Veganism Is Not Enough
Written by Pedro Kaiten Piquero
Contrary to what it might seem, the title of this brief article is not an invitation to extremism. In Mahāyāna Buddhism, we take refuge in the so-called Four Great Bodhisattva Vows, the second of which states: “Illusions are inexhaustible, I promise to end them all.” This premise, that we must strive to overcome any deceptive point of view, humbly knowing that it is an endless process due to our limitations in the relative world, could be the basis of Buddhist compassion. From my perspective, Buddhism is not a doctrine in itself, but a tradition that seeks to transcend all dogmatism through a universal law or teaching that we call Dharma. We are all ignorant and we all err. Of course, those who harm non-human animals are unaware of the consequences of their actions, or, despite this, deliberately choose to do so in accordance with their karmic preferences. But we too are unaware when we understand that this unconsciousness of non-vegans can be fueled by another poison: that of our own aversion toward non-vegans.
Most of us were not born vegan. We gradually discovered the terrible consequences of our inappropriate actions on others who, though they live in different body-minds, have the same right as we do to live fully and happily. So why do I suggest that the Dharma is and should go beyond veganism? Because Buddhism, I repeat, does not seem to be an intellectual canon, but rather a path of emancipation toward ultimate freedom, especially for ourselves.
Veganism is, in my view, a necessary condition for the development of compassion for all sentient beings, but it is insufficient. Excluding those who cause pain to others, entering into a struggle with them, will only spread our suffering and dissatisfaction among other animals (in this case, humans). I'm not suggesting that we should support, justify, or promote the mistakes of those who perpetrate the discomfort of nonhuman animals, but perhaps it would be advisable to realize the ignorance to which we were once a part. This, for me, is true compassion. Being "too vegan,” in the contraction of a thought that by definition generates opposites, could be a problem in the inconvenient confrontation. It would perhaps create another wall of dogma in which, once again, we would be imprisoned by our own intellect. When we are "vegan,” as with any mental label, however inevitable, we generate an "enemy to be defeated." In this case, non-vegans. But what if the non-vegan were simply someone to be sympathized with, included, and helped?
Most people who buy animal products are unaware of the lamentable path they take through the anguish and terror of the animals they consume, a dissociative psychological process magnificently detailed by Dr. Melanie Joy. The same people who are unable to empathize with the agony and hell of abuse are clearly victims of their own suffering. Slaughterers suffer. Customers suffer in their oblivion. Bullfighters, whether they know it or not, do so as well. Disconnection from oneself leads to a lack of empathy for others. Human beings, naturally, like all existences, are Buddha (hongaku, or innate enlightenment). When we stray from our true selves (busshō, or Buddha nature), we condemn ourselves to suffering and to causing suffering. Therefore, we preserve and promote our Buddhist practices so that, within our limited possibilities, they may be of help to all sentient beings.
In my experience, the motivation that drives a vegan to turn against another human being (besides anger, hatred, and sometimes revenge) can resemble that of a person in deep despair who contemplates ending their own life. Both stem from a fictitious sense of separation, produced by the limited structures of thought and perception. This leads them to assume that when the object of their distress disappears — “animal abusers” in the case of the vegan, and “oneself” in the case of the person in despair — their affliction, and that of those around them, will cease. Unfortunately, however, this view is too limited: when the suicidal person perpetrates their aggression against themselves, out of that same illusory sense of separation from an "other," they favor and expand the suffering of those they have left behind. When the vegan creates a conflict with the non-vegan, they indirectly encourage one animal to turn against another, and the latter will likely reinforce its unjust judgment as a defense strategy.
So, what kind of nonviolence do we promote toward animals when we detest those who are wrong about them? Ahimsā, or nonviolence, is not an exercise that only includes nonhuman animals. In my opinion, as Buddhist practitioners, we should perhaps open our minds and hearts, necessarily including veganism, and rise far above them, breaking through the barriers of “veganism” and “non-veganism,” “Buddhism” and “non-Buddhism.” Ultimately, we cannot be “right-wing” or “left-wing,” “Buddhist” or “non-Buddhist,” without limiting our boundless existence. What we in Zen Buddhism call “killing the Buddha” will truly be the fulfillment of the third of the Three Pure Precepts of our Mahāyāna tradition: liberating all sentient beings from suffering, especially from that which we may cause them.
