Name:
Vasu Murti
Diet Type:
lacto-ovo-vegetarian
Gender:
male
Birthdate:
June 29, 1963
Location:
California, USA
Religious Views:
Hare Krishna
Relationship Status:
Single
Seeking:
woman for serious relationship
Children:
not interested in having children
I don't doubt that "Vegetarian diets HEALTHIER IN EVERY WAY than diets with meat", but is the other side convinced?
In 1989, my friend Greg and I heard John Robbins speak in San Diego. He recently had appeared on Geraldo, and was citing the scientific evidence that the cause of heart disease, cancer, etc. was animal products...and not once did the autopsies blame spinach and tofu!
The evidence supporting veganism has continued to mount since then, but that didn't stop the Atkins craze from a decade ago.
Like the scientific evidence in favor of global warming, the right wing doesn't take medical data supporting veganism, Dr. Milton Mills' anatomical comparisons between humans, carnivores, omnivores, frugivores, and herbivores, The China Study, etc. seriously, either.
They liken it to a scene in Woody Allen's 1973 movie Sleeper, in which a natural foods faddist goes into suspended animation and wakes up 200 years later to find that what he thought would be the wave of the future didn't happen.
Maybe they believe in a six thousand year old universe, too?
They're intolerant of other religions, and even other Christian sects or denominations which differ from their own. They act like they've never encountered a vegetarian before, are unaware of animal rights as a secular moral philsophy, etc.
They think of vegetarianism as following "dietary laws", even though animal issues like fur, circuses, "sport" hunting, vivisection (animal experimentation), etc. have nothing to do with diet, eating, or food.
On the other hand, why then would they be offended by pro-choice vegetarians and vegans (persons valuing animal life over humans in prenatal development) if veg*ism were merely abstaining from certain foods, and not about the animals' right to life?
Volunteering with San Diego Animal Advocates in 1988, by manning a booth or table at Koby's Swap Meet (a local flea market), I met an animal activist who said she first became vegetarian for health reasons.
She explained that she didn't think an occasional piece of meat during the holidays (Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc.) would hurt...
...but when she learned about slaughterhouses, factory farms, etc., she said she'll never eat meat again.
Elliot Gang, who wrote for the now-defunct Animals' Agenda, said to myself and Gaverick Matheny of Vegan Action at the World Vegetarian Day festival in San Francisco in 2000:
"Arguing it's wrong to eat meat because it's unhealthy is like saying rape is wrong because you might catch venereal disease."
In each case, the moral reasons are the real reason to abstain. Because we live in a narcissistic society, Americans are won over by the health arguments first.
During the Second World War, when rationing forced England to adopt a vegetarian diet, George Bernard Shaw reassured his countrymen that they need not worry about becoming carbon copies of George Bernard Shaw..
...they can keep their own identities, just as the Maoris did when they gave up cannibalism. And the laborers making a living from cutting the throats of chickens, lambs, calves, pigs, etc. can refine themselves in nobler ways.
Apart from demanding animal issues be given the level of serious moral discussion we now give to issues like racism and abortion, we have many powerful social justice arguments (global hunger, global warming; the energy, environmental, population and water crises) on our side.
Was Jesus a vegetarian?
The Buddha certainly was!
Dr. Tony Page writes in his 2000 book, Buddhism and Animals:
"From the age of thirty-five, when Siddhartha Gautama became the Buddha (the "Awakened One" or the "Enlightened One") until his death at the age of eighty, this remarkable spiritual Master travelled extensively throughout his native India preaching to all who would listen.
"Unlike the social establishment around him, he paid no heed to divisions of caste, class, sex or race.
"Like another Saviour who was to come five hundred years later, he would sit with criminals and prostitutes, the rich and the poor - anyone who had an ear for his Gospel."
****
Although it is an agnostic moral philosophy (i.e., no recognition of a personal God) a few centuries older than Christianity, Buddhism teaches a consistent ethic of reverence for all life. No wars have ever been waged in the name of Buddhism. Similarly, the act of abortion is explicitly condemned in the Buddhist canonical scriptures. Sir Edwin Arnold’s poetic biography on Siddhartha Gautama, The Light of Asia, caused quite a controversy in Victorian England: centuries before Jesus, an earlier teacher lived “the Christ life.”
The ethical teachings of the Buddha are quite similar to those found in the Gospel of Jesus: One must never be proud nor harbor anger against anyone. He who humbles himself shall be exalted, while the one who exalts himself shall be degraded. Harsh language must never be used against anyone.
Avoid lust, anger and greed. One should not scrutinize the mote in a neighbor’s eye without first noticing the beam in one’s own. One must “turn the other cheek” if attacked or abused. One’s own possessions must be shared with the less fortunate. If a man obtained the whole world and its riches, he still would not be satisfied, nor would this save him.
In 261 BC, the Indian emperor Ashoka witnessed firsthand the innumerable casualties he caused during one of his many military campaigns. His heart was filled with grief. He converted to Buddhism. 19th century scholar and writer H.G. Wells considered Ashoka’s conversion to Buddhism one of the most significant events in world history.
Ashoka, formerly a bloody and ruthless emperor, became a remarkably kind and gentle leader. Ashoka established some of the earliest animal rights laws. He stopped the royal hunt, stopped the sacrifice of animals in his capital city, stopped the killing of animals for food in the royal kitchens, and gave up the eating of meat.
Ashoka made it illegal to kill many species of animals, such as parrots, ducks, geese, bats, turtles, squirrels, monkeys and rhinos. He forbade the killing of pregnant animals, or animals that were nursing their young. He declared certain days to be “non-killing days,” on which fish could not be caught, nor any other animals killed. He established wells and watering holes, places of rest and hospitals for humans and animals alike.
Ashoka educated his people to have compassion for animals, and to refrain from killing or harming them. He sent missionaries to all the neighboring kingdoms to teach mercy, compassion and nonviolence. Through Ashoka’s patronage, Buddhism was spread all over the Indian subcontinent. Buddhism would eventually reach the rest of Asia; today there are an estimated 300 to 600 million Buddhists worldwide.
****
The first precept of Buddhism is: “Do not kill, but rather preserve and cherish all life.”
There is an ancient poem, reputed to be the only text ever written by the Buddha himself, which states:
“Let creatures all, all things that live, all beings of whatever kind, see nothing that will bode them ill. May naught of evil come to them.”
The Buddhist emperor Ashoka (268-223 BC) declared in one of his famous Pillar Edicts: “I have enforced the law against killing certain animals... The greatest progress of Righteousness among men comes from the exhortation in favor of non-injury to life and abstention from killing living beings.”
The Dalai Lama has said, “I do not see any reason why animals should be slaughtered to serve as human diet when there are so many substitutes. After all, man can live without meat.”
****
The 'Jataka Tales' (folk tales) within Mahayana Buddhism Promote Vegetarianism
"In the Buddha's past life as Ajastya, a forest-dwelling ascetic, he sustained himself on a strictly vegan diet. He lived off 'roots and fruit' plus fresh water.
(Jatakamala, by Aryasura, translated into English as The Marvelous Companion, Dharma Publishing, Berkeley, CA, 1983, p. 55)
"When this source of food dried up, Ajastya was not unduly worried, for he knew he could still survive on leaves, water, and grass... The thought clearly did not occur to him to kill and roast a few birds, or snare and eat the occasional rabbit. The animals which lived in the forest with him were perfectly safe - and they admiringly looked up to him as their friend, protector and role model...
"In another life, as the wandering ascetic, Mahabodhi, the Buddha once told a powerful king that - contrary to the king's suspicions - he had not once been guilty of animal murder, nor could his adherence to a virtue ever allow such a thing. He says:
'In truth, your majesty, I have never killed even a single living creature...
'He who... maintains virtuous action, who cherishes compassion - how could such a person kill any living being?'
(Jatakamala, p. 226)
"...There are, of course, other examples of pro-vegetarianism which could be cited from the Jatakas - but the above should suffice to indicate the general trend of sentiment. So let us turn now to the actual purveyors of meat: the hunters, fishermen and butchers. What does the Buddha have to say about such people?"
****
The Lotus Sutra on the Evil, Animal-Slaughtering Trades
"The Buddha-Path is one of inner purity. Not only killing animals oneself, but even associating closely with those involved in such murder is liable to pollute the spirit of the aspiring Bodhisattva-Mahasattva ("Great Enlightenment Being"). The Buddha thus advises his followers to keep well clear of animal abusers:
"'They [Bodhisattvas] should not be closely associated with... persons engaged in raising pigs, sheep, chickens or dogs, or of those who engage in hunting or fishing or other evil activities.'
(The Lotus Sutra, translation by Burton Watson, Columbia University Press, New York, 1993, p. 197)
"Obviously the breeding activities referred to here are entered into, not to benefit the animals, but to swell the coffers of those who rear and sell the animals. Ultimately, such persons are as misguided and worthy of condemnation as the hunters and fishermen who directly kill the creatures unfortunate enough to fall into their hans or nets.
"The Buddha was ever a realist, and whilst not denying the possibility that such animal-exploiting persons could reform, he id not hold out inordinate hope in this regard. He tells his followers in the Lotus Sutra:
'If such persons at times come to one, then one may preach..., but one should expect nothing from it.'" (Lotus Sutra, p. 197)
Dr. Tony Page merely comments:
"Those of us who have vainly tried to speak sweet reason to vivisectors (experimenting upon animals) and other animal molesters will ruefully acknowledge how accurate the Buddha was!"
Dr. Page continues:
"...In the same section of the scripture, the Buddha reiterates the theme of shunning those who harm animals:
'Also he [the Bodhisattva] must not associate with slaughterers or flesh-carvers, those who hunt animals or catch fish, or kill or do harm for profit. Those who peddle meat for a living or display women and sell their favors - all persons such as this one should never associate with.' (Lotus Sutra, p. 199)
"It is interesting to note that in the Buddha's eyes, those who butcher animals and sell their meat are as dissolute and depraved as pimps, who exploit women and sell sex. Both types of person are 'doing harm for profit.' Yet sadly, in today's upside-down world, even more so than in the Buddha's time - profit is worshipped as God.
"Fortunately, however, there is a counter-current developing, and increasing numbers of people are saying 'No!' to a heartless capitalist system that has neither respect for animal life nor concern for oppressed men, women and children. It is because the Buddha sees the identity of depraved inner values as shared between animal abusers and pimps - both of whom exploit without mercy - that the two groups are rightfully bracketed together.
"So important is this message of condemnation of animal abuse, that the Buddha repeats it at the very end of the scripture. Speaking of the accomplished Bodhisattva, he tells of how such a person could never take pleasure from mixing with those who pursue evil, animal-abusing professions:
'They [Bodhisattvas] will take no pleasure in associating with... those engaged in evil occupations such as butchers, raisers of pigs, sheep, chickens or dogs, hunters, or those who offer women's charms for sale.' (Lotus Sutra, p. 323)
"If it is wrong to be intimate with hunters and butchers, how much more wrong must it be to finance their work by buying their grisly, blood-stained 'products'! As we shall now see, eating meat - and thus being part of the cold, compassionless system of animal exploitation - is utterly condemned by the Buddha in some of the most important Mahayana scriptures."
****
The Buddha Utterly Condemns Meat-Eating
"The primary objection to eating animals is that it involves the killing of those creatures. Non-killing is the minimum that can be expected of an aspirant Bodhisattva and is the very first of the Buddhist precepts or prohibitions. The Buddha states in the Brahmajala Sutra:
'Disciples of the Buddha, should you yourself kill, willfully cause another to kill, encourage someone to kill, extol killing, take pleasure seeing killing take place, deliberately wish someone dead, intentionally cause death, supply the instruments or the means for killing, cut off a life even when sanctioned by law, that is, participate in any way in killing, you are committing a serious offense warranting exclusion from the sangha (association or community).
'Pray, do not intentionally kill anything whatsoever which has life. As a Bodhisattva, awaken within yourself a heart that is unending in its mercy and compassion, respect and dutifulness, and use your skillful means to help and protect all sentient beings.'
(The Scripture of Brahma's Net, in Buddhist Writings, translated by Reverend Hubert Nearman, OBC, Shasta Abbey, CA, 1994, pp. 127-28)
'Disciples of the Buddha, should you yourself willingly and knowingly eat flesh, you defile yourself... Pray, let us not eat any flesh or meat whatsoever coming from living beings. Anyone who eats flesh is cutting himself off from the great seed of his own merciful and compassionate nature, for which all sentient beings will reject him and flee from him when they see him acting so. This is why all Bodhisattvas should abstain from eating the flesh of any and all sentient beings. Someone who eats flesh is defiling himself beyond measure...'
(The Scripture of Brahma's Net, in Buddhist Writings, translated by Reverend Hubert Nearman, OBC, Shasta Abbey, CA, 1994, p. 138)
According to Dr. Tony Page:
"The fascinating Lankavatara Sutra is perhaps the most insistent of all the Buddhist scriptures that meat-eating is to be condemned. There is a whole chapter (Chapter Eight) in the Lankavatara devoted to this subject:
'...wherever there are living beings, let people cherish the thought of kinship with them, and, thinking that all beings are [one's] child, let them refrain from eating meat. So with Bodhisattvas whose nature is compassion, meat is to be avoided by him. Even in exceptional cases, it is not of a Bodhisattva of good standing to eat meat...
'For fear of causing terror to living beings... let the Bodhisattva who is disciplining himself to attain compassion, refrain from eating flesh... let the Bodhisattva, who is disciplining himself to abide in great compassion, because of its terrifying living beings, refrain from eating meat...
'...let the Bodhisattva, whose nature is pity and who regards all beings as his only child...refrain from eating meat...'
(The Lankavatara Sutra, translated by Dr. D.T. Suzuki, Prajna Press, Boulder, CO, 1978, pp. 212-216)
Dr. Tony Page comments:
"...Buddhism sees all beings as related to one another - not just in a figurative sense, but quite literally: since beginningless time, we have been reincarnating into different families, in different forms, so that there is now scarcely any person or animal in the world who is not related to us in some degree of kinship. To kill an animal and eat its meat is thus tantamount to slaughtering and devouring one's own relatives...
"Thus by catching and killing fish, rearing and slaughtering chickens, breeding and butchering cattle, etc., we are... murdering a potential Buddha of days to come... one should not stretch out one's hand for the sliced-off tissues of a murdered fellow being. The Buddha appeals here to compassion - pure and simple...
"Some persons argue that eating meat is permissible since one has not done the killing oneself. There is a name for such a stance: hypocrisy! The Buddha was well aware that by sponsoring the meat-trade through eating meat we are implicated in the killing of animals. He says in the Lankavatara Sutra:
'If meat is not eaten by anybody, there will be no destroyer of life.'
(The Lankavatara Sutra, translated by Dr. D.T. Suzuki, Prajna Press, Boulder, CO, 1978, p. 217)
"The Buddha firmly states that he does not permit any meat-eating, nor will he at any time in the future:
"It is not true that meat is proper food and permissible when [the animal] was not killed by himself, when he did not order others to kill it, when it was not specifically meant for him...there may be some unwitted people in the future time, who... under the influence of the thirst for [meat]-taste, they will string together in various ways some sophistic arguments to defend meat-eating... meat-eating I have not permitted to anyone, I do not permit, I will not permit."
(The Lankavatara Sutra, translated by Dr. D.T. Suzuki, Prajna Press, Boulder, CO, 1978, p. 217-219)
****
An exchange between one of the Buddha's disciples, Kasyapa, and the Buddha found in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra:
"O World-honoured One! Why is it that the Tathagata [the Buddha] does not allow us to take flesh?"
"O good man! One who takes flesh kills the seed of great compassion."
(The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, in Three Volumes, translated by Kosho Yamamoto, The Karinbunko, Ube City, Japan, 1973 - 1975, p. 91)
Dr. Tony Page comments:
"The Buddha's primary objection to eating meat, it is plain, is that such a practice is incompatible with the cultivation of compassion. And the wise nurturing of that seed of compassion, which lies buried in all of us, is nothing less than the primary purpose of Buddhism (at least, according to the Mahayana). How dreadful meat-eating must be in the Buddha's eyes, then, if it strikes at the very heart of what his Dharma (way of life) embodies and comprises - boundless all-wise compassion...
"One of the pre-eminent aims of Buddhism is to purify one's heart. It is evident from the above words that by eating or advocating meat one is forsaking what is pure and committing a crime against Dharma. From a Buddhist point of view, that is a most serious offense...when Kasyapa asks what a Buddhist should do if offered a meal which contains meat. Is it permissible to eat such a meal and yet remain pure? Kasyapa wonders. The Buddha's reply is unambiguous:
"Use water, wash off the meat [from the plate], and then take it [the rest of the meal]... If one sees that there is much meat, one must not accept such a meal. One must never take the meat itself. One who takes it infringes the rule. I now set this rule of segregating one's own self from taking meat."
(The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, in Three Volumes, translated by Kosho Yamamoto, The Karinbunko, Ube City, Japan, 1973 - 1975, p. 94)
The Buddhist precepts for moral living include prohibitions not to slander others nor drink alcohol. The Buddha himself refers to the vinaya [monastic] rules in the sutras of Mahayana Buddhism. Celibacy, known in the Hindu religious tradition as well as in Buddhism (in Sanskrit) as bramacharya, is referred to by Dr. Page as "the path of holiness" or "divine faring."
Dr. Page comments:
"Some Buddhists have argued that a monk should accept and eat whatever food is offered - but this is clearly rejected by the Buddha here, who states that if there is a lot of meat on a preferred dish, the whole meal should be refused. And if there is only a small amount of meat with the rest of the food - then the meat must be washed clean away before the other food can be touched. It could not be more apparent how defiling and impure meat was in the Buddha's eyes.
"Not only meat is prohibited by the Buddha, but likewise the keeping of animals or the attending of animal 'shows' or fights. Speaking of what is not permissible for his brethren (and nuns), he says:
"One does not keep the elephant, horse, vehicle, cow, sheep, camel, donkey, hen, dog, monkey, peacock, parrot... jackal, wolf, cat, raccoon, dog, wild boar, and pig... nor does he enjoy himself looking at the fights of elephants, horses, vehicles, soldiers, men, women, cows, sheep, cocks, pheasants, parrots, etc. He does not look at--- the fights of lions and elephants... and all kind of amusements."
(The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, in Three Volumes, translated by Kosho Yamamoto, The Karinbunko, Ube City, Japan, 1973 - 1975, pp. 284-85)
****
According to Dr. Tony Page, Mahayana Buddhism is nearly abolitionist when it comes to animal exploitation. Dr. Page notes that of the sixteen practices listed in the Mahayana Buddhist scriptures as "evil," thirteen of them concern the exploitation of animals:
1. keeping, feeding, and fattening sheep for profit and sale.
2. buying and killing sheep for profit.
3. raising, fattening and selling pigs for profit.
4. buying and killing pigs for profit.
5. raising , fattening and selling calves for profit.
6. buying and killing calves for profit.
7. raising hens for profit and selling them when fully grown.
8. buying hens for profit and killing them.
9. fishing,
10. hunting.
11. selling fish.
12. catching birds by net.
13. charming snakes.
(The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, in Three Volumes, translated by Kosho Yamamoto, The Karinbunko, Ube City, Japan, 1973 - 1975, p. 719)
"It is quite obvious from the above," insists Dr. Page, "that the Buddha was not only opposed to meat-eating, but any form of gross-animal exploitation (including circuses or 'animal entertainments' - of which snake-charming is just one representative example).
"The present writer also knows of no passage in the Sutras which portrays the Buddha as riding around on a horse or even a donkey (after his gaining of enlightenment). He seems to have walked everywhere. Is this not itself testimony to his respect for animals?
"The Buddha perceptively brought together the fields of 'human rights' and 'animal rights.' The Buddhist followers were strictly enjoined not to traffic in free human beings or slaves of either gender, nor to traffic in animals or their products. To the Buddha, no distinction should be made between brutal human exploitation and that of animals.
"Of course the mindset which can sanction and perform abuse to one species of being is liable to do the same to another."
(The Scripture of Brahma's Net, in Buddhist Writings, translated by Reverend Hubert Nearman, OBC, Shasta Abbey, CA, 1994, p. 144)
****
Dr. Page claims the Mahayana Buddhist scriptures support veganism:
"...it could be argued that the Buddha did not expect all Buddhists to give up all animal-products overnight - but to move toward that goal gradually. He himself says in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra:
"The Tathagata... prohibits by gradual steps and not at a time."
(The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, in Three Volumes, translated by Kosho Yamamoto, The Karinbunko, Ube City, Japan, 1973 - 1975, p. 95)
"By the same token," comments Dr. Page, "it seems that, although many scriptures sanction the use of dairy products, the... goal was that of veganism."
In the Surangama Sutra we read:
"How... can you eat the flesh of living beings and so pretend to be my disciple?...
"All bhiksus [monks] who live purely and all Bodhisattvas always refrain even from walking on the grass; how can they agree to uproot it? How then can those who practice great compassion feed on the flesh and blood of living beings? If bhiksus do not wear garments made of silk, boots of local leather and furs, and refrain from consuming milk, cream and butter, they will really be liberated from the worldly...
"This teaching of mine is that of the Buddha whereas any other is that of evil demons."
(The Surangama Sutra, translated by Lu K'uan Yu, B.I. Publications, Bombay, India, 19789, pp. 153-154)
In the January 2003 issue of Live and Let Live, a pro-life / animal rights/ libertarian 'zine, James Dawson, raised Catholic and now a Theravadin Buddhist, comments:
"While I personally consider veganism an ethically superior diet to ovo and/or lacto vegetarianism, and as much as discipline and circumstances allow, try to move toward it as much as I can, Dr. Page's claim that the Buddha advocated veganism, to my mind is really stretching it. This isn't to say the scriptural evidence is nonexistent, but just very thin. However, even this might be worth considering further."
Dr. Page responds:
"...on the substantive issue regarding veganism: yes, the scriptural evidence for the Buddha's advocating veganism is very slim, that is true; amongst the Mahayana sutras, it is mainly to be found in the Surangama Sutra. But there is a lot of Mahayana sutric insistence on vegetarianism.
"I still believe that the Pali suttas (the canonical scriptures of Theravada Buddhism) clearly indicate great reservations about the eating of meat: clearly it was something that was not lightly to be undertaken. The passsages which I quote seem pretty clear to me that the Buddha was urging against meat consumption for monks.
"And in any case, as a Mahayanist, I believe that whatever the Buddha said in the Pali suttas (or agamas) is superseded by the more advanced teachings of the Mahayana (yes, James is right that I do regard Mahayana as a step forward within the Buddha's doctrines...).
Veganism would certainly be a logical conclusion of ahimsa (nonviolence toward humans and animals alike) within Buddhism. Roshi Philip Kapleau writes in his 1983 book, A Buddhist Case for Vegetarianism that the Buddha was:
"...a person so sensitive to the sufferings of all living beings that he would not drink milk from a cow during the first ten days after its calf was born..."
(A Buddhist Case for Vegetarianism, Roshi Philip Kapleau, Rider, London, 1983, pp. 24-25)
****
According to Dr. Page: "The vital Buddhist practices of meditation and spiritual study should not be used as a means of cutting ourselves off from empathy with others, but for bringing us closer to them. As the Buddhist writer Fred Eppsteiner puts it in the stimulating book, The Path of Compassion - Writings on Socially Engaged Buddhism:
'No one would disagree that the 'inner' teachings and practices which lead to self-trnsformation and emancipation are at the core of Buddhism. But if the insights and awareness these practices help develop are not applied throughout daily life - to our work, our relationships, and our responses to crises near at hand and around the globe - then 'selfishness' is a euphemism for selfishness, and detachment an excuse for indifference.'
"One 'crisis near at hand' is the ecological destruction of our world, currently proceeding at break-neck speed. This includes the decimation of our forests and their dependent creatures, and the abuse and slaughter every year of millions of animals for unnecessary 'food' and in utterly useless 'biomedical' research' (chimpanzees, for instance, are at risk of eventual extinction, if the current trend of laboratory exploitation of them worldwide is not halted - see Professor Vernon Reynolds' valuable and informative book, Poor Model Man...)
"The karma which is being generated through this truly insensate obsession with Profit and material Power will sooner or later hit back at the world in its entirety, complicit as it is in mass violationism of the law of Compassion - and then all will be the losers, humans and animals alike.
"The Buddha spent his entire life (or lives) speaking out against injustice, and pointing to the path of fairness and kindliness which it is incumbent upon us to take in our daily existence. Animals are included n this path. How, then, can we today - when the scale of the torment, the terrorizing and slaying of animals is far greater than during Shakymuni Buddha's time - remain seated in silence?"
According to Dr. Page:
"The key Buddhist concepts for appropriate campaigning are peacefulness, friendliness (metta or maitri) and mindfulness (sati, smriti) - friendliness towards all living beings and mindfulness of one's own inner reactions when face to face with persons of whose views one does not approve...
"Leafleting or holding stalls in the streets is extremely valuable for spreading the truth. From a Buddhist point of view, such campaigns should be conducted peacefully, intelligently, informedly and without hatred or violence against any person... one's actions should be motivated by compassion and a genuine wish to improve the world...
"Speaking to the public with civility and friendliness is not only consonant with all Buddhist principles, but is also likely to create a more favorable impression and thus help to win over members of the public who may not otherwise have been one one's side...for the sake of the voiceless animals."
The Hindu scriptures describe the sage Narada teaching a hunter named Mrigari compassion for all creatures. Mrigari killed animals not because his survival depended upon it, but merely for the sadistic pleasure of tormenting other living entities. Narada taught Mrigari to renounce hunting as well as the eating of meat. During the late 1980s, Govinda's Vegetarian Restaurant in San Diego, CA was a regular meeting place for members of San Diego Animal Advocates. Dr. Tony Page similarly says Buddhism supports campaigning for animal rights:
"In the Bhadrakalpika Sutra, the Buddha speaks of the wisdom (his own word) of liberating animals who are being held in captivity. He tells of how the great lion Subuddhi (the very name links him to the Buddha), freed five hundred rabbits and other wild animals who had been caught in a trap. Subuddhi turns them loose and teaches them Dharma.
"Even the scriptures of the more conservative Theravada School of Buddhism applaud animal liberation. In the Kutadanta Sutta, for example, the Buddha tells the brahmin priest, Kutadanta, of how he (the Buddha) had in an earlier life caused a king to renounce the practice of animal sacrifice. Inspired by this story, Kutadanta resolves to liberate the thousands of animals who are currently being held captive in readiness for a sacrifice to be celebrated by himself and hundreds of other brahmins.
"Kudanta says to the Buddha:
'...I set free the seven hundred bulls, seven hundred bullocks, seven hundred heifers, seven hundred he-goats, and seven hundred rams. I grant them life, let them be fed with green grass and given cool water to drink, and let cool breezes play upon them.'
"Kudanta progresses from animal-slaughterer to animal liberator, through the animal-friendly words of the Buddha... If there be any vestige of doubt in the reader's mind as to whether it is acceptable for a Buddhist to intervene at a scene of animal abuse - or even intended animal abuse - let the reader onsider the following precept promulgated by the Buddha in the Brahmajala Sutra:
'Disciples of the Buddha, you should willingly and with compassion carry out the work of setting sentient creatures free...
'Should you see a worldly person intent on killing an animal, attempt by appropriate means to rescue or protect it and to free it from its misery.
'We must always give the Precepts of the Bodhisattvas in order to bring all sentient beings to the Other Shore.'
Dr. Tony Page concludes:
"Subuddhi's compassion act was not denounced or condemned by the Buddha. Rather, it was praised. Inaction is not an option."
There Must Be a Moral or an Ethical Basis for One’s Vegetarianism, Otherwise One is Likely to Backslide, and Return to Flesh-Eating.
The health arguments aren't enough to keep one committed to vegetarianism. The nutritional data keeps changing, which causes opponents of animal liberation to react with amusement.
Opponents of animal liberation liken it to a scene in Woody Allen’s 1973 movie, Sleeper, in which a natural food faddist, unwittingly placed in suspended animation, wakes up two hundred years into the future, to find that what he’d thought would be the wave of the future, didn’t happen…
…the foods that were thought to be unhealthy in the 20th century were found to be health-supporting in the 22nd century.
In the ’70s, Dr. Tarnower’s Scarsdale Diet had a vegetarian option which was practically vegan, as dairy products were excluded. But Dr. Tarnower permitted diet sodas without restriction, which nutritionalists now are saying should be consumed less frequently.
In The MacDougall Plan (1983), Dr. John MacDougall advocated a plant-based diet, high in fiber and complex carbohydrates, with no animal products, oil or salt. And no intoxication, either, which meant no caffeine.
Keith Akers in A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983), similarly said:
"It becomes a question of your money or your life. We may eventually acquire, through sheer technological prowess, the ability to cure or at least cope with these (degenerative) diseases, but we'll have to pay for it, and pay dearly (health care costs).
"And it is all so unnecessary. For the most part, we know what causes heart disease; we know what causes cancer. Through dietary reform we could probably cut the incidents of heart disease and cancer by 60% to 80%...
"Meat in particular, and animal products in general, have three nutritional disadvantages: they contain too much fat, they contain too much protein, and they contain no fiber at all... Carbohydrates, which are the primary constituent of most whole plant foods, are almost entirely absent in most animal products... only milk has significant amounts of carbohydrate.
"And the carbohydrate of milk is in a form -- lactose -- which is unusable by much of the world's population, which cannot digest it after infancy. Lactose provides no fiber and is nutritionally equivalent to table sugar...
"Some vegetarians may be somewhat offended to find that dairy products and eggs are... part of the nutritional problem. Eggs, milk, cheese, meat, fish, and fowl, all have about the same high quantities of fat and protein and about the same dearth of fiber.
“Almost any vegetarian diet is an improvement over the typical Western diet, but the best diet of all would also eliminate refined and processed foods, as well as most (if not all) animal products — in short, a total vegetarian (vegan), whole foods diet. This is a fairly radical claim, and one which should not be accepted uncritically…
"Actually, none of these is a'minor' disease. All are widespread and cause a lot of physical suffering. Broken bones, arthritis, kidney stones, gallstones -- many accept these things as inevitable parts of getting old. They need not do so. These afflictions are all largely brought about by a diet too high in fat and protein, and too low in fiber.
"A vegetarian diet -- especially a total vegetarian (vegan) whole foods diet -- is low in fat and protein, and high in fiber, and would greatly reduce the incidence of all these diseases."
John Robbins’ Pulitzer Prize nominated Diet for a New America (1987) makes veganism seem as reasonable and mainstream as recycling.
John Robbins shows in easy-to-read language, with charts and graphs, that most of the degenerative diseases plaguing the affluent West are self-inflicted wounds, and are virtually unknown in other parts of the world…
…and migration studies show that when persons immigrate to the United States and begin eating animal products in excess, they’re plagued by the same diseases as everyone else. Genetics and heredity are not a discernible factor.
John Robbins spoke in Solana Beach, CA in July 1989, where he said he’d recently appeared on the television talk show Geraldo… indirectly indicating just how mainstream his vegan views in Diet for a New America really are!
John Robbins said the evidence continues to mount: autopsies on heart patients show saturated fat and cholesterol as the problem — not spinach and tofu!
And that a diet high in fiber and complex carbohydrates, moderate in protein, and low in cholesterol is health supporting.
The Atkins diet (popular in the early '00s) went against the mounting evidence, although the real intent of the Atkins diet was not good health but quick weight loss.
When Dr. Atkins passed away, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) said his death was indicative of the dangers posed by the Atkins diet.
Peter Singer (author, Animal Liberation) himself admits his Introduction to Keith Akers’ A Vegetarian Sourcebook:
“Despite all the books on vegetarianism, there is a need for a thoroughly reliable sourcebook covering all the main arguments for being a vegetarian of one sort or another. There cannot be a definitive book that will do this for all time, for new medical evidence keeps coming in, and the ecological situation and the treatment of farm animals are gradually changing.”
At the World Vegetarian Day festival at Fort Mason in San Francisco, CA, in September 2000, Elliot Gang, a writer for the now-defunct Animals’ Agenda said advocating vegetarianism for health reasons is comparable to saying, “Rape is wrong, because you might catch venereal disease.”
No. In each case the moral reason is the real reason to abstain. Because we live in such a narcissistic society, it’s not surprising people are won over by the health arguments first.
It’s comparable to the bumper sticker which reads:
“Don’t Drink and Drive. You Might Hit a Bump and Spill Your Drink.”
Again: there must be a moral basis for one’s abstaining from meat, fish, fowl, etc., just like abstaining from cannibalism, because otherwise it’s very easy to backslide and return to flesh-eating.
As an example, in the late ’80s, a woman volunteering with San Diego Animal Advocates, said when she first became a vegetarian, she was doing so for health reasons, and didn’t think a piece of turkey at Thanksgiving or Christmas would hurt her. But she said when she learned about factory farming, animal abuse, etc. she won’t touch meat, period!
Again, a moral or ethical basis must be at the heart of one’s vegetarianism. The nutritional data keeps changing…
…But as an ethic, vegetarianism (not harming animals), like pacifists or pro-lifers, has stood the test of time and has served as the basis for entire religious traditions. (Buddhism, Jainism, Pythagoreanism, and possibly early Christianity all immediately come to mind.)
No posts published so far.
Community Links
Discussion Forums
Has it occurred to you that transmigration is at once an explanation and a justification of the evil of the world?" wrote W. Somerset Maugham in The Razor’s Edge.
"If the evils we suffer are the result of sins committed in our past lives, we can bear them with resignation and hope that if in this one we strive toward virtue our future lives will be less afflicted."
Reincarnation IS compatible with Christianity. The NT describes one as a spirit, entangled in a body of flesh. The NT distinguishes between the carnal and the spiritual. “It is the Spirit that giveth the body life,” taught Jesus, “the flesh profit nothing.” (John 6:63) Paul taught Jesus had both an earthly and a spiritual nature (Rom. 1:3), and referred to his own spiritual self. (Rom. 1:9)
The spirit is a prisoner to sin and the flesh in a body doomed to death. (Rom. 7:18-24) Christians are to behave in a spiritually, rather than in a fleshly way. (Rom. 8:4; 13:14; I Peter 2:11) The desires of the Spirit and those of the flesh are opposed to one another. (Gal. 5:13,16-17) Christians have “crucified the flesh with its passions and desires;” they “live by the Spirit” and are “directed by the Spirit.” (Gal. 5:19-26)
To be carnally minded is to die. One must transcend one's lower, bodily nature. (Rom. 8:5-14) Saving the spirit of an individual differs from the destruction of the person’s flesh. (I Cor. 5:5)
God’s kingdom is not carnal, but spiritual: “...flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither does the perishable inherit the imperishable...For this perishable must put on imperishability and this mortal must put on immortality. (I Cor. 15:50,53)
The body is like a lump of clay. (Rom. 9:21; II Cor. 4:7) The body decays, but the self is renewed in spiritual life. (II Cor. 4:16-17) The body is a temporary tent in which the spirit resides; the spirits of the faithful will soon be clothed in everlasting, heavenly bodies. (II Cor. 5:1-3) The spirit resides inside a body of flesh. (II Cor. 10:3) To identify with the body is to be absent from the Lord. (II Cor. 5:8-10)
Paul wrote of being “caught up as far as the third heaven...whether in the body or out of the body I do not know...” (II Cor. 12:2-3)
Being with Christ differs from remaining “in the body;” one’s self is separate from the physical body. (Philippians 1:21-24) Christians are to set their sights on heavenly, not earthly things, and to put to death their earthly nature. (Col. 3:1-5)
The flesh decays, but the word of God is eternal. (I Peter 2:23-25) To love this world is to alienate oneself from God’s love, because the passions of this world are temporary. (I John 2:15-17) This world belongs to the devil (II Cor. 4:4); this present world is evil (Gal. 1:4).
God rewards each individual according to his deeds. (Rom. 2:6) One reaps what one sows. (II Cor. 9:6; Gal. 6:7) Some souls remain entangled in decaying flesh, while others turn to the Spirit. “The one who sows for his own flesh will harvest ruin from his flesh; while the one who sows for the Spirit will harvest eternal life from the Spirit.” (Gal. 6:8)
A kernel of spirit is placed in a body:
“...God gives it a body as He plans, and to each seed its particular body. All flesh is not the same; but one kind is human, another is animal, another is fowl, and another fish.” (I Cor. 15:38-39) The NT also distinguishes between earthly bodies and heavenly bodies. “There are heavenly bodies and also earthly bodies; but the radiance of the heavenly is one kind and that of the earthly is another kind.” (I Cor. 15:40)
Resurrection in the NT is not the reassembling of dust into living bodies, but rather, the clothing of the spirit with a new body; the placing of a kernel of spirit into a new body, from where its existence continues.
The NT emphasizes the distinction between the soul and the body, the clothing of the soul with a new body, and the eternal nature of the soul and its relationship to God versus the temporary nature of the flesh and the material world. These concepts can all be found in the doctrine of reincarnation.