Buddhism and Vegetarianism

Nam Si-jung | US Lawyer

I once visited Seoul with an American lawyer, a vegetarian who believed that the abuse of and violence against animals will only end when all humanity takes up vegetarianism. As a vegan who wouldn’t eat any food connected to meat, he wanted to try Korean temple food. I took my friend—an animal rights activist in Boston—to a temple food specialty restaurant located in Insa-dong. What follows is the dialogue that took place between him (“P”) and me (“N”) about the relationship between Buddhism and vegetarianism. 

P: I never knew that Korean temple food was so splendid and tasty. Korean people should have no difficulties adopting a vegetarian lifestyle. 

N: Traditionally, Koreans were largely a vegetarian culture. Compared to America, vegetarianism is easier in Korea. However, as income levels rose, meat consumption surged. Statistically, Korea is not a vegetarian culture anymore. 

P: I was not aware that Koreans ate meat that much. Isn’t half of the Korean population Buddhist, and aren’t Buddhists vegetarians?

N: Not all Buddhists are vegetarians. A vegetarian diet is a precept for monastics but is not forced on lay Buddhists. Buddhism teaches, “Let yourself be your light and use the Dharma as your lamp.” Each individual cultivates Dharma by pursuing their practice of choice to enter nirvana. Buddhism opposes taking the life of even small creatures without a justifiable reason, so it naturally advocates vegetarianism. However, it neither contends that meat consumption can never be condoned nor criticizes those who eat meat. This is where vegetarian-oriented Buddhism is different from Western ethical vegetarianism or veganism which often expresses hostility toward meat-eaters. From the perspective of Buddhadharma, any “ism” is an attachment to a transient concept. If Buddhism is wary of attachments even to buddhas and Buddhadharma, how can it be attached to vegetarianism? 

P: I don’t understand why there are different precepts for monastics and laity.

N: The only difference lies in the practice of one’s own choice and its intensity. Buddhist precepts are different from the ethical codes of a monotheistic religion. Put another way, they are not commands from God. Buddhist precepts only function as a fence for one to remain inside which helps one’s practice. The five precepts, which lay Buddhists are supposed to observe, were originally based on ethical common sense which the Buddha recommended to commoners who were obsessed with rituals. Buddhist monks and nuns are not God’s agents but full-time practitioners. The Vinaya Piṭaka is a collection of regulations that were necessary for communal life of the sangha during the Buddha’s time, but they are often mistaken as Buddhist ethics. The Buddha taught that we should apply the precepts flexibly in accordance with circumstances, but he also reiterated that we should not be attached to the precepts he set down or to his Dharma talks.

P: I understand that to refrain from taking life is the first precept of Buddhism. Doesn’t that include not killing animals as well as human beings? 

N: When I consult the sutras of Early Buddhism written in Pali, in the phrase “refrain from taking life,” “life” is expressed as “pano,” meaning “breathing existence.” Naturally it includes animals. The Buddha said not to harm even small creatures like insects without a justifiable reason, but he distinguished between killing humans and slaughtering animals. Homicide received the strongest punishment which was to be expelled from the monastic community, but killing an animal received a relatively lesser punishment. Although all life is valuable, the value of human life and animal life is not regarded as equal. Some Western animal rights philosophers do not distinguish between human life and animal life. A love of animals is understandable, but if such extreme logic is applied to real life too rigidly, the common sense of human morality collapses. 

P: I don’t agree with the egocentric thinking of some people that a human life is dearer than an animal’s life, but to kill an animal for the sake of epicurism cannot be justified and certainly has a negative influence on morality.

N: To eat for survival is not a trivial matter for all forms of life. Based on respect for life, Mahayana Buddhism strictly bans meat consumption for monks and nuns, but doesn’t impose this on the laity. On the other hand, Theravada Buddhism does not place a taboo on meat consumption, citing the fact that the Buddha did not completely ban eating meat. Tibetan Buddhism is a branch of Mahayana Buddhism, but even Tibetan monks freely eat meat because Tibet is traditionally a meat-consuming society. The fact that the Dalai Lama eats meat recently became known, and Western people, who mistakenly regarded him as a sort of a “Buddhist pope” were shocked. Humans are also animals who have historically eaten whatever is available in their struggle for survival. 

P: I admit there are climates and environments where vegetarianism is not an option, but most people today in this vegetarian-friendly environment have an ethical duty to go vegetarian. 

N: Your term “ethical duty” is an extremely Western concept that originates from a monotheistic tradition and human-centered thinking. Doesn’t the word “duty” imply “duty to God?” The word “God” has been historically abused for eons as a concept to influence people’s behavior. Ethical vegetarianism, as advocated by Western animal rights activists like Peter Singer and Tom Regan, is a naïve academic theory that suggests when all people become vegetarian, violence toward animals will simply disappear. It also began to be popular in conjunction with the “hippie movement” of the 1960s-1970s that opposed conservative Christian values. However, for the past 50 years, industrial livestock production has surged exponentially. Accusing meat-eaters of being bad people based on the logic of an activist community has forced many people to turn their backs on the animal welfare movement. In reality, the more urgent issue today is not meat-consumption per se, but “excessive” meat consumption. Intensive livestock breeding, which artificially speeds up animal growth and threatens the global environment and human health, is just a logical economic response by a capitalist market trying to meet an escalating demand for meat.

P: What did the Buddha say about eating meat?

N: According to the sutras of Early Buddhism, the Buddha allowed eating meat as long as it did not belong to one of three forms of “unclean flesh”: meat from an animal that one did not see being butchered specifically for their meal; meat that could not be confirmed by a reliable source as having been butchered specifically for their meal, and meat that one does not suspect was killed especially for them. During the Buddha’s time monks ate only one meal a day that was collected from an alms round; one ate whatever one received in their alms bowl. It is often misinterpreted that the Buddha banned these three kinds of unclean flesh because they cloud one’s mind. In fact, the ban came from the Buddha’s consideration for the laity that they shouldn’t have to prepare meat just to make a good offering. To give to monks was the most sacred act for the laity in the then Hindu cultural sphere. Monks who follow Theravada or Tibetan Buddhism ignore this historical context and make the foolish argument that it is all right to eat meat sold in butcher shops that has already been killed. 

P: You mean the Buddha allowed eating meat but with some restrictions?

N: I would not say “allowed meat consumption.” The Buddha was wary of extreme ways of thinking as in Jainism where one must absolutely not eat meat. When the Buddha was invited to a lay Buddhist’s home and treated to dishes containing meat, he readily ate it in consideration of the host’s sincerity. Many Americans openly say they will eat this but not that when they are invited to dinner. This is not proper decorum in Eastern and European culture. If the Buddha lived in a meat-eating culture like America today, he would not reveal he is a vegetarian at a dinner party. He wouldn’t want to create an extra burden for the host to prepare a vegetarian meal just for him. To lay Buddhists whose daily life was a struggle for survival during his time, the Buddha did not force anyone to eat this or that. In my opinion, the West’s concept of “flexitarian”—a vegetarian who occasionally eats meat— is close to the Buddha’s “Middle Way of vegetarianism.” During the Buddha’s time, several monks dogmatically insisted on vegetarianism, but the Buddha only said they could if they wanted to. He recognized that vegetarianism was a way of practice only for those who wanted to. He did not accept it as a precept for the entire monastic community. I believe this was because he was wary of absolutes and coercion.  

P: If you oppose dogmatic vegetarianism, do you have any idea about how to reduce animal suffering and abuse and improve intensive livestock breeding?

N: The harmful effects of intensive livestock breeding are issues for the global village. We should come up with answers that are compatible with capitalist market logic. Ethical vegetarianism, which places all responsibility on the individual, is nothing more than psychological self-satisfaction for the individual. Consumers prefer eco-friendly livestock products these days. Conversion to eco-friendly livestock breeding is on the rise recently because it is more profitable. If meat can be certified as being from “free range” animals that were slaughtered without suffering, and if Buddhists prefer these certified meat products, the abuse and torture of animals will decrease greatly. Jews eat only kosher products that are raised and slaughtered in accordance with Jewish ritual law. Producing meat from stem cells has already been successfully carried out in labs. If there is demand for such meat, it could become popular. Hamburger made from alternative plant-based protein is enjoying explosive popularity in America. Considering the market logic, consuming eco-friendly livestock products and alternative meat products is more helpful for animal welfare in today’s reality than the complete rejection of eating meat. 

P: Even if animals are raised on natural grazing and slaughtered without suffering, doesn’t eating meat still involve killing animals?

N: To take a life is violence. If we could establish an ideal world based on the human discernment of morality, no life form would have to harm other creatures or the surrounding environment to survive. But here on this Earth, animals must take the life energy of other creatures to survive. All creatures are connected by a link of karmic association to become food for others. Human beings who rule the natural world also return to the soil after death and are destined to become food for microorganisms and plants at the lowest level of the food chain. Even the phenomenon of life in which creatures kill and are killed is cruel when seen from the moral discernment of human beings. We can only strive to reduce the suffering of all life, including our own, even a little. 

Nam Si-jung graduated from the Dept. of Philosophy at Sungkyunkwan University; received his master’s degree from Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, and his doctor of jurisprudence degree (J.D.) from the University of California’s Hastings College of Law. Currently he is a lawyer specializing in venture capital and an investor in Silicon Valley, California. He writes commentaries on current events for IT Chosun.