According to Claire Suddath at Time magazine, November 1 is World Vegan Day. Vegans do not eat meat, dairy products, eggs, gelatin or honey. They avoid sugar refined with bone charcoal. They also don't wear leather, pearls (no pearls?), feathers or wool. They don't use anything made with standard glue (made from bones and hide) or ivory, new or antique.
Vegetarianism has been around from the earliest days of recorded history, but veganism is relatively new. Suddath tells us the term "vegan" was coined in 1944 by a British woodworker who published a Vegan Society newsletter. Because of the restrictions of the diet, vegans are encouraged to take supplement pills, especially vitamin B12. Veganism for very young children and during pregnancy remains controversial, but some studies suggest it is safe if precautions are taken.
Although the point of veganism would seem to be humane treatment of animals, I've stumbled onto people who insist on vegan diets for their companion dogs and cats. This to me illustrates how absolutism and perfectionism can override good intentions.
Many Buddhist teachers say that the First Precept charges us to take care that our purchases are not supporting forced labor or oppressive working conditions. So, avoiding animal products is not enough. On the other hand, attachment to any "ism" tends to separate us from others -- very akusala. And is veganism compatible with equanimity? What do you think?
Great topic. I believe that veganism, like any other act that culture sees as ‘radical’ or ‘extreme’ can be an uplifting idea or a tool for close mindedness and pride. Demanding that dogs, who are carnivores, be vegan, is cruel and absolutist. Like anything, if we are doing it out of a sense of superiority it is against humanity and harmful.
jh
bodanutrition
Why are you presuming that people are vegan because they want to attract attention or feel superior? i think it is all about compassion for fellow creatures, not seeing them as meals. Many people feel that humans are more important than other creatures. Who’s got a sense of superiority?
TR — I’m not assuming motivations for all vegans. I’m suggesting it’s a danger vegans can fall into, as with any ism. When someone insists that companion cats and dogs must be vegan also (and I’ve seen this) that’s a big, honking, neon, five-star alert that the line has been crossed.
I’m a vegetarian, not a vegan. Around year 13 I had symptoms consistent with diabetes. Further tests showed a B12 deficiency. Apparently the body stores about 5 years of B12; as I was avoiding animal product as much as possible (to avoid the cholesterol in eggs and cheese) I was depleting my supply, and WHAM.
I did some research and found that the ability of the body to use B12 from plant sources is in question; animal products (including dairy) are the only sure-fire sources of B12.
Vegans: Thoughts?
And about what to feed the pets: Pet-keeping has become an issue for me on several levels. If I had a dog, I’d feed him/her a natural diet (meaning meat). Also, I have questions about the “fairness” of pet ownership–a kind of slavery?
Taking these together, I am currently in a “petless” phase. Not that I will never have them again, but I will need to be sure the conditions reflect compassion.
James,
Animals can not make B12 – they get it from bacteria. Humans wash away the soil from their food and thus their vitamin. Take a vitamin supplement – easy fix for our unnatural dietary habit.
Note: Dogs are omnivours. Nevertheless, I hedge my bet with my dog by supplementing his diet with eggs and dairy products. And he is not a slave – he’s a natural pack animal as am I.
Cats? … I’m not so sure.
I am personally not an expert but am well read in regards to being vegan. I have found that even stringent abolitionist vegans (not all, but many) concede cats are carnivorous and require an animal based diet. For many male cats with a common urinary condition (including my feline companion Cosmo), this can be life or death.
My opinion to the main issue is that yes, a plant based diet and lifestyle can most certainly have balance. When I became aware of the suffering (I’m sure you have all heard the horror stories) I began to investigate further and decided to stop participating. This was not an act of extremism, but of compassion. I cannot describe the sense of peace I feel but only hope that I can share it with others. However, I understand this may not be the path for everyone and respect this decision.
James — I don’t think companion dogs and cats mind being companion dogs and cats. Most dogs are never so happy as when they’re part of a “people” pack. My feline housemate, Miss Lucy, owns me and the house on her terms. It seems to be a mutually beneficial living arrangement.
Samantha — I don’t think veganism is either a bad or good practice. If it’s something you feel you should do, that’s fine.
As with ANYTHING else, the problem is not with veganism per se but with ego attachment, absolutism and perfectionism, which can happen with any “ism.”
Perfectionism is a moral and spiritual trap. Perfection is never possible. Even a vegetarian diet is supported by the deaths of rodents and insects, for example. I suspect it’s impossible to completely avoid use of animal products in everything one purchases.
That’s not to say one shouldn’t try to live up to one’s own standards. We Buddhists are ever vowing to do impossible things, like save all sentient beings. The question is, what do we do with the imperfection? Do we try to run away from it and deny it, or do we accept and acknowledge it? There’s a huge teaching there.
I don’t understand why there are always those among us that feel the need to take things to extremes. Humans as a species have evolved over thousands of years as omnivores. Eliminating meat entirely from one’s diet can’t be any more healthy than existing on it exclusively. I have found moderation, “the middle path”, to be the best policy regarding diet, and in most other things as well…
Veganism is really not for the vegans I know about being extreme or superior in any way. If one is vegetarian for either compassion or animal rights reasons, it is just logical to follow through beyond not consuming meat to eliminating animal products completely. The vegans I know strive to eliminate these product to the point that they are able to in their lives; it is not about perfection.
In regards to the animal compassion issues, it seems to me that there is just as much harm done at the end of the day when consuming any animal product, as there is in consuming meat. Those animals, when they stop producing, are killed, and then they become meat. They actually suffer longer while they produce whatever commodity it is they are being used for prior to their slaughter.
As for B-12 and other vitamins, there are numerous studies showing that a well planned and well executed vegan diet is healthy and appropriate at all stages of life including pregnancy, infancy, and childhood. Even the USDA acknowledges this. Additionally, per many studies (including the well known China Study), it is virtually impossible to develop/maintain many of the diseases of affluence (heart disease, diabetes, etc) on a healthy, well planned plant based diet.
Julia — it is extremely difficult to do any “good” thing without ego attachment, including writing a Buddhist web site for About.com.
So please note I’m not picking on vegans because I disagree with their intentions.
However, veganism would seem to be a difficult thing to do without being attached to it. And the point is not the intentions, but the attachment. Attachment is always an impediment, even if the thing one is attached to is “good” and being undertaken with good intentions.
According to the Pali Canon, the historical Buddha himself rejected vegetarianism when one of his disciples suggested it. The Buddha told his monks they must eat meat that was offered them unless they believed the animal was slaughtered specifically for them. So for the Buddha, the middle way was neither veganism nor vegetarianism. Has anything happened to change that?
A long time ago I met a woman who was vegetarian who told me she ate meat every now and then just so she wouldn’t attach to vegetarianism. There’s a great teaching there.
I also like to bring up what I call the “grandma scenario” described in my essay on vegetarianism. There are times when eating a pork chop is the compassionate thing to do (please read the essay before arguing about that).
Ultimately we’re all food. Eventually the minerals and other elements of our bodies will break down and make their way back into the food chain. Ultimately we all live by the deaths of other beings, like it or not. There is no way to avoid that. Nor does veganism absolve one from a responsibility to see to it that farm animals, including those who will be slaughtered, are treated humanely and slaughtered humanely.
I’m a Zen student, and we zennies are discouraged from thinking that we accrue any kind of merit for being good. From a Zen perspective, if being a vegan makes you feel good about yourself — that’s a problem. If you can do it without attachment, no problem.
You asked-
“The Buddha told his monks they must eat meat that was offered them unless they believed the animal was slaughtered specifically for them. So for the Buddha, the middle way was neither veganism nor vegetarianism. Has anything happened to change that?”
To which the answer is factory farming.
“To which the answer is factory farming.”
We’ve discussed that already; not exactly relevant. My argument is that factory farming is immoral and unhealthy, and we need to go back to more small-farm practices. However, I doubt that would have any bearing on vegan philosophy, or they wouldn’t object to, say, cage-free eggs.
It would depend which Vegan you talked to. The most comprehensive philosophical underpinning of Veganism I have come across is “Animal Liberation” by Peter Singer. The key concept there is about suffering. It is wrong to inflict or permit avoidable suffering and modern farming methods inflict great suffering therefore all products of this cruelty industry should be avoided. Professor Singer himself however is not a strict vegan because the logic of his position is precisely the point that you made. If animals have not suffered in the process, and death is part of any animals life, then it makes little sense to not use the produce. Many vegans of course are not as logically consistent as Professor Singer since philosophy is a minority pursuit.
The issue, however, is not intention or even philosophy. The issue is ego attachment.
Intention, philosophy and ego attachment are kind of overlapping things not so? You form an intent to act, or refrain from acting, based on what you yourself decide is important to you yourself. The self is central to each of these three strands and is non-different from any of them. Some vegans may make of their lifestyle choice a declaration of their elite moral superiority vis a vis non-vegans and at some level mix their original ethical choice with a personal egocentricity. This should not cloud the fact that veganism is an ethical choice and there is no middle way between an ethical choice and an unethical choice. Its either the one or the other.
Intention, philosophy and ego attachment are kind of overlapping things not so? You form an intent to act, or refrain from acting, based on what you yourself decide is important to you yourself. The self is central to each of these three strands and is non-different from any of them.
We’re Buddhists, remember. There is no self. And the realization of no-self is not just some quaint little side-issue. It is central to all of Buddhism.
Thus, for a Buddhist, anything that reinforces the delusion of self is akusala, or “evil.” This is true even for acts done with good intentions and which follow all external rules.
Some vegans may make of their lifestyle choice a declaration of their elite moral superiority vis a vis non-vegans and at some level mix their original ethical choice with a personal egocentricity. This should not cloud the fact that veganism is an ethical choice and there is no middle way between an ethical choice and an unethical choice. Its either the one or the other.
Buddhism does not allow for a simplistic, dualistic, It’s-either-right-or-wrong view of morality. The same act may be moral in some circumstance and immoral in another, depending on many factors. A major factor is ego-attachment. Even a slight amount of ego-attachment renders an act “impure.”
That’s why I keep harping on ego attachment. I understand that people have good intentions. I understand that animals are suffering. Those are not the issues. The issue is whether vegans are practicing upekkha, or equanimity. It’s possible, certainly, but I think it’s rare.