Vegetarian with Exceptions: How Buddhist Dietary Boundries Reflect Their Societal Roles
The picture depicts three Buddhist monks sitting in front of a table, and it seems like they are at the beginning of their meal. The monks are wearing brown and orange kasayas, which are Buddhist robes that symbolize both their monkhood and their devotion to retreating from the secular world. The monks in the picture are performing prayer hands—their palms are pressed together—and their lips are open and might be chanting sutras (Buddhist scriptures) or expressing gratitude for having the meal. In front of each monk, there are two bowls. One of the two bowls is empty, while the other contains pickled vegetables and white rice.
Yet, several things are missing in the picture compared to the dinner table of laypeople. First, there are no utensils on the table. Many Buddhist traditions encourage meditating and reflecting on the source and purposes of having the food before each meal, which could explain the absence of utensils and the monks' hand gestures. Second, the meal seems overly simple and flavorless. Buddhists have strict yet interesting dietary requirements—they are vegetarians except when they are offered meat from animals that are not slaughtered specifically for them. Moreover, there are five vegetables—onions, garlic, chives, green onions, and leeks—that are forbidden in a monk's meal due to their pungency. These vegetables are considered too stimulative and will disturb practitioners' peace and mindfulness. Alcohol and drugs are also seriously banned from Buddhist cuisine due to their effects on mental clarity.
American social anthropologist Mary Douglas developed sociological theories that help explain Buddhists' strictness in dietary regulations. Douglas sees the human body as a bounded system whose functions "afford a source of symbols for other complex structures," such as the society the individual is in (Douglas 2005: 142). People belonging to different societies have different restrictions, and their daily rituals are not just a resolution for personal psychological problems, but symbolize and reflect the laws of their societies. Douglas claims there is no "primacy for the individual's attitude to his own bodily and emotional experience, any more than for his cultural and social experience" (Douglas 2005: 150). Each society has its own distinct rules, beliefs, and taboos, which are reflected in people's strict bodily boundaries—namely, what things are allowed to go in and come out. Regulating what enters or leaves the body also becomes a way of regulating membership in the social world. Douglas raises the example of the Indian caste system, in which a higher caste symbolizes a higher level of bodily purity. The emphasis on the preservation of the purity of caste (bodily transmitted) leads to intense regulation of sex and food. Higher caste female's purity is guarded against lower caste men, and though food production for the higher caste inevitably involves the labor of the lower caste laborers, the cooking process must be entrusted to "pure" hands to ensure the purity of the food.
This framework helps us see how Buddhist dietary rules, too, serve more than personal or spiritual functions—they signal social roles and commitments. Buddhists' refrainment from eating meat is closely connected to their beliefs and practices of compassion. Eating meat involves the slaughtering of animals which brings suffering and bad karma. Furthermore, in Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra, Gautama Buddha says, "There are no beings who have not been one’s mother, who have not been one’s sister through generations of wandering in beginningless and endless saṃsāra. Even one who is a dog has been one’s father, for the world of living beings is like a dancer. Therefore, one's own flesh and the flesh of another are a single flesh, so Buddhas do not eat meat" (Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra, n.d.). Since Buddhists believe in reincarnation, it is possible for a human to reincarnate into a cow, and vice versa. Therefore, eating meat from a cow would be no different from eating meat from a person. Whenever Buddhists have meals, the restriction of their bodies reminds them of the beliefs of their society—to escape from the samsara (the world we are in), to reduce suffering, and to reach enlightenment — while at the same time reminds them of the societal taboos and things that they should not do. The avoidance of consuming the five pungent vegetables, alcohol, and drugs is not merely caused by an individual's psychological discomfort but is the result of adopting a whole set of social and moral codes. One's dietary habits also mark their inclusion or exclusion in the Buddhist society—monks and nuns who eat meat would have a bad reputation among the community, are considered to be less devoted to the Buddhist path, and be either punished or expelled by their monastery.
Besides regulations on which food they eat, Buddhists also pay attention to where the food comes from. Since most food for monks and nuns comes from donations and offerings from lay disciples, they are expected to accept any food offered to them to express gratitude and respect for the generosity of lay people. The expression of gratitude even loosens the vegetarian restrictions on Buddhists—most Buddhist schools allow practitioners to have meat when lay disciples offer them meat from animals that are not slaughtered specifically for them. This loosening of regulations of what goes into a Buddhist's body corresponds with a deeper element in the Buddhist society, that the lay followers are the fundamental support for monks and nuns. Because Buddhists retreat from the secular world and practice Buddhism in temples, their main income is from laymen's donations. Due to the cruciality of lay people's support, the Buddhist society alters their dietary restrictions to express their respect and thankful attitude to their lay supporters. Such change also reflect a complex and mutually dependent social relationship between lay disciples and buddhist monks and nuns—the former depends on the latter for spiritual and religious reaons, while the latter relies on the former for livelihood. In a monastic meal, we find not just nourishment, but a living expression of ethics, community, and the boundaries of the society.
