhists usually gloss over this passage. They say that it is acceptable for a Buddhist monk to eat meat if he has not seen, heard or suspected that the animal was killed especially for himself. However, a much more natural and unforced reading would be that a monk should not eat meat if he sees, hears or suspects that an item of food presented to him is actually meat (some non-flesh foods, after all, such as certain mushrooms, can strongly resemble meat in appearance, and meat and fish can hide in sauces and stews.)

  Of course, the ethical basis of refraining from meat consumption draws its power from the first Buddhist precept, which is to ‘refrain from the taking of life.’ By paying others to slay animals and supply their flesh to us, we are, from a moral standpoint, complicit in the taking of animal life. It should thus be obvious from this perspective alone that Buddhism cannot logically endorse the eating of meat.

  When we come to Mahayana Buddhism, the Buddha’s disapprobation of meat consumption is much clearer. In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, the bodhisattva Kasyapa comments to the Buddha: “In my view, there is great virtue in not eating meat.”2 The Buddha replies:

  Excellent, excellent! You have now reached a clear understanding of my point. The bodhisattva who protects the dharma [spiritual Truth] should be like this … from today I establish a precept restricting my disciples from eating all forms of meat.3

  Kasyapa specifically asks the Buddha why he does not allow the eating of meat. The Buddha explains with the following succinct asseveration: “to eat meat is to cut out the seeds of your own great compassion.”4 As is well known, compassion is one of the highest virtues and desiderata in all Buddhism so to extirpate the seeds of such compassion is tantamount to committing spiritual suicide.

  In this same sutra, the Buddha also reveals that destructively minded, truth-averse persons have reversed the Buddha’s teaching on meat consumption and substituted a lie instead:

  People such as these will destroy the rules of discipline, the proper practices, and the dignity and decorum that have been formulated by the Tathagata [i.e. the Buddha]. They will preach the goal of liberation and avoiding impurities, even as they destroy the teaching that is profound and hidden. Having reached the point where each of them follows his or her own ideas, they will make assertions in opposition to what is in the sutras and vinayas [rules for monks] such as, ‘Tathagatas [i.e. Buddhas] all allow us to eat meat.’5

  In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, further, the Buddha even makes reference to the sensitivity of animals when he speaks of their pulling away in horror and fright from humans who eat animal flesh. The animals can smell the odour of death that emanates from meat eaters:

  … those [humans] who do partake of meat, whether they are walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, will produce an odor of meat that all living beings will smell and this inevitably creates a sense of fear in them …Any living being who smells the scent of meat will become afraid and will be filled with the fear of death. All forms of life, whether they live out their lives in water, on land, or in the air, flee from [this smell]. They will all say: ‘This person is our enemy.’ For this reason, bodhisattvas do not customarily eat meat.6

  Perhaps the most uncompromising and powerful denunciation by the Buddha of meat eating is to be found in the Lankavatara Sutra. Here the Buddha gives the lie to the claim that it is acceptable to eat meat if one has not killed the animal oneself or had another kill it for one. The Buddha rejects this specious line of reasoning in one fell swoop, saying: “If … meat is not eaten by anybody for any reason, there will be no destroyer of life.”7 Right! It is because of the demand from the flesh-imbibing public for meat, that meat continues to be supplied, and as a consequence animals continue to be murdered. It is as simple as that.

  The Lankavatara Sutra gives a number of reasons as to why one should not eat flesh, including the core ground of compassion for all living creatures. The Buddha ends his
excursus with unequivocal words to Bodhisattva, Mahamati:

  … in the present sutra all [meat] in any form, in any manner, and in any place, is unconditionally and once for all, prohibited for all. Thus, Mahamati, meat-eating I have not permitted to anyone, I do not permit, I will not permit.8

  Strong words. There can be no mistaking the Buddha’s moral outrage at the very notion of slaying and feasting on the bodies of sensitive, sentient beings. But why, more precisely, should we respect such sentient beings and refrain from killing them?

  The Angulimaliya Sutra (a Mahayana sutra that is not to be confused with the similarly titled one from the Pali suttas) gives us the answer. It links such abstention to the profound teaching of the Buddha-dhātu or Tathāgata-garbha, the Buddha Nature or Buddha Essence, the living spiritual organ or element immanent within all beings. He tells Mañjuśrī, the great Bodhisattva of Wisdom, that to take the lives of others is to destroy one’s own spiritual core, and that a Buddha is one who refrains from such a practice:

  He who has abandoned the taking of life because it is the dhātu of all beings is a Buddha. Noble son, taking life in the world is like killing oneself, for it destroys one’s dhātu.9

  Mañjuśrī then asks, “Do Buddhas not eat meat because of the tathāgata-garbha?” The Buddha replies, explaining that we are all interrelated members of one family stretching back through seemingly endless and beginningless time in the cycles of reincarnation, and that we are each of us composed of one spiritual element, the ‘Buddha Dhātu (Buddha Essence), shared with all other beings:

  Mañjuśrī, that is so. There are no beings who have not been one’s mother, who have not been one’s sister through generations of wandering in beginningless and endless samsāra. Even one who is a dog has been one’s father, for the world of living beings is like a dancer. Therefore, one’s own flesh and the flesh of another are a single flesh, so Buddhas do not eat meat.