I’m reading a history of Bon in Tibet, which around 800 becomes mixed, as in a double helix, with Buddhism. As I think most know, “Tibetan Buddhism” is a hybrid religion.
Bon practiced animal and sometimes even human sacrifice. It is a vaguely Manichean faith, which sees both good and evil forces in the world, and which seeks in particular to minimize the evils caused by a variety of spirits. When possible, they turn them to the good, and in general the Buddhist aim was to turn them to the protection of the Dharma. I see in this a spirit not too different from that of the Catholic Saints, and the overstepping of the Saturnalia with Christmas, the spring festivals with Easter, etc. Halloween is connected to All Soul’s Day and All Saint’s Day, and I think those are layered onto something older.
Here is what I am going to wonder out loud: was the Buddha more concerned with the eating of meat, or with the sacrifice of animals as offerings to spirits? My gut instinct is that it was the latter, and vegetarianism evolved as an unnecessary, and perhaps not intended result. He was trying to stop the ceremonial killing of animals, and the only way to make sure he was not misunderstood was to stop all killing of animals, if possible.
Reading about the history of vegetarianism in India, it seems the Hindus followed the lead of the Buddhists, who possibly followed the lead of the Jains, who are by far the most strict sect in the world in regards to ahimsa.
We are born into this world, and asked to live in it. We are not born with a book. We are born into cultures, but all cultures, I would argue, consist in mostly arbitrary rules. If they are enforced viciously and aggressively, dissent becomes impossible, and those arbitrary rules come to look like rules of nature. They are iron clad. Sacrosanct.
But I look at trees around my house. Birds are eating insects, and each other. Fish in the seas are eating other fishes. Lions are devouring antelopes, bear fish.
Is this not a world where all are bound to die, and not infrequently at the hands of other inmates of this planet?
Personally, I have gone back and forth on vegetarianism. I was a vegetarian for two years, but never felt well. I was lacking something, and I don’t think it was just nutritional. So one day on impulse I just bought two cheeseburgers at Burger King, and have never been a full vegetarian since.
One of the key underpinnings of particularly the more ardent, more militant vegetarianism is the anthropomorphizing of animals. They see them as inarticulate humans. They are not that. They are animals, which feel, which hurt, which obviously bleed, but which do not feel resentment and injustice like humans do.
And I think in most cases such people not only see animals as human, but in important respects project onto those animals all the positive traits they are unable to find among their fellow humans. Animals become good, and people become bad.
And I think often this leads quickly to a fundamental hatred of humanity. I also think a love of animals STEMS from a hatred of humanity, which is to say a generalized sentiment rooted in personal experiences with nameable individuals.
So in my observation and belief, many, many vegetarians, particularly the more aggressive vegans, are misanthropes first, and animal lovers second. That is my feeling.
In my view, there is a certain cruelty in this world which is inescapable. If it is not expressed one way, it will come out in another. I think by all means we need to avoid unnecessary cruelty to animals. I have long paid extra for chicken and beef I had reason to think was treated at least a bit better than happens in the worst places.
But you have to find your darkness and own it. You have meanness and pettiness in you. Yes, you. No, you. We all do. We have bellies. We have to eat to survive.
Personally, I think the healthiest thing for me, the way that I actually become the best possible version of me in these circumstances, where I know I will die, know I will hurt, know that I don’t really understand all the rules, or why things work the way they do (or even if any of this should be treated as real), is for me to reject sainthood. To reject doing things which inconvenience me for reasons which are not a deep part of my emotional constitution.
There is apparently controversy over whether or not even the Buddha was a vegetarian. Some people believe that he ate meat if it was offered to him, if he did not believe that animal was killed specifically for him.
For me, I have decided not to decide. I am going to leave it open. I am going to eat meat because I feel emotionally and physically healthier and stronger. I don’t know if it is right or wrong, or if it is completely irrelevant to my spiritual progress. I tend to think it is the last though. I don’t think it matters one way or the other.