the great vegetarian debate

[justindesilva]

The 5 precepts are not compulsory for anybody. They were training rules you undertake voluntarily.

May I write here that the in order the first five of the noble eight fold path is samma ditthi ( right view) samma sankappa ( right concepts) samma vaca ( right words ) samma vaya( right action) and samma ajiva( right lively hood) . One may interpret this as extremely parallel to the five precepts of buddhism.
I believe that lord budda contained the 5 precepts as a simple code of buddhist ethics in order as a guide of the the noble eight fold path.
This sets one not to exploit others as well as one's own self.

[dharmacorps]

OK, but does that have anything to do with them being compulsory?

[unveiledartist]

Sorry wrong sutta but there is a sutta forget the name that explains why Buddhists can eat meat but some ways in which a Buddhist can't eat meat like if the animal was killed for them if they heard the animal scream when it died or if they killed it themselves etc.. Anyone know the name of the this sutta?

You were correct, it is the Jivaka Sutta, MN 55.5

"I say that there are three instances in which meat should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected that the living being has been slaughtered for the bhikkhu. I say that meat should not be eaten in these three instances. I say that there are three instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is not seen, not heard, and not suspected, that the living being has been slaughtered for the bhikkhu."


Some context for the passage:

https://dhammawiki.com/index.php/3_fold_rule

[Ruud]

As dharmacorps said, the precepts are not compulsory to be a lay follower:

“In what way, Bhante, is one a lay follower?”

“When, Mahānāma, one has gone for refuge to the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Saṅgha, in that way one is a lay follower.”

“In what way, Bhante, is a lay follower virtuous?”

“When, Mahānāma, a lay follower abstains from the destruction of life, from taking what is not given, from sexual misconduct, from false speech, and from liquor, wine, and intoxicants, the basis for heedlessness, in that way a lay follower is virtuous.”
(https://suttacentral.net/en/an8.25)

That does not mean the Buddha didn’t urge his followers to try and follow them as best they can. But they are indeed trainings one takes on voluntarily.

When the Buddha was asked how many people would gain enlightenment in his teaching, he didn’t answer (Ānanda gave a simile afterwards to explain):

“And, Master Gotama, when having directly known it, you teach the Dhamma to your disciples for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Unbinding, will all the cosmos be led [to release], or a half of it, or a third?”

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent
https://suttacentral.net/en/an10.95

So then, living in an imperfect world, where not everyone is enlightened or even virtuous, the question becomes whether you think the eating of meat is harmful to you or others. The Buddha did not prohibit it for the monks, even when challenged be Devadatta, and a sutta like the Āmaganda Sutta (“Carrion-stench Sutta”) also shows that there are far worse things than eating meat (even contrasting it with the precepts):

Taking life, torture, mutilation too,
binding, stealing, telling lies, and fraud;
deceit, adultery, and studying crooked views:
this is carrion-stench, not the eating of meat.
https://suttacentral.net/en/snp2.2

So I think the eating of meat is not inherently wrong and does not break the precepts of killing(if we don’t slaughter the animals ourselves). Would being vegetarian or even vegan be less harmful and more compassionate to other beings? Yes, but I feel that would be a further training to take on, based on ones own intentions.

[justindesilva]

OK, but does that have anything to do with them being compulsory?

To.my knowledge Lord Buddha never compelled any body , not even to his son Rahula, to follow his teachings. Kalama sutta very well explains the view of lord budda that it is upto the desciple to understand the darma from within.

[D1W1]

OK, but does that have anything to do with them being compulsory?

Only Buddhists take the five precepts. It's the basic precept for all Buddhists. If someone wants to develop further, s/he can practice eight precepts. The guideline for lay Buddhists is five precepts hence it's compulsory. If it's not then it's like saying 227 precepts of monastic rules are not compulsory either, monks can just practice 10 precepts only. But this is not the case, of course nothing is compulsory even commandments from God highly depends on the individual whether s/he wants to practice it or not. Five precepts is the standard Buddhist ethics for lay people.

[D1W1]

As dharmacorps said, the precepts are not compulsory to be a lay follower:

“In what way, Bhante, is one a lay follower?”

“When, Mahānāma, one has gone for refuge to the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Saṅgha, in that way one is a lay follower.”

“In what way, Bhante, is a lay follower virtuous?”

“When, Mahānāma, a lay follower abstains from the destruction of life, from taking what is not given, from sexual misconduct, from false speech, and from liquor, wine, and intoxicants, the basis for heedlessness, in that way a lay follower is virtuous.”
(https://suttacentral.net/en/an8.25)

That does not mean the Buddha didn’t urge his followers to try and follow them as best they can. But they are indeed trainings one takes on voluntarily.

When the Buddha was asked how many people would gain enlightenment in his teaching, he didn’t answer (Ānanda gave a simile afterwards to explain):

“And, Master Gotama, when having directly known it, you teach the Dhamma to your disciples for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Unbinding, will all the cosmos be led [to release], or a half of it, or a third?”

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent
https://suttacentral.net/en/an10.95

So then, living in an imperfect world, where not everyone is enlightened or even virtuous, the question becomes whether you think the eating of meat is harmful to you or others. The Buddha did not prohibit it for the monks, even when challenged be Devadatta, and a sutta like the Āmaganda Sutta (“Carrion-stench Sutta”) also shows that there are far worse things than eating meat (even contrasting it with the precepts):

Taking life, torture, mutilation too,
binding, stealing, telling lies, and fraud;
deceit, adultery, and studying crooked views:
this is carrion-stench, not the eating of meat.
https://suttacentral.net/en/snp2.2

So I think the eating of meat is not inherently wrong and does not break the precepts of killing(if we don’t slaughter the animals ourselves). Would being vegetarian or even vegan be less harmful and more compassionate to other beings? Yes, but I feel that would be a further training to take on, based on ones own intentions.

Thanks for your reply.
But there are many interpretations regarding this particular precept. For example, in Buddhist country like Sri lanka vegetarian Buddhists is not uncommon, they see it as an inseparable extension of the first precept, but in Thailand it's a bit rare compare to Sri lanka. Same Dhamma but different answer. I would even say their answer doesn't correspond with each other. This of course creates confusion, does Tipitaka say anything in particular about the correlation between first precept and vegetarianism?

Should we just interpret the first precept according to our own personal understanding, I thought this precept is universal not personal? If we just be on the safe side we could end up practicing extremism.
Maybe experience Buddhists (teachers) can clear up this confusion? Many thanks!

[Ruud]

For as far as I have heard, traditionally (in the Vinaya and commentaries), five conditions are needed to break the precept/rule of not killing:

- A living being
- An awareness that it is a living being
- An intention to kill
- Making an effort to kill
- Death of the creature through that effort

If any of these are missing there is no breaking of the rule. I feel that when we buy or eat meat we do not have, for example, the actual intention to kill the animal. We want to eat (to nourish our bodies, or for enjoyment etc.).

I agree that this view seems rather legalistic and does not as much keep the spirit of harmlessness in mind. But my point is that the intention in what one does is really important. So if you feels that when you eat meat, you are fully responsible for the killing of that animal, then not wanting to contribute, you can choose to be vegetarian. If you feel that killing (by a butcher) is one act, and eating is another, you can make your choices based on that. The actual act of killing (stealing, sexual misconduct, lying) itself is universally unwholesome but I think the interpretation comes in to determine where one action ends and another starts. And I do feel that that can be based (at least partially) on personal view (through ones intention).

This, like I said before, is not to say that a vegetarian lifestyle is not praiseworthy if done in order to prevent harm to living beings. I just think it is a further training one can take on, not one necessarily contained within the first precept. Even though the Buddha had the direct opportunity to lay down the rule (when challenged by Devadatta), he did explicitly not do so. To me that seems to show a difference between killing a living being and the eating of meat.

[dharmacorps]

OK, but does that have anything to do with them being compulsory?

Only Buddhists take the five precepts. It's the basic precept for all Buddhists. If someone wants to develop further, s/he can practice eight precepts. The guideline for lay Buddhists is five precepts hence it's compulsory. If it's not then it's like saying 227 precepts of monastic rules are not compulsory either, monks can just practice 10 precepts only. But this is not the case, of course nothing is compulsory even commandments from God highly depends on the individual whether s/he wants to practice it or not. Five precepts is the standard Buddhist ethics for lay people.

Who will enforce these rules? The dhamma police? While technically the 5 precepts are the best practices by the advice of the Buddha for lay people, there is nothing compulsory in them. To me, that takes away how special and powerful the act of renunciation is. It is a choice you undertake. Again, no Sutta based evidence the precepts are seen in this way.

[samsarictravelling]

Hi all,

Happy New Year 2018!!

Just a simple question about five precepts.
The first precept tells us to refrain from killing living beings. If everyone in a city practices five precepts, no one will kill animals, everyone will become vegetarian. Is it true the spirit Buddha wants us to develop is vegetarianism? Thanks.

Just from things I read in the past (I could be incorrect in my details, or incorrect):

The monks who go on almsround once a day would be rude if they did not accept whatever is offered to them. Also they might starve if they were that selective.

The Buddha did not accept Devadatta's wish that Buddha have the monks become vegetarian.

But there is one rule the Buddha had for eating meat for both monks and laymen: If the meat was not seen, heard or suspected of being killed for one specifically, the monk (or layman) can eat it. If it was seen, heard, or suspected of being killed for one, one cannot.

P.S. I just did a google search of Devadatta's wish that Buddha rejected and got this. I looked a bit at it, did not read the whole thing:

http://leavesinthehand.blogspot.ca/2010 ... anism.html

[Dinsdale]

Who will enforce these rules? The dhamma police?

[jmccoy]

OK, but does that have anything to do with them being compulsory?

Only Buddhists take the five precepts. It's the basic precept for all Buddhists. If someone wants to develop further, s/he can practice eight precepts. The guideline for lay Buddhists is five precepts hence it's compulsory. If it's not then it's like saying 227 precepts of monastic rules are not compulsory either, monks can just practice 10 precepts only. But this is not the case, of course nothing is compulsory even commandments from God highly depends on the individual whether s/he wants to practice it or not. Five precepts is the standard Buddhist ethics for lay people.

Who will enforce these rules? The dhamma police? While technically the 5 precepts are the best practices by the advice of the Buddha for lay people, there is nothing compulsory in them. To me, that takes away how special and powerful the act of renunciation is. It is a choice you undertake. Again, no Sutta based evidence the precepts are seen in this way.

If practicing the five precepts isn't a minimal lay Buddhist criterion then what the heck is?

[dharmacorps]

Who knows. Maybe taking refuge in the triple gem would be the most basic. I am only stating they aren't compulsory.

[jmccoy]

Who knows. Maybe taking refuge in the triple gem would be the most basic. I am only stating they aren't compulsory.

It seemed that taking refuge was always a statement of practical intent and that undertaking pancasila was a minimal, foundational pledge by which to execute that intent. I thought taking refuge was always inclusive of the commitment to precepts. What does it mean to take refuge in the triple gem without practicing sila?

[dharmacorps]

Both the 3 refuges and the 5 precepts are practical intents-- it is said often in Asia that what makes one a Buddhist as an identity (as opposed to a non-Buddhist) is the 3 refuges, but what makes you a devoted Buddhist is the precepts. Also many Buddhists in asia would mention trying to master the paramis is what they focus on, not the precepts.