There
are differences of opinion between Buddhists on this
issue so we will attempt to present the arguments of
those who believe that vegetarianism is necessary for
Buddhists and those who do not. Vegetarianism was not
a part of the early Buddhist tradition and the Buddha
himself was not a vegetarian. The Buddha got his food
either by going on alms rounds or by being invited to
the houses of his supporters and in both cases he ate
what he was given. Before his enlightenment he had experimented
with various diets including a meatless diet, but he
eventually abandoned them believing that they did not
contribute to spiritual development.
The
Nipata Sutta underlines this point when it says
that it is immorality that makes one impure (morally and
spiritually), not the eating of meat. The Buddha is often
described as eating meat, he recommended meat broth as
a cure for certain types of illness and advised monks
for practical reasons, to avoid certain types of meat,
implying that other types were quite acceptable. However,
Buddhists gradually came to feel uncomfortable about meat
eating. In 257 BC King Asoka said
that in contrast to before, only two peacocks and a deer
were killed to provide food in the royal kitchens and
that in time even this would be stopped. By the beginning
of the Christian era meat eating had become unacceptable,
particularly amongst the followers of the Mahayana although the polemics against it in works like
the Lankavatara Sutra indicates that it was still widespread
or a least a point of controversy. Tantric text dating
from the 7th and 8th centuries onward, frequently recommend
both drinking alcohol and eating meat and both are considered
fit to offer to gods. This was probably as much an expression
of the freedom from convention which Tantra taught as
it was a protest against Mahayanists to whom practices
like abstaining from drink and meat had become a substitute
for genuine spiritual change.
Today
it is often said that Mahayanists are vegetarian and Theravadins are not. However the situation is a little
more complex than that. Generally Theravadins have no
dietary restrictions although it is not uncommon to find
monks and lay people in Sri Lanka
who are strict vegetarians. Others abstain from meat while
eating fish. Chinese and Vietnamese monks and nuns are strictly vegetarian and the lay community
try to follow there example although many do not. Amongst
Tibetans and Japanese Buddhists vegetarianism is rare.
Buddhists
who insist on vegetarianism have a simple and compelling
argument to support their case. Eating meat encourages
an industry that causes cruelty and death to millions
of animals and a truly compassionate person would wish
to mitigate all this suffering. By refusing to eat meat
one can do just that.
Those
who believe that vegetarianism is not necessary for Buddhists
have equally compelling although more complex arguments
to support their view. (1) If the Buddha had felt that
a meatless diet was in accordance with the Precepts he
would have said so and in the Pali
Tipitaka at least, he did not. (2) Unless one actually
kills an animal oneself (which seldom happens today) by
eating meat one is not directly responsible for the animal's
death and in this sense the non- vegetarian is no different
from the vegetarian. The latter can only eat his vegetables
because the farmer has ploughed his fields (thus killing
many creatures) and sprayed the crop (again killing many
creatures). (3) While the vegetarian will not eat meat
he does use numerous other products that lead to animals
being killed (soap, leather, serum, silk etc.) Why abstain
from one while using the others? (4) Good qualities like
understanding, patience, generosity and honesty and bad
qualities like ignorance, pride, hypocrisy, jealousy and
indifference do not depend on what one eats and therefore
diet is not a significant factor in spiritual development.
Some will accept one point of view and some another. Each
person has to make up his or her own mind.
Ruegg,
D.S. "Ahimsa and Vegetarianism in the History of
Buddhism" in Buddhist Studies in Honour
of Walpola Rahula. S. Balasooriya, (et.al) London,
1980;
P.
Kapleau, To Cherish All Life, London, 1982.
|