[Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 22:05 +0100, Mike Austin wrote:

> But what strikes me about this particular chapter is the vehemence - and 
> the almost campaigning nature, against meat eating in any circumstances. 
> This is quite unlike other texts purporting to be the Buddha's words.

I agree that the text is vehement and offers far more threats than it
offers reasons. As I said earlier, I find it an ugle text. The
Shurangama is even more strident and shrill than the Lankavatara. It is
not easy to warm up to these texts. It is also impossible to deny their
importance in forming Buddhist theory and practice in those areas in
which the texts were important, which was mostly East Asia.

> It is for this reason that I do not find it convincing.  

I'm not clear on what you mean exactly by "this reason". Do you mean
that you do not find these texts convincing because they do not sound
like the version of the Buddha to which you have come to be somewhat
attached? Perhaps you do not like them because they offer a suggestion
that makes you uncomfortable and to which you therefore have some
resistance. 

As I'm sure no one has to tell you, a far better practice now would be
to examine your own attachments and forms of resistance than to find
ways of explaining away the sutras that annoy you.

If you enjoy reading hypotheses about what social and political contexts
these vegetarian sutras manifest, do consider Ambedkar's hypothesis that
the Brahmans, the Jainas and the Buddhists got caught up in a rhetorical
storm of spiritual one-ups-manship. Buddhists annoyed the Brahmans by
condemning animal sacrifices. The Brahmans retaliated by criticizing
Buddhist monks for eating meat under certain specified conditions. The
Buddhists raise the ante by saying that only pseudo-Buddhists had ever
spread the filthy lie that the Buddha allowed meat to be eaten under
certain specified circumstances. So some Buddhists had to be sacrificed
to save Buddhism from Brahman critics. 

Ambedkar offers an interesting hypothesis. But how far does it get any
of us in thinking clearly about the decision we have to make the next
time we pass the meat counter in a market? Surely it is that task, the
task of thinking clearly about the consequences of our actions, that
demands our energy more than the task of deciding which Buddhist texts
may be forgeries.

> Meanwhile, any other references out there?

Is there any reason to be confident that you would heed them if there
were? It seems to me you have stated your position, and others have
stated theirs, and I'm not sure anyone is going to say anything new on
this topic. So perhaps it is time for all of us to agree to leave this
topic alone for now, knowing it will probably come back again sometime
next year just as it has come up every year on buddha-l since the list
was first founded. Meanwhile, we all have some thinking to do in the
privacy of our own hearts. 

One question one might begin with is: Would I be somewhat better at
cultivating bodhicitta and universal compassion if I were not eating the
flesh of animals who have been killed against their will? Answering that
question does not require references to things others have said. It
requires only intellectual and emotional honesty.

-- 
Richard