“One of the greatest obstacles to the birth of Bodhicitta in our minds is our craving for meat.” - Shabkar

At a food court, a rather long-time Buddhist friend did not order vegetarian food when given a choice. There was a vegetarian stall present but he felt that the dishes offered did not have enough vegetables, that it had much mock meat - with too much flour or starch. So he ordered wonton noodles at the next stall instead. But the funny thing is, his noodles didn't have much vegetables either. In fact, it had less - just a few green leaves. And the wontons were largely fried flour... wrapping small pieces of meat.

He did say he wanted to eat wontons though. I prefer to call “wontons” by their true names though - Pig or Shrimp?
(See http://moonpointer.com/index.php?itemid=1437&catid=4 for “Call Us By Our True Names”.) He didn't seem to see that he was probably choosing out of greed for taste more than need for nutrition. If he was truly interested in having more vegetables, he could had asked for more from the vegetarian stall after ordering a vegetarian dish. Also, since he ordered from a non-vegetarian stall, he could have asked for more than a few leaves of vegetables. I give credit for his frankness that he wanted to eat wontons though - but as mentioned, it would be better to call them by their true names - to remember their sources in “good faith” - to the animals. The more conscious we are of the cruelty involved behind the processing of our food, the more likely are we to give up supporting such foods.

The majority of meat-eaters are attached to the taste of meat, not meat itself. If so, with the increasing availability of many kinds of mock meat, some of which taste better than real meat, why not go vegetarian? Ironically, the vegetarian stall does sells vegetarian wontons with noodles too - which taste pretty good. Mock meats are precisely designed for those still attached to the taste of meat. They are now made with increasingly more healthy ingredients. Of course, it is always best to eat less processed foods - more fruits, vegetables, beans, nuts, grains... directly.

As I was sitting with him, sharing a table, I wanted to share the above with him. But from previous experiences of him taking offence, I chose not to. He was adamant that the path of practice to be born in Pureland (which he embraces) does not requires vegetarianism. At least, this was not stated in the Pureland sutras, though many masters generally encourage it. He forgot that Pureland Buddhism is a Mahayana practice that advocates maximising compassion to all beings. In the Bodhisattva precepts, vegetarianism is a must. It is possible to be reborn in Pureland if one is a non-vegetarian in some cases - since there is no hard and fast teaching that says one must abstain from meat for one day, one week, one year, or one lifetime... to be born in Pureland. But if one stubbornly believes that vegetarianism is totally inconsequential to the spiritual path of perfecting compassion and wisdom, how fast can one progress spiritually? In this sense, practising vegetarianism definitely helps increase affinity for birth in Pureland - a world with no lower realms - including animals. Also, if it happens that one craves for meat before passing away, or develops regret for having craved much meat, it can become a great obstacle. Vegetarianism does not accurately measure spirituality; but it is part of evolving spirituality - for it is the widening of the circle of kindness. It even helps to reduce global warming!
(See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/zeph/message/1092 )

Though still afraid that he takes offence, I hope he reads this. Am I “nagging”? If humans are not even a little “pushy” for animal welfare, who will push the cause for them? The animals cannot speak. And their shrieks of terror when going under the knife go largely unheard by animal-eaters. What is my gentle nudging for reflection which mostly falls on deaf ears anyway, compared to the animals screaming violent protests - which do not even reach most animal-eaters' ears? There is just no comparison. Ella Wheeler Wilcox said it well when she wrote this - “I am the voice of the voiceless: Through me, the dumb shall speak; till the deaf world's ear be made to hear the cry of the wordless weak...” Am I being extreme? Ask the animals who live and die under extreme conditions. I'm not even holding placards parading the streets.

My friend was going for a weekly group sitting meditation session. It struck me as shocking that he chose a meal lacking in compassion before spiritual practice. He has been going for regular sessions for years. The dedication is definitely praiseworthy. However, what are some basic (to me) results of doing loving-kindness (metta) meditation, that he must surely do from time to time? What happened to the wishes and choices for all beings to be well and happy, free of suffering? Did “all beings” continually automatically exclude the beings included in his favourite wontons? Is that not bad faith to them? It is surely wrong to be judgmental. I only hope he will mindfully practise more inclusive metta beyond that “radiated” when in meditation.

He also attends “Om Mani Padme Hum” chanting retreats. In a single full retreat, together with hundreds of participants over a period of ten days, a hundred million mantras are chanted. As you probably know, that is the mantra of compassion, which is capable of invoking the perfect compassion within us. Granted that this might not be overnight, compassion can thus be increased. The six syllables in the mantra are supposed to be able to close the gates of rebirth in the six realms of existence, including that of the animal realm. This means great compassion (and wisdom) can help release all beings from suffering. If so, why should one “gate” remain open to animals who suffered? Why should the “gate” of his mouth continually take in deceased animals, thus increasing the demand and supply (which includes breeding) for the deaths of more animals?

The elderly but highly esteemed master who presides over the retreat is Drubwang Rinpoche - who was greatly praised by His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama. Rinpoche repeatedly urges the retreatants not to eat meat.
(See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/zeph/message/337 for some of this advice.) If there is a concise way to summarise Rinpoche's most oftenly deliberated teachings during the retreats, it would probably be like this - Please always chant “Om Mani Padme Hum” (because it is believed to encapsulate the Buddha's teachings) and please don't ever eat mother sentient beings. This he admonishes with much heartfelt compassion. Have his advice fallen on deaf ears? Thankfully, not to all. Another friend's wife, who was described to be a firm meat-eater, automatically became vegetarian after just one retreat with Rinpoche.

My friend avoids videos which feature how animals are slaughtered - such as this - http://meat.org. Years ago, before the Mani retreats started, I offered to lend one such video to him, when he admitted not working hard enough to become vegetarian, telling him that probably the easiest way to go vegetarian is to realise how much pain and suffering animals go through to make his meat available. But he refused to face this reality - out of horror. But once again, this is bad faith at work - for the horror is still there, still horrible - even if unseen. Does the refusal to see and hear the pain make meat-eating less painful? To whom? Only to him? As Stonepeace put it, “The sight [and sound] of blood and gore is good for only one thing - to prevent further blood and gore.” So why not see and hear this reality?

Some time has passed since I chatted with him on vegetarianism. Maybe he is more “vegetarian” these days than it appears. But the fact that he deliberately skipped the vegetarian stall recently is still hard to understand - especially when his reasons given were inadequate. Even if he seriously believed the vegetarian stall served food lacking in nutrition, what is the sacrifice of one “healthy meal” compared to the sacrifice of animals' health and lives? When we support meat dishes, we support the killing of more animals. I sincerely hope his loving-kindness and compassion increase fast enough. Even if they do not encompass all beings straightaway, I hope it at least quickly come to include the defenceless ones who live tortured lives before undergoing the hell of slaughter. As Stonepeace put it, “Vegetarianism is always more than urgent - for the animals you are about to eat, than for you their eater.” To easily know if meat-eating is a matter of arbitrary concern or not, one should simply put ourselves in the positions of those about to be slaughtered.

I really hope he takes no offence to this article. This is written not so much about him, but for folks who might be in similar situations like him. This one is for the animals. Am only weakly echoing the advice of great compassionate masters such as Drubwang Rinpoche... in limited ways. Vegetarianism is not a must for every Buddhist, but every human should try to live a kinder life. That's what the animals would hope.

“If on the one hand, we chant the mantra [Om Mani Padme Hum] and on the other hand, we eat the meat of another sentient being, then our words and actions do not tally with one another. We are not practising as we preach.” - Drubwang Rinpoche