Comments on: A Buddhist Diet

By: Kevin Douglass

Kevin Douglass — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:26:45 +0000

Thank you for the clarification. I believe that the intention behind the precept is that for the sake of “Training” I do not take life. The point is the avoidance of hatred and suffering (not death) by neither causing it nor participating in it. This is different than “no killing” period which is an impossibility. We kill thousands if not millions of micro-organism a day without intending it, but we do not cause them suffering intentionally by doing so. Death itself is not suffering, living in pain is suffering. When we end the life of an animal to survive we are not causing suffering,these animals lived a good life and thrived on their farm until it came to an end. Now, when we cram animals into cages so that we may sell more of them using less space then we cause suffering. You see it is our desires that are causing the suffering not the act of killing them. We eat plants and animals just like animals eat plants and animals, it is out of necessity not desire. When we begin to eat out of desire then we are causing suffering because our demand for plants and animals exceeds our necessity for them and thus Farmers must grow more plants and raise more animals and thus maximize their efficiency (causing suffering in the process). If you wish to avoid suffering then eat only what and when you need and nothing more.

Whether you eat a plant or an animal is kind of arbitrary really, they are both alive and would have died anyway. Regardless of what diet you choose, it will not prevent your death either. Desire causes suffering.

By: Subhash Aggarwal

Subhash Aggarwal — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:23:42 +0000

The Buddha was never fond of meat in his last period of life. He was using the least food articles sufficient to survive a human life. Even the reason of his death is known. He had died due to consuming the poisionous meat. I believe he was great and shown us the way to consume the least toxified diet. Though he has allowed to eat the meat but of the animals who were died due to their natural death and not slaughtered intentionally just for taste. In my oepnion veg. diet is best and suffient for humans.

By: Tina

Tina — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:18:57 +0000

Thank you for that wisom.

By: Abe Simpson

Abe Simpson — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:46:34 +0000

The Buddha said that while he was a young man he gave up all intoxication: “On seeing an old man, all intoxication with youth vanished from me. On seeing a sick man, all intoxication with health vanished from me. On seeing a dead man, all intoxication with life vanished from me.”

You will notice that the Buddha doesn’t talk about alcohol or drugs. He talks about attachment.

By: Candy Cook

Candy Cook — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:26:11 +0000

If you eat food, fruits or vegetables, from a plant; you don’t usually kill or harm the plant in the process. In fact, if I save the seeds from the fruit/veggie that I eat, and use them to plant next year’s garden.. those seeds have a much better chance of living and growing into a new plant than they do if I leave them to fend for themselves. And, if we speak of tomatoes, I notice that the plants health is reduced if I do not remove some of that fruit. It’s true, that some plants are removed entirely from the ground to eat them, but most plants are not.

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:07:47 +0000

Well, I had some things to say but Nathan said them for me — especially concerning the use of caffeine and alcohol. I continue to call myself a Buddhist despite drinking one glass of red wine daily (per doctor’s recommendation) and several cups of green tea. Remember, any substance you take into your body will have some effect on your brain chemistry — from carrots to sugar to caffeine. The key is moderation and only taking in that which will benefit you and as many beings as possible. I would hesitate to place television watching under the precept concerning intoxication and instead consider it (not watching or limiting) a “Right Effort” exercise.

By: Stephen Lasky

Stephen Lasky — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 02:29:28 +0000

I think that its safe to assume that if something has a central nervous system, it is considered a sentient being and therefore is something that should not be killed. Whether that means you should stick to that strictly and be a vegetarian depends on how many negative actions you want to have to offset with actions of merit.

srl

By: Nathan

Nathan — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:07:52 +0000

I am a vegetarian, and I have always considered the charge to reduce suffering more important in this decision than the proscription against killing. The reality is that animals for food suffer greatly. For me it’s an issue of right livelihood. Can I survive without contributing to the horrible suffering of living beings most people consume for food without a second thought? Of course, the flip side of the coin is that it is my choice alone, and I don’t try to convert friends or family.

In regards to the proscription against mind-altering substances, I have always taken this with a grain of salt. The fact is, our contrived concept of “drug” vs “medicine” will be unduly influencing thoughts and policy on the matter for a long time. However, I believe extending this proscription to television seems more appropriate than extending it to all psychoactive substances. The tea ceremony of Japan is a good example of a (arguably) Buddhist ceremony revolving around a psychoactive substance: caffeine. Also, Zen’s emphasis on direct personal spiritual revelation seems to okay the use of things like psychedelics for spiritual growth in my mind. Certainly there are many who came to Buddhism and Taoism as a direct result of their psychedelic experiences. Self-dilution and drunkenness seem to be the main point of this precept, in my humble opinion. As a side note, cannabis as a meditative aide has been used in India since time immemorial.

By: Abe Simpson

Abe Simpson — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:05:48 +0000

I have always interpreted Buddha’s teaching on intoxicant’s as anything that causes headonism, which would clearly cause us to stay in our conditioned mind and not allow us to practice our buddha nature. I don’t think limiting it to drugs is appropriate. This is the middle way after all and moderation is key to this practice. Besides, tea, which is very high in caffeine,is an integral part of several buddhist cultures and its popularity is often attributed to the Buddha.

By: Tina

Tina — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:57:08 +0000

Grateful and thankful for your wisdom and guidance in the buddhist diet!

By: Diane

Diane — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:38:00 +0000

Excellent answers! You have a very accurate understanding of Buddhism thus far that I’ve seen.