Dropping the "V-Bomb" (2 of 2)

One of the most insightful ways to probe vegetarianism (or lack thereof) in Western Buddhism is to look at just how the Buddha's teaching came to the West. The earliest and perhaps most influential Buddhist schools to gain widespread popularity were the Japanese Zen traditions. Initially presented by Beat Generation writers like Gary Snyder and Jack Kerouac, the word 'Zen' can now be found on everything from cereals to portable music players. The Zen traditions in Japan, despite being transmitted from the Ch'an masters in China, did not and still do not place a large emphasis on vegetarianism.

The second major influential tradition in the West comes from Tibet. Doctrinally, many of the tantric texts that are part of the Vajrayana teachings actually encourage the consumption of meat and view vegetarianism as unnecessary. Furthermore, meat eating is specifically recommended in some esoteric rituals. Practically, vegetariansm in Tibet was extremely difficult if not impossible due to its harsh geography and climate, especially during the winter.

Finally, practitioners of Theravada tradition (mostly Vipassana meditation schools) represent the third most popular school. As the "strictest" tradition, the Theravada school focuses on the early Pali scriptures which do not specifically recommend a vegetarian diet (or meat eating for that matter). Meat eating is thus widespread in the major Theravada regions like Sri Lanka, Burma, and South East Asia.

Because vegetarianism is not particularly encouraged or observed in these three traditions, the phenomenon of "importing" a living vegetarian Buddhist tradition has been very limited. There are certainly exceptions though. The Chinese Buddhist traditions (Ch'an and especially Pure Land) as well as some of the Korean and Vietnamese traditions are gaining popularity and are also vegetarian.

Looking at it from this lens, the reasons for the lack of vegetarianism amongst Western Buddhists are easily understood. So what's happening now? Despite a general climate that may have de-emphasized vegetarianism, something very interesting has begun happening: many Western practitioners and teachers have begun to embrace the way of the herbivore.

The late Roshi Phillip Kapleau, teacher in the Soto/Rinzai Japanese Zen schools was an ardent supporter of vegetarianism. His classic treatise, "To Cherish All Life: A Buddhist View of Animal Slaughter and Meat Eating"is still widely read. The famous Tibetan yogi Shakbar Tsodruk Rangdrol (1781-1851), was famous for his teachings on vegetarianism. This is quite remarkable considering view of meat eating as an "unfortunate necessity" among many Tibetans (and other Buddhists around the globe) past and present. Additionally, many modern Tibetan teachers in the West, such as Chatral Rinpoche, have become strong advocates of abstaining from meat. Satya Narayan (S.N.) Goenka, the highly influential teacher of Burmese Vipassana meditation, follows a vegetarian diet and the retreat centers founded by him serve only vegetarian meals.

This last paragraph may seem a bit strange given the earlier description of the Japanese Zen, Tibetan, and Theravada traditions as being very meat tolerant. But is it really so strange? That teachers who come from traditionally non-vegetarian schools would adopt and champion vegetarianism is not a new occurrence. In fact, its very, very old. Just like the early Mahayana Buddhists of ancient India, many Buddhists in the West have now begun to realize how large a contradiction intentionally eating meat and trying to practicing the Dharma entails. They have recognized just how peculiar an institution meat eating is. Having teachers/students from non-veg lineages now advocating a meat free diet also points to something very profound about our situation. We are not wandering ascetics in ancient India begging for food and we are not living in the snow capped mountains of Tibet.

As people living in the West, we have access to an absolutely dizzying cornucopia of culinary variety. Simply put, we can eat what we want, whenever, and however we want. The fact that we can intentionally choose what we place in our bodies is the vital point here. Because we're blessed to live in a society where its so easy to cut meat from our diet, I will argue that it is our obligation as followers of the Buddha's way to go vegetarian. If this, for whatever reason, is not possible then at the very least we should significantly minimize the amount of meat that is consumed.

The physical, spiritual, economic, environmental, financial, and heath-related benefits of the vegetarian diet have been known for millennia and are far too numerous to expound here. While there may be a few (certainly disputable) benefits to consuming the flesh of animals, the spiritual, ecomomic, environmental, and financial benefits are essentially non-existent. Not only does the methane produced by livestock contribute signficantly to global warming, deforestation, and transportation also burden an already burdened planet. As for world hunger, imagine if all the food and resources used to feed animals awaiting slaughter were instead used to feed human beings.

One criticism non-veg Buddhists make against their herbivore bretheren is that many vegetarians cling to this view and use it to boost up the ego. There is certainly some truth to this criticism. I've personally encountered many vegetarians (mostly not Buddhist) who struck me as arrogant [expletives deleted]. Eating meat doesn't make you a "bad Buddhist" by default anymore than being a vegetarianism makes you an enlightened being (although its a start!). Ad hominem attacks however, do not deal with the real issue. Although arguments can be made for some extenuating circumstances where meat would have to be consumed, to defend meat eating as institution is a clear violation of the First Precept: not to take the life of any living creature. From Buddhist point of view, to rationalize the absolutely unnecessary killing of animals for an irrational food preference is most unskillful indeed.

Lay teacher and Dharma Friend Michael Roehm says of food "eating is the most intimate thing we do, more intimate than sex. Think about it. But not too much".

If you haven't noticed already, I am a fierce advocate of vegetarianism, particularly for those who wish to seriously practice the Dharma. However I do realize that there are situations were this may not be possible. My arguments outlined above are concerned with intentionally (as in karma) eating meat. To be clear, let me summarize my arguments for a Buddhist vegetarian lifestyle:


1. To willingly choose to dine on meat is a violation of the First Precept.
2. There are reasons why past Buddhist traditions have not been vegetarian. This is not the past. It is the present and it will be the future.
3. As people living in the West, we can choose to eat whatever we wish.
4. Because we have this choice, we have an obligation as followers of the Buddha to make the skillful choice and be vegetarian. The benefits are limitless.
5. If meat cannot be completely removed from one's diet, then one should significantly minimize the consumption of it.
6. Think hard about where your food comes from and the labors that brought it to you. If you eat meat, think very hard about this.

As a vegetarian, I find the prevalence of meat eating among Buddhists in the West disheartening but I hope that many will continue to recognize the opportunity we have to do away with it. May the peculiar institution of meat eating soon become an illegitimate and outdated one.

Dropping the "V-Bomb" (1 of 2)

Some time ago, I met up with a number of Buddhist friends during a temple visit and we decided to go to lunch afterwards. We went to an Indian restaurant, we all sat down, and then we started talking about what to order. It sounded something like this:

"Hmm, I wonder how their roghan gosht is".
"Oh no, you HAVE to get the chicken vindaloo, its awesome!"
"I think I'm gonna go with the chicken tikka masala".
"I'm dying for some lamb curry, I haven't had it in ages. Rob, what are you gonna get?"
"Aloo gobi" I said, referring to the classic potato and cauliflower dish.

If you consider yourself a Buddhist, then there are two possible responses to this little episode. It may seem completely mundane and uneventful or it may strike you as inappropriately awkward, to say the least.

Vegetarianism, the "V-Bomb" if you will, always seems to be controversial for vegetarians and non-vegetarians alike and this is, interestingly enough, true within modern Buddhist practice too. Worldwide, the majority of Buddhists out there are not vegetarian. There are reasons for this, as will be discussed later. However, there's something particularly curious about this fact: most Buddhists in the West are not vegetarian either. There are explanations for this too but is this really what we would expect?

In Western civilization, vegetarianism has an ancient history, going back at least 2500 years to ancient Greece. Mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras (of a² + b² = c² fame) was a proponent of vegetarianism and the long list of noteworthy and influential vegetarians includes Leonardi da Vinci, Thomas Edison, Seneca the Younger, Voltaire, and Samuel L. Jackson.

Generally speaking, in the West, those who are drawn to Buddhist teachings and especially those that actually practice tend to have a very socially liberal persuasion. The vegetarian movement within Western liberalism has been around for a long time so it would seem that when Buddhism, in its various forms, started to come West, vegetarianism would be the norm. The reality, as mentioned above, is the opposite.

It seems to be a taboo topic for a veg and non-veg Buddhist to discuss. I try hard not to bring it up (in a serious manner at least), with my Buddhist friends because it almost always gets awkward since I myself am a vegetarian. Some responses I've gotten from non-veg Buddhists include "oh well, you don't need to be a vegetarian to practice" or "uhh well um, yeah I'm working up to it...slowly". Simply put, meat eating among Buddhists in the West has become a most peculiar institution. To figure out how it became so and what, if anything can or should be done, we first need to go back the source: the Buddha himself.

In the Pali texts, generally regarded as the oldest extant sources of Buddhist teachings, we find a set of teachings called the Five Precepts. These Precepts are, in a way, the "kindergarten" of Buddhist practice, the bare minimum guidelines we should try our best to follow. What's precept number one? "I undertake the training rule to refrain from taking the life of any living creature". That's right, do not kill, anything. Many people, myself included, interpret a vegetarian diet to be the one of the logical, natural, and obvious implementations of this rule. Others however, don't stretch the First Precept that far because, as they correctly point out, the Buddha didn't.

According to the Pali sources, the Buddha himself was not a vegetarian and, although certaintly a good idea, did not mandate his students to be vegetarians either. Why would he do such a thing if he was on the earth for "benefit of gods and men"? One answer is that this was an expedient means. Back in ancient India, the practice was for monks and nuns to wander. Then, as now, the diversity of cultures, languages, and customs from region to region was enormous. The monks were supposed to accept ANY food offerings from the laity and as long as the meat wasn't killed specifically for them, it was OK. The life of a wandering ascetic is tough and its also possible to find oneself in a situation where it just wasn't possible to avoid taking meat. From this perspective, it all seems very practical, especially when the main concern is on the spirit of generosity from the giver and the spirit of humble gratitude from the receiver.

While the early texts have a more pragmatic view towards meat eating, the Mahayana tradition has a much more strong take on eating meat: DON'T DO IT. In many extremely popular and influential Mahayana texts like the Lankavatara, Shurangama, and Brahma Net Sutras, we find mild to extremely powerful condemnations of meat eating. The gist of these arguments is that eating meat extinguishes the seed of compassion of one following the Bodhisattva Path.

Historical and sociological explanations for why vegetarianism became so emphasized in early to middle Mahayana teachings in Buddhist India abound. We don't, however, need to delve into such academic discussions in order to understand this from a "Buddhist" point of view: being a vegetarian while not explicitly stated in the early texts, is a natural and immediate practice of compassion, one of the "signature" Mahayana emphases.

When Buddhism spread out to East Asia, China in particular, many of these same debates continued. David Loy points out in his recent book "Money, Sex, War, Karma (Wisdom Pubs, 2008)", that one of the reasons the Chinese Sangha went veg was because the laity expected it of the monastic community. To this day, the Chinese Buddhist traditions are one of the few all vegetarian traditions out there.

Nick Kristof, popular writer for the New York Times wrote of his experiences growing up on a farm and how this endeared him to the welfare of animals. Indeed, his piece entitled, "A Farm Boy Reflects" is an argument in favor of an expanded animal rights law on the Californian ballot in November. In this piece, Kristof talks about his horror and sorrow at witnessing animals being slaughtered. The kicker, as he readily admits, is that is not a vegetarian. It seems like another instance of 1+1 = 143123.984.

Meditations on loving-kindness, metta, are very popular, especially in the West. But those who willingly choose to eat meat must recognize the contradiction that repeating phrases like "may all beings be well, happy, and free from suffering", and then dining on a T-bone steak represent.

The most common rationalization for meat eating is "well I didn't kill the meat, so I'm karmically clean". Perhaps, but the butchers and those involved in the meat industry are certainly not karmically clean. The abomination of modern factory farming is well established. If you eat a dead animal, its almost certain that your meal was not treated well, did not live a happy life, and had to endure a hell of a lot of suffering.

Sure, you may not have held the cleaver yourself but if no one ate meat, what use would we have for butchers in the first place?

Feeling It

One of the most important functions of meditation practice is that it allows the mind to settle. When this occurs, we can experience both the inner and outer stillness and clarity. A big misconception people have however, is that this is something which can only occur on the meditation cushion or in a remote, mountain-top hermitage. Not so.

My usual schedule is to wake up before dawn everyday and after freshening up, shaving, etc. I prepare for the morning sit. Sitting at this time is great for two reasons. The first is that there's a good feeling of "rising with the sun". The second is that its just before the serious rush hour traffic starts on my street.

One random morning however, I overslept. "Ugh, too late for the morning sit, I'd better eat and head out", I thought to myself.

While waiting for my computer to start up, something happened. I'm not sure how to explain it other than to say I was "feeling it". What was I feeling? I could best describe it as calmness, stillness, and a kind of gentle sereneness. I had experienced something like this before...on a silent meditation retreat. Amazing, open, full of wonde-HOOOOONK HOOOONK. Before I knew it however, the computer was on, the tea kettle whistling, and the traffic rolling out in full. Nonetheless, it was still an interesting experience to have. Perhaps I should try oversleeping more often.


Sunrise from my apartment window:

Poem of the Week: Summer

"The sun blazing fiercely,
the moon longed for eagerly,
deep waters inviting
to plunge in continually,
days drawing to a close in quiet beauty,
the tide of desire running low;
scorching Summer is now here, my love".

-Kālidāsa in the "The Gathering of the Seasons" (Rtusamharam)

Siddhartha's Palace

New York Times writer Judith Warner writes in her blog about the effects of "affluenza" on our society:

The $10,000-camp universe appears to be rife with what mental health professionals are now calling “affluenza,” a social pathology that, they say, is rampant at a time when getting and spending — a lot — have become our nation’s most cherished activities, and when purchasing power has become, to an unprecedented extent, almost the sole source of many people’s status and identity.

In our society, you don’t have to be wealthy to suffer from affluenza. Its symptoms — “debt, overwork, waste, and harm to the environment, leading to psychological disorders, alienation, and distress,” in adults; “lack of motivation … apathy, laziness, or failure to commit to and achieve goals … overindulgence and attitudes of entitlement” in children, according to the New York University Child Study Center, are pervasive — and no one is immune.

For affluenza is not just a constellation of symptoms. It is an ethic, a play-the-system, lie-and-cheat-your-way-to-what-you-want, don’t-let-the-peons-stand-in-your-way ethic of amorality. You rock, kid, parents teach. And you — alone — rule.

This ethic drives behavior — like the behavior of the wealthy parents profiled in The Times who, flouting camp bans on cellphone use, sent their kids off with two phones, so that, if one was confiscated, there’d still be a spare for secret calls home. And it also permeates social attitudes and policy.

What ever happened to "no work, no food"?