I read this wikipage and it seems like 'reacting to stimuli' is being called perception (saññā). Is 'reacting to stimuli' perception, or is perception itself stimuli? To me, the article implies perception is the condition for expression, i.e. a reaction. Do you agree that for a plant the stimulus-response is a single unitary movement (no karmaphala) and there is no intermission (of perception)? Is it more likely a projection of human knowledge - the personification of a plant? A perception has a result (Karmaphala). The results are perception are explained as such: > "And what is the result of perception? Perception has communication by > speech as its result, I tell you. However a person per ceives > something, that is how he expresses it: 'I have this sort of > perception.' This is called the result of perception. Here is a quote for BSE: > "In the scriptures we have the word sañña. Sañña means distinguishing, > putting a label, telling difference, making distinction, > discriminating." Is labeling perception or the result of perception?

I have a girlfriend who has a daughter from another man. If I raise this kid not vegetarian, will that be bad karma? Her mother is an omnivore and the kid is being raised in an omnivore household. It would be very difficult to change her diet. Is it my reponsibility to make her vegetarian?

**On the matter of Vegetarianism** I am aware the Theravada canon states that Buddha allowed monks to consume meat on the basis that they did not see, hear, know or suspect have been slaughtered for them. However Mahayana Sutras state that the Buddha forbade eating meat for example in the lankavatara and Surangama sutras. Which position would be more authentic, and how do we know whether the Buddha taught Vegetarianism or not?

Buddha said to his disciples (monks), meat can be eaten if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. Eating meat is different from killing animal, it's clear. Lay people on the other side do not obtain meat like monks do, lay people buy meat. The money then goes to meat seller and abattoir. Is this the same as "Causing another to kill"?

I am Buddhist, but not a strict vegetarian. When new acquaintances discover this they are often shocked and wonder, "How can this be??!!" I'm going to try and explain my answer and see what others think. I contend that being a vegetarian can often act as a temporary hindrance for some Buddhists. They miss the forest for the trees. One of my own preceding factors for learning about the Dharma was a decision to look deeply at my own consumption of meat and to explore the ethical and moral implications thereof in an honest and heartfelt way that I had never done before. I made a choice not to eat meat and became a vegetarian for five years more or less in parallel to my discovering and contemplating the Buddha Dharma, but to be clear *I became a vegetarian strictly BEFORE I became a Buddhist* or began practicing Buddha Dharma in earnest. Over the ensuing years since then I have abandoned being a strict vegetarian and have continued and strengthened in my practice of the Buddha Dharma. At first, the two seemed to coincide completely, but over time I found myself dwelling on being a vegetarian and being greatly disturbed to find other Buddhists who were not. Upon hearing that another member of the Sangha ate meat I would tend to distrust them and look at them as hypocrites at worst and misguided or lower than me in their ethical understanding of Buddha Dharma at best. I was a proselytizer for becoming a vegetarian to my buddhist/ non-buddhist friends alike and worried about what more I could do to convince others. I grew despondent and anxious over my inability to convince others and suffered thinking about and empathizing with all the animals that were being killed on a daily/hourly/second-by-second basis merely to provide the flesh for the insatiable human demand for meat. When I looked at the scale of the problem, billions of animals dying and billions of people consuming their flesh in this carnivorous world I became hopeless that it would ever stop. I thought all of these thoughts indicated progress on the path as my heart opened up with compassion for all these animals. But there was this nagging thought that I was actually not at all happy and was actually suffering thinking about all this in a repetitive way day after day. It occurred to me that this seemed inconsistent with what my teachers said that progress on the path - on a coarse level - is seen commensurate with an increase in happiness and a decrease in suffering. Finally, it got bad enough that I more or less confessed all the above to my teacher and his response shocked me. He laughed with a deep and merry belly laugh and advised that I should get over being a vegetarian and the best way to do this was to eat a little meat. He asked me how many animals I had saved today suffering at being a vegetarian and how many I would save tomorrow. He contended that my choice of being a vegetarian had not helped even one animal to escape from samsara and that I had yet to even begin to reconcile with the scale of the problem of samsara as opposed to the *nearly insignificant in comparison* problem of the human market for meat. He told me I needed to let go of this attachment to being a vegetarian and congratulating myself on how ethical and moral I was compared to all those who were not and to get busy doing the actual work of becoming enlightened so that I may *actually* help all those animals. When I look back I think my teacher was entirely correct. Being a vegetarian had become a hindrance for me. And since that time I think of all the people (including fellow Buddhists) who react with outrage at the idea that I am not a strict vegetarian and wonder if they are not all on a similar path that will require them to put down this hindrance in the future in order to make progress. Of course, it is my responsibility to overcome this hindrance and make it temporary. No one can do this for me. It simply isn’t the case that being a vegetarian is necessarily a hindrance for some like there is some property of being a vegetarian that makes it impossible for some to progress. There is nothing inherent to being a vegetarian that makes one fall into the trap that I fell into. Rather, it was my own karma and ego that made it so and it is my responsibility to overcome this so that being a vegetarian will no longer be a hindrance for me just as it is not for OyaMist who has the most wonderful answer I could imagine and one I aspire to. So there you have it... a question I've been meaning to ask for awhile and inspired by activity in this related post and some of the excellent answers and discussion within. **Can being a vegetarian actually be a temporary hindrance for some?**

I feel guilty about eating non-vegetarian food (fish, eggs and chicken). I know Buddhist followers, brahmins (Hindus) and Jains follows strict rules for vegetarianism. Does eating any sort of meat have an impact on your overall mentality?

In Theravada, we have established that eating meat does not break the first precept in many Buddhism SE questions (for example, this question and other questions linked in its comments). However, beyond not breaking the first precept, could vegetarianism be used as a practice of developing compassion (karuna) and being compassionate? Or does the practice of compassion require direct intention and direct action in allaying the sufferings of others, and indirect means are not relevant? Bhikkhu Khantipalo defined compassion (karuna) here as: > Compassion (karuna) is taking note of the sufferings of other beings > in the world. It overcomes callous indifference to the plight of > suffering beings, human or otherwise. Likewise, it must be reflected > in one's life by a willingness to go out of one's way to give aid > where possible, and to help those in distress. It has the advantage of > reducing one's selfishness by understanding others' sorrows. It is > Lord Buddha's medicine for cruelty, for how can one harm others when > one has seen how much they have to suffer already? It has also two > enemies: the "near" one is mere grief; while its "far" enemy is > cruelty.

The teaching of Buddha Kassapa in Snp 2.2 : > “Killing living beings, > hunting, cutting, binding, > theft, lying, fraud, deceptions, > useless recitations, > associating with the wives of others: > This is a raw stench, > not the eating of meat. > Snp 2.2 (and more similar statements in the whole text of the same sutta) From Buddha Kassapa's quote above, we see that eating meat by itself is not killing karma. However, it is popular opinion that eating meat is definitely killing karma because it indirectly causes the killing of animals. This was also Tissa's attack on Buddha Kassapa, a brahmin by birth. What is the correct understanding of the principle of karma in Buddhism, for this case of eating meat? Why does Snp 2.2 not consider eating meat to be killing karma?

This is not a question about being a vegetarian. My question is since the Buddha didn't prohibit monks from eating meat, and since monks are supposed to be easy to maintain and take what is offered, how should/would a monk who has chosen to be a vegetarian handle being offered meat by a lay person? If they chose to refuse the meal would that make them high maintenance, proud or unappreciative? If they ate it, how would they reconcile that with their personal practice? I'm particularly interested in an answer from any monastic on how they have handled or would handle this.

I heard from some brotherhood from Mahayana said Theravada also will do some chanting for eating meat. Is it true ? I have only able to find the Mahayana Mantra but not Theravada info as below https://drukpachoegon.org/meat-blessing-mantra

Since ever i have the half vegetarian diet practices, i have problem below with the society especially with the close friends. Ques: How to handle the scenario below or how to answer them to make them comfort/understand base on Buddhism or logic. Well, Buddhism is base on logic right? 1. Plants also has consciousness, and then why do you eat it? -> Hope someone has strong biological knowledge background also able to answer this? Does plant has consciousness? If really yes, how do we handle it? 2. Some other religions follower may disagree/dis-comfort/against when i avoid meat and we cant enjoy the common meal or so call "good food". Feedback from them is diet should be balance or simply the Bible or Quran written so they allow to eat it? I felt i am against their God's will. The tough part is when my partner is inviting me to Christ, they will pray for thankfulness for the food. I just can't do it to pray together especially when eating those meat like Sushi with a lot of eggs on top, it has a lot lives inside. 3. Sometime when i try to explain those animal or fish killed alive is very crude too. i.e. Lobster and it will scream when we boiled it alive. Lobster is best to be boiled alive to serve as food. And then, i will like start losing a friend because when they know the truth and most of the time truth doesn't bring happiness. I know my mistake is the choice of words when explaining about diet. Any guide for this specific topic?

According to this article by Ven. Dhammavuddho Thero: > Majjhima Nikaya 55 ..... The Buddha denied this, adding “Jivaka, 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 > specifically slaughtered for oneself) … I say that there are three > instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is not seen, heard, or > suspected (that the living being has been specifically slaughtered for > oneself).” And another quote from the same source: > Anguttara Nikaya 8.12 ..... This is one of the discourses which clearly > shows that the Buddha and his monks ate meat. Also, we see that meat > from an animal that is already dead when it is purchased is allowed to > be used, but not if the animal is alive. In summary from the above and various sources: - It is wrong to kill or directly cause the killing of animals - It is wrong to have a livelihood on the business of meat - It is wrong to consume meat that is from an animal that is seen, heard or suspected to have been slaughtered specifically for you - It is ok to purchase and consume meat from the market (already dead before you arrived at the market) My thought is that although the last case is not wrong due to an individual not being the direct cause of the killing of the specific animal, the individual is still contributing to the general demand that drives the meat market i.e. encouraging the supply of meat by butchers. If there is no demand, then there would be no supply. Unlike a tiger killing its prey, a butcher only slaughters the animal if there would be purchasers who would buy its meat. So, why is this not considered wrong by Buddhists? EDIT: Preferably, according to the Theravada tradition.

I know there have been discussions about vegetarianism, but my question is not exactly that. I know that: * The Buddha allowed eating meat for monks, if it is clear that the animal was not killed on purpose ([Majjhima Nikaya 55.5](https://suttacentral.net/mn55/en/sujato)) , especially to provide the meal. The main premise behind the three-fold rule is to graciously accept what one receives in your bowl when going for alms round. This rule was meant and spoken to monks and nuns, not to lay people. “Beggars can’t be choosers” in modern terms. The Buddha's diet was more likely a vegetarian diet who ate meat "out of pity" on rare occasions. * On various occasions, the Buddha denounced the professions of fisherman and fish merchant as well as butcher. These professions are not part of a just livelihood (fifth of the eight stages of the Eightfold Path), nor is the trade in arms, intoxicants (alcohol) and the trafficking of living beings, human or animal. The [ahimsa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahi%E1%B9%83s%C4%81) therefore covers for the laics the idea of not killing animals as well. * The Buddha banned the religious sacrifice of animals. Knowing this, I don't understand why he didn't ban meat from the laics, or at least recommend a reduction in consumption? We can clearly see that the Buddha considers meat consumption to be at least an indirect violation of the first precept of not killing, since he forbids monks to eat meat killed for them. Why does he allow meat that has not been directly killed for the monk? I have the impression that the Buddha considers that if the relationship of evil is not directly causal then it is less serious (that is why he allows the monk to eat meat that has not been directly killed for him). This can be understood: kamma is the intention and the one who eats meat doesn't intend to hurt an animal even if that's what he causes more or less directly by supporting the butcher's market. But then, why not at least say to limit your meat intake? [When we see the horrors of the meat and dairy industry](https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko) , I don't understand why the Buddha was silent on this subject. Even more if we consider that he was omniscient, so he saw all the suffering that this industry has inflicted, is inflicting, and will inflict in the future. I understand all the less this silence precisely because, contrary to the Abrahamic religions, there is a form of equality between man and animal in Buddhism in the sense that each man can be reborn as an animal within samsara, and that each animal is surely a human being in the making. Animals are beings in their own right, not resources that man can dispose of as he pleases ([Genesis 9:2-3](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+9%3A2-3&version=NIV)) . I understand the logical reasoning that the Buddha must have had: * kamma is intention. * the one who eats meat has no intention of hurting a sentient being. * eating meat is still indirectly causing the death of the animal, so he forbids consumption in the first degree (if the animal was killed directly for us). I understand that every action creates suffering, that you have to put an arbitrary limit somewhere so that you don't end up wondering how not to hurt the bacteria? But even if we eat meat that hasn't been killed directly for us, we are supporting a gigantic industry of suffering by doing so; in his compassion, wisdom, and possibly omniscience, I really don't understand his silence, he could have at least asked us to reduce our consumption, I don't know. I find it a bit easy to clear oneself because the animal was not slaughtered for us personally. So: [Is the ethics of the dhamma incomplete?](https://sujato.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/why-buddhists-should-be-vegetarian-with-extra-cute/)

Most if not all Buddhists I know are vegetarian or vegan. Thinking about the precepts this is not surprising - one should abstain from killing. However is this universally true in all Buddhist traditions? Are there some Buddhist traditions that emphasize vegetarianism more than others? For instance I believe the Tibetans were originally pastoral farmers which wouldn't lend itself to vegetarianism naturally. So is Buddhist vegetarianism universal, specific to tradition or culture, or a lot more flexible than that?

I am non-vegetarian but since reading through Buddhist scriptures, I felt like going towards Vegan would be prefered approach in order to follow and know Buddhism. Please guide me on this dilemma. Regards

Can I assume that Theravada monks are to eat any kinds of food given to them during alms round? What if they are given food with seafood or any meat? Is it considered breaking the 1st precept? Cos in order to have the seafood, somebody has to do the dirty job of catching them then make them dishes, same applies to meat.

In this answer to 'Are all Buddhists vegetarian? ' the poster says > [the Dalai Lama] has a medical condition that disallows > him to be a strict vegetarian. I've heard this before and never questioned it. But thinking about it - what kind of medical condition would preclude the Dalai Lama from being a vegetarian. Suddenly I feel very skeptical that there is any such condition. Is that unfair?

From a scriptural point of view, Buddha did not forbid the consumption of meat, let alone animal products etc., but what we do know is that 'Right Livelihood' tells us to not work as a butcher. Put in modern context, do Buddhist practitioners have a moral responsibility to become vegan? Can abuse, exploitation, commodification, torturing & unnecessary killing of sentient animals ever be morally justified in our modern day & age, where plenty of alternatives are readily available? Once we know about the abattoir's conditions around the world, we are informed & we thereby have to take kammic responsibility, otherwise we will partake in the deaths of trillion animals, due to our demand for animal products.

I recently visited Japan and went to see a Nicherin Buddhist monastery and temple in Tokyo. There they were preaching that Buddhism is not just for the Japanese or Chinese or some particular race, it is for the entire humanity. The chief monk their would barely speak English but he said he is a follower of Buddha, Nicherin and Tanaka Chigaku. Then he invited me to his home and his wife served fish sushi and chicken meat balls for both of us! I ask, 'You are a Buddhist and an ordained monk, do you eat meat?' He replied that even Buddha and his followers ate meat!

I have been vegan (no animal products) for over 5 years but recently have encountered many health issues (unable to digest many plant protein, leaving no viable protein to eat), including some meat in my diet seems to be the only option (I can't tolerate any grains or beans anymore). I would try to source as ethically as I could, but it does of course, still involve the killing of another. Is there any way this is acceptable? Or should one sacrifice their health, if necessary?