Sex, Sin and Zen: A Buddhist Exploration of Sex.

I was honored to review a copy of Brad Warner's new book titled, Sex, Sin and Zen: A Buddhist Exploration of Sex from Celibacy to Polyamory and Everything in Between. I have yet to finish the book but it's a page turner, eye opener and refreshing expose on the confluence of Buddhism and sexuality. As someone who has long had sexual scars from the upbringing of the religion of my youth; I have long contemplated upon how as a Buddhist I should approach sexuality.

Until this book, most of what I have read about Buddhism and sexuality has come from celibate monks and nuns. These monastics are some of the most enlightened people on Earth yet it is still difficult for me to take sexual advice from someone who has probably never known sexuality in much of any form.

The other obstacle I have had difficulty navigating at times when dealing with sexuality and Buddhism is that it is often intertwined with traditional Asian culture, which sometimes makes it confusing for a western Buddhist (and when I say "western Buddhist" I include westerners of Asian backgrounds that might feel they can relate to their western culture sometimes more than their Asian one. Not that all do, or should. I'm just pointing out that not all "western Buddhists" are white). Anyway, It's not that I find Asian culture inferior in the least. It is a beautiful culture that I admire deeply and happily learn from daily. In fact, in many ways I find much of what Asian culture has to offer to be desperately lacking in western societies like here in America.

Still, when it comes to sexuality it was very helpful (for me) to hear it talked about in western terms, with western references to western pop culture--and from someone of my generation, Brad Warner. It's just the culture that I understand most. Please don't think I assume that only westerners understand sexuality because that's not my intention. I'm simply talking about in the way I understand most--keep that in mind. I don't mean to insult someone, so if you find anything in this post offensive; please forgive my ignorance. Something to note from the book, (I'm not dishing out all the saucy stuff here -- you have to buy the book--sorry) Warner is coming from Zen Buddhism, which sometimes is less rigid about sexuality than perhaps some other sects. In addition, it is Zen from Japan, which Warner reminds us often allows monastics to marry. So, keep that context in mind when deciding if to read it or not.

Also, a quick warning to those who might have "virgin ears" (to throw in a pun) when it comes to sexuality. This book doesn't speak about it in medical terms, and thankfully, so to those of us who aren't doctors. Warner, refreshingly, for me, uses modern terminology and examples that permeate the younger generations today. Yes, it is sometimes makes you blush but since when did sexuality become a subject you could address properly without a little sensual feeling? I adore the monks but when I hear them talk about sexuality it's been so denuded (sorry, another pun) that you can hardly tell if what they're addressing is in fact, sex!! It seems that sexuality is one topic that some Buddhists feel is taboo or unimportant. Notice I said, "some" Buddhists--not all, of course see it this way.

This book reminds me of the old, American, book, "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Sex but Were Afraid to Ask" that taught a lot of Americans about sexual intimacy. Except that this is the Zen Buddhist, modern punk version!! Warner addresses everything from "Are Zen Buddhists allowed to masturbate? Are they allowed to look at pornography? Is there wiggle room with celibacy? Or, Sex and Karma, Sex and Suffering, Sex and No-Self. As well as, Zen Dating and Marriage Advice. And even talk about "mindful sex!!" Incidentally, I like Warner's take on mindfulness in this book where he says perhaps a better phrase is "being present" as, "When you say, 'I am mindful of (fill in the blank),' you are already creating separation between you and your activities. True mindfulness is when you let go of the idea of mindfulness and just do whatever it is you happen to be doing" (emphasis added by James).

Warner believes as I do that it isn't the sex itself that's a problem but the clinging to sex. Or becoming so attached to sex that you can't enjoy anything else in life. Too often sex gets thrown out at the same time as the desire for it but sex can be engaged in with total awareness of everyone involved and based on the middle-way. His teacher, Gudo Nishijima Roshi rephrases the third precept as, "Do not desire too much" rather than "Do not misuse sexuality." Bodhidharma, the fifth-century Buddhist monk traditionally cited as the founder of the Zen school, said, "There is nothing to grasp. Not giving rise to attachment is the precept of not misusing sexuality."

The last thing I want to address before leaving you swirling with sex and Zen in your mind is that not all of this book is just about sex. It's so much more than that. It's above all a book of how to enjoy sexuality as a Zen Buddhist and do it with doing the least amount of harm as possible to you and others. This is where Right Intention comes in. If your intention toward sexuality is out of love and not pure selfishness then enjoy!! Buddhism isn't just austerity and reverence after all!! Believe it or not, (after seeing some of the dour, serious and painful faces on some American Buddhists in sanghas) Buddhists do allow for fun and happiness!! If someone tells you that Buddhism is no fun at all and nothing but pain then I might recommend you read Brad Warner's book.

That's all I can say because I want you to get the full barrage of Warner's nod to the sensual side of Zen Buddhist life. To give away any more of the saucy bits would be to ruin the fun!! I highly recommend this book to anyone with a sense of humor, the ability to not take life too seriously and a sincere desire to better understand sexuality in Zen Buddhism. I give it a 9.5 out of 10--one of my favorite contemporary Buddhists books in a long while.

~Peace to all beings~

Are You a Buddhist, and Does it Matter?

I get questions from people from time to time about how they should "become" a Buddhist. This isn't a silly question because a lot of religions have a very intricate process one must go through before they can call themselves a member of that faith. Unless you're becoming a monk there isn't exactly the same process in Buddhism. Traditionally a practitioner became a monk after taking formal refuge in the "Three Jewels" (The Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha). The idea of refuge is vital to understanding these. By coming to the monastery the novice was renouncing the failed appeasements of the world and embracing the shelter or refuge and help of the Buddha's example, his teachings (the Dharma) and the community of monks (Sangha).

It is the same for us today. Taking refuge in the Three Jewels isn't something to check off your "Things to do before I become a Buddhist" list but rather a personal acknowledgment that your life is out of control (like is the case for all of us) and that you need help. The refuges are meant to remind us that there is a way out and that it has been done before by Buddha but that the way out requires complete surrender. However, it's not a surrender to Buddha himself but rather to his example because Buddha isn't a savior like Jesus. We are saying, "O.k., I give up in trying to find relief externally, and figuring this out on my own. So, I am trusting in Buddha's example that it can help me as well." So, in essence every time we recite refuge in the jewels we are reminding ourselves of that reality. For, It is only when we let go that we find true freedom. Or, as the wise (yet rather crazy), "Master" Tyler Durden says in the movie Fight Club, "It's only after we've lost everything that we are free to do anything."

Then there are of course the "The Five Precepts" vows, which are a list of commitments that have been shown before by well-known monks to reduce suffering but they aren't a "naughty list." There isn't anyone that's going to be checking up on you if you don't keep all the precepts because, frankly, that would be counterproductive because in Buddhism there is no one that you need to please, appease or obey. Buddhism is the classic, "D.I.Y" or "Do it Yourself" motto because no amount of bowing, vowing or wowing is going to end your suffering. You and your karma are your own judge and savior.

I'm not saying you won't need teachers and other helpful guides such as the Four Noble Truths and the Eight-Fold Path. I'm simply saying that being a Buddhist is not about checking off boxes on a list and off you go to Buddhist retirement. If you look for Buddha--you won't find him anywhere but inside you. That means that to be a Buddhist, one only has to be a human being who has seen the useless help that the external world offers and actively live your life to find relief from within yourself with the example of Buddha as your guide. You have to live it to be it is another way of saying it.

Another Buddhist I was reading today inspired this post with a story about her desire to "become" a Buddhist and her teachers response to that desire. She wanted to know when she'd be ready to become a Buddhist. Her teacher wisely replied, "You know you're ready when becoming a Buddhist is simply a recognition of something that has already happened." So, perhaps the question isn't, "How do I become a Buddhist" but rather, "How do I reduce my suffering?" Because it is that goal, which defines most "Buddhists." If you follow the Buddha's example, seek to put his teachings into practice and ask for help, support and guidance from the wider Buddhist community (Sangha) then I'm sure you'll have your question answered by your own actions.

~Peace to all beings~

The Dharma Police

There is a post over at my friend Kyle's new blog about the precepts. I posted a comment, which I wanted to turn into a post of my own here about the subject because it is one that interests me a lot. I firmly believe that one can still drink a beer now and then and still be a very good, kind and serious Buddhist. As well as still take the precepts seriously. I aspire to lose weight but I still eat a cookie now and then. Does that mean all my efforts to eat healthy the rest of the time a waste and insincere? Of course not. Not everyone is able to commit to the precepts completely. So is it fair to say people who don't steal, kill, misuse sex or lie but do drink or smoke a cigar or even a joint from time to time aren't serious Buddhist practitioners??? They may not be eligible for monk hood but how many of us can say that anyway?

If someone isn't ready to give up alcohol completely then leave them be. Wouldn't it be better to encourage their Buddhist practice in other ways where the are making progress? Rather than say it's black and white and since you still drink or smoke you're not a sincere Buddhist? To do so isn't realistic, compassionate and in fact it's hypocritical. How about not eating meat? I keep all the precepts quite well except for the occasional drink, cigar or joint. Yet someone else might keep them all except still eat meat, which in my view isn't in keeping with the first precept of not killing. However, I would never call someone who does eat meat an "insincere" or "bad Buddhist." I have no moral ground to stand on to make such an accusation nor do many in the Buddhist community.

Personally, I dislike eating meat, however, I don't jump into someone else's underwear to chastise them for eating meat. It's none of my business and I know I don't like people being the "Dharma Police" with me. So if we're going to play Dharma Police then pray tell me, which of the two people is a "better Buddhist?" The non-meat eater of the non-intoxicant taker? Neither. We all have struggles with at least one of the precepts. Except maybe the Dalai Lama but even many monks I'm sure can't keep them all. We need to remember that none of us are living how we should because if we were we won't be here in samsara right now. I do think the precepts are good and helpful but they are not commandments except perhaps for monks. Rather they are recommendations on how best to live so that we reduce suffering as much as possible.

The foundation of the fifth precept is about intoxication and not everyone who has a beer or two after work get intoxicated. Not everyone drinks to the point of acting like a fool and in a headless manner. Yes, it's true that it has that potential but there is such a thing as moderation and the majority of people who drink, smoke a cigar or joint do so responsibly. The other issue at hand here is that not everyone's body is the same. Some people can't ingest these substances without doing it to excess, however, many can handle them without acting stupidly. For example, I am able to drink or smoke a joint without going crazy. However, I know that caffeine is one substance that I can't ingest much because the caffeine can increase my bouts of mania or actually trigger one to where I get anxious to the point of real suffering.

So, I stay away from caffeine for the most part but do I condemn the thousands of monks and millions of practitioners who drink tea or coffee? Of course not--It's not my business nor do I believe responsible use of such substances is always bad or a hindrance to our practice. Caffeine is very much an intoxicant and addictive if misused yet traditionally Buddhists not only don't add it to the intoxicant list; It's encouraged to stay alert and awake for meditation. Drugs are drugs so if we're going to condemn people who drink alcohol or smoke marijuana then we need to say the same for caffeine drinkers. If you have a problem with a substance then don't ingest it and get help if you need it. However, not everyone who ingests these things is doing them irresponsibly or dangerously.

And what about people who over-eat, which is damaging their body to the point of risking heart disease, high cholesterol, high blood pressure and obesity, which can all be deadly. Food can be an intoxicant because chocolate for example is stimulant with all the sugar in it. Excessive sugar intake can cause diabetes, which is another serious and harmful disease, which like heart disease, etc. causes people a lot of suffering. Yet who amongst us would frown upon obese people from attentinding sangha or trying to practice the Dharma to the best of their abilities? Wouldn't it be better to see people find relief in the Dharma even if it's not total relief than compeltely alienate them by comdeming them and calling them insincere, irresponsible or immoral Buddhists???

It's not realistic or our place to say people don't take the precepts seriously if they can't keep all of them 100% of the time but have a weakness with one or two of them. Even if you think it's a "sin" I would remind you of what Jesus said to the crowd quick to stone a woman who, "sinned" "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." If we are following them as best we can but still falling short like most of us then how can we not be sincere Buddhists? Who can say that they honestly keep them all at every moment of every day? None of us. I'm not encouraging killing by any means but even murderers aren't turned away from the Dharma while they serve their sentence for their crime. There are prison sanghas who embrace these folks. Yet who would call their interest in the Dharma "insincere?" Who wants to cast the first stone? I bet we could look into your life and find some stuff that you're not proud of or that would be objectionable to someone.

If you're not keeping each one of those precepts all the time then you don't have a leg to stand on when being so harsh toward others. Why not spend our time bolstering each other's practice and finding where we can come together and inspire each other rather than going around and keeping track of who's "sincere" and who isn't based on how they live their life? If the precepts were to be followed by the letter of the law then they'd be commandments. We all have to be careful not to think we're squeaky clean when it comes to our behavior. Even IF you keep all the precepts all the time I can assure you that you're doing something else that isn't "Buddha-like." Or will do something like that at some point between now and when you die. If you were doing everything, "right" then you'd be enlightened on the edge of never being reborn. I doubt many of us are in THAT boat. At least those who might not be perfect in your eyes have found the Dharma in the first place, which while they might realize enlightenment in this life at least they are trying their best to better themselves.

We all do what we can and it's not our job to question the sincerity of others unless we're enlightened like Buddha. At the same time I think it's admirable that many keep the alcohol and intoxicant precept. Just don't get too holier-than-thou about it all or I might rescind my admiration. Ha!! The reason that I think that the precepts are recommendations is in part because Buddha knew that not everyone could keep them but he didn't want to turn people away from his teachings that would bring them relief from suffering regardless. Perhaps keeping the precepts 100% and 100% of the time is the ideal and something we should all aspire to. However, moderation is a key in Buddhism too. Buddhism doesn't require us to be perfect nor does it say the asceticism of completely giving up worldly pleasures is skillful either. Buddha taught moderation and those of us who do still enjoy some worldly pleasures should at least get some credit for doing it in moderation rather than condemned as "faux Buddhists" or whatever else nonsense might be said about us. Let's just try and be more kind and compassionate toward each other. We're all doing our best.

~Peace to all beings~

Mental Illness: Meditation or Medication? Often, Both.

This is a long post but an important one because it touches on an issue--mental illnes, which some in spiritual circles choose to ignore. As many of you know I have been living with schizoaffective disorder for most of my life and have found great refuge, relief of symptoms and calm from Buddhism and meditation in particular. Of course, we all are "mentally ill" or else we wouldn't be here in samsara but some have severe, biological mental illnesses and require a hybrid approach of therapies and practices.

I notice that the more I meditate the easier it is to deal with my condition. Yet meditation alone isn't enough in my situation because despite meditating I still am debilitated by disabling symptoms such as paranoia, hallucinations, delusions (psychiatric delusions such as being convinced that you are the most horrible person on Earth), mood swings and chronic depression.

Thus I have found medications help fill the void and basically keep me alive because my depressive episodes easily lead to suicidal thoughts. I have found an excellent psychiatrist who has found a great balance of medications to keep myself as stable as can be expected outside finding a cure to the disease. In addition I talk regularly with a psychotherapist to help me keep track of my mood swings and give me tips on how to better manage my illness through establishing routines and developing other techniques. So I was excited when I read an excellent article in the current Buddhadharma magazine that arrived in my mailbox today about this very subject:

When Buddhism first came to the West, many teachers and practitioners initially dismissed psychotherapy as superficial, unnecessary and possibly counterproductive. As time went on...psychotherapy's relationship to spiritual practice started to undergo a reevaluation, and the two disciplines began to intermingle a bit more. In fact, many therapists and meditation teachers now agree that meditation and psychotherapy can be mutually facilitating. Meditators seem to progress more quickly in theraphy, while psychotherapy can improve the effectiveness of their meditation.

James: I am one of those meditators who have progressed more quickly in therapy thanks in part to my meditation practice. In fact, when I come into therapy and am having a difficult time with my mental illness she always asks if I'm meditating and the answer is often, "no." So in a lot of ways my meditation practice is a type of medication though I still do have episodes despite meditating. When I meditate on a regular basis it takes some of the severity out of my symptoms. That said, while meditation is very effective it isn't the entire solution and I think we Buddhists must admit that meditation isn't the solution to everthing--especially when medical issues are involved. It is true that meditation has been shown to reduce blood pressure, induce relaxation and other health benefits but it can not solve severe, biological mental illness symptoms in total.

Combining meditation and psychotherapy makes sense if we appreciate how they work in complementary ways. For the most part, meditation focuses primarily on developing capacities such as concentration and awareness, whereas psyschotherpay focuses primarily on changing the objects of awareness, such as emotions and beliefs. Of course there are significant overlaps, but this complimentarity suggests why combining both approaches can be very helpful. Meditative qualities can facilitate psychotherapeutic healing of painful patterns, while the psychotherapeutic healing of these painful patterns can reduce the disruption of spiritual practice.

James: Medication has toned down the volume of distracting stimuli in my head such as the hallucinations and calmed my nerves to enable me the opportunity to actually be able to practice. Before medications I wouldn't have had the patience to meditate due to manic episodes that kept my thoughts racing too fast to have the concentration needed to sit even for a few minutes. It's like trying to do meditation effectively after drinking four pots of coffee in an hour. Either that or I'd be so depressed that I couldn't get out of bed let alone have the motivation and intention to meditate.

So the medication has lowered the volume and reduced the static in my brain to put me in a position where meditation is actually even an option and be able to not just do it but find great benefit from it. I was drowning without medication and the water was up to my mouth and nose so the medications have drained the water down to my chest level. So while it's difficult to walk through chest deep water at least I can now (for the most part) breath comfortably, which gives me the freedom to meditate and have the ability to make progress upon the path that otherwise would be basically impossible. When it comes to using medication in combination with a Buddhist practice there are basically too camps according to the author of this article. First, the purists and second the pragmatists (I fall into pragmatist category):

Spiritual purists argue that if mental suffering is fundamentally spiritual and karmic, spiritual practice alone is appropriate to treat it. Moreover they are concerned that medication may dull or derail spiritual practice. They also worry that medications may reduce or distort awareness, and thereby make practice more difficult. In this view, medications can be novel forms of the "mind clouding intoxicants" prohibited by the lay precepts to which many Buddhists practitioners adhere. Therefore, taking these modern pharmacological agents is tantamount to violating this precept.

James: Let me say that I have found personally (and I've read that this is the case for many others) that my medications do the opposite of "dull or derail spiritual practice," "reduce or distort awarness." Without them I was so depressed, mislead by hallucinations (voices) and detached by dissociation that I was a nihilist believing in nothing and wanting the world to explode to end everyone's misery. At least that's what I thought at the time in my deluded mind.

It wasn't until I started to lower the static in my head through medications that I saw the benefits of spirituality and sought out Buddhism. Before then my mind was clogged and preoccupied with constant mental torment and anguish. It simply didn't have the stability at the time for a spiritual practice. Thus is was before medications that I had a dulled spiritual practice--not after. The medications increased my awareness of reality rather than dull it as they helped sharpen my concentration, focus and attention (I have Attention Deficit Disorder as well) to enable me to actually have a chance at understanding concepts like mindfulness. I know for certain that I'd be spiritual lost still without the addition of medication to give me a somewhat stable mind to build a spiritual foundation upon.

By contrast, pragmatists hold that spiritual practice alone is simply insufficient, or at least not optimal, for healing all mental suffering. While not denying the validity of some purist concerns, pragmatists argue that certain problems and pathologies respond best to other therapies, and one of those therapies can be medication.

James: Buddhism can indeed be more than enough for the regular depression and anxiety that occur with living in samsara. However, those diagnosed with a severe biological mental illness that involves chemical imbalances within the brain need the additional help that comes with proper medication and therapeutic monitoring. It can be very dangerous and irresponsible to prevent someone with severe deperssion from seeking psychiatric help because suicide is a very real threat and should never, EVER be ignored or blown off.

People with a severe mental illness who do not seek medication are usually playing with a loaded gun that could very easily go off in the form of suicide. Some people can get by with herbal supplements and vitamins but most people with severe mental troubles need stronger medicine. I tried the "natural route" and it didn't even cut the symptoms much at all.

The author who is a professor of psychiatry (and a Buddhist) did a study with Buddhist practitioners with suffer from mental illness: Our team of researchers, all physicians and long-term meditators, investigated a group of nineteen Buddhist practioneers (thirteen women and six men) diagnosed with major depression. These practioneers had all been doing meditation, mainly vipassana, for at least three years, had participated in two or more weeklong retreats, and had used antidepressants in the last two years.

Most of our subjects reported that antidepressants helped them with multiple emotional, motivational, and cognitive functions. Emotional changes were consistent with an antidepressant effect. The painful emotions of anger and sadness decreased significantly, but fear showed a smaller response. The positive emotions of happiness, joy, love, and compassion all increased, as did self-esteem. Subjects also felt calmer and that their awareness was clearer. One would expect this kind of result, given that the subjects were no longer wrestling with intense, painful emotions.

Clearly the large majority of these meditators felt that they, and their spiritual practitice, benefited significantly from taking antidepressants. Several subjects reported that the antidepressants enabled them to recommence or significantly improve their meditation and spiritual practice.

James: So while there still is no cure for schizoaffective disorder and while I still suffer from hallucinations, paranoia, bipolar, etc., the medications have given me my life back to where I can pursue things like spritituality. It has allowed me sharpen my awareness of reality and this life whereas before I was living in a kind of fog and everything was out of focus. So I can attest to the benefits of psychotherapy and medications. Thus, when added with meditation and other Buddhist practices it forms a powerful combination that has helped me greatly.

It's time that we realize that interdepenence includes science helping spirituality and spirituality helping science. The two working together can accomplish great things and don't necessarily have to be at odds. Sure there are some tensions between the two groups but there are areas where they fit perfectly and accent each other to benefit a great many people.

~Peace to all beings~

Gay Men and Straight Women Share Brain Detail.

LONDON, June 17, 2008 (Reuters) — Gay men and straight women share some characteristics in the area of the brain responsible for emotion, mood and anxiety, researchers said on Monday in a study highlighting the potential biological underpinning of sexuality. Brain scans also showed the same symmetry among lesbians and straight men, the researchers wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Brain scans of 90 volunteers showed that the brains of heterosexual men and homosexual women were slightly asymmetric with the right hemisphere slightly larger than the left, Ivanka Savic and Pers Lindstrom wrote. The brains of gay men and heterosexual women were not.

James: This comes as no surprise to me but it is very interesting none the less. Buddhism has been more progressive than many other religions in regards to sexual orientation for the most part. There isn't usually condemning of homosexuals by Buddhists but instead treating them as equals to heterosexuals, as it should be. This view is still radical today as most religions still see homosexuality as very taboo and "evil."

The precept about avoiding sexual misconduct focuses on avoiding causing harm and suffering but does not single out homosexuality, bisexuality or other sexual orientations for being "bad" or deviant. Everyone is advised how to handle sexuality in a compassionate and loving way regardless of sexual orientation.

In fact one of the most revered figures in Buddhism, Avalokiteshvara is often seen as androgynous. In the form of Avalokiteshvara this Bodhisattva is seen as a man but when referred to as Guan Yin (Kuan Yin/Kannon) he/she is seen as a woman. This makes total sense to me as Avalokiteshvara/Guan Yin is seen as the Bodhisattva of compassion and thus seems perfectly natural as that compassion is spread to all beings equally regardless of gender and sexual orientation.

Avalokiteshvara/Kuan Yin is literally the embodiment of non-duality in regards to sexuality.

This is not to say though that homosexuality/bisexuality/intersexuality is automatically seen as acceptable in predominately Buddhist countries. Social and cultural discrimination of homosexuals is found in these countries as they are in most places.

I'd be really interested in reading more about this and about more studies of this nature. The more science learns the more I find it has in common with Buddhism.

~Peace to all beings~

Earth Day, Buddhism and Vegetarianism.

Today is the day in America that we celebrate our beautiful and life-giving planet Earth which hosts us as guests. Yet we aren't often being very nice guests with our treatment of this very environment that keeps us alive and thriving. So on this Earth Day I would like to address the connection between vegetarianism and the environment. If you strongly disagree with vegetarianism and don't wish to hear how eating meat impacts or environment then you might want to avoid this post. This is a subject that I am passionate about and have mentioned often here. I am trying to do my part to help understand how our eating habits affect our well-being both physically, socially and spiritually.

The first precept in Buddhism encourages no killing and that can very much be applied to our diet. By switching to a vegetarian lifestyle we can greatly help save the environment in a big way.
Farm animals take up more water than vegetables/gains, taking nearly half of our water supply and 80% of our land. Animals raised for eating consume 90% of the soy, 80% of the corn crop and 70% of the grain. According to the Water Education Foundation, it takes 2,464 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef in California. This is the same amount of water you would use if you took a seven-minute shower every day for six entire months. In contrast, only 25 gallons of water are needed to produce one pound of wheat.

David Pimentel from Cornell University explained it this way, 40 calories of fossil fuel are needed to produce one calorie of protein from feedlot beef while only two calories of fossil fuel are needed to produce one calorie of protein from tofu. Adopting a vegan diet actually does more to reduce emissions than driving a hybrid car! Methane may be the most serious gas given off from livestock. In fact the meat industry is the number one source of methane throughout the world, releasing over 100 million tons a year. Methane is a gas that traps heat in the atmosphere and causes the earth’s temperature to rise. Noam Mohr in his report on global warming says, “methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.” The summery being that raising animals for food is much less efficient than the growing of crops.

In addition, clear cutting of our precious rainforest's to raise animal meat is devastating to the overall environment for many reasons: The rainforest's clean our air, provide medicinal products, maintain a large biodiversity and act as a heat regulator and water pump for the environment.

They release moisture into the atmosphere which returns to the ground as rain. When the forest is cleared, the water cycle is disrupted, temperatures increase, droughts become common, and eventually deserts may form. For example, the drought in the Sahelian belt (south of the Saharah Desert), has been attributed to deforestation in West Africa. Estimates suggest that tropical deforestation currently contributes at least 19% of greenhouse gas emissions. Tropical forests have been described as "the lungs of the Earth". However in mature primary forest, storage and release of carbon is in balance. Carbon-dioxide consumed during photosynthesis is equalled by that released when organic matter decays. A standing forest acts as a store or sink of carbon. On the other hand, when forests are burned or logged and the debris left to decay, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere.

Rainforest's and other forests also help reduce and prevent flooding, soaking up water like a sponge. Without those forests soil erosion increases which adds to a leaching of life giving minerals. In general, our trees are vital resources in reducing global warming and maintaining the fragile balance that enables sustainable life possible. The devastation of our forests directly contribute to increasing animals suffering by destroying their habitats within our forests they are driven to less sustaining land and eventually extinction. It isn't just our forests that suffer, our oceans are damaged by over-fishing, the destruction of plant life important to animal survival along rivers and water born diseases that threaten both human and animal life.

Vegetarianism is following the middle path because it makes it more possible to consume only what we need and reduce our negative impact on a planet which we share with so many other sentient beings. We humans arrogantly think too often that we are the center of this planet and that the environment is simply something to consume and fulfill our cravings.
However, we are learning the painful lesson as to just how fragile the life sustaining environment really is. A healthy environment maintains the balance of life that is crucial to all life on this planet and that balance is the Earth's version of the middle path. We cause great suffering when we veer off that environmental middle path.

Vegetarianism is a way to over-come our desires for less sustainable foods that aren't necessary to man's survival. In Buddhism we know the danger and suffering that awaits us when we over-indulge in our desires and our lust for meat is destroying our bodies and our very home. We are acting like parasites that suck all the life out of an organism and then move onto the next one but we are quickly running out of resources to sustain that type of living. It is quite possible that our rampant consumer economy and lifestyle choices could very well be our own down-fall, we are quite possibly slowly killing ourselves and many other innocents lives--those of the animals. See, animals do not over-consume their resources, they take only what is needed and should be examples for us in how to maintain sustainability. As we know, we are forever linked to the animals and so as they die off, so do we.

The Buddha was greatly impacted and connected with the environment as he spent much of his time in the forests and wilderness. In addition, he developed a peaceful relationship with animals throughout his life, even stopping a charging elephant with his peaceful presence and it was in a deer park that Buddha taught his first lessons. It is said that when Buddha meditated under the Bodhi tree that animals gathered all around him and didn't feel frightened by his presence.

Respecting animals is also vital to understanding the Buddhadharma because we have all undoubtedly been one in a past life and a cow that we might be responsible for killing to provide meat could have been our mother at one point. In addition, Right Livelihood advises us to not take jobs that create suffering such as a butcher of animals.

We can talk about the second precept too in not taking what is not given. An animal does not want to suffer and does not give up it's life without a fight, so in other words it is not "giving" itself to us. We are taking what is not given by killing animals. We humans constantly take from the environment and animals as if they belong to us and are simply there to serve us and our needs.

All of this being said, it is not required to be a vegetarian in Buddhism and in some areas of the world it is nearly impossible not to eat meat because of poor crop growing conditions. However, I think that if one must eat meat that they should do it with as much moderation as possible and with Right Intention. This means killing animals as humanely as possible and not doing it out of anger or unnecessarily such as sport hunting. It also means using every single bit of the animal to reduce waste and therefore the number of animals killed.

May we all find ways to help ease our Mother Earth's suffering.

~Peace to all beings~