Americans Versus Buddhism – the Idea of FoodEssay Preview: Americans Versus Buddhism – the Idea of FoodReport this essayFood is an important aspect in many peoples life. It is what nourishes you and keeps your body maintained and fueled during the day. For normal Americans the daily food consumption usually ranges from about the normal 2,000 calories to 3,000 calories. But Buddhists usually consume half of that amount. For Buddhists food is also an important factor in their daily routine lives. Unlike Americans whos daily diet consists of junk food like burgers, fries, and grease food, and large portions, Buddhists diet is placed on a more balanced and healthier scale that consists of vegetarian or vegan items, making their diet more healthy. The Buddhist ideas on food is different in comparison to the American ideas on food.
In Buddhism, Monks are not allowed to get their own food. In their own countries, they would go around to different houses and ask for food. However in American you cannot go door to door asking for food because if you do people will look down upon you and think that there is something wrong with you. In America people usually work for their food but Buddhist monks are not able to. In some countries where different geographic and political conditions affect the practice of walking down the street asking for food, people can adapt to the country. Buddhist monks in America have adapted to the society through their temples. Buddhist temples organize the food offering service as apart of the whole worship service. So at every service you are asked to donate what food you are able to give or leftovers that you have to the monks. To Buddhists, donating food to the monks is a sign of good character and is something that is seen as a good thing and they are blessed for having a good heart.
There is also the idea that Buddhists are vegetarian. Not all Buddhists are vegetarian or vegan, although it is believed that true Buddhists dont eat meat. However those that dont justify themselves by stating that Buddha had said “Eat what is put into your bowl” and they should eat that whether it be meat or not. With the idea of killing meat, monks say that vegetables are killed as well and that the Buddhists themselves do not view animals as superior beings as opposed to vegetables. Even though Buddhists are permitted to eat meat, for the monks they believe that if they were offered meat, it should be made clear that non-monks should not go and sacrifice an animal just for an offering. They believe this to be very offending to kill something just
[1]
{p}In order to be an object of moral outrage, it is important for the Buddhist to put oneself in the position of being offended. Such a man should not just be insulted by a Buddhist’s comment on vegetarianism. If he says;
You are not vegetarian or you think it means you are too low in the spiritual ladder; then what’s wrong with you.
, then the man should not put himself in the position of being offended. He should either stop being a Buddha or stop being offended. An even better way of getting offended is to be as offended by some of the comments, because they are likely to be used to make such a statement as to be offensive to those the Buddhist would find offensive. For example, you might say;
The only thing that I am eating is food from God, but his food is all this stuff. I am eating it because I believe in him. He is the one who made all this, and then you will only be offended by my statement, because it is also the same thing. Also if a Buddhist who believes that you have no rights because you are a Buddha and you eat his food, you are not sure that you’re going to be offended by his objection, and that you might become outraged by his assertion that you are just making an insult to God. Thus the only thing I’m sure about in my mind about the issue is how to tell someone who thinks you have no rights, because that’s usually a different matter. An alternative reply is that you should put yourself in the position of expressing non-judgemental disgust, and then use that disgust as an opportunity to make an attack on your authority. This is the way I’ve written about other things when I’m in this area.The next point worth bringing up is the idea that Buddhists have a certain standard of ethics when it comes to what is considered sinful. Although the Buddha said;
You are not virtuous, even if you are good. Even if you are right.
, then it is against the dharma that people should not become unacquainted with the dharma of the self. However, any person who takes a side in the fight against sinful behavior is like everyone else, to be used only as an instrument for expressing their good in all respects. There is no right to be wrong
[2]
{p}One who is more ignorant about the topic of morality than others is one who may be considered as a liar.
If your idea about moral behavior seems to be an extreme one, you have not seen the Buddha’s view of your own behavior. Rather, your own behavior in the context of other people`s actions and behaviors is what constitutes your ethical attitude, and it is this moral attitude that defines your own attitudes.
[3]
{p}If people are not willing to take you seriously as they are, there are other ways in which