Arguments against vegetarianism
I was at a retreat in prison yesterday, at which there were some relatively new guys who haven’t been to the regular weekly meditation and Buddhism group, and a handful of guys I’d never seen before.
One of the questions that came up was how vegetarianism fits into Buddhist practice. This is something I’m especially interested in discussing since I wrote a book on the relationship between Buddhism and vegetarianism. There was a lot of passion around the subject one way or another, although the discussion was always harmonious and respectful, and even humorous.
One of the volunteers in attendance said that in his view Buddhist ethics involved trying to live compassionately and avoiding causing harm, something I happen to agree with. That’s why I’m a vegetarian and have been since the fall of 1982.
One of the inmates pointed out that the Buddha and the early monastic Sangha ate pretty much whatever was put in their bowls, and so they probably weren’t vegetarians. That’s a bit of a simplification of course, since the vinaya–or monastic code of conduct–allows monks to refuse certain kinds of food and also since monks can educate householders to live more compassionately by not eating meat. After all, the Buddha encouraged lay Buddhists not to kill, cause to kill, or approve of others killing. If Buddhist monks took that teaching seriously there would be a lot more vegetarian Buddhists around. By buying meat you’re encouraging others to kill and financially giving your approval to that activity. But he’s right that the Buddha was not himself vegetarian.
In addition there were a couple of not-very-logical arguments in favor of eating meat. The most absurd (and absurdly common) is the idea that a vegetable and an animal are both living, and since vegetarians are eating vegetables they too are killing. Someone pointed out that vegetables don’t feel pain, and a couple of people were on the verge of disagreeing with that when I broke in. I said that the technical term for someone who couldn’t tell the difference between a carrot’s suffering and a rabbit’s suffering was a psychopath. That got a few laughs, but I really believe it.
The other absurd argument was that if everyone became vegetarian overnight then thousands of people would be put out of business. Well, if you can find a way to make everyone turn vegetarian overnight then let me know! Generally these social changes take decades and industry and farming adjusts accordingly. Everyone becoming vegetarian overnight? Ain’t gonna happen!
It’s very hard for the guys in prison to practice vegetarianism. Some stick at it while others have tried and can’t keep it up. Yet others haven’t even tried. And I don’t blame them. From what I hear the vegetarian food in there is awful. The guys talked about textured soy meatballs they ate that were literally rotten. One guy, who recently stopped being a vegetarian, said that it was like biting into mildew, and there were some murmurs of agreement. And the variety is poor, with just the same four meals over and over again.
One young guy, a sex offender who’s only about 20, said that he had no intention of being vegetarian when he gets out, despite the fact that he considered himself to be a sincere Buddhist. I confess I had the last word in the discussion when I said that the central issue with regard to vegetarianism and Buddhist practice is the extent to which we’re prepared to see own desires for non-essential pleasures (and eating meat is definitely non-essential) as being more important than the sufferings of otehr beings. And the amount of suffering involved in the farming and slaughtering industries is, as I know from experience having worked on farms and in a slaughterhouse, immense. With all due modesty, I wrote about this in a book on vegetarianism and Buddhism that you can find on Amazon if you just search for my name (Bodhipaksa).
11 Responses to “Arguments against vegetarianism”
About this entry
You’re currently reading “Arguments against vegetarianism,” an entry on Bodhipaksa's blog, bodhi tree swaying
Published: Mar 05 2006
Tags and categories
Category: Apropos of nothing, Meditation & practice, Prison Dharma
In 1989 I heard His Holiness the Dalai Lama address the topic of vegetarianism. I seem to remember that he mentioned something along the lines of he himself not being vegetarian on the orders of his doctors. But then he continued addressing the topic, and seemed to speak of it in terms of levels, a sort of “situational ethics” way of addressing the topic.
This mostly had to do with the relationship of the animal killed to the number of people it could feed. Briefly, His Holiness explained that the taking of the life of a large animal such as a cow or yak simply feeds more people in relationship to the life taken, whereas, at the other extreme, eating a plate of popcorn shrimp takes several lives for one meal for one person. (A humorous note here is that His Holiness apparently is totally disgusted with popcorn shrimp, because he referred to them as “insects”.)
It may also be remembered that when the Chinese invaded Tibet in the 1950′s, there was an attempt by the Tibetans themselves to raise an army, and His Holiness sought intervention from several countries, including the United States, Britain, India, and the United Nations. There is also a story in the Buddhist folk literature in which one Bodhisattva killed a person in order to keep that person from killing 499 other Bohdisattvas.
I guess my point here is that it’s highly situation-dependent- at least that’s what I got from His Holiness at that talk. I think he would say that if vegetarianism works for you, then that’s a good thing. But if it doesn’t work for someone else, as long as that person continues to go forward with right motivation, then it needs to be taken in the context of that person’s own path.
It’s also my understanding that His Holiness tried living on a vegetarian diet as part of his Buddhist practice but found that after a lifetime of eating meat his system wasn’t able to handle it — or at least his Tibetan physicians thought that this was the case. I’ve also heard that the vegetarian diet that the Dalai Lama adopted (and this was back in the 1960′s) was very unbalanced. I believe that he does still eat meat on his doctor’s orders although he is trying to be a vegetarian (see this article and also this one. Both indicate this his holiness ihas in fact now adopted a vegetarian diet.
Vegetarianism is not much practiced in Tibet, although it’s generally held up as an ideal (albeit an impractical one). The usual reason given for the impracticability of a vegetarian diet in Tibet is that it’s hard to grow vegetables there because of the cold and arid conditions. This may well be the case. And because meat-eating is so rare there it wouldn’t be surprising therefore if a Tibetan physician were to recommend meat-eating.
But whether or not the Dalai Lama eats meat is irrelevant when it comes to discussing whether meat-eating is consistent with the Buddhist tradition. It’s more relevant to ask whether the Dalai Lama’s actions are consistent with the Buddha’s teachings! Buddhism teaches us to take responsibility for our own actions, including (and especially) where those actions cause harm to others. Do we cause harm, encourage others to cause harm, or approve of others causing harm? That’s the question. At the same time I wonder how many of those Western Buddhists who justified their meat-eating by saying that the Dalai Lama ate meat will now switch to a vegetarian diet since he himself seems to have done so.
You bring up an interesting point as well about the Tibetan tradition of seeing it as preferable to eat fewer larger animals than more smaller ones. This of course is an argument from Tibetan culture and is not a Buddhist argument per se: that is, the argument is not based on Buddhist ethics. In Theravadin countries they take the opposite tack and say that it’s better to eat smaller animals because their consciousness is less developed in an evolutionary sense than that of larger animals. Again this is a cultural tradition and not a Buddhist teaching as such. All we can really learn here is that the rationalizations for eating meat vary from one Buddhist culture to another.
I think it’s dangerous to speak, even tentatively, on behalf of another person, so I won’t try to guess what the Dalai Lama would say. I do know that he enthusiastically became Patron-in-Chief of Tibetans For Vegetarian Society, and that he has said that he is in favor of vegetarianism, and when he ate meat he said he was regretful that he did so.
I’ll give His Holiness the last word.
Ultimately it has to be the decision of the individual concerned.
As long vegetarians aid in the killing and dragging of poor animals underfeet( I mean, wearing leather shoes and footwear) they have no moral rights to preach to the meat- eaters!
Mahudan
Hi Mahudan,
I don’t think that’s a valid argument. There are degrees of harm caused by creating a demand for animal products. Someone who doesn’t eat meat (or other animal products) and doesn’t wear leather obviously creates no demand. Someone who eats meat causes a huge amount of killing even if they don’t (for some reason) wear leather shoes. Someone who doesn’t eat meat and wears leather shoes creates a smaller demand, since there is clearly a huge number of animals already being slaughtered for meat.
Your argument is equivalent to saying that someone who drives a hybrid vehicle like a Prius is consuming gasoline and therefore has no moral right to criticize a Hummer owner for his or her waste of gasoline, or like saying that anyone who has ever told a lie is somehow morally equivalent to a con-artist.
Is it still morally wrong to eat meat even if the animal died of natural causes?
Hi Nessa,
From a Buddhist point of view, there wouldn’t be any problem. I heard of a vegetarian, in fact, who ate a deer that he’d hit while driving his car. But he’s pretty much an exception. Most vegetarians that I know would find the idea of eating any dead animal to be quite disgusting, no matter how the animal had died. I’m not saying that’s good — in fact from a strict Buddhist ethical viewpoint to refuse to eat an animal that had died of natural causes could be looked at as unethical because it involves an irrational aversion. There’s a story in the Buddhist scriptures about a monk who calmly ate a leper’s finger that had fallen in his begging bowl, the idea being that you don’t refuse what’s offered to you. Anyway, I think in the case of an animal that’s died of natural causes its purely a matter of personal taste. I confess I couldn’t do that unless I was literally starving to death — I’d just have too much revulsion.
well am studying nutritional science, and its my last yr n am doing a project work on vegetarianism. well according to me it seems that a vegetarian diet is far well betta than a non veg one!
am a meat eater n i can say with proof that a vegetarian diet can be as nutritious and balanced as a non vegetarian meal. after nutritional analysis n tests i can say that if well planned a veg diet can neva be missing those most important nutrients which the human body needs. and u must agree that anatomically we are herbivores, first of all lets analise our digestive system!its NOT similar to carnivores meaning that HUMANS ARE HERBIVORES NOT CARNIVORES.
and please stop using this argument ”its purely a matter of personal taste” because a matter of personal taste can neva be a debatable topic you are just evading the points put forward by thoz ppl!
I’ve enjoyed and learnt from this debate, especially bodhipaksa’s response to Mahudan on 11 May. Thanks to those who contributed
This has been very interesting; thank you for the ideas presented. I just want mention that humans are not herbivores, but omnivores. We’re biologically intended to consume vegetation and meat. However, I do agree that we have evolved beyond the point of requiring meat as a part of our diet. We have resources available, at least in developed countries, to maintain a healthy diet with the absence of meat.
Hi Charlotte,
I absolutely agree. The evidence is that human bodies have evolved to be able to deal with small amounts of meat (smaller amounts than the average eaten in Western nations). At the same time, arguments from what is “natural” fail because what is natural is not always ethical. Infanticide, killing the elderly, rape, etc are all examples of things that are natural but not (in most people’s eyes, I hope) ethical.
All the best,
Bodhipaksa