From: mayne@pipe.cs.fsu.edu (William Mayne)
Subject: Re: Question on Buddhism and Vegetarianism
Reply-To: mayne@cs.fsu.edu
Organization: Florida State University Computer Science Department
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 00:07:22 GMT

NOTICE: This is still specifically related to vegetarianism, but
strictly from a Buddhist point of view. Anyone offended by religious
or philosophical discussion in rec.food.veg or elsewhere is advised
to hit 'n'. I am trying to be informative and not preachy. How well
I have succeeded is an open question. I'm also cross posting to
soc.religion.eastern and I suggest anyone with an interest in this
continue the discussion there.

In article <18042@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> darsie@eecs.ucdavis.edu (Richard Darsie) writes:
>      [Bill Mayne's excellent response deleted]

Thanks.

>I would just add that two Buddhist principles or ideals are involved here:
>one, obviously, is "non-harm", the principle of not taking life or causing
>harm. This is an *ideal*, as almost *anything* you eat involves the
>taking of life, even plant life which is considered in Buddhist cosmology
>to be endowed with the same Buddha-nature as animal and human life.

Possibly true (about plants - I'm not really sure about that), but the
precept is to abstain from killing animals. Of course the precepts are
just the minimum standards, not the whole of Buddhist ethics. However the
point of Buddhist ethics is to do the best you can not to make problems for
yourself, not to get caught up in seeking some unrealizable ideal. Ethics
(the actual word is "sila") is just a foundation for other things, not the
main practice.
 
>Fruits and nuts and the like are examples of food which would seem
>to not involve the taking of life.  To my knowledge there is no
>*commandment* anywhere in Buddhist scriptures that eating meat is
>*forbidden*.  But obviously some sects or traditions do refrain from
>meat as a matter of course.

Strictly speaking there are no commandments anywhere in Buddhism.
There are rules which must be followed in order to be a monk or nun,
but nobody has to do that and any monk or nun who doesn't want to
follow monastic rules is free to leave the Order. The precepts for
lay people are just principles to be followed for one's own good,
like changing the oil in your car every 3000 miles. The more you
manage to follow them the better for you.

But in the loose sense, as I mentioned briefly in my earlier response 
which you so kindly complimented, without quoting any of it, the Lanka
Vatara Sutra has the Buddha explicitly forbidding eating meat, a
"commandment", if you will. However not all sects accept that Sutra and
even some which do do not require or routinely practice vegetarianism.
There may be other examples but this is one that I know of.

>The other principle is non-attachment. What this would mean in this
>context is that being *attached* to a particular diet, i.e., a vegetarian
>diet, is just as spiritually harmful as eating meat. So there might
>be a tendency to use one's vegetarianism as a "prop" to "prove" to
>yourself how "spiritual" you are, without actually confronting the
>basic issues or seeing yourself as you really are.

Although there is some danger of turning anything positive into a
problem like that this does not compare to the harm which comes from
willfully violating the precepts and most Buddhist sects aren't
afraid to call for strict observance, at least by monks and nuns.

Another important consideration is that killing necessarily involves
some unwholesome mental states or emotions. It is not like there is
some deity who is going to punish you for breaking a rule. Keeping
the precepts is in part intended to avoid unwholesome mental states
and to develop wholesome ones like compassion. The direct the involvement
and the more voluntary the act of killing the worse it is for the doer.
Hence there is some rationality behind placing more emphasis on what one
personally does rather than indirect consequences, even when the
consequences can be foreseen. This is why, according to Theravadins,
the Buddha forbid monks from eating meat if and only if they knew, heard,
or suspected that the animal had been killed especially for them.

The positive side of this emphasis on the quality of mind which
goes with actions, and one of the primary reasons I am a vegetarian,
is that every time I go out of my way to avoid meat, and when I
deliberately chose vegetarian food, I think about avoiding causing
unnecessary harm to living animals. I order to eat meat I'd have to
suppress some of the little compassion that I have which motivates
me to abstain. Positive mental qualities are to be preserved and
increased, not suppressed. I believe this applies whether one is
a Buddhist or not.

Bill Mayne
From: dsouza@hplred.HP.COM (Roy D'Souza)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:35:01 GMT
Subject: Re: ISO: Vegetarian Martial Artists
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories