In the forum, there's a challenge to my article on Buddhism and vegetarianism, in particular the Grandma Scenario. The Grandma Scenario is part of an argument that while vegetarianism is fine, it's not necessarily the be-all and end-all of loving kindness. For those of you unfamiliar with the Grandma Scenario, here it is:
For example, let's say you visit your elderly grandmother, whom you have not seen for a long time. You arrive at her home and find that she has cooked what had been your favorite dish when you were a child -- stuffed pork chops. She doesn't do much cooking any more, because her elderly body doesn't move around the kitchen so well. But it is the dearest wish of her heart to give you something special and watch you dig into those stuffed pork chops the way you used to. She has been looking forward to this for weeks.
I say that if you hesitate to eat those pork chops for even a second, you are no Buddhist.
In light of the recent mention of the "no true scotsman" fallacy, perhaps I should change the last line to "I say that if you hesitate to eat those pork chops for even a second, you are not practicing Buddhism."
Anyway, my critic writes,
It's pretty condescending to go about telling people whether or not they are Buddhist, particularly when they are just trying to do something out the kindness of their heart. You are essentially arguing that having a disagreement over what is the best way to be kind is inappropriate to Buddhism and that there's only one "right" for how to be kind. This is a very limited and extreme view, not a Middle Way. Telling someone they "are no Buddhist" because they choose not to eat animal flesh is also extreme because you are definitively arguing someone's religious identity based on one decision. That is no better than vegetarians who argue that you need to be vegetarian to be Buddhist. It's exactly the same....
...Some people actually do have allergies and can't eat animal flesh. I know a vegan who is severely allergic to milk and can tell when people gave her something that wasn't entirely vegan. Would it be unBuddhist to tell granny you couldn't eat her dish because you were allergic? I think not. Granny needs to get over it - that's life. There are precepts not to kill and not to steal, and the precept against lying comes after, not before these. If you'd kill or steal before you'd lie, I really don't understand your interpretation of the precepts. Sounds like a misplacement of priorities.
Of course, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with veganism, just that if you can't put it aside for just an hour to show kindness to your own elderly grandmother, that's a misplacement of priorities.
The critic also took offense at this part of my article:
As Buddhists, we should consider if products we purchase were made with suffering. This includes human suffering as well as animal suffering. If your "vegan" faux-leather shoes were made by exploited laborers working under inhumane conditions, you might as well have bought leather.
I don't quite understand the critic's argument against this except that it's an unfair comparison. My point is in the last paragraph of the vegetarian article:
The fact is, to live is to kill. It cannot be avoided. Fruits and vegetables come from living organisms, and farming them requires killing insects, rodents and other animal life. The electricity and heat for our homes may come from facilities that harm the environment. Don't even think about the cars we drive. We are all entangled in a web of killing and destruction, and as long as we live we cannot be completely free of it. As Buddhists, our role is not to mindlessly follow rules written in books, but to be mindful of the harm we do and do as little of it as possible.
Put another way, it's a delusion to think that we can somehow live in a state of moral purity. It's also important to understand that we living organisms live off the life of other living organisms. It's unavoidable. A sense of gratitude and humility is appropriate.
Anyway, if you want to disagree with me or with the critic, here's the forum thread.
And be nice to your grandmother.
My last non-vegetarian meal was a meal cooked by relatives of my husband, who invited us over not knowing I was an almost-vegetarian. I ate the meal, but resolved to never put myself in that situation again.
So maybe that’s why I’m so vocal about my vegetarianism, to make sure others know and don’t make me choose between my values–kindness to animals and kindness to humans’ feelings.
Isn’t it easier to call your granma and tell her that you don’t eat meat? or even better, tell your granma that, as she has always been the one worring about others, it’s your time to repay the favor and invite her or bring something to eat, that you prepared with love for your granma and compation for animals? I wouldn’t eat meat no matter who cooked it or with which intentions.
In addition, it could be very harmful for your body and health to eat meat after many many years, just to please your granma.
Use the common sense, not your moral sense.
Kathy and Cecilia — let’s assume Grandma is a bit senile and doesn’t remember you stopped eating meat. Now, are you both going to tell me it’s more “moral” to break your grandmother’s heart than to relax your principles for an hour or so?
Frankly, I’m shocked anyone would choose principles over Grandma. I think the Buddha would be shocked, too.
Buddha would not write a blog about it, neither would he keep on arguing. I am not sure what is right or wrong and i would say let people decideon their own. But it seems to me that you know exactly what is right and compassionate.
Sid — so you can’t stop yourself from weighing in with your own arguments. Heh. But the Buddha would have eaten the pork chops. The rules of the Vinaya say that monks eat what they are given, not excluding meat. The only time a monk would have refused to eat pork chops is if he believed the pig had been slaughtered specifically to feed monks.
When you are so attached to some “principle” that you break your grandma’s heart, you are missing the whole point of compassion.
Interesting reading all the controversy recently in the buddhasphere. Reminds me of one of the 101 Zen Stories:
Muddy Road
Tanzan and Ekido were once travelling together down a muddy road. A heavy rain was still falling.
Coming around a bend, they met a lovely girl in a silk kimono and sash, unable to cross the intersection.
“Come on, girl,” said Tanzan at once. Lifting her in his arms, he carried her over the mud.
Ekido did not speak again until that night when they reached a lodging temple. Then he no longer could restrain himself. “We monks don’t do near females,” he told Tanzan, “especially not young and lovely ones. It is dangerous. Why did you do that?”
“I left the girl there,” said Tanzan. “Are you still carrying her?”
Andrew: Thanks; that’s a perfect illustration.
I understand the Vinaya-pitaka strictly forbids monks from touching women (a rule not followed by all orders), but I don’t think that means a monk should walk away if a woman needs help that requires touching her.
What if over the years you’ve developed food allergies and something in that favorite dish could send you to the hospital? Are you prepared to poison yourself simply to not disappoint Grandma?
Which is more Buddhist, eating the pork chops or telling Grandma that her cooking is not the reason you enjoy visiting?
Wayne: If the dish would make you very sick, of course you wouldn’t eat it. (If it would just give you indigestion, take antacids.) But that wasn’t in the scenario. We’re assuming there is no physical reason you cannot eat the dish.
Which is more Buddhist, eating the pork chops or telling Grandma that her cooking is not the reason you enjoy visiting?
In this scenario, I say eating the pork chops is more Buddhist. This is something deeply important to Grandma, and she would be very hurt if you refuse what she wants to give you.
Barbara, I always thought what was important with my grandparents was making us happy. The pork chops to them would have been arbitrary.
When we first became vegetarian, my father in law was disappointed. His way of welcoming us home (we lived a thousand miles away) was to buy a brisket or steaks or crawfish and cook for us. The fatted calf, literally sometimes.
So I let him know I wasn’t going to eat it, and instead of railing against my choices, the way some of my brothers in law did, he simply changed his tactics. He went to the farmers market and bought loads of fresh veggies, dumped them in the kitchen with a hopeful look on his face, and said, “Look what I brought!”
He didn’t cook the vegetables, but he knew I was excited to cook them for everyone. It was a compromise that worked for all of us.
Now I would never, ever eat meat to please anyone. I did that for years, and living with the guilt was hard, damaging to my soul, as it were. I couldn’t look into an animal’s eyes and explain why I had to eat it, but I could explain to my grandma/father in law why I couldn’t eat what they’d lovingly prepared. That’s what makes us human, the ability to reason and to make choices and to explain those choices to people. And to understand when loved ones make a different choice from us.
“The pork chops to them would have been arbitrary.”
wayne, re-read the scenario. “She doesn’t do much cooking any more, because her elderly body doesn’t move around the kitchen so well. But it is the dearest wish of her heart to give you something special and watch you dig into those stuffed pork chops the way you used to. She has been looking forward to this for weeks.” This is something she has looked forward to giving you, and rejecting the gift would have broken her heart.
This may not apply to your actual grandparents, but this is the scenario I asked you to think about. You don’t get to change it to make the answer easier.
Kathy,
“Now I would never, ever eat meat to please anyone. I did that for years, and living with the guilt was hard, damaging to my soul, as it were.”
Rejecting her gift and breaking your dear, aged grandmother’s heart wouldn’t be damaging to your soul? Sorry, but your attitude seems heartless and self-centered to me.
Let’s not bite each other’s heads off over vegetarianism.
Vegetarians seem to think that one must be a vegetarian to be a good Buddhist. I think that’s authoritarian thinking at it’s worst. Do dogmatic vegetarians think that the people of Thailand–who are primarily meat eaters–are not good Buddhists? Tibetans?
Lets not bite each others heads off over vegetarianism.
We’re not really talking about vegetarianism as much as we’re talking about how Buddhism understands morality. Buddhist morality is far more situationist than Western morality tends to be.
In the West, we’re taught that morality is found in rigid faithfulness to external rules or principles, but this is not at all the Buddhist approach to morality. Although you may be guided by a principle (i.e., not eating meat), the overriding concerns are loving kindness, compassion, equanimity. In this scenario, the overriding concern is showing love and consideration to your grandmother.
Certainly, if there are other factors you might have a different response. In this scenario you haven’t seen Grandma for a long time, meaning you live far away and are just visiting. She is frail and elderly, and you may never see her again. The meal she cooked is an expression of love for you, and it would hurt her deeply if you rejected the gift.
However, if Grandma lived with you and perpetually made an issue of your vegetarianism, then you would be justified in telling her that vegetarianism is your choice and she needs to respect it.
Do you see the difference?
ligthen’ up a bit, “if you do not stop and consider what you are eating, YOU ARE NOT A BUDDHIST” Bull shit bro or sister. We live in each moment, your dragging your v moments of thepast into this one…oh, maybe your not a buddhist. You sound like a right wing Xian now, I am sure that is not what you meant to say. Yes, everyone will make the decision to eat or not to eat grandma’s wonderful dinner made with compassion just for you, that is called freedom, enlightenment, peace!
Dear Bob Hanson, Would you point out which message/poster you are berating? I can’t tell who you are directing your post to. . .
Thanks!
Barbara,
Still confuse on the comments from all but that raise some question from my mind
1. Does it mean if you are vegetarian then you are more buddhist? OR
2. You are less buddhist if you are NOT vegetarian?
From what my understanding whether you are a buddhist or not, it is not important. My opinion if your indepth understanding about the teaching from buddha that is important. Even that I have read one of the dharma book stated that Buddha do not ask you to believe what he teached blindly but rather follow his teaching if you feel that it is the right practice or path using your own wisdom.
From your example of Grandma scenario, if she have take all the effort to prepare the food to you. Instead of questioning whether it is vegetarian or not? Why not we enjoy the food and spending the time fully with her so that she feel happy and still worth while for her for the food preparation. isn’t it?
1. Does it mean if you are vegetarian then you are more buddhist? OR
2. You are less buddhist if you are NOT vegetarian?
Being a vegetarian by itself is neither here nor there. Buddhists choose to practice vegetarianism, or not (although note that the historical Buddha, the guy who founded the religion, did not). Either one is fine with me. Indeed, given current factory farm practices especially, there is a great deal to be said for vegetarianism when you realize how animals suffer before they are slaughtered. This is a deep, legitimate concern. I fully support the practice of vegetarianism.
However, what we’re seeing here is ego-attachment to vegetarianism, and that is way not Buddhist. If your BEING a vegetarian is such a big deal to you that you could be cruel to your grandmother, this is not a Buddhist vegetarianism. This is a big, honking ego-attached vegetarianism.
From your example of Grandma scenario, if she have take all the effort to prepare the food to you. Instead of questioning whether it is vegetarian or not? Why not we enjoy the food and spending the time fully with her so that she feel happy and still worth while for her for the food preparation. isnt it?
Yes, exactly. In this circumstance, making a big stink over whether the food is properly vegetarian is just dogmatism. Grandma is more important.
Is a Buddhist.
Isn’t a Buddhist.
More of a Buddhist.
Less of a Buddhist.
You’re giving me a headache.
Too many rules. Too many distinctions. Too much distraction.
Just love Granny. Love the porkchops. Love the veggies. Love each other. It’s all the same.
I would not eat the meal, It would hurt her feelings, but I’m sure the pig hurt worse. I don’t eat meat, I also don’t drink alcohol, so following that line of logic if Granny said “lets have a few beers, like old times” I should give up my 1.5 years sobriety to make her feel good? I am the person I am, to act any other way is an insult to what I hold dear. The question I think is “are your values worth more then hurting someones feelings?” I would say “Yes”.. ” I would rather be hated for what I am, than loved for what I’m not”….
It would hurt her feelings, but I’m sure the pig hurt worse.
Dude, the pig’s already dead. There’s nothing more you can do for the pig. Grandma, however, is alive and in need of compassion and understanding from you.
I also don’t drink alcohol, so following that line of logic if Granny said “lets have a few beers, like old times” I should give up my 1.5 years sobriety to make her feel good?
Unless Granny lovingly microbrewed the beer just for you, it wouldn’t be a parallel scenario.
I am the person I am, to act any other way is an insult to what I hold dear. The question I think is “are your values worth more then hurting someones feelings?” I would say “Yes.” I would rather be hated for what I am, than loved for what I’m not.
That’s OK if you are not Buddhist, but it’s not OK in the context of Buddhist practice. In the context of Buddhism, you’ve made vegetarianism into a form of self-clinging, which in Buddhism is the deepest form of evil (akusala). Please note that I’m not criticizing vegetarianism per se. I’m criticizing your attitude about it.
Listen to yourself — “to act any other way is an insult to what I hold dear.” Your principles don’t have feelings. Your Grandma does, and it’s OK to break her heart?
When you write, “I am the person I am” — Rule One in Buddhism — no, you are not. “You” are a kind of illusion created by the interaction of your body, senses and nervous system (the skandhas). In Mahayana Buddhism, we say that all phenomena are empty of intrinsic being. There is no “you” for your holy principles to stick to, in other words. There is this moment and the circumstances of this moment. From a Buddhist perspective, it is never correct to choose self-righteousness over compassion.
Self have been doing the Buddhist thing and vegetarian thing now for close to five years. Initially I was also somewhat of a militant vegetarian, but now take it in my stride.
My grandma is not in this part of samasara any longer so I cannot say how I would have approached the matter. A year ago people by accident dished up chicken soup and told me so…they were prepared to make a exclusive vegetarian dish if I so wished. I declined the invitation (would have been unkind to expect my honest host to expend more energy to feed me) ate the chicken soup and lived to tell the tale.
Did the Buddha not somewhere said that you can eat the meat as long as you did not kill it, hear or seen it killed or if it was not killed specifically for you? Well in eating the chicken soup I transgressed none of those guidelines.
I rather try to concentrate drink less beer and wine…now those substances are more dangerous to my spiritual progress than eating the odd piece of flesh (which I did not kill etc).
Vegitarians must realise thousands of insects and many worms in the soil are killed in producing vegetables for consumption.
The killing may run into millions if one considers the final method of processing the vegetables(cooking/boiling etc.) for food.
Being a Buddhist has nothing to do with your eating habits. You can have your own policies for what you eat. It does not affect your practice of non attachment.
When one practice noble eightfold path (NEP) he/she will automatically start to eat only to maintain the body, not to satisfy it and does everything not to negatively affect the practice of path.
I think vegetarianism or eating meat a personal choice that each person needs to make for himself/herself. Sometimes teachers give us specific instructions too. It’s certainly not a deal-breaker as to whether or not you’re a Buddhist. A Buddhist is a person who has taken refuge in the triple gem.
I am a Buddhist, and I do feel that any person saying they are Buddhist, and by way of formal education feel they can set in judgment of others, and say who is, or is not Buddhist, strikes of ego, and pride. It would be easy for me to say Buddhist that eat meat are less compassionate for the suffering of animals, even if you did not kill it, you support the industry. But it’s not for me to judge other Buddhist, your karma. We all have a since of what is the correct action. To me eating meat is wrong. To eat it to make granny happy is very wrong.
Meat or not has no baring in the end on what kind of Buddhist you are, only you can answer that. To me not eating meat is an aspect of Buddhist compassion, but that’s just me.
To eat it to make granny happy is very wrong.
This isn’t just about “making granny happy.” The scenario presents a very specific and unique circumstance in which refusing the food would break granny’s heart. The negative karma created by being heartless and cruel to one’s own grandmother far and away outweighs the karma created by eating meat.
The issue of vegetarianism and Buddhism has been one that I have had to grapple with for the entirety of my Buddhist career. At first I was very dogmatic that Buddhism and the consumption of meat were incompatible attitudes (the Dalai Lama eats meat). My feelings have undergone an evolution since then. I now regard this as a personal matter, left to the judgment of the individual. Eating habits are culturally conditioned and very difficult to break. The majority of the human race is carnivorous and those not born into Buddhism follow that eating paradigm. But , I wonder, is the meat eating habit more difficult to break than addiction to the much more serious delusions which we, as Buddhists, are struggling to conquer? I should think not. Although an entrenched habit it can be overcome if the desire is there. For one, I did it.
Those who continue to eat meat as Buddhists, should at least have to grapple with the question of finding compatibility between meat eating and metta- loving kindness. They should ask themselves if kindness to sentient beings includes animals or is metta restricted exclusively to homo sapiens?
I should also note that in any communal eating event in a Buddhist gathering (that I have ever participated in) no meat was ever served; when it was pot luck affair we were specifically informed not to bring any meat. What does this tell us?
Those who continue to eat meat as Buddhists, should at least have to grapple with the question of finding compatibility between meat eating and metta- loving kindness. They should ask themselves if kindness to sentient beings includes animals or is metta restricted exclusively to homo sapiens?
Of course loving kindness is not restricted to homo sapiens, but neither is it restricted to vegetarianism. The scenario I describe is not an argument against vegetarianism, which I fully support. It’s an argument against dogmatism versus showing loving kindness in whatever form is appropriate.
I should also note that in any communal eating event in a Buddhist gathering (that I have ever participated in) no meat was ever served; when it was pot luck affair we were specifically informed not to bring any meat. What does this tell us?
I’ve seen meat served in Zen monasteries. I once witnessed two busloads of Japanese Soto Zen monks eat a trout dinner. What does this tell us?
You’re placing more value on Grandma’s disappointment than on an animal’s very real, very extreme suffering. And on my horrible feelings of guilt were I to eat an animal.
We always have to make choices when we go through life, whether it’s eating or some other choice. Sometimes we have to choose between two choices which each cause harm. I try to make the choice that poses the least amount of harm. To me, this one is a no brainer.
I sense a bit of defensive meat eating going on here. People are always telling me they feel guilty about eating meat, but have X reason for continuing to do it. I used to be like that, and am a lot happier now that I don’t have to come up with convoluted reasons for eating meat, including the false worry that I’d offend my grandma.
Kathy — You keep trying to change the scenario to make it fit the outcome you want. That’s the way fundamentalists approach morality, you know; they’ve got the answer already, and if the moral question doesn’t fit, they change the question. This is very dangerous and not at all the way Buddhism teaches us to approach moral questions.
I”m not talking about Grandma suffering some temporary disappointment. I’m talking about genuinely breaking her heart. She has lovingly and with great effort given you a gift, and if you don’t accept it you might as well have smacked Grandma across the face with the back of your hand. You are causing her genuine anguish, not just disappointment.
This is real suffering. How much the pig suffered we can not know, but the pig is already dead, and Grandma isn’t.
And your placing a greater value on your guilt than on Grandma’s heartbreak is grotesquely selfish. The Buddha teaches us to be ready to sacrifice ourselves completely at every moment for the benefit of others.
It is very often the case with moral questions that there is no “pure” answer. Anything you choose to do will have some unfortunate karma attached to it, including doing nothing. But in this case, to be cruel to your Grandma because you are personally uncomfortable with eating meat is a big, honking, selfish, ego-attachment, and would have far worse karmic consequences for you than to, just once, break your vegetarian habit and eat the pork chops.
I’m new to all this, and I don’t mean to sound trite, but could you simply sit down at the table with grandma, eat the veggies, and cut the meat into little pieces and push them around the plate? Surely she has a little dog under the table begging for scraps. Either drop the pieces to the dog or into a napkin on your lap and then offer to clear the table, dropping your napkin into the trash. Granny can’t see very well anyway, right?
I know, this isn’t what the conversation is about, but hey, the situation just might come up!
Kim — You don’t get to add new elements to the scenario to change it. Granny’s eyesight is just fine, and there’s no dog. The situation presented is very, very simple — if you don’t eat the pork chops, Grandma will be heartbroken.
Thats OK if you are not Buddhist, but its not OK in the context of Buddhist practice. In the context of Buddhism, youve made vegetarianism into a form of self-clinging, which in Buddhism is the deepest form of evil (akusala). Please note that Im not criticizing vegetarianism per se. Im criticizing your attitude about it.
If being a vegetarian to show loving kindness to all creatures on earth is a form of self clinging then I would venture to say being a buddhist and showing loving kindness to anyone is a form of self clinging. So what’s the use. Why be buddhist if it is a form of self clinging?
As for the Grandma Scenario, making an exception to eat her pork chops begins a snowball effect. Then other relatives can say “you made an exception for granny and her pork chops, then why don’t you eat the brisket at the barbecue we are having next week?” I would stand my ground and believe and keep my principles. Grandma can be explained to why I don’t eat meat. Grandma can also learn something about my belief system and may even come to try it.
Fran:
Being a vegetarian to show loving kindness to all creatures on earth is not a form of self-clinging. It turns into self-clinging when one’s self-righteous attitude gets in the way of showing compassion to the human being who is standing in front of you.
That’s the trap of all “isms,” including Buddhism. You can selflessly give yourself to it, or you can turn it into a kind of ego trophy.
As for the Grandma Scenario, making an exception to eat her pork chops begins a snowball effect.
Oh, please. There’s nothing cheaper than a slippery slope argument. If Uncle Jim asks why you don’t eat the barbecue, you can just tell him that you made an exception for Grandma and only for Grandma. And if he makes an issue, don’t go to the barbeque. Or, since most backyard barbecues are pot luck, you could bring a dish you can eat and then just fill up on that.
By the same token, if Grandma had told you in advance she wanted to cook pork chops for you, you could have told her you don’t eat meat and you’d rather take her out to dinner. In that case, she wouldn’t have put so much of an emotional investment into the pork chops. However, she surprised you with the pork chops. So there was no way out of eating them that wouldn’t have crushed her.
Grandma can be explained to why I don’t eat meat. Grandma can also learn something about my belief system and may even come to try it.
I don’t think Grandma is the one who needs to learn something. This scenario is very narrow and specific. There’s nothing you would be able to say to Grandma that would make her feel less devastated.
“Thats the trap of all isms, including Buddhism. You can selflessly give yourself to it, or you can turn it into a kind of ego trophy.”
Pride and ego are great servants, but horrible masters. Anything taken to far can be bad. As in all things in the universe a balance is a must. Can aspects of being a Buddhist be taken to far? Sure..With christens we had things like the inquisition, and witch hunts.
Loving kindness can lead to being too passive, and not willing to fight out of fear of offending.
Barb you are saying that not eating the meat is taking being a Buddhist to far. It would depend on the driving force behind not eating the meat. To me the thought of eating meat makes me sick. the smell of cooking meat makes me nauseous. To me its not pride or ego, but a fear of vomiting, I’m sure Granny would love that.
Michael — that’s why the bodhisattvas made Pepto Bismol.
Seriously, if you had some rare medical condition that would make eating meat geuinely dangerous for you, of course you wouldn’t eat it. But there’s no other excuse for being cruel to your grandmother.
Remember, the original order of monks begged for all their food, and the historical Buddha taught them to eat everything they were given, including meat, with gratitude. They weren’t allowed to refuse food because it wasn’t to their taste. And yes, they ate meat when they were given meat.
Having been a vegetarian for about 20 years, and a Buddhist for not-quite-as-many years, I fully agree with Barbara. For me, being a vegetarian is not a question of purity — but for many vegetarians, it seems to be.
As Barbara says, there are no “pure” choices. Attachment to “purity” is itself impure, one might say.
…and so yes, in the 20+ years I’ve been a vegetarian, I have occasionally eaten meat. Say maybe 10 times. Some of them were quite similar to Barbara’s scenario, others were less dramatic: for example, once I mistakenly bought a ham sandwich instead of the grilled-veg sandwich that sat beside it in the shop. I realised this once I was at home and ready to start eating. I could have thrown away the sandwich, and eaten something else. That wouldn’t have helped the pig any. In the circumstances, it seemed more respectful to eat rather than waste the small part of dead pig that I had inadvertently acquired.
Now, I wouldn’t say that someone who made a different choice (in any of these cases) was “no Buddhist”. But some choices do seem more problematic for a Buddhist, the way I understand the Dharma.
Barbara,
I understand the argument presented. The concept from my viewpoint is “which loving kindness is more important when presented in this situation?” Grandma’s feelings are more important.
The reason why I stated earlier about educating “grandma” to my religious beliefs and viewpoint is because I had a situation within the past 3 months where I was ridiculed and insulted for being not only a vegetarian but also a buddhist. The worst part of it was the individual was my son. Because of this argument and other issues he choses not to speak to me(he’s 23 and lives in another state). He feels that I am completely retarded for my convictions.
Fran — it sounds as if you are going through a hard time. We do have a Buddhism forum here, and if you want to discuss what you’re going through there you will get some sympathy and encouragement, I’m sure.
Fran, sounds like you’re 23-year-old son hasn’t grown up yet, nor does he respect your choices. While I understand you want to “educate” him, I suspect it wouldn’t accomplish anything but more suffering for you.
Lise
I guess we can’t edit these comments. I made a dopey error in my message above, which should have said your not you’re. As a professional writer, I say to myself – ARRRG!
Lise
This Grandma character seems unstable; like she’s looking for a hook to hang her heartbreak on. I don’t think not eating the pork chops will make a huge difference to Grandma in the long run. If something like this can devastate her there are more significant issues at play . You might even be doing her a favour by helping her bring these to the fore (particularly if you can also help her recognise it’s not about the pork chops).
If on the other hand she’s not unstable she will not be devastated by your not eating her pork chops. You can explain to her your reasons and apologise for any upset you have caused her. She may even be grateful that you do not dismiss her as incapable of having a genuine relationship with you as opposed to one based on going through the superficial motions of ‘visiting Grandma’.
Of course this is not to say that there aren’t situations in which one might overlook one’s vegetarianism for the sake of being compassionate. Grandma may, for example, have hostages at gunpoint depending for their lives on your eating her pork chops.
As for the original ‘Grandma Scenario’, many people may indeed eat the pork chops to avoid a scene (or to not have to be the one to deal with Grandma’s breakdown). They may even convince themselves that they are acting out of compassion. Others may indeed be acting out of misguided compassion (thinking of their action as more significant than it actually is for Grandma). In reality your eating or not eating the chops cannot have a major long-term effect on Grandma. If she’s amenable to reason you can talk to her productively; if she’s unstable then eating her pork chops won’t stabilise her.
This Grandma character seems unstable; like she’s looking for a hook to hang her heartbreak on. I don’t think not eating the pork chops will make a huge difference to Grandma in the long run.
Once again, I am stunned at how cold and heartless some of you are.
We don’t know anything about Grandma’s motivations except that she’s very excited about seeing you — she hasn’t seen you in a long time — and that one of her fondest memories is how much you used to enjoy her cooking. The scenario also states she doesn’t cook much any more, which implies that she lives alone, and we also know she’s very frail. It also says it it the dearest wish of her heart that you are pleased with the gift of food she is giving you.
This visit is a rare and special occasion, and you may never see her again. Whatever her issues, the situation presented to you is of an elderly lady who loves you very much and wants to give you a gift to please you.
I don’t know if you’ve ever had the experience of going all out to please someone you love, and have the gift or effort rejected or belittled. It is terribly painful, like a slap in the face. So, you don’t get to judge “I don’t think not eating the pork chops will make a huge difference to Grandma in the long run.” Maybe she’ll get over it, and maybe she won’t, but rejecting the gift is a cruel thing to do to her.
I’m hoping that if I ever have Grandkids, they’re more compassionate that some of you on this comment thread. Cold, cold, cold.
‘[Y]ou dont get to judge I don’t think not eating the pork chops will make a huge difference to Grandma in the long run. Maybe shell get over it, and maybe she wont’.
My point was that even if she doesn’t get over it it won’t make a huge difference in the sense that she would have found something not to get over anyway. If your attitude is that that would be okay because her suffering would be associated with someone else then that is just passing the buck.
Im hoping that if I ever have Grandkids, theyre more compassionate that some of you on this comment thread.
If I ever have grandchildren I hope they don’t presume I’m too out of touch to be honest with me.
My point was that even if she doesn’t get over it it won’t make a huge difference in the sense that she would have found something not to get over anyway.
Ah, my dear, that is not in the scenario. As far as we know she is as sweet and uncomplaining as the dawn. You are projecting your own issues onto Grandma. Not allowed.
It’s generally not advisable to act according to another’s unreasonable expectations.
Eating pork chops is an “unreasonable expectation”? On what planet?
You’re not being fair to yourself, you’re not being fair to the next person they interact with, and you’re not being fair to them in the long run.
Rationalization and projection. Grandma hasn’t cooked for anyone in a long time, and she may never again. The only issues you are to deal with are the ones presented in the scenario. You don’t get to re-write the scenario or add other circumstances so that you can avoid doing the right thing, which is eating the pork chops.
We dont know anything about Grandmas motivations.
We know they’re not healthy if you’re not eating her chops will devastate her. It’s generally not advisable to act according to another’s unreasonable expectations. You’re not being fair to yourself, you’re not being fair to the next person they interact with, and you’re not being fair to them in the long run.
Ah, my dear, that is not in the scenario.
It is in the scenario. She will be devastated by your not eating the pork chops. She can’t be as ’sweet and uncomplaining as the dawn’ if this is the case. If it were the case she would accept your apology and explanation. The fact that it is not the case tells us that the pork chops are not the real issue. She is, as I said earlier, looking for a hook to hang her heartbreak on.
Eating pork chops is an unreasonable expectation?
You are presuming Grandma has unreasonable expectations in saying she will be devastated by your not eating the pork chops even after you apologise and explain your reasons.
You dont get to re-write the scenario
I’m not re-writing the scenario. The scenario can’t exist without an unstable Grandma.
donnachadh, if you are not practicing Buddhism, then go in peace; what I will say probably won’t make sense. If you are, however —
In the scenario, Grandma is simply responding to your visit by cooking for you, and only because she loves you and wants to please you. She either never knew, or has forgotten, you are a vegetarian. You haven’t seen her for a long time, remember, which implies you live far away. Your implication that Grandma has some ulterior motive is just weird.
From a Buddhist perspective, this situation presents a wonderful opportunity for you to give a gift back to your grandmother by showing your appreciation — by eating the pork chops and enjoying them — and it also gives you an opportunity to put away your own desires and to show compassion to someone else. You could say that eating the pork chops is a bodhisattva act.
Vegetarianism also is a bodhisattva practice, but responding appropriately to the moment means putting your grandmother’s feelings first. The pig is, after all, already dead. The historical Buddha taught his monks to eat whatever food they were given, including meat, with gratitude.
On the other hand, not eating the pork chops is not only crassly insensitive, but it’s also selfish. It puts your desires and preferences ahead of your grandmother’s feelings. This is not Buddhist practice. Remember, desire is one of the three root poisons, and protecting the ego-self is an akusala (unskillful or evil) act.
Your implication that Grandma has some ulterior motive is just weird.
I didn’t imply that Grandma has some ulterior motive; but you do imply she is chronically lonely (or emotionally unbalanced in some other way) in your setting up of the scenario. It simply will not play out as you describe on your not eating the pork chops if this is not the case. As such, by eating the pork chops and going on your way you are avoiding some more fundamental issue (e.g. Grandma lives alone, nobody ever visits her, she doesn’t have any contact or receive any news about her children or grandchildren, or perhaps Grandma is losing her mind and can’t remember what she is told by her visitors). Whatever the real issues are, these are what need to be dealt with.
Helping Grandma to deal with her issues is the true path of compassion; helping everyone involved to maintain the pretence that there is nothing wrong is what would be selfish.
donnachadh, if you are not practicing Buddhism, then go in peace; what I will say probably wont make sense. If you are, however
This is an appeal to authority and has no place in any reasoned discussion, Buddhist or otherwise. I cannot answer whether I am practising Buddhism or not. I can say that I try to value compassion and the feelings of others, and that I have taken compassion and the (imagined) feelings (and general well-being) of Grandma into account in thinking about the ‘Grandma Scenario’.
you do imply she is chronically lonely (or emotionally unbalanced in some other way) in your setting up of the scenario.
All I have said is that she hasn’t seen YOU in a long time, and that she misses you. It is possible she is lonely; this is a common problem for elderly people. All the more reason to be kind to her.
As such, by eating the pork chops and going on your way you are avoiding some more fundamental issue
No no no no no, you don’t get to add more issues. The only question at hand is whether you will or will not eat the pork chops. It might be that, as you visit with her, you realize she needs some help in some way, but whether you have eaten the pork chops or not would have no bearing on that. None whatsoever.
You keep implying that Grandma is somehow mentally unhinged. She is not, or no more so than the rest of us. Perhaps you haven’t spent much time with elderly people, but her behavior is perfectly normal and entirely consistent with something a normal, loving elderly grandmother might do or feel. Elderly people often take special delight in showing that they still have something they can give to others, in spite of their frailties, and in this case the one thing Grandmother decided she could give you was a home-cooked meal.
You’re trying to revise the scenario or even blame grandmother so that you don’t have to do something you don’t want to do. This is just selfish. You can excuse it any way you like, but it’s still selfish.
This is an appeal to authority and has no place in any reasoned discussion, Buddhist or otherwise.
No, I place the scenario in the context of Buddhist teachings. Within Buddhist teachings, your argument is utterly indefensible. If you aren’t Buddhist then Buddhist teachings don’t apply.
I can say that I try to value compassion and the feelings of others, and that I have taken compassion and the (imagined) feelings (and general well-being) of Grandma into account in thinking about the ‘Grandma Scenario’.
No, you haven’t. You are projecting onto Grandma what you want her to feel so that you can do what you want to do.
The equation is very simple. If you refuse the meal you will break Grandma’s heart. That’s the only factor to be dealt with.
If you refuse the meal you will break Grandmas heart.
The point I have been trying to make is that refusing the meal, in itself, cannot break Grandma’s heart. Such a scenario is a non-starter as much as if you were to say if you refuse the meal Grandma will develop paranoid schizophrenia, based on your refusing the meal and utterly unrelated to anything else. The scenario might be hypothetical, but if you randomly assign ‘effects’ to ’causes’ it becomes meaningless as far as our lived experience is concerned.
Youre trying to revise the scenario or even blame grandmother so that you dont have to do something you dont want to do.
Ad hominem. Incidentally I probably would eat the pork chops. I’m simply trying to show that the scenario is more complicated than you make out. Eating the pork chops will, in some people’s cases, be partly motivated by the desire for a quiet life (whether fully consciously or not). Not eating them will (in some people’s cases) be motivated by a desire to establish a more meaningful and honest relationship with Grandma.
The point I have been trying to make is that refusing the meal, in itself, cannot break Grandma’s heart.
You are very wrong. Not everyone reacts emotionally the same way to the same situation, but I assure you that to have someone you love refuse a gift you’ve put your heart into can be crushing. That you don’t realize that is worrisome.
Ad hominem. Incidentally I probably would eat the pork chops. I’m simply trying to show that the scenario is more complicated than you make out.
It’s only complicated because you are projecting your own issues on to it, which is something Buddhism teaches us not to do. Of course, in the real world there are endless possible variations to the scenario with all manner of possible mitigating factors. But most of the time the only “mitigating factors” are our own issues that we’re projecting onto the situation. And in this case, there is nothing else to consider except the choice between breaking a vegetarian practice or Grandma’s heart.
If you arent Buddhist then Buddhist teachings dont apply.
Any correct teachings apply generally.
Any correct teachings apply generally.
Not necessarily. If you aren’t practicing to put an end to desire and realize the non-reality of the self, there would be somewhat less of an imperative to put aside your own wants and self-interests for the sake of someone else’s happiness. I wouldn’t impose Buddhist standards on someone who has not taken the refuges.
most of the time the only mitigating factors are our own issues
All of the time, when people display an exaggerated reaction to the reasonable acts of others, there is something more at play than these acts themselves.
Of course a gift to a loved one upon rejection will cause heartbreak, if the loved one believes it was rejected with the intention to hurt, or out of pure indifference to their feelings.
If it is impossible to communicate to Grandma that this is not the case then you are either a woeful communicator, or the woman is seriously out of touch.
In either of these cases eating the pork chops is the right thing to do. But these are by no means ‘normal’ cases.
In the case of two stable individuals, not eating Grandma’s pork chops is fully compatible with compassion for her, and heartbreak will not result.
If it does result it is because you rejected the pork chops with the desire to hurt her, or without caring (or considering) to fully explain why. This will of course communicate your ill will (or indifference) and will be hurtful. But Grandma is not here being hurt because you did not eat her chops.
Or alternatively heartbreak will result because Grandma is emotionally unstable or not amenable to reason. In such a case you must base your eating or not eating her chops on the particulars of her condition, but this is a special, not the ‘normal’ case.
You may claim that by rejecting her pork chops you are necessarily displaying (at the least) indifference. I claim that this is not so, that if Grandma is reasonable and stable (’normal’ if you like), and that if you honestly attempt to communicate your reasons for not wanting to eat them to her, then she will not be heartbroken.
As for making your vegetarianism an ego trip – this may be a factor in some people’s cases. In other people’s cases the need to generate exceptions to every rule (whether an exception is called for or not) will be the ego trip.
Anyway, I realise we are probably not going to agree on this, and if you feel I have not made any new valid points I will understand if you don’t respond (I’m sure you’re busy). I will continue to think about the relevant issues and appreciate your taking the time to address what you believe to be my mistaken thinking.
All of the time, when people display an exaggerated reaction to the reasonable acts of others, there is something more at play than these acts themselves.
Exactly, which is why I find it remarkable that you are projecting so many issues onto a perfectly reasonable act — a grandmother cooking a meal for her grandchild.
It may be that the experience of being and elderly woman is too far removed from your personal experience to put yourself in grandma’s place. Even if she understands that you are refusing the meal because you are vegetarian, and even if she accepts that intellectually, your rejection of the food could still cause her to see herself as a foolish, useless old woman who has nothing left to give to her family. It can be so important to many elderly people to feel they can still be useful, in spite of their infirmities. It could be a huge gift to her to eat the food and show appreciation for it.
Don’t judge only by your own standards. Respect what other people feel even if you don’t understand it.
a perfectly reasonable act a grandmother cooking a meal for her grandson
Of course this is a perfectly reasonable act. What is unreasonable is being heartbroken about someone else’s being a vegetarian.
Anyway I understand that Grandma might be upset. I guess the Grandma you are imagining is just different to the Grandma I am imagining. I hope when I am old I am more like the Grandma I am imagining. I would hate to think that people were ‘humouring’ me. Maybe that’s just me. I guess there are cases where ‘ignorance is bliss’, or where even if Grandma later realised you were ‘humouring’ her she would be grateful for your intentions in doing so.
What is unreasonable is being heartbroken about someone else’s being a vegetarian.
She’s not heartbroken because her grandchild is a vegetarian. She is heartbroken because she put her love into a gift the grandchild won’t accept, and she feels useless. This is very common for elderly people. For that matter, it’s common for not-elderly people to feel rejection of a gift for any reason as personal rejection. It can hurt deeply.
Also, to eat the pork chops would not be “humoring” her, but “honoring” her.
Thanks Barbara for a brain storming topic. I know one buddhists woman, she decided to be celibate because she adopted buddhists philosophy. At the same time, she doesn’t want to divorce, and she told the husband she doesn’t want him to get a girlfriend. She became vegeterian, she told her hubby, if she finds out that he’s eating meat, she will divorce him. She doesn’t want her dogs to eat meat. This is very scary loving kindness wether you are buddhist, catholic,islam or hindu
fineway — your friend needs some guidance. She might need psychiatric help, actually. There is nothing in the Buddha’s teaching that says lay Buddhists have to be celibate, and the historical Buddha himself wasn’t a vegetarian. You friend seems to be going to great extremes, and going to great extremes is not Buddhist practice.
Shes not heartbroken because her grandchild is a vegetarian. She is heartbroken because she put her love into a gift the grandchild wont accept, and she feels useless.
The gift is pork chops remember. And being a vegetarian involves not eating meat. This is the grandchild’s reason for not accepting her gift.
Also, to eat the pork chops would not be humoring her, but honoring her.
Maybe these are not mutually exclusive. Whether it is honouring her or not it is certainly humouring her. People humour old people all the time. They consider them incapable of interaction on an equal or meaningful level. They treat them with pity rather than respect.
Grandma may not be as out of touch as you presume. It’s not impossible that sometime after you have eaten the chops she will find out you are a vegetarian and then feel like a stupid, useless old lady.
donnachadh —
“This is the grandchild’s reason for not accepting her gift.”
Of course, and I understand that you’re saying the grandchild is not deliberately being mean. But what you are emotionally tone deaf to is that in this situation most Grandma’s would still be profoundly sad. So on some level the reason is irrelevant.
You have a disturbing inability to put yourself in Grandma’s place and understand how she would feel. This indicates a serious lack of empathy as well as what’s called “emotional intelligence” in some circles. If you carry this same emotional tone-deafness over to your real-world relationships you’re going to stumble through life hurting a lot of people.
They treat them with pity rather than respect.
That speaks to your attitude and not the action. A genuinely compassionate person would not have that attitude. Seriously, you need to do some work on yourself, dude.
Well, nowadays, grandma may still live for another 20 years.
And she is going to cook you those pork chops every time you visit her – likely causing you to reduce those visits even more.
I think there is never a better time than now to tell Grandma that you don’t eat meat anymore, just as there isn’t a good time to tell her you dropped out of medical school even though her cherished dream was for you to be a doctor just like your grandfather; oh, and by they way, she always wanted you to find a sweet girl like your mother but you’ve finally come out to the rest of your family, and you’re going to not include grandma in that piece of reality?
Isn’t true relationship built on being authentic with each other? And, compare the intimacy grandma will feel with you after you share these things compared with the “not upsetting grandma” visit you likely will have otherwise.
This has been a wonderfully thought provoking thread – thanks, Barbara et al !
HungryForTruth: There’s an important aspect of the scenario that you missed, which is that you haven’t seen Grandma for a very long time and this is a special visit. “A very long time” could have been several years. And, it says, she doesn’t cook much any more, because she’s too frail to get around the kitchen. We don’t know that this won’t be the last meal she ever cooks. Given Grandma’s frailty, you might never see her again.
I agree that if you lived near Grandma and saw her at least a couple of times a year, having a talk with her about your being a vegetarian might be the way to go. But under these circumstances, it is not.
Oh! for goodness sake, what a lot of self-centred heartless people you are – eat the chops, love your grandma, accept her love however it comes and shower her with hugs and kisses and thank her for thinking of you. Love is the important thing here.
This week I was fortunate to attend a talk by the Dalai Lama on Peace and Compassion in Memphis, TN. During the Q & A portion of the event, he was asked about his diet. He stated he had no special diet. He further stated a monk has no kitchen only a begging bowl. He can not demand, his words, what someone puts in his bowl to eat. He can only partake of what has been offered. He made no strong case for being a strict vegetarian.
It would be hard for a Tibetan to be a vegetarian. Tibet is not known for its large crop harvest. I am Buddhist, and a vegetarian. If it was life or death of course I would eat meat. It is not ego, or self pride that I’m vegetarian, but from watching hours on end of what happens to animals that we eat without never thinking that burger was a cow, a living being with feelings. I’m sorry Barb but nothing I have read even gets close to convincing me that granny’s feelings are the only factor we should consider. I’m sorry, but eating the food is an act. It’s acting like the person you were in the past to make her happy. In a sense a lie.
I am Buddhist, and I feel a good one, or at least I try.. I would never go out of my way to harm man or beast. But I also feel that being truthful is a must. I’ll tell you the truth if it hurts your feelings I’m sorry, but it’s the truth. I would never live a lie just to shield people I love from the truth.
Barb I know you don’t agree, I’m sure your going to call me “Dude”, and pick this apart. have fun. this will be my last post on this subject. it’s been fun.
But what you are emotionally tone deaf to is that in this situation most Grandmas would still be profoundly sad.
If you want to say that this particular grandma would be profoundly sad then fine. Most grandma’s would not be profoundly sad. Your scenario (if it includes a heartbroken grandma) is not representative.
As for being ‘emotionally tone deaf’, if I was dealing with one of these unrepresentative grandma’s but failed to alter my behaviour accordingly this would certainly be a problem. Thankfully I am not. I am responding to a hypothetical scenario in which Grandma is supposedly an relatively ‘ordinary’ person.
Of course, because the scenario is hypothetical, there are no contextual clues by which I can use my ‘emotional intelligence’ (or lack thereof) to determine Grandma’s true state.
If the situation were real, and I did determine that Grandma was liable to get heartbroken then I would take this into account. But, in such a case, my responsibility would go beyond eating or not eating some pork chops. It would extend to helping Grandma with her emotional (or other) issues in whatever way I could.
That speaks to your attitude and not the action.
As you said yourself earlier ‘on some level the reason is irrelevant’. Maybe Grandma will find out you are a vegetarian later and then fell pitied and insulted by you and your ‘compassion’.
Most grandma’s would not be profoundly sad.
We’ll have to disagree, but in any event the Grandma in this scenario would be profoundly sad.
Maybe Grandma will find out you are a vegetarian later and then fell pitied and insulted by you and your “compassion”.
See, a genuine bodhisattva wouldn’t have to pretend not to be a vegetarian, because a genuine bodhisattva would understand there is no self to hang the label ‘vegetarian on to. A bodhisattva would be able to just enjoy the pork chops. Continuing to cling to the label “vegetarian” is a profound spiritual disease. Again, stop trying to blame Grandma.
Well have to disagree, but in any event the Grandma in this scenario would be profoundly sad.
Then this scenario cannot demonstrate anything as we are dealing with an unstable grandma without knowing any of the details of her problem.
Then this scenario cannot demonstrate anything as we are dealing with an unstable grandma without knowing any of the details of her problem.
There’s no thing in the scenario that suggests Grandma is unstable. There is only your opinion saying this, and I say you need humanity lessons.
“You cannot feed your blind grandmother.”
– Author unknown, but supposedly Buddhist
“You cannot feed your blind grandmother.”
What is that supposed to mean? It doesn’t sound Buddhist at all.
Perhaps Grandma needs the lessons that the thought that food equals real happiness is a delusion. If one of my grandmothers had gotten very upset that some grandchild wouldnt eat some dish of hers because they didnt like coconut or green beans I would have said, Grandma its good that you are so generous but remember Jesus saying be not attached to things of this world. Jesus said to occasionally fast yet I never hear of Christians skipping a meal. Lets not get upset about material things. One barrier to Liberation is being attached to our societal roles which after all are masks to which we are attached to as some unchanging self. Im a lacto-ovo-vegetarian but if someone has soup with a little chicken stock Ill eat it. But if someone feels bad thinking of the chicken suffering then let them not take the soup. If I were to take robes as a Theravada monk in rural Thailand I would take what is given and eat the meat. But as a lay person I chose not to buy meat and serve vegetarian or dairy products to the monks. One reason Buddha may have allowed the monks to eat meat of animals not killed specifically for them is that a strict vegetarian diet lacks the vitamin B12 and is low in zinc. B12 is important to the proper functioning of the nervous system and thus important for meditation. Zinc is important to the immune system that why at first symptoms of flu or cold take a zinc tablet (but do not take too much zinc permanently, lowers magnesium levels). Now days vegetarians can take vitamin tablets. I tried a vegan diet but I could not maintain health with it.
I know that this conversation has tapered out, and I am not posting this in the interest of restarting any discord, but I do feel like I should share my thoughts on the matter.
The situation listed seems designed to make a choice between two painful experiences, much like ones we are faced with every day. The fact that the author refuses to allow additional input to the situation she has presented is admirable because it mirrors real life, sometimes we are faced with lose/lose situations.
That being said, I think the overall tone used, especially towards the end, casts a negative and shaming light on those who may disagree with the author. This is unfortunate because it detracts from what could be meaningful discussion geared towards mutual enlightenment. People taking thier positions and defending thier “belief,” no matter where they stand. I think the answer lies in considering not just what the Buddha would do, but why he would do it. Enlightenment is not mimickry as much as it is critical thinking, and there is no one answer to this situation that fits everyone that reads it.
I think it would be beneficial for everyone to examine why they would be emotionally distressed by this situation in the first place, and then to think on it for a while before telling anyone else wether they are wrong or right. And certainly before telling someone that they practice Buddhism in a flawed manner.
No, enlightenment is not critical thinking. It is the realization of anatta, the full appreciation that the self is an illusion. In that light, there can be no vegetarians, because there is nothing on which to hang the adjective “vegetarian.” By the same token, there are no non-vegetarians. Any response to the scenario that is predicated on “being” something, e.g., “my principles,” is an unenlightened response.
As for being a choice between two painful experiences — if you are thinking in terms of what is going to cause pain to you, you are being selfish. Think instead of what pain or happiness you might be giving to others, in this case, Grandma. An enlightened being would not find this choice difficult at all. Only a selfish being would find it difficult.
I respect vegetarianism, but when you put your personal feelings, your “principles,” or anything else before consideration of a kindly old grandmother, there’s something seriously wrong with you.