I noticed that some of the locals in KL were eating live seafood and so I quizzed them on how that relates to the first precept of non-killing.  After a very lively discussion, we concluded that eating live seafood crossed the line for non-killing.  Consider how the fishes were happily swimming around in the tanks … ok, maybe not so happily … but nonetheless, alive and swimming.  Then someone may come along to the restaurant and order a meal, resulting in one or more of them being killed for our consumption.  At that point, it became clear that the meal was quite the cause of death or at least the reason.  So far so good, as far as understanding how we relate to the first precept of non-killing.

Then someone pointed out that sometimes, actually most of the time, only one person do the ordering, so perhaps he is the only person bearing the karma of killing.  I threw it open to the . . . → Read More: How about that fish?]]> Recently when I was in Kuala Lumpur (KL) to speak at a conference, I had the opportunity to speak to a group of 50~60 nice folks from Kelantan, Malaysia.  Very friendly and lovely bunch I must say.

I noticed that some of the locals in KL were eating live seafood and so I quizzed them on how that relates to the first precept of non-killing.  After a very lively discussion, we concluded that eating live seafood crossed the line for non-killing.  Consider how the fishes were happily swimming around in the tanks … ok, maybe not so happily … but nonetheless, alive and swimming.  Then someone may come along to the restaurant and order a meal, resulting in one or more of them being killed for our consumption.  At that point, it became clear that the meal was quite the cause of death or at least the reason.  So far so good, as far as understanding how we relate to the first precept of non-killing.

Then someone pointed out that sometimes, actually most of the time, only one person do the ordering, so perhaps he is the only person bearing the karma of killing.  I threw it open to the floor for discussion and went through a few possible scenarios regarding the causal consequences of the meal.

Case A: Person ordering get 100% of killing karma, while the eaters get none.
Case B: Person ordering get a majority percentage of say N% of killing karma, while the rest share in the 100% – N% of killing karma.
Case C: Everyone gets an equal share of the killing karma.  So if there were five diners, each get 20%.

Then someone further suggest that those who eat more, should be more responsible!  So the formulae became

Case A: Person ordering get 100% of killing karma, while the eaters get none.
Case B1: Person ordering get a majority percentage of say N% of killing karma, while the rest share in the 100% – N% of killing karma.
Case B2: Person ordering get a majority percentage of say N% of killing karma, while the rest share in the 100% – N% of killing karma on a pro-rata or weighted basis.
Case C1: Everyone gets an equal share of the killing karma.  So if there were five diners, each get 20%.
Case C2: Everyone gets a share of the killing karma depending on the amount they ate.

Things were getting complex!  In the end, we simplified and just considered the original three cases, although as you will see, the reasonings for each case would lead us to similar conclusions.  Bear in mind that we did not assume any of the case to be the actual mechanism behind how karma would or should work out; we simply cover all possible scenarios as much as we can.  So for the following analysis, we then look at each case and say, if this were true, how would or should we act differently?

Case A, while the person ordering gets 100%, should Buddhists who embrace values and qualities like Loving Kindness and Compassion allow someone to bear the brunt (100%) of painful results for one’s meal while one selfishly tucks into the meal knowing that someone else (both the fish and the orderer) is suffering for us.  While highly unlikely, we saw it unseemly for us to partake in such a meal as it is both selfish and unkind.

Case B, letting someone get the majority share and each diner receiving partial payout for the karma of killing didn’t seem to be such a good idea as well.  Nope.

Case C, for most people in the discussion, going pro-rata seem to be the most likely mechanism for karma, but it then becomes even clearer why we should not partake in the meal altogether!

We could have, and were tempted to, gone further and consider many other factors, including those who arrive late, those who fail to turn up but were on the diners’ list, those who were not, but turn up after the ordering, those who were not but turn up before the ordering etc etc.  But we did not.  Most were duly satisfied with the discussion and analysis and left it knowing how better to relate to the precepts in future.

So what did you eat today?

PS: I do not advocate eating as a means of enlightenment, and the discussion of food was really a day-to-day affair that to me mattered to some of those lay Buddhist I met.

1.Practice Day 2.Practice Week 1. Practice Day

After identifying a certain affliction or situation that brings about unhappiness, choose a day of the week to do a counter-practice. Just one practice once a week.

Example 1, Tuesday No Criticism Day. You will be mindful of your speech on Tuesday and abstain from criticising anyone or anything at all.

Example 2, Monday Happy Day. You will be mindful of your emotions and mental states for that whole day and maintain your peace of mind and be happy for that day.

Example 3, Friday Helpful Day. You will be mindful of those around you and will strive to help anyone who need your help. You will not say no to anyone who asks you for your help. Granted, such help should be within the premise of the precepts and not lead to other defilements.

If say, you find that you have the habit . . . → Read More: Daily Exercise II]]> Daily Exercise II
From the earlier Daily Exercises (Vesak Exercises), one should have determined certain traits about oneself. One should become aware of certain patterns in one’s life that may be beneficial or harmful. With that in mind, it is then time to move to the next stage: Practice!

1.Practice Day
2.Practice Week

1. Practice Day

After identifying a certain affliction or situation that brings about unhappiness, choose a day of the week to do a counter-practice. Just one practice once a week.

Example 1, Tuesday No Criticism Day. You will be mindful of your speech on Tuesday and abstain from criticising anyone or anything at all.

Example 2, Monday Happy Day. You will be mindful of your emotions and mental states for that whole day and maintain your peace of mind and be happy for that day.

Example 3, Friday Helpful Day. You will be mindful of those around you and will strive to help anyone who need your help. You will not say no to anyone who asks you for your help. Granted, such help should be within the premise of the precepts and not lead to other defilements.

If say, you find that you have the habit of criticising others and their actions or work, and would like to stop that habit, you may adopt a Tuesday No Criticism Day as in example 1.

If you have a wholesome quality and would like to further strengthen it, you could also identify a day each week to work on it.

Initially, you may want to choose one or two days a week to do such practices for a few weeks. Every fortnightly or monthly, you may review your progress with a venerable and adjust your practice. After three to six months, you may have a final review and closure on that practice and choose to renew it or adopt a new practice.

At a later stage, you may slowly increase the number of practice days until you have one practice per day!

2. Practice Week

This is similar to the above practice and differs only in duration. You choose a week in a month to practice a certain quality or precept earnestly. For example, one may choose a week to practice dana, or patience. Or one could strive to have no anger for a week.

Footnote:
Hope this one year had been good to you, and you to others. Write in and let us know what worked and what did not work for you.

Vegetarianism as a pre-requisite to being a Buddhist is a misconception that had been advocated directly or indirectly in the Chinese Mahayana tradition.

I’ve received many queries and responses from lay people about vegetarianism. Some wonder if it is a pre-requisite to be a vegetarian to be a Buddhist. Others wonder if it is a precept or by-clause under the No-Killing precept. All these questions plus some exchanges with a fellow Buddhist who is a vegan spur me on to write this post.

Here is a summary:

Foot note to #3, it is not compulsory to be a Bodhisattva even if you follow the Chinese Mahayana tradition. It is only at a later stage that the Bodhisattva . . . → Read More: So does it mean that one have to be a vegetarian to be a Buddhist?]]> Simply put, no. One does not have to be a vegetarian or vegan for that matter, to be a Buddhist.

Vegetarianism as a pre-requisite to being a Buddhist is a misconception that had been advocated directly or indirectly in the Chinese Mahayana tradition.

I’ve received many queries and responses from lay people about vegetarianism. Some wonder if it is a pre-requisite to be a vegetarian to be a Buddhist. Others wonder if it is a precept or by-clause under the No-Killing precept. All these questions plus some exchanges with a fellow Buddhist who is a vegan spur me on to write this post.

Here is a summary:

1. To be a Buddhist, it is optional to be a vegetarian.
2. To observe the First of the Five Precepts of “abstaining from Killing”, one does not have to be a vegetarian. It is still optional to be a vegetarian even if one observes the Five Precepts.
3. To observe the Bodhisattva vows under the Chinese Mahayana tradition, it is *compulsory* to be a vegetarian.

Foot note to #3, it is not compulsory to be a Bodhisattva even if you follow the Chinese Mahayana tradition. It is only at a later stage that the Bodhisattva vow became a somewhat compulsory package for monastics. For lay people, the Bodhisattva vow is still *not* compulsory.

More after the jump.

1. To be a Buddhist, it is optional to be a vegetarian.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not advocating meat-eating, nor am I encouraging that. If the whole world were to become vegetarians or vegans, I would applaud it. But before that happens, I recognise that there are many who wish to learn and benefit from the Buddha’s Teachings but are somehow put off by vegetarianism right at the start.

Vegetarianism is a personal choice for Buddhists, and not a precept, except for the case of the Bodhisattva vow. See #3 below for more information. When one feels so inclined, it should be well and good to do so.

To be a Buddhist, one takes refuge in the Triple Gem, The Buddha, The Dharma and The Sangha. It is not just a ceremony that one undergoes, but a daily commitment to be happy. To make that conscientious choice to apply Buddhist Teachings (Dharma) to one’s life and be happy.

But being happy alone is insufficient if we end up causing suffering to others, so there is the Five Precepts.

2. To observe the First of the Five Precepts of “abstaining from Killing”, one does not have to be a vegetarian.
It is still optional to be a vegetarian even if one observes the Five Precepts.

The Five Precepts are to abstain from 1) Killing 2) Stealing 3) Sexual misconduct 4) Lying and 5) Taking of fermented drinks and intoxicants that dulls the mind.

Some thinks that “Meat eating == Killing” and hence one have to be a vegetarian to be observe that precept. If that being the case, then wouldn’t the Buddha have explicitly highlighted that in the Five precepts or in the Monastic Rules. Instead, he permitted the monks and nuns to eat meat that are offered, and are not seen, heard or suspected to be killed for oneself. There are further restrictions that forbade raw flesh, human flesh and flesh from wild animals such as “the flesh of human beings, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, and hyenas (panthers)”. See Buddhist Monastic Code I – Chapter 8: Pacittiya – 4. The Food Chapter Chinese Mahayana Buddhists, read with discretion.

While it may appear counterintuitive for some to observe the Five Precepts and still consume meat, one must realise that under the precept, one should not order for an animal to be killed for one’s food. Hence, one should not eat live seafood, turtle or frogs etc where one’s request for a meal results directly in the death of an animal.

Further, consider the consumption of alcohol itself. It does not directly result in breaking the first four precepts nor necessarily lead to it, but has the potential for doing so. Even so, the Buddha has it as the Fifth precept. If eating meat (under the allowables) is really so strongly linked to killing, it makes us wonder why the Buddha did not institute it as a separate precept and only put it in the Bodhisattva vows? One might argue that monks then were alms eater and hence could not choose, but how about lay people. Lay people could choose then, just as they can now. Why didn’t the Buddha not lay down vegetarianism as a precept, but left it optional and only institute it in the Bodhisattva vow?

3. To observe the Bodhisattva vows under the Chinese Mahayana tradition, it is *compulsory* to be a vegetarian.

To start off, some misconstrue the statement “All sentient beings have the potential to attain Buddhahood” to imply that “All sentient beings must become Bodhisattvas in order to attain Buddhahood”! This is incorrect.

That is like saying “Everyone must become doctors, since we all have potential to become one”. Apparently everyone’s aspiration differs and so in the Mahayana tradition, the Bodhisattvas learn all the paths that lead to Enlightenment. So one learns the path to Arahanthood, PaccekaBuddhahood and Sammasambuddhahood. Bodhisattvas learn these ways so that depending on the individual’s capabilities and inclination, the appropriate teachings are given.

Mahayana is Maha (Great or Greater) because it advocates and teaches all three paths! 統攝三乘名知為大! So if you incline towards Arahanthood, then the Bodhisattvas will teach accordingly. If you incline towards PaccekaBuddhahood, likewise, they will teach accordingly. And if you aspire and incline towards SammasamBuddhahood, I say Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!, the Bodhisattvas will teach you accordingly as well.

For that matter, when the Buddha attained Enlightenment, he did not go around insisting that everyone aspire towards SammasamBuddhahood, PaccekaBuddhahood nor Arahanthood; instead he just taught that there is Suffering, the cause of Suffering, the Cessation of Suffering and the path leading to the Cessation of Suffering. So to insist that everyone aspire towards SammasamBuddhahood is wishful thinking at best, if not being unrealistic or unreasonable.

Closing

Vegetarianism had been a point of contention for some Buddhists since a long time. One has to wonder if it were of such importance to one’s well-being and spiritual progress, wouldn’t the Buddha had highlighted it explicitly, as did the Fifth precept on taking fermented drinks and intoxicants.

In the end, if you read my other article on mock meat in vegetarianism, you will read how I attempt to explain that it is a gradual attitude towards vegetarianism, that I am not against vegetarianism. I’m just concerned with how it is stopping many from learning about Buddhism and benefiting from it. Kind of defeats the intention of compassion behind vegetarianism isn’t it?

PS: I’m an alms-eater monk, so I will eat whatever food that is offered and allowed by the Buddha. This way, I am welcomed by food donors who may be vegetarians, vegans or meat-eaters, except for those who eat unallowables. And hopefully, they can through the contact and teachings, be inspired to learn and practise Buddhism for their benefit here and now, and in the future attain Final Liberation.

After the jump below, a real story of how one’s drinking totally messed up another’s life. Warning: The link contains graphic images that may be gory to some and are unsuitable to minors, adults with heart conditions, pregnant ladies etc. You’ve been warned. http://www.helpjacqui.com/home.htm

Many times, we talk about how drinking can cause us to break the first four precepts, and most find it difficult to relate to themselves commiting murder etc through drinking. Well, it happens. And more often than not, it’s through an accident.

So think about it, do you really need that drink? If you need that vitamin red wine offers, try Ribena drink or fresh grapes!