Talk:Buddhism/Vegetarianism

Vegetarianism

I rewrote the vegetarianism section, mostly reverting it to an earlier version and incorporating some of the more recent text. I saw some POV problems with the version that was up. It started off saying "Many Westerners think that the Buddhist recept against killing implies that Buddhists should avoid eating the meat of animals." This opinion is not limited to Westerners; a lot of people here in China, for example, think the same thing, which is why they expect monks to be vegetarians. The previous version continues, "this is to miss the distinction between killing an animal and eating its already dead meat" is blatantly POV. Furthermore, we provide evidence contrary to these claims in the citations from Mahayana sutras, which appear in the next paragraph. - Nat Kraus e 16:50, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Did further NPOVing.

Did some additional fine tuning. A few points. I changed the line, "However, this is not to be the general case," as POV. I also restored, "Monks in ancient India were expected to receive all of their food by begging, and so theoretically should have no control at all over their diet," and "In Tibet, where vegetable nutrition was historically very scarce," because these seem like relevant information. The sentence on Japan and Korea had read, "In Japan and Korea, some monks practice vegetarianism; however, it is common for most schools to abstain from meat on certain dates for temporary periods," which doesn't really make sense as written, so I changed it to "In Japan and Korea, some monks practice vegetarianism, and most will do so at least when training at a monastery, but otherwise they typically do eath meat," which is closer to what I had in mind originally.

FWBOarticle, what's the source of this thing about the general and commercially purchased meat? I haven't seen that story anywhere else, and a search for "General Shia" on google just brings back information on a general Shia uprising in Iraq. - Nat Kraus e 10:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The source are monks that follow the tradition. Dead meet (if you dont kill the animal yourself and don't have it killed for you at your orders such as at the restaurant) is acceptable. Some don't eat meat at all, but this is not due to the killing precept (commercially purchased meat is already killed and there is no violation of 'do not kill' precept), but for other reasons such as traditions. It is believed that vegetarianism is better for meditation, so many ascetics don't eat meat. But many do. It's a complicated subject in itself, but anyway vegetarianism in Buddhism has (or at least had initially in Buddha times) no connection to the 'do not kill' precept.

Actually, I found the source for the story; it is in reference to a General Siha and is in Mahavagga, VI, 31-2, in the Pali Vinaya (apparently it is not present in the vinayas normally used in East Asia countries). And I agree that, taken literally, a precept against killing does not say anything one way or the other on situations where someone else does the killing for you. Perhaps we should substitute a quotation, such as "All living beings are terrified of punishment; all fear death. Making comparison with oneself, one should neither kill nor cause to kill" (Dhammapada, X, 1) or paraphrase the same more succintly. - Nat Kraus e 10:45, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Added a couple of qualifiers - one to state that it is the first precept of the pancasila, and secondly that the Tibetans didn't adopt a mahayana vinaya. (20040302)

Why do you say "lay precept", especially when we spend most of the next few paragraphs talking about what monks do? Also, not sure about the Tibetan vinaya thing. It's certainly relevant, but I'm not sure it's necessary, and the way it stands, I don't think it's clear what the significance is; to explain might be to unwieldy. - Nat Kraus e 11:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, not to interfere, but Killing is the third great defeat in a monks precepts, not the first (which is sexual intercourse) or the second (which is theft). So, by all means change the paragraph to say third defeat of monastic vinaya; I was just qualifying the specific precept list that killing is the first of! My excuse and I'm sticking to it! (20040302)

This is a technical thing. Killing is still the most grave offence, not sexual intercourse, I'll explain why. Firstly, as you know the precepts were introduced as the sangha itself developed: some new monks did something unheard of before and when the matter was brought to Buddha's attention, he made a judgement, regulation that automatically became a precept. (Initially there were no precepts, as first monks never had sexual misconducts, obviously). Sex is something people most easily get into, that's why it was introduced first. But timed passed, sanga became large and some new monk did a killing. So this precept was introduced on a later stage. But since the offence is big (punished by expulsion from sangha), it is now listed as sanghalesa offence. The order in which such offenses are listed is chronological, so intercourse goes first. But if you ask the Buddhist teacher (lama) about what is worst, he will of course say that killing is the most grave violation for a buddhist. Well, to be entirely honest, in Tibetan tradition puts relations with the lama on top (see the Milarepa biography for ideas).

"But since the offence is big (punished by expulsion from sangha), it is now listed as sanghalesa offence." - Are you referring to the Killing offense? If so, it is termed Parajika (Defeat, explusion, non-communion) and not Sanghadisesa (Requiring community meeting and subsequent probations). --ZhiXing-Bhikkhu 20:23, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, this is an interesting technical point. Don't monks vow to follow the pancasila, even if this is redundant with their other, specifically monastic vows? - Nat Kraus e 14:30, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I cannot answer that question. But the pancasila are very often known of as the lay precepts, which implies they belong to the lay pratimoksha. I can see it being possible that a monk takes ordination without first taking (lay) refuge. It seemed to happen a lot in Buddha's day; so in that case, the answer would appear to be no. Certainly monastic vinaya covers the pancasila, so this is not a question of whether or not monks can do what laypeople cannot! Moreover, it would certainly appear that a monks vows take much more prevalance (to monks) than the pancasila, so it would still not be right to say 'the first precept' without some context being given. (20040302)

As to the Tibetan vinaya, I think the sentence could do with some editorial work, but the issue is very important - among the Mahayana Vinaya such as described in the Brahmajala Sutra, it is an offence to eat meat, whereas within Nikaya vinaya it is not; so though the Tibetans follow Mahayana practices in general, it seemed prudent to mention that they do not follow a Mahayana vinaya. Hence the mention. (20040302)

Well, I know why it's relevant, but the paragraph as it stands does not explain why this is the case, and I'm not sure it's important enough to take the space to explain. - Nat Kraus e 14:30, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Importance. We have some piece about HHDL recommending vegetarianism if your health allows for it, and that would require a Tibetan context for the non-vegetarian as Mahayana issue. Maybe we need to divide the section? (20040302)

It may be worthwhile pointing out the benefits meat-eating in Buddhist countries has had for religious minorities (typically Islam) in cities such as Lhasa: Muslims held a virtual butchery monopoly, and Tibetans typically paid a high price for the meat that they wished to buy. (20040302)

I'm not quite sure how this would be relevant. Seems like more of a historical curiosity. - Nat Kraus e 14:30, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yup. Accepted. (20040302)

Also, vegetarianism was one of the vows proposed by Devadatta during his schism - which was explicitly turned down by Buddha. (20040302)

This is very relevant, but it is already mentioned in the text. - Nat Kraus e 14:30, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whoops! (20040302)

Another "advantage" of monks not insisting on vegetarianism is that they can give meat-eaters the chance to do meal-offering during their alms-rounds. This allowed monks to reach out to the whole mass instead of restricting themselves to just vegetarians. Though strictly speaking, since monks should not pick what they eat (besides the aforementioned exceptions), they should eat anything given, vegetarian or not. --ZhiXing-Bhikkhu 20:23, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

I think that today's massive changes to the section on vegetarianism are too polemical and should be reversed: this is not the place to start arguing about whether Mahayana sutras are "genuine" or not, or which ones are and which ones may not be. That is not the purpose of such a section in such an article on Buddhism. What existed before in this article was satisfactory, it seems to me: a clear distinction (which is there, whether one likes it or not, between the Buddha's Mahayana teachings and the Buddha's doctrines in the Pali suttas / agamas). I think that as editors of Wikipedia's information on Buddhism, we should simply report the facts about such matters, registering the distinction between what the agama/Pali-sutta Buddha says and what the Mahayana Buddha says on various topics. The rather sweeping changes to the article clearly seem to be attempting some kind of justification of meat-eating from an early-Buddhist perspective or to vindicate early Buddhism as a whole (not the task of such a topic as this), whereas what the previous form of the article expressed was that there is a division of stance on this matter. One should, in my view, simply report these two differing positions as they are represented in the suttas/sutras/vinaya and not indulge in "special pleading" for one side or the other (in the section on vegetarianism as a whole). So: I think this huge alteration to what was already a pretty balanced presentation of the issue really does need to be reversed. If there is not strong opposition from several editors in the next couple of days to a reversion to the earlier (more fair and balanced, in my opinion) statements on the question of vegetarianism in early and Mahayana Buddhism - I propose to revert the "vegetariansim" section to what it was until 6 December 2005. Best wishes to everyone. From Tony. TonyMPNS 17:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Tony on this issue. It seems the intent of the revisions was to explain why, from a stand point of the sutras themselves, there is a difference of opinion, but the changes to the article seem to muddle this issue rather than clarify. The changes also seem to go out-of-scope. Csbodine 18:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Csbodine, for your very helpful comments. I do of course think you are right! I think that whatever our personal views (whether we are Theravada Buddhists, Mahayana Buddhists, Vajrayana Buddhists, etc. - or no Buddhists at all) we should simply present the facts clearly and accurately (as well as sticking to the main issue!), and not start indulging in speculations as to the possible "superiority" or inferiority or equivalence of one form of Buddhsim (or doctrines within Buddhism) as against one another, or possible late insertions into sutras or early ones (all of which is very contestable and endlessly debatable!). I think the article in its earlier form clearly stuck to the main issues and showed that in early (Pali / agama) Buddhism, an argument can be - and usually is - mounted that there is no strict advocacy of vegetarianism at all; whereas in the Mahayana sutras, the pronouncements become very strong and unequivocal towards advocating vegetarianism. I think that is where we should leave it. The reader can decide for herself/himself which view is "genuine" Buddhism (if such can ever indeed be known!). Thank you again for your contribution to this debate. I appreciate your support of my proposal to revert this section to its earlier form. All the very best to you. Thank you once again. From Tony. TonyMPNS 18:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested above, I have reverted the section on vegetarianism to its earlier incarnation, as this does seem to be a clearer presentation of the chief ideas than the later one managed to achieve. I think this earlier version is more balanced in its presentation of the differing stances on vegetarianism as between Theravada Buddhism and the Mahayana sutras. All the best! From Tony. TonyMPNS 17:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm.... I thought Spasemunki had some excellent edits and additions. Someone should probably sit down with all of the different versions proposed and try to craft something that is NPOV, balanced between all traditions, and stays focused. Someone should also verify sources with so many differing points of view. Something that seems to be important (and missing) is a recognition that there need not be an agreement on the appropriateness of vegetarianism, just as there are different Yanas that have vastly different approaches to the same goal. Csbodine 18:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Csbodine. Good to hear from you again. Yes, this is a tricky one to get correctly balanced, isn't it? Personally, I think the current version is OK (not brilliant - but just about acceptable). As for the different "yanas" - well, I personally sympathise with you on that, but that is very much a Mahayana approach. As a Mahayana Buddhist myself, I naturally incline towards that view of differing yanas for different types of person (although I think there are basic rules of compassion and "ahimsa" which should not be transgressed). But I doubt that the Theravadins would be too happy with our stance of various "yanas" leading to the same goal! So we cannot satisfy all of the people all of the time. I think the main point to communicate is that, broadly speaking, the Pali suttas and the Theravadins who follow them tend not to advocate vegetarianism, whereas the Mahayana sutras - if they speak about meat-eating at all - strongly pronounce in favour of vegetarianism. What the various schools of Buddhism that subsequently arose made or make of the sutric / vinaya teachings is up to them. Anyway, I think the current version indicates well enough how the major Buddhist countries follow one or the other line on vegetarianism / non-vegetarianism. So personally - I would say, keep things as they are now, as the section is of an optimum length and pretty clear in its communication. On the Theravadin point about the Buddha's saying it is not what one eats that matters, but how one behaves morally - that was actually not Shakyamuni Buddha who said that, but a previous Buddha (if I remember correctly - from the "Sutta Nipata")! I do agree with you that a bit more souce-referencing would be welcome! Thanks again for your valuable ideas. Let's see if anyone can slightly modify what we now have and improve upon it. All good wishes to you, Csbodine! From Tony. TonyMPNS 19:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Given that majority of Buddhist sects are non-vegetarian, why the half of section contains material biased in favour of pro-vegetarian interpretation of Buddhsim? Moreover, why pro-vegetarian interpretation is presented as "Buddhist" idea while every non-vegetarian interpretation appear to have pro-vegetarian-counter argument (without proper attribution) inserted afterward. For example, "the Buddha says that vegetarianism is preferable, but as monks in ancient India were expected to receive all their food by begging they had little or no control over their diet. Furthermore, the Buddha did not wish to lay an extra burden on his lay followers by demanding that their food should be vegetarian. During the Buddha's time, there was no general rule requiring monks to refrain from eating meat." Firstly, I would like to see this quote from Pali Cannon where Buddah did say "vegetarianism is preferable". I had talked to Theravadan monks about vegetarianism and not once had they mentioned about something like that. Secondly, this is obviously a pro-vegetarian interpretation of Buddah's thought without any sourcing from Pali Cannon or commentary. I will delete this section. However, feel free to re-insert this section somewhere else. Yoji Hajime

Tripitaka (Sanskrit and Pali) are considered by almost all Buddhist sects as authentic texts. So I did take position that something which appear in Tripitaka can be presented as "Buddhist". On the other hand, something which is attributed to particular mahayana sutra should be attributed to mahayana sect which consider such text to be authentic given that quite few mahayana sect may not consider such sutra to be authentic. Given that different sutras are accorded different authenticity (plus sutra in favour of vegetarian usually having lower authenticity), presenting each sutra as equal without any proper qualification or attribution is to present pro-vegetarian bias. I went further and gave more detailed qualification as to why Mahayana tend to have vegetarian bias despite accepting Tripitaka as authentic, which in my view is more in line with Wikepedia policy. By the way, the part where Buddah reject vegetarianism is in both Sanskrit and Pali Tripitaka. Yoji Hajime

Hallo Yoji. Some valid comments from yourself. Thanks for those. I, too, have not seen definite assertions from the Pali-Canon Buddha saying that he favours vegetarianism (I did not write that section of the Wiki piece). So it would be good to get a source, if such is available. If such cannot be provided, I agree with you that that particular claim (about the Buddha of the Pali Canon saying vegetarianism is preferable) should be deleted. Certainly the Theravadin view (generally) is that the Buddha did not preach vegetarianism and allowed meat-eating. This interpretation of the Pali suttas/vinaya, however, has been challenged (not least by myself, in my book, "Buddhism and Animals"), as the general trend of his words on meat-eating seems to imply a degree of uneasiness over the practice (it is hedged around with all sorts of strange restrictions - "not seen, heard, suspected" - which can be understood to mean that any particular piece of food given into a monk's or nun's begging bowl should not be eaten if it is "seen, heard or suspected to be meat"). But I very much express a minority viewpoint on this, I acknoweldge. From the Mahayana point of view, the sutras which deal with the issue of meat-eating are very clear: it is frowned upon by the Mahayana Buddha and strongly denounced. Vegetarianism is there enthusiastically supported. I think it is inappropriate in this type of context to get into which Mahayana sutras are deemed to be "genuine" and which are not. That is just too speculative, I think. None of the main Mahayana schools that I am aware of, for example, reject the Mahaparinirvana Sutra as genuine "Buddha-vacana" (Buddha-word). Also, although the so-called (by the Mahayana Buddha - e.g. in the Lotus Sutra) "Hinayana" teachings are accepted by Mahayana, the Buddha of the Mahayana makes it clear that those teachings are provisional only -elementary and contingent - whereas in the final Mahayana teachings a definitive doctrine is claimed to be pronounced (certainly that is the assertion made by the Mahaparinirvana Sutra). So just because something is in "early Buddhism" and recognised as "Buddha-vacana" by Mahayanists does not mean that that is accepted as the final word upon the subject from the Mahayanists' perspective. The whole point about the "vaipulya Mahayana sutras" (from their own view of themselves) is that they represent an "uttara-tantra" - a final and definitive explanation. Anyway, despite all this, I do take your point that, since probably most Buddhist schools countenance meat-eating, the article should not be unduly pro-vegetarian. I certainly support you to that extent. Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 19:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in my previous edit, Theravada commentaries point out that any consumption actually involve indirect killing. Therefore, it is a part of "ignorance" to be uncomfortable with meat, not seeing the unsatisfactory nature of one's existence. For this reason, Theravada are more against glutony than eating meat. Also they take point that when one can make more direct mental connection of one's food and killing, then one should not eat such food as it will create shadow in one's mind, hence "not seen, heard, suspected". Lastly, when Buddah declared meat eating to be "karmatically neutral" the correct translation appear to be "blameless", meaning that if one eat to live, one does not incur blame for it though one do indeed participate in indirect killing as a result of eating meat and vegetable. Now, I'm not saying you should agree with this view. But in previous edit, I correctly attributed this explanation to Theravadan commentaries. On the other hand, this does not appear to be the case with presentation of pro-vegetarian (counter)argument. As of Mahayana school, I would like to make two point. Firstly, number of Mahayana sutras indeed advocated vegetarianism and Mahayana Buddhist when it was practiced in Northern India appeared to be vegetarian. But at the same time, they have accepted Hinayana Buddhism as a valid (though inferior) path. Hence I believe that more clear qualification have to be made in term of theology (such as that earlier Mahayanan sutra/commentary appear not to justify vegetarianism in term of first precept and instead mainly relied on boddisatva/compassion explanation). Secondly, among those with Mahayanan lineage, mainly Chinese Buddhim practice vegetarianism and the rest (Tibettan, Japanese and Korean) in general does not. Therefore, it would be very misleading to claim that "Mahayanan advocate vegetarianism" when in practictice, it is not at all the case. Again, some sort of qualification should be made in this regard. Yoji Hajime

Hallo again Yoji. I think the article, in the way that you have amended it this evening, is now reasonably balanced and is perhaps more or less OK as it stands - although I might try to get an even more clear balance for it. It does indicate that some Mahayana cultures do eat meat, whereas others do not. It also indicates that the Theravadins regard the Buddha as not having prohibited meat-eating generally - whereas the Mahayana sutras which pronounce upon this topic all have the Buddha speaking in favour of vegetarianism. I suppose we could add a sentence on the Mahayana section to say that, despite the clear admonition of the Buddha in certain Mahayana sutras not to eat meat, many followers of Mahayana Buddhism do in fact eat meat. I don't mind adding that myself. Then I believe the piece will be adequately balanced. All the best to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 22:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried, in fact, to add a little more info to this Vegetarian article now and to give a bit more balance, so that it does not appear as though one side or the other is being unduly favoured and put forward as "right" for all Buddhism. Hope everyone will be reasonably satisfied! Best wishes to all interested parties! From Tony. TonyMPNS 22:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have made much clearler attribution of the Pali Tripitak section. Rather problematic is a fact that certain Mahayana sects (particularly in Japan) consider Pali Cannon to be authoritative so I attributed this section to Pali Tripitaka rather than Theravada doctrine. I'm not too happy with the omission of Theravada commentary/reasoning in regard to vegetarianism but this would open discussion of Mahayana (including Tibetan) positions in vegetarianism which is far more complex so I will leave the deletion as it is for a while. - Yoji Hajime

I think the current Mahayana section has a problem because it present the majority of non-vegetarian Mahayana lineage (including Tibetan) to be committing heresy in regard to vegetarianism which in my veiw is a bit of misrepresentation. I think further clarification is needed here. Aside from the fact that there are in excess of 130,000 Mahayana sutras (large portion of it being declared as spurious by Mahayana schools), I do recall that number of Sanskrit sutra actually contains passage of Buddah eating meat. Apparently, Chinese translators were shocked for discovering such passages and often ommitted such section in Chinse translation. I'm certain that surviving portion of Sanskrit Tripitaka does not contain something like this but I will check it out. Secondly, as I mentioned previously, main theological argument for vegetarianism in Mahayana Buddhism did not relied on the first precept and instead relied on boddisatva's compassion hence avoiding direct theological conflict with Theravada doctrine. Further clarification of Mahayana position deserve insertion in the article. Lastly, Vajryana (Tibetan and Shingon), Japanese Zen and Pure Land sects all made varying theological argument not endorsing vegetarianism and this should be included. I get back to you when I found better reference. Yoji Hajime.

Hi Yoji. I don't think there is much more I can add to what I've already said. Yes, there are numerous Mahayana sutras, but sutras such as the Mahaparinirvana Sutra (as the Buddha's final pronouncements and clarifications of doctrine just hours before his death), the Lankavatara Sutra and the Lotus Sutra (which tells its monks to steer well clear of people who sell and deal in meat) are important Mahayana sutras by almost anybody's reckoning and are not generally dismissed as bogus by practising Mahayana Buddhists. Clearly there was, at the very least, a great sense of unease within some of the most famous Mahayana sutras regarding the eating of meat. If some Mahayanists have a guilty conscience about eating meat (in view of the clear denunciation of the practice by the Buddha in those highly important scriptures), that is for them to resolve. Personally, I think it's time for other people to add their voice to this now. Otherwise there is the risk of total polarisation from two people who apparently stand at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum on this matter! Best wishes to you. From Tony TonyMPNS 16:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not mistaken, Buddha is said to have died after eating bad pork (although I expect there is likely more than one version of this story). I am of the understanding that while there are many notable Buddhists who advocate vegetarianism there is a long tradition amongst Buddhist monks being allowed to except meat when offered provided they have every reason to believe this meat was not slaughtered and prepared just for them to eat. Among fellow lay practioners I have often found that while there are many do advocate vegetarianism they do not go to such extremes as to suggest that you are not a "proper Buddhist" if you choose to remain an omnivore. I am rather thankful that the Buddhists I know have been undogmatic on this point and many others, allowing one to take the personal responsibility make a decision based on reason and conscience, otherwise I would probably find being a buddhist rather midly oprresive rather than liberating.Parrhesiastes

Well he is said to have died of eating pork or "pork delight", which some argue was a type of mushroom which pork like to eat. Theravada side don't care either way because there are other numerous reference of Buddah eating meat. As of Lotus sutra, condemation extend to those who deal in meat (i.e. butcher) so there isn't any conflict with Pali Cannon. As of Lankavatra Sutra, it appear that there are number of version of Lankavatra with earlier version lacking in reference to meat eating.(when I find proper reference I get back to you) And lastly of Mahaparinirvana Sutra, again this appear not to prohibit eating of meat in case of alm. And moreover, there are conspicuos absence of vegetarian argument based on the first precept. As I said, I would need to find more detailed theological position of Mahayana Buddhism when it was developed in Northern India. Hajime Yoji

Hallo All????????? Buddhism DOES promote vegetarianism and it is on the account of Buddhism that this concept was introduced to hinduism. You people are inventing your own logical conclusions about this matter....Early Buddhism enjoined upon its followers on vegetarianism. Later tantra and mantra and santra might have sprung up, but the truth is that its because Buddhism had gone to such countries where vegetarianism would be difficult—so the people modified the theory. And there is absoluteley no need to write a Mahabharata on "buddhism and vegetarianism" here. Yes, vegetarianism is not regarded as a "merit" or divine injunction, but rather a good way of life. Please remove all your original researches and write objectively.203.197.74.148 19:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC) User:Magicalsaumy[reply]

The bottom line of all all of this discussion is that different Yanas and different schools have differing opinions. It is a diservice to readers and practioners not to acknoweldge these differences. Csbodine 20:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Magicalsaumy. I can see that you belong to a buddhist school which practice vegetarianism and I'm not asking you to stop being vegetarian. You say "Buddhism DOES promote vegetarianism" Then what about entire theravada buddhism, Japanese PureLand, Zen and Nichiren, Tantric Buddhism (Tibet and Shingon) which does not. Are they not buddhist? Are they all going to hell? This site is not a place to propagate one's version of buddhism as the only buddhism. I did not invent differnt opinion and practice regarding vegetarianism. I merely attributed them to different schools and/or sutras. Yoji Hajime

I concur with Csbodine. This is a fascinating topic which could we do with it's own article "Vegetarianism in Buddhism" or something like that. There's all sorts of fascninating sub-sections throughout buddhist history on this issue and some stories are already emerging in this chat. The main article could be trimmed down to something akin to the size it was on December 6 (or smaller). Peace. Metta Bubble 22:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]