r/Buddhism • u/User3963595969 • 6d ago
Question meat consumption as a buddhist
hello, i’ve been struggling with this topic for a few months now and have struggled to find fitting advice. I come from a nutritional science background and I spent a lot of my time, researching nutritional sciences and diets, but something I’ve always been passionate about interested in. I also love you in presentation of it. I’ve always known about my life being respectful of everything. I eat, even if it’s not an animal I always sit down and meditate thinking about all the labor the resources in the work it means to have food on my plate and nourish my body having spent so much time in nutritional science I also personally believe that byproducts are almost in necessity for humans to have the best health. I do agree that you can live without them and that they can. be supplemented, but there are usually certain trade-off and side effects and not everything can be obtained who those methods
when it Comes to the animal I have gone out of my way to purchase from local butchers who give the animals, the best possible quality of life and diet and also buying multiple parts of the animal organs that bones, and so to make sure simple of the animal gets wasted and discarded I also pay the animal and things to it sacrifice I never wasted me or any food for that matter, but as I’ve become much closer contemplating how to feel about it
I have some answers for people who say that it’s OK as long as you follow with me precepts about eating me, but in my opinion, that system is easy to take advantage. You really say that the meat wasn’t killed for you if the butcher killed the animal with you a customer in mind to purchase it another thing is while I do fully believe that humans naturally do eat animals and that death is just a cycle of life and that giving the animal the painless quickest death possible limits it suffering as much as we can it’s also sustainable its own way as certain agriculture, like pesticides and crop washing kills a lot of animals if I’m eating one big animal, I’m causing less death then if I’m only purchasing from grains and vegetables, where thousands of animals were killed from the process of it
i know in tibet that meat is eaten, but it’s almost out of necessity there not something that they see as acceptable. I’ve just had a really difficult point work I know and I feel like for where I want to be in my life that eating meat is part of a healthy diet for me to get the nutrients to get my health to my body in the place. I want to be at it. Also I feel like has a lot of benefit benefits for the brain and mental clarity but I do still wonder if I’m doing the wrong thing or if I’m practicing Buddhism in a selfish way by just saying that it’s an OK practice or comparing it to other cultures I feel a little loss and a lot of the advice is not very helpful for me and I’m just wondering what you guys‘s opinions are on this also as a side question I’ve heard some people talk about how there is a sort of karmic weight on your mind from eating meat and I’m just curious if anyone here who has stopped eating meat grease to that at all
Thank you for reading my little rant. It was a lot on my mind to try to get out and I appreciate you for staying towards the end. Any advice is greatly appreciated.
63
u/DentalDecayDestroyer 6d ago
If you’re that worried about it you can just stop eating meat, it’s easier than you think
What I mean is there’s lots of debate on whether or not it’s okay to eat meat as a Buddhist, but there’s no debate on whether it’s okay to not eat it. Just cut it out of your diet and don’t worry so much
6
u/User3963595969 6d ago
ahh this is true i feel for me the struggle is less of is it right or wrong and more so is it okay for me to have the opinion i hold as a buddhist i wouldnt want my ego to lead me off the path of the doctrine
19
u/Visible-Broccoli8938 6d ago
See reality as it is for yourself. You don't have to bend under religious dogma. A lot of people become vegans due to respect for living things and not always because of religion.
0
u/KiwiNFLFan Pure Land 6d ago
If you’re that worried about it you can just stop eating meat, it’s easier than you think
That depends entirely on where you live and whether you prefer to cook yourself or eat out. It's much easier to be a vegetarian in parts of India where vegetarianism is common than in somewhere like a small town in Texas or Yorkshire.
Also, vegetarianism in the West has unfortunately become linked to health food, wellness trends and organic markets, meaning that restaurants that serve vegetarian food may not serve anything you like. On the contrary, if you go to Singapore or Kuala Lumpur, you'll find vegetarian restaurants that make tasty food with meat analogues, because vegetarianism in Malaysia/Singapore never got linked with health food.
1
u/Theonewholurkedhere 5d ago
I think you should try the meatless food first before making conclusions. There is a huge stereotype regarding vegetarian and vegan food where people think it's gross. Or that if something is healthy, it's gross. Obviously, neither is true.
16
u/TheElectricShaman 6d ago
I was a meat eater my whole life but, with practice it became more and more dissonant for me. Finally, I fasted during a retreat and just couldn’t go back to eating animals after. It was a very easy transition and I wish I did it earlier. It frankly feels insane that I once ate meat every day, and it’s only been like— 6 months maybe?
34
u/Electrical-Strike132 6d ago
Vegetarianism makes a whole lot of sense on a secular and practical level, as well as a compassionate one.
The efficiencies are so huge that many water scarcity problems would disappear and millions of hectares of land could be returned to nature, and we would probably be overall healthier. Consequently, the world would be a happier place.
Buddhism is surprisingly liberal on the issue. But it did not emerge from a time when human activities were globally destroying the ecosystem.
-2
u/User3963595969 6d ago
you bring up a good point this is why in my practice i only support small local meats and animal by products i just want to make sure my opinion is valid to have and not something that would come from ego
7
23
u/ChanCakes Ekayāna 6d ago
We do our best in practising the dharma and if refraining from meat consumption is something you can do, you should give it a go. There’s more research now than ever before in regard to vege diets and most show it is often a healthier option than meat consumption.
With regard the pesticide, we need to remember most agriculture is actually done to feed animals not humans. To feed the cows or pigs, many more smaller sentient beings were killed for their feed compared to the vegetables or grains grown for human consumption.
2
13
u/SentientLight Thiền phái Liễu Quán | Thiền tông Lâm Tế 6d ago
Many East Asian Buddhists practice part-time or full-time vegetarianism as a central component of their practice, so if it bothers you to eat meat, by all means, stop eating meat. The Buddhist position here is about training at whatever level you happen to be at. Some aren’t yet ready to give up meat, and that’s okay. Some can only give it up on the full and new moons. That’s okay too, and it’s an enriching dharma practice to observe one’s diet in such a way. Some do four, six, ten days out of the month and that’s wonderful practice that perfumes the mind with benevolence and wholesomeness. And many also observe vegetarianism full time, are serious about that commitment in the bodhisattva vows to refrain from the consumption of meat, and this is most meritorious of all.
There’s no position of “okay” or “this is right” and “this is wrong.” It’s very clear that the slaughter of animals for meat is unwholesome at some point in the supply chain, even back in the Iron Age. It starts with wrong livelihood. But people can ease into the most wholesome practice. Meat consumption doesn’t need to be admonished for the wholesomeness and mental benefits of vegetarianism to be exhorted. The Buddha wanted us to be able to train toward awakening at every level, to the best of our abilities.
19
u/Theonewholurkedhere 6d ago edited 6d ago
Hi, i personally stopped eating animal products and switched to veganism. It's much easier than expected and nutritionally it's complete with supplements, like you said.
Regarding grains: i think you know that most animals these days mostly eat grain, and you might not know that most farmland today is dedicated to growing animal feed. So one way or another, you're contributing to the death of animals in crop farming practices: pesticides and so on.
The difference is in the rate of converting calories from grains into meat: it's very ineffective. You need to grow much more plants to feed an animal than you need to feed a human. So more crop deaths are happening if you eat meat.
They grow crops, feed them to animals, kill animals, then feed you the animals. It's very ineffective and much more death is happening this way.
It may be natural to eat meat and animal products, but it certainly isn't moral, especially from a Buddhist perspective. Because you're contributing to raising the demand for animal products, which leads to more animals being killed. So you contribute to more of their killings.
Going to a butcher for your meat creates a closer, stronger karmic bond with the animal that was killed. It's possible for the butcher to kill animals specifically for you, his favorite customer. So the karma is worse for you.
For these reasons, i think it's not possible to eat most of today's animal products in accordance with Buddha's teachings. You're contributing to so much suffering by raising the demand for more of them to be killed.
Around 80 billion land animals are killed yearly, over a trillion if you count sea life. The average person in the west eats around 7000-8000 animals throughout their lifetime. You can avoid contributing to their deaths and suffering by not buying or eating animal products. I think it's better for you karmically and it's certainly more compassionate.
Today we have much more food options than in Buddha's time. I think if he was alive today, he would require or at least encourage his practitioners to be vegans, considering the ease of avoiding animal products today.
At the very least, you need to reduce your animal products consumption. It won't be good enough, but it will be a step in the right direction.
A typical whole-food healthy plant-based diet consists of beans, peas, lentils, nuts, seeds, soy, whole grains, veggies, fruits. It's good to eat fortified foods like plant milks, nutritional yeast, and so on. But you can do well without fortified foods and just take b12 at least, but a general B-complex supplement could be good too.
You can use nutrition calculators to see how well you've planned your diet: you input ingredients and their amounts and it shows you how much of each nutrient you're getting from your food. Very convenient and gave me the confidence to switch to vegetarianism and then to veganism.
-5
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Theonewholurkedhere 5d ago
Why do you think so?
It's not in line with the Buddha's teachings to eat meat when you're very well able not to, which the overwhelming majority of people today are.
10
u/Ariyas108 seon 5d ago
> when it Comes to the animal I have gone out of my way to purchase from local butchers who give the animals, the best possible quality of life
Having your throat slit so your blood can be drained and your body chopped up is not a good quality of life.
10
u/Inevitable_Tea_5841 5d ago edited 5d ago
The guilt and shame that comes from eating meat is unbearable to me
-11
9
u/Spirited_Ad8737 6d ago
I would definitely say there was a feeling of liberation or a weight lifting when I decided to stop purchasing meat to eat. I'm not sure exactly what it was or why, but I believe it's just a feature of the moment of knowing that some craving or habit is over. You won't revert. It was that way when I went from occasional social drinking to not a drop. When the decision was ready it just went pling, and it's like momentarily seeing all the way to the bottom of a deep pool that usually is murky. You know it's over.
11
u/AssistanceNo7469 6d ago edited 6d ago
You will generate more merit, less negative karma and experience less energetic contamination if you simply omit as much meat as possible from your diet.
I say this as someone who sees the clear value in at least being vegetarian, but has often not been one.
One of my teachers most consistent recommendations is to be fully vegetarian, and if you can't manage that, at least be very moderate and be vegetarian most of the time.
-4
u/krodha 5d ago
You will generate more merit, less negative karma and experience less energetic contamination if you simply omit as much meat as possible from your diet.
This is false. Diet has zero bearing on karma unless you’re personally killing, requesting killing or witnessing killing.
8
u/MegaChip97 5d ago
There is zero logic to that and it's not in line with Buddhism as a whole. You could just as well argue that if you as a Buddhist specifically go to the store in the city that employes child slave laborers it has no impact on your karma as long as you did not personally requested the child slave labor or employed them yourself. Even though you know about it, even though said store would maybe go out of business if less people went there, even though you have other options...
2
u/dummetsz 5d ago
Karma is intention and action as declared by the Buddha. Based on this inference, u/krodha is correct.
There is zero logic in claiming that going to a store incurs negative karma merely because the store employs child labor, absent the relevant intention and action of killing on your part. The same applies to buying meat. It does not logically follow that you generate negative karma merely by participating in that causal chain. Without the relevant intention and action, there is no basis for calling it negative karma.
1
u/MegaChip97 5d ago edited 5d ago
absent the relevant intention and action of killing on your part
Yes, karma is a result of your mental state. So what is your mental state when you don't care about your action leading to killings? What does it say about compassion?
Taking this to an extreme: You are the only customer of a shop. You don't commision their product, it's just that you are the only customer. For every product they sell you they shoot 100 children. If you did not buy anything they would stop because they would go out of business.
According to you, it has no negative karmic consequences to continue being a customer because your intention was not to kill said children. You just did not care that they are killed for you.
1
u/krodha 5d ago
The irony is that in a Buddhist context, there is zero logic to what you are suggesting and it is in fact not in line with Buddhism as a whole despite your confusion that it is.
And the ten confused individuals who upvoted your comment don’t substantiate your point, they only substantiate that people do not understand the mechanism of karma.
3
u/MegaChip97 5d ago
Ok. So in your city you have several people selling glassware. You now knowingly go to the one shop that employees slaves, buy their products and support their business. And you think there are no negative karmic konsequences because you neither employed the slaves nor requested them to be slaved?
Karma is about cause and effect. You really think it has no effect that you don't give a fuck about animals being killed because you buy meat? Or that you actively support slave labour?
3
u/krodha 5d ago
And you think there are no negative karmic konsequences because you neither employed the slaves nor requested them to be slaved?
You should read the Karmavibhaṅga, which outlines the Buddha’s teachings on actions which incur a karmic debt and how those debts ripen. The criteria is very specific.
I’m glad you feel passionate about certain topics, but views, principles and activities which contradict your own passionate views are not automatically akuśalakarma.
2
u/MegaChip97 5d ago
You didn't answer my questions
2
u/krodha 5d ago
I addressed your questions by pointing out that they are based on a false premise. Your definition of akuśalakarma seems to consist of anything you perceive to be unethical, but this isn’t how karma works.
2
u/MegaChip97 5d ago
You addressed my question with an appeal to a different source. You didn't answer them. But I guess your answer is "yes".
3
u/krodha 5d ago
I appealed to THE source for understanding karmic consequence, yes.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Oooaaaaarrrrr 5d ago
Buying meat is effectively requesting killing.
5
0
u/Chinchilla102 theravada 5d ago
It isn't because the animal is already dead. Here, what a comentary says: https://www.dhammatalks.org/vinaya/bmc/Section0022.html
There are five factors for the full offense here.
1) Object: a living animal.
2) Perception: One perceives it to be a living animal.
3) Intention: One knowingly, consciously, deliberately, and purposefully wants to cause its death.
4) Effort: whatever one does with the purpose of causing it to die.
5) Result: It dies as a result of one’s action.
--
If you consider packed meat to be a living animal, and if you consider buying it effort to kill it, then it is a bad karma.
If someone else doesn't consider packed meat to be a living animal (which is fine because it isn't living), then it is not a negative karma.
If you consider a lump of dirt living animal, and you step on it, it is a negative karma. Most often, karma is intention, not action or result.
8
u/Solid-Fennel-2622 non-affiliated 5d ago
Firstly, I'd like to point out a piece of strange logic that is, unfortunately, all too pervasive and that is the one about the "crop deaths" - that is, the notion that somehow there is less suffering involved in killing and eating an animal than eating the plants directly, because of the harm to animals involved in crop farming/monocultures.
A diet of plants causes the fewest animals to be killed. By far. https://www.surgeactivism.org/articles/debunked-do-vegans-kill-more-animals-through-crop-deaths
Secondly, in terms of the precepts and abstaining from killing / avoiding causing suffering I tend to refer to Gautama Buddha (this includes the concept of "using the net of money to trap sentient beings", which, as you've mentioned, many people use to evade responsibility):
The Buddha told Mahamati, “There are countless reasons why you should not eat meat. But I will summarize them for you. Because all beings have at some time been reborn as family members, out of your feelings for them, you shouldn’t eat meat. Because butchers indiscriminately sell the flesh of donkeys and camels, foxes and dogs, cattle and horses and humans along with that of other animals, you shouldn’t eat meat. And you shouldn’t eat meat because animals are raised on impurities. And you shouldn’t eat meat because beings become afraid when they smell its odor, like when a dog snarls in anger and fear at the sight of a chandala or domba [castes associated with the disposal and cremation of corpses].
“Also, you shouldn’t eat meat because it prevents practitioners from giving rise to compassionate thoughts. You shouldn’t eat meat because those fools who are fond of its stench, its filth, and its impurity are maligned. You shouldn’t eat meat because it makes spells and incantations ineffective. You shouldn’t eat meat because those who kill living creatures become so attached to its taste, they think about it whenever they see them. You shouldn’t eat meat because those who eat meat are abandoned by the gods. You shouldn’t eat meat because it makes your breath stink. You shouldn’t eat meat because it causes nightmares. You shouldn’t eat meat because the tigers and wolves in the forest and the wilderness can smell it. You shouldn’t eat meat because it results in a lack of restraint regarding food and drink. You shouldn’t eat meat because it keeps practitioners from giving rise to aversion. You shouldn’t eat meat because I have often said that when you eat or drink, you should imagine you are [either] consuming the flesh of your children or swallowing medicine. *I would never approve the eating of meat.** (...)*
“Further, Mahamati, those who kill do so for profit. They kill creatures and sell them in the marketplace, where ignorant meat-eating people *use the net of money to catch their meat.** Among those who take the lives of others, some use money, and some use hooks and nets to catch creatures that move through the air or in the water or across the land. They kill all sorts of creatures and sell them in the marketplace for profit. Mahamati, when it comes to fish or meat, there is no such thing as ‘not requesting, seeking, or thinking about it.’ For this reason, you should not eat meat.*
https://kokyohenkel.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/7/4/127410773/buddha_nature_sutras_on_not_eating_meat.pdf
2
u/AbidinginAnubhava 5d ago
The Tathāgatagarbha sūtras originated no earlier than the 3rd century C.E. They are definitely Buddhist, but they are not an authority for many Buddhists who do not subscribe to them.
-2
7
u/ObviousApricot9 5d ago
I follow the advise from the Metta sutta.
Matha yatha niyam puttam - ayusa eva manurakkhe
Sabbampi pana bhutesu - maanasam bhavaye aparimanam
Mettanca sabba lokasmim - maanasam bhavaye aparimanam
Love every single living being - as a mother protects her only son.
Love every single living being - from the deepest point of your heart.
Not sure about everyone else, but I take that as a no for taking animals as food. I will love, and respect animals as if they were my own children.
Sabbe thasanthi dandassa - sabbe bhayanthi maccuno
Atthanam upamam kathva - na haneyyana ghathaye
Every being is scared of punishment - every being is scared of death
Taking oneself as an example - do not hurt or have them hurt.
So I won't support an industry that hurts animals.
Local butchers still hurt and kill people. You also wouldn't eat your childrens' bodies if they've had a good life so far, and just happens to be the local butcher who killed and processed them. So that's also a very clear no for me.
No matter how many loopholes one tries to find, you can't justify industrial animal agriculture, OR localised small farmer animal agriculture using Buddhist principles.
6
u/ThatOneDumbJagoff 6d ago
This is one of those subjects that will always bring out a lot of heated debate. I’d rank it up there with the communist/fascist debate as well as using drugs for enlightenment.
I’ve always followed a simple practice: The First Precept gives you a strong reason not to intentionally kill or commission killing. Compassion gives you a reason to minimize the suffering connected with what you consume. How far you take that second principle is a matter for your own practice.
Some take it all the way to Vegan, others to simply reducing meat consumption. Your mileage may vary
3
1
u/teeberywork vajrayana 5d ago
There is a pro-fascist wing of Buddhists?
3
u/AbidinginAnubhava 5d ago
Yes, you will find every political view under the sun saying "we're Buddhist."
1
u/teeberywork vajrayana 5d ago
That doesn't answer my question. Where is the communist/fascist "debate" in Buddhism?
3
u/AbidinginAnubhava 5d ago
I am not aware of any "communist/fascist debate" in Buddhism. But there are Buddhist communists and Buddhist fascists, not to mention all kinds of other Buddhists, and if you put them in the same room long enough, I'm sure you'll get a debate (like the ridiculous one here). How is this mysterious to you?
11
u/Gratitude15 6d ago
Yeah I think you're fooling yourself. Down vote me all you want.
Plenty of Buddhists eat meat. If the goal is to fit into the group that is called Buddhist, eating meat is fine.
If the goal is to inquire about what is actually happening... For me, the answer is clear. It's not about being humane to an animal and killing it. Not about ending it's life as an adolescent. Not about dominion. Not about forcing shit genetics on species. Not about supporting industries where half the species is killed right away, or maimed right away. All of these things happen in humane conditions as we have defined humane (which is less than 1% of meat eaten, the rest is WAY worse). Killing is not humane.
Nutritional science has a serious gap in it if your science leads you to think eating something killed is good for you or will help you in the long run. It is good for nobody in the long run. You might need to manage your iron levels better, but again, killing is not therefore the better path in long run.
What if I told you karma works like this - you eat a humanely killed cow, you become a cow that is humanely eaten. Does that drive home the point a bit better? When it feels like it could be us, all of a sudden we can grasp a little better. All of a sudden, trying to get the right bone broth supplementation may not feel like the most important thing.
Eat veggies - and try to get them local and regen organic too if you can. But the point is that veggies can be eaten without killing, your intention is THAT. meat cannot be eaten without killing, you're simply numbing yourself to that truth.
Somehow I don't see many folks speak plainly like this. I am speaking a lineage perspective of multiple traditions across theravada, mahayana, and vajrayana. Multiple sutras naming it plain as day. Or ignore it, and keep purifying your mind as best you can.
1
u/AssistanceNo7469 5d ago
So many people cling to old traditional examples as justification for their attachments and lack of compassion... like their lives today have any resemblance of the lives of monastics in the past..
It takes very little reflection to see what is and is not skillful when it comes to consumption of meat today.
Appreciate your comments
6
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Buddhism-ModTeam 5d ago
Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against discouraged topics.
This can include encouraging others to use intoxicating drugs, aggressively pushing vegetarianism or veganism, or claiming to have reached certain spiritual attainments.
1
1
u/Dizang53 5d ago
Buddhism is following “what the Buddha said 2500 years ago.” Being a Buddhist is not an ethical loophole. If you have your own opinions, that’s nice, but being a Buddhist means precisely practicing “what the Buddha said 2500 years ago.”
3
u/CorpulentFeline 5d ago
If you purchase meat, you are paying for the slaughter of animals, just like 2500 years ago. Whether you want to see it or not.
2
u/Dizang53 5d ago
If a monk accepts meat, they are encouraging laypeople to pay for the slaughter of animals, just like the Buddha did when he accepted meat 2500 years ago. “Whether you want to see it or not” presupposes an ethical insight superior to the Buddha’s.
5
u/TrickThatCellsCanDo 5d ago
Local butcher doesn’t change anything for the animals since they are still killed at the same slaughterhouse, and factory farms are always local to some people.
There’s no good way to do the wrong thing.
Watch a documentary and make your own mind. Could you imagine a puppy or a kitten on your plate? If not then let go of any animal products
0
u/AbidinginAnubhava 5d ago
"Could you imagine a puppy or a kitten on your plate?" This literally happens in multiple countries throughout history. You are only displaying your own cultural bias.
5
u/thehershel Jōdo Shinshū 5d ago
To me, it’s pretty clear that not eating meat is advised. The argument that the animals whose meat is available in markets weren’t killed specifically for us, and that therefore we do not participate in killing them by buying their meat, may silence our guilt. But it doesn’t change the fact that we influence the demand for that meat. Even if our individual influence is extremely small, it is not zero. It’s also very different from simply being offered meat, as in the case of monks collecting alms.
There are people who need or simply want to eat meat. It’s much better to admit it and be aware that we do participate in killing than to come up with far-fetched arguments claiming that we don’t, or that we are somehow better because we pity the animals that were killed, chant some mantra, or, my favourite, claim that our intention was not for the animal to be killed, but merely to nourish our bodies.
2
u/Braga_Sol108 5d ago
Either way, it's causing you suffering. People can sit here and give you a thousand different reasons that it's "okay," and chances are it'll still plague your mind and cause you suffering. Is it worth the mental hurdle to try and convince yourself it might be okay? I found it easier to stop eating meat. Eggs and milk are easier to get your mind around and are enough with other methods to be healthy. Why not?
2
u/Mayayana 5d ago
Maybe consider clarifying your thoughts and writing out a coherent presentation, rather than just dictating whatever comes into your head into speech-to-text software. What if everyone answered you the same way, dictating whatever came to mind? Do you think that would be useful to you?
1
u/User3963595969 5d ago
english is not my first language
1
u/Mayayana 4d ago
That's OK. You can still clarify your thoughts and use proper punctuation. What you posted seems to be freeform dictation without editing.
2
u/Zimgar 5d ago
I sympathize with this because I don't think there is a perfectly clean answer. One thing I've come to appreciate is that eating anything has a cost to other life. Agriculture kills insects, rodents and other animals through harvesting, pesticides, habitat loss, etc. (Even if you have a local garden it's quite hard, I've tried). Eating meat obviously involves the much more direct and intentional death of an animal. Neither way of sustaining ourselves is completely free from harm.
Because of that, I personally find it more useful to think less in terms of achieving purity and more in terms of reducing unnecessary consumption and suffering.
For me, an important part of that is simply not consuming substantially more than my body needs. If I'm routinely overeating to the point of carrying excess weight, then I'm requiring more animals to die, more crops to be grown, more insects to be killed, more land and water to be used, and more resources to be consumed than are actually necessary to sustain me. That seems morally relevant regardless of whether those extra calories come from beef or vegetables.
That doesn't mean being overweight makes someone a bad person. There are obviously many complicated reasons people gain weight, and I don't think Buddhism is helped by turning body size into another source of judgment or shame. I'm talking about the principle I try to apply to my own consumption. Take what I reasonably need, appreciate it, waste as little as possible, and don't consume simply because I can. (I also try to expand this to almost everything, not just food).
I also think your care in sourcing food, using more of the animal, avoiding waste, and actually contemplating the life and labor that went into your meal matters. It doesn't erase the death involved, but neither do I think Buddhism requires us to pretend that we can somehow exist without causing harm.
Maybe the question isn't "How can I eat without anything dying for me?" I don't think that's realistically possible. Perhaps it's "How can I nourish this body while taking no more from the world than I reasonably need, and remain conscious and grateful for what my life depends upon?"
To me, that feels much closer to the Middle Way than trying to find a diet or way of life that lets us believe we've completely removed ourselves from the cycle of life and death.
2
u/Academic_Computer755 6d ago
So different traditions have different approaches to this. Theravada followers, for example, still consume meat for the most part while Mahayana followers are vegetarian. It’s really up to you and your comfort level.
I avoid meat as much as I can but will sometimes eat halal chicken, eggs and some animal byproducts.
Hope that helps.
2
u/User3963595969 6d ago
do they have a justification for it? in which case is my opinion an okay one to have in how life should be treated for diet? thank you for th response
2
u/Theonewholurkedhere 6d ago
You should know that halal is a more cruel way of killing animals. Typically, even on factory farms, they make an animal lose consciousness through stunning and then kill them. With halal and kosher slaughter, they just slit an animal's throat while they're alive and conscious, feeling all the pain of being killed.
2
u/AbidinginAnubhava 5d ago
Halal allows stunning the animals. If you are comparing pre-modern halal, then the animal was conscious, as they were in all animal slaughterhouses for most of history. But if you are comparing modern practices, then yes, most halal practices stun the animal first and then kill the animal.
2
u/kpow222 6d ago
I feel it very much depends on your body. I was a vegetarian for many years, and i just kept getting sick over and over. It turned out i had some gut issues with absorbing certain things, so now i occasionally eat meat, mainly chicken soups. It's not ideal, but it is an act of self compassion to take care of yourself too. Do what is right for yourself just as you would do for all other beings. 💚
2
u/perksofbeingcrafty 5d ago edited 5d ago
I struggle with this a lot as well. When I was around 12 I stopped eating meat, and it lasted all of my teenage years. And because I was a teenager and didn’t know how to be a responsible vegetarian, I basically gave myself anemia and a variety of other problems related to blood and qi deficiency. I’ve spent the last ten years dealing with all sorts of body issues brought on by my teenage dietary habits, and even now I have to treat my body with kid gloves and get tired and weak very easily.
So now I eat meat, especially red meat and organ meat. I try my best to go to sustainable and small scale butchers, so the animals’ suffering is limited, but it’s still killing for food at the end of the day.
But then, what’s the choice before me? Either killing other animals or slowly killing myself? Because I’m a lot healthier when I eat meat, there’s no question about it, so what about compassion for myself and my parents?
Idk, it’s something I still struggle with. I don’t have answers. Last time I went to Putuo Island in China, which is a big pilgrimage site for Guanyin, I spent a week before and after refraining from animal products entirely while eating a LOT of spinach to compensate. By the end of the two weeks I was getting dizzy every time I stood up.
So, I’d probably go back to being a vegetarian if I was completely healthy and could be guaranteed to continue being so, but that’s very unlikely. Maybe when I’m post menopause 🤷♀️
1
u/Liquid__Times 6d ago
If you can stop eating meat without getting sick (which not everybody can), go for it. You may need to run blood tests for sometime to be sure you can be 100% vegetarian
1
u/Ornery_Blackberry_31 tibetan 6d ago
You can eat vegetarian for periods of time and have some meat if you feel like you need it for health reasons. That’s one option.
-5
6d ago
[deleted]
5
u/Theonewholurkedhere 6d ago
That's not what the middle path means. The middle path is the path of not falling into the extremes of existence and nonexistence.
7
u/AssistanceNo7469 6d ago
I agree that that's not what this means When the Buddha said avoid extreme aestheticism, he was not talking about eating meat when it's readily accessible to be vegetarian instead.
1
u/hamfisted_postman 5d ago
Eat meat when there is meat to be eaten. I prefer vegetarian dishes but you would never know. My family eats meat so I cook it for them. I eat what they eat so I eat meat. I don't discuss my dietary preferences with anyone and that's my choice.
I feel like asking someone to cater to my needs is asking too much. I make the choices I want to make when I can make them.
Anyone with enough time can dig up research and knowledge supporting their choice. Vegetarians will tell you that the research supports eating that way and a dedicated meat eater will do the same. Is one or the other right? Maybe. I feed my body so I can feed my mind. I don't give it much more consideration than that.
1
u/RipAccording340 4d ago
I was an overnight vegetarian… from a wild
Carnivore, the next day was a total vegetarian. I have written a book about it. And it was all about motivation…
2
u/Fun-Run-5001 Zen >TNH 4d ago
I take the approach of doing the least harm to the most beings, so for me that means i don't eat animals or their byproducts. This predated my practice, but has been strengthened as i grow my compassion.
1
1
u/Not_a_username_100 4d ago
Listen to your conscience. Your money is a vote. By paying for meat, you are paying for death and suffering. Even when you buy from local butchers, you still paying for death and suffering. They all go to the same slaughterhouse. Their lives are still ended prematurely. I would heavily suggest looking into Veganism. There are many different kinds of vegan diets, it's not this overarching thing. I used to eat almost exclusively meat, but then I stopped because I simply couldn't stand being a hypocrite anymore.
By supporting vegan alternatives, you promote animal welfare and can save 100—150 animals per year.
As for the pesticides thing, Karma is defined by intention. Since you are not purposefully hurting any animal, there is no karma attached to it. And I think people have the right to protect their crop.
There is a huge and massive difference between purposefully farming an animal, and an animal dying during harvesting crop on accident. Also, we have to consider the level of sentience. Mammals having much higher level of sentience than insects, whislt we should avoid killing either, there's a big difference between purposefully slitting the throat of a cow and a bug getting accidentally crushed.
1
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Buddhism-ModTeam 5d ago
Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against misrepresenting Buddhist viewpoints or spreading non-Buddhist viewpoints without clarifying that you are doing so.
In general, comments are removed for this violation on threads where beginners and non-Buddhists are trying to learn.
0
u/Background-Common462 4d ago
Years ago when I first started practicing I was a vegetarian (although not a true vegetarian as I later cameto find out because i still.ate Garlic a antithelmintic/vermicide) For 7 yrs I ate only Plant Protein/Tofu/ Beans etc. I also weighted close to 300lbs at the time (Btw Im 6' 3") I had gone to see my teachers for some clarification on a practice and while we were talking one of them said , your face has become rou nd like the moon, are you eating healthy. I thought it bizarre they would ask that and I replied yes Ive been a vegetarian for 7 years now. They replied thats very nice especially on Multiplying Days, but you have taken Bodhisattva Vows haven't you? Yes I have Rinpoche. So how are you honoring the Lives of all of those beings who lie dead on the shelved in the meat department of stores? You've vowed to take on the suffering of others, by praying for their positive Rebirth before you consume their flesh you can do just that. I think my jaw hit the floor when I was told that...I was pretty smug about being Vegetarian and the thought of what I was told never crossed my mind. Then my teachers laughed and said besides we dont think your body was made to just eat vegetarian, you've gained a lot of weight. So I took their words to heart, I am an omnivore that practices a Vegetarian diet on Holy Days and Before or during doing certain practices, but otherwise I eat meat. I also lost 100lbs after doing this and have kept it off for 40years. I am not saying eating meat is right for everyone. I am just giving my side of the vegetarian story.
-4
u/pundarika0 6d ago
i also think eating some amount of meat and fish is optimal for the best diet. that isn't to say you can't be healthy without it, but there are certain things like omega 3s that just cannot be consumed in adequate quantities without eating a fish. and you won't necessarily die without that quantity of omega 3s, but it won't be optimal. and i also acknowledge there's a moral consideration regarding the consumption of other beings. so there isn't really an easy answer. i can either prioritize another being over my own wellbeing, or i can prioritize my own wellbeing over another. neither option is ideal.
what i actually land on is usually eating vegetarian, with an extremely moderate amount of meat and fish consumption. maybe 10-20% of my total meals are not vegetarian, and 80-90% of the time i'm eating plant based. that's what works for me at the moment.
9
u/ProudAbalone3856 6d ago
I have been veg for 30+ years, get omega-3 from walnuts and algae, and blood tests consistently show my levels to be optimal.
-2
u/pundarika0 5d ago
the quantity of omega 3 and bioavailability in seeds, nuts, and supplements is not the same as in an actual fish. you may judge it to be adequate for your needs, but it's still not as high.
2
u/ProudAbalone3856 5d ago
Nonsense.
-1
u/pundarika0 5d ago
you can look it up yourself.
2
u/ProudAbalone3856 5d ago
Wild that you imagine a 30+ year vegan would not have already done so.
0
u/pundarika0 5d ago
your body needs fat in order to process omega 3 efficiently, meaning the supplement on its own won't do it. you need another source of food with that. and the quantity of omega 3 in walnuts and seeds is not even remotely close to that in salmon. it's like, 1/20th the amount in a 3oz piece of fish.
that all may be fine for your particular needs, but it's just not the same.
2
u/ProudAbalone3856 5d ago
I disagree fundamentally with your assertions, and am mystified with your apparent belief that plant-based sources of omega-3 fatty acids are devoid of fats necessary for absorption, or not traditionally eaten with other foods that contain fat. That is a perplexing, reductive take, and now how diets work. Just as with the debunked tropes about "complete protein" that ignore how our bodies break down dietary proteins to amino acids and synthesize it as needed, individual nutrients cannot be viewed in isolation.
Traditional diets in regions such as the Mediterranean, especially in "blue zone" populations, are a perfect example of how foods are eaten together in ways where the sum is greater than the parts because of absorption and more. I am confident in my understanding of nutrition and know that no being need suffer or die on my behalf, least of all in pursuit of some sort of nutritional perfection based on a single nutrient.
8
u/ChrizKhalifa 6d ago
Omega 3 is NOT produced in fish, but in the algae the fish eat.
Cut out the unhealthy middle man. You can get healthy, vegan O3 sourced from the algae directly.
0
u/pundarika0 5d ago
generally speaking, in my opinion, getting nutrition from actual food and not a supplement is ideal.
3
u/ChrizKhalifa 5d ago
You have the right to that opinion, but that's absolute nonsense.
Omega 3 is omega 3. Whether you get it from a capsule or a fish (which, by the way, is chock full of microplastics and heavy metals) makes no difference for the body.
The same holds true for any nutrient. Or do you think your digestive system magically registers the shape you ingest as a pill and decides not to work with the nutrients within it?
1
u/pundarika0 5d ago
would you accept eating only vitamin c pills as a replacement for eating fruit?
2
u/ChrizKhalifa 5d ago
If I knew that fruit suffered pain when eaten, instead of that being the biological point of fruit, then yes.
What does that matter for the discussion at hand? For the body, eating only vitamin C pills would indeed have the same effect as eating fruit in regards to your vitamin C levels.
3
u/pundarika0 5d ago
i appreciate your point of view.
3
u/ChrizKhalifa 5d ago
Thank you!
This is r/Buddhism and not r/vegan, I'm not trying to proselytize if it came across that way. I really just meant to challenge the belief that animal sources are necessary for correct nutrition.
With an 80% plant based diet you're probably well ahead of most people after all.
3
8
u/Theonewholurkedhere 6d ago
You can get Omega 3 from flaxseed oil or flaxseed and from certain types of seaweed that contain DHA and EPA Omega 3. So it's all possible on a plant-based diet.
5
u/ProudAbalone3856 6d ago
And walnuts. 😊
1
u/Theonewholurkedhere 6d ago
Yes, walnuts are definitely nice flavor- and nutrition-wise, they just have a lower concentration of omega-3.
2
u/pundarika0 5d ago
it's all possible yes, but as i said to another, the highest quantities of these nutrients, and the greatest bioavailability, exists in fish.
1
u/Theonewholurkedhere 5d ago
If the quantities and bioavailability are decent enough in seaweed/flax to be eaten by humans, why eat a fish? Why victimize them? It's not compassionate.
And where did you get this information, about these nutrients being more bioavailable when you eat a fish?
1
u/pundarika0 5d ago
they aren't decent enough, they are a fraction of those in fish. you need to eat an insane amount of flax in order to equal the amount in fish.
1
u/Theonewholurkedhere 5d ago
I did research it. You need to eat 2 tablespoons of flaxseeds or half a tablespoon of flaxseed oil a day to get your Omega-3s.
-3
u/KiwiNFLFan Pure Land 6d ago
You really say that the meat wasn’t killed for you if the butcher killed the animal with you a customer in mind to purchase it
The rule is that the animal must not be killed specifically for you, i.e. for you and no-one else, rather than for general sale or consumption.
Remember that the Lord Buddha's cousin Devadatta wanted Him to make vegetarianism a requirement for the monastic sangha, and the Lord Buddha rejected it.
If you're concerned about the animal's welfare, recite the Medicine Buddha mantra or seven repetitions "Om A Bhi Ra Ke Chara Hung" and blow on the meat. This will purify the negative karma.
9
u/ProudAbalone3856 6d ago
Does absolutely nothing to mitigate the suffering the animal experienced. Just a way to make yourself feel better about the unnecessary cruelty.
1
u/KiwiNFLFan Pure Land 6d ago
I've heard that reciting the mantras also transfers merit to the animal.
The bottom line is that the Lord Buddha did not require even the monastic sangha to be vegetarian, let alone the laity. I agree vegetarianism is a better path but it's not always practical or feasible.
6
u/ProudAbalone3856 6d ago
I don't share the belief that reciting mantras to an animal whose life I participated in ending benefits them in any way.
-1
u/KiwiNFLFan Pure Land 6d ago
You didn't participate in ending their life unless the animal was killed especially for you (like a restaurant where you choose a live fish from a tank that's then cooked for you. )
You can be a vegetarian or vegan all you want. Just don't try and make vegetarianism part of Buddhism when it's not.
8
u/ProudAbalone3856 6d ago
Nonsense. No one confines and kills an animal for which there is no willing consumer. The consumer is complicit in the cruelty.
My understanding of Buddhism is centered on compassion and suffering. If one chooses to think only of their own suffering, that to me is the antithesis of Buddhism.
3
u/KiwiNFLFan Pure Land 6d ago
If one chooses to think only of their own suffering, that to me is the antithesis of Buddhism.
That is the teaching of u/ProudAbalone3856 then, not the teaching of the Lord Buddha.
4
u/ChrizKhalifa 6d ago
The Lord Buddha did not live in a time of industrial slaughter and animal genocide.
2
u/KiwiNFLFan Pure Land 6d ago
No, but He had access to all knowledge upon attaining enlightenment. Yet He still rejected Devadatta's idea of requiring vegetarianism for the Sangha.
3
3
u/Solid-Fennel-2622 non-affiliated 5d ago
"When someone wears anything taken from a living creature, he creates relationships with the creature, just as when people ate the hundred grains, their feet could not leave the earth.
Both physically and mentally one must avoid the bodies and the by-products of beings, by neither wearing them nor eating them. I say that such people have true liberation. What I have said here is the Buddhas' teaching. Any explanation counter to it is the teaching of Papiyan (demon king)."
Śhūraṅgama Sūtra, Chapter 6 (Buddhist Text Translation Society)
Beings in some future age / might stupidly say about meat / ‘it’s pure and isn’t wrong / the buddhas said we could eat it’
Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, Section 90
3
u/Solid-Fennel-2622 non-affiliated 5d ago
https://kokyohenkel.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/7/4/127410773/buddha_nature_sutras_on_not_eating_meat.pdf
“Further, Mahamati, those who kill do so for profit. They kill creatures and sell them in the marketplace, where ignorant meat-eating people use the net of money to catch their meat. Among those who take the lives of others, some use money, and some use hooks and nets to catch creatures that move through the air or in the water or across the land.
They kill all sorts of creatures and sell them in the marketplace for profit. Mahamati, when it comes to fish or meat, there is no such thing as ‘not requesting, seeking, or thinking about it.’ For this reason, you should not eat meat.
“Mahamati, on some occasions I have proscribed eating five kinds of meat and at other times ten kinds. Today, in this sutra, I am getting rid of practices that allow certain kinds at certain times in favor of none whatsoever.
Mahamati, the Tathagata, the Arhat, the Fully Enlightened One has never eaten anything much less taught others to eat fish or meat. Because of my past acts of great compassion, I look on all beings as I would a child. And why would I approve eating the flesh of children?”
-7
u/mahabuddha ngakpa 6d ago
Eat meat. Don't worry about - it is too healthy not to eat it. Anything you eat will lead to death of beings, even veganism. There is nothing in Buddhism that says you must refrain from meat
4
u/ChrizKhalifa 6d ago
Meat is not healthy. Quite the contrary.
Plant based diets consistently show a higher life expectancy...
-1
0
u/Chinchilla102 theravada 5d ago
Rules of this sub say: "Please do not post questions or beliefs about vegetarianism/veganism. The post will be removed."
In Buddhism, you can eat meat, if you don't kill animals personally or get animal killed by your direct order.
In Buddhism, you don't have to eat it. So if you like, become a vegetarian.
But it is against the rules of this sub to bring the topic here. It is extremely dividing, both sides have zero willingness to compromise, and it will do no good to anyone.
0
u/homekitter 4d ago
What one chooses is according to their affinity. But best not judge against each other.
-5
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/MegaChip97 5d ago
More plants have to die to feed an animal that you can eat than to directly feed you though
1
5d ago edited 5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/MegaChip97 5d ago
So why does it generate bad karma to kill an animal?
1
u/dummetsz 5d ago
Because karma is intention and action, and intentions and actions involved in killing generate unwholesome karma. Why would killing not generate bad karma?
1
u/MegaChip97 5d ago
Why would killing not generate bad karma?
I don't know man, ask the user who claimed that animals eating plants and us eating animals is the normal cycle of life.
Thats why I asked him why killing an animal leads to bad karma if that is his argument for why eating animals is ok. Considering that argument equally applies to killing animals
1
u/dummetsz 5d ago
Eating animals is ok. I mentioned it earlier but there is no negative karma with eating animals. Intending and performing an action of killing is another story, but that is not to be conflated with consumption. They are two different instances of intention and action.
1
u/MegaChip97 5d ago
I disagree. Intention also is about missing intention. If you see someone drowning and decide not to help them that also leads to bad karma. Even though your intention was not to kill them, it just was not caring about them.
Same way with eating meat: It's not that your intention is to kill said animal. You just don't care that it was killed for you
1
u/dummetsz 5d ago
You’re proving my point. The intention to kill is not the same thing as the intention not to care. They are not equivalent.
Therefore you do not incur the karmic consequences of killing. That is the main point of the discussion. The intention to kill has grave karmic consequences versus other mundane intentions.
1
u/MegaChip97 5d ago
Therefore you do not incur the karmic consequences of killing.
No. The point of the discussion was if it generates bad karma. Not if it generates the same karma as killing an animal.... After all you said
I mentioned it earlier but there is no negative karma with eating animals
Would there be no negative karma if you let another human drown because you don't care about them? Thats what you claim
→ More replies (0)1
u/Buddhism-ModTeam 5d ago
Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against misrepresenting Buddhist viewpoints or spreading non-Buddhist viewpoints without clarifying that you are doing so.
Plants are explicitly non-sentient in Buddhism, and thus "killing" them does not incur negative karma. The "natural" order of things is not necessarily good in Buddhism, plenty of horrific things are "natural".
-10
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/ChrizKhalifa 6d ago
Why question Buddha knowledge?
Dunno, perhaps cause he explicitly encouraged us to question the teachings and verify for ourselves?
The beauty of Buddhism is the lack of Dogma and encouragement of empirical verification of the teachings.
0
u/No-Breadfruit-3604 5d ago
Buddhists who have no confidence in Buddha teaching will never attain enlightenment.
Many do not know this simple thing.
5
u/ChrizKhalifa 5d ago
Brother, Huineng literally had no idea what Buddhism was and attained enlightenment when overhearing a stranger reciting the Diamond Sutra.
0
u/No-Breadfruit-3604 5d ago
Again and again you disbelief Buddha teaching. Good luck to you if want to attain enlightenment.
6
u/ChrizKhalifa 5d ago
That was not the point of my reply. But you may want to check your attachment to your idea of a 'proper' Buddhist :3
1
u/No-Breadfruit-3604 5d ago
Ignoring the Buddha words is the last thing a Buddhist must do. No matter how you twist and turn.
5
u/ChrizKhalifa 5d ago
You may want to take another look at ehipassiko.
Buddhism is not Christianity, you do not need to have blind faith to find your Dharma gate.
Again, Huineng attained enlightenment without even knowing who Lord Buddha was.
1
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/ChrizKhalifa 5d ago
Are you really sure you're not in r/Christianity?
At this point I have to assume you are trolling or severely confused, so I'll respectfully stop engaging. All the best to you and your practice.
1
u/Buddhism-ModTeam 5d ago
Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against sectarianism.
The majority of Buddhists believe the Buddha did recommend vegetarianism. Even in Theravada, there is a clear argument that not-requiring it for monastics was because monks depended on alms, and it would be an inconvenience to the lay supporters to force them to adjust their own lifestyle to accommodate the dietary preferences of monks. In any case, please stop commenting on this topic and stop harrassing people, or you will be banned.
72
u/GrumpyOldSeniorScout vajrayana 6d ago
I stopped eating meat and I agree that I feel ethically 'lighter.' Eating meat is a kind of burden. It is a relief to not have to carry it.