Arguments about meat eating
On the issue of argument has been continuing in Buddhist society between pro-vegetarian and pro-meat eater. The fact is that they want to identify as to which practice is superior and inferior on moral grounds. This is happening, mostly, between Theravada tradition and Mahayana tradition because of some misinterpretations of textual concepts. All Theravada Buddhists are not meat eaters and nor are all Mahayana Buddhists are vegetarians. It depends on personal inclination or feelings on the grounds that one's understanding.
Pro-vegetarians give various evidence by referring to many Mahayana sutras such as Shurangama sutra, Brahmajala sutra, Angulimaliya sutra, the Mahamegha sutra, Lankavatara sutra, Mahaparinirvana sutra, Scripture of Brahma's Net, etc. By rejecting Mahayana point of view Pro-meat eaters have pointed out many references such as Vinayapitaka chapter on Devadata, about general Siha, Jivaka Sutta of Majjhimanikaya, Mahaparinibbana Sutta on Kammaraputta chapter, Amagandha Sutta of Suttanipata, etc. These are references have been claimed by the two groups. In the article of Prof. M. Sivasuriya, emphasizing on Mahaparinibbana Sutta, he says "The Buddha condemned the consumption of meat. Citing from the Sanskrit version, the Buddha declared: "I instruct the disciples that from today onwards they should stop the eating of meat". This message is mysteriously missing in the Pali version of this Sutta. If it was so, it is doubtable whether this statement was interpolated to the Sanskrit version at later date or it was deleted from the Pali version." Anyhow, it is believed by majority that Theravada tradition is known as a tradition of preserving the original of the Buddha's teaching since the first Buddhist Council. They are even afraid of deleting minor rules of Vinaya and held the second Council to settle this issue. Therefore, the above statement is a questionable. On the contrary, the Lankavatara Sutra of the Mahayana text is a later compilation. It is generally believed that the Sutra was compiled during the 350-400 AC. The chapter 8th of this Sutra is supposed to be later addition to it. Another controversy that occurs in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta is the word sukaramaddava (the last meal the Buddha received from Cunda). Commentators have given different interpretations regarding this term: (1) tender and soft meat of the pig, (2) bamboo shoots or tender parts of a palm tree, (3) mushroom grown at the spot trampled upon by pigs, (4) name given to a certain elixir or panacea, (5) method of cooking soft boiled rice with the five liquid products of the cow, and (6) soft meat of the boar in a forest. All these views recorded in the udana Atthakatha, Digha Atthakatha, and its Tika. From these point of views we have learned that there is no clear information whether the interpreter of the term were of vegetarianism group or non-vegetarianism group. On the basis of those complex interpretations, the controversies seem to have occurred among Theravada tradition itself. Pro-vegetarians may claim that the Buddha did not eat pork from Cunda, but pro-meat eaters may say the Buddha did it. The Mahayana Sutras vigorously and unreservedly denounce the eating of meat, mainly on the ground that such an act violates the Bodhisattva's compassion. But the Pali canon of Theravada has no mention of endorsing or repudiating vegetarianism. Vegetarians argue that eating meat increases industries that cause cruelty and death to millions of animals. Therefore refraining from meat eating is spiritually wholesome and helps to cultivate compassion. Non-vegetarians also would have argued that merely eating meat from market has nothing to do with percept, unless one actually kills an animal by oneself or order someone to kill for him. If it is directly responsible for animal's death non-vegetarian is no different from vegetarian because farmer has ploughed his fields and in the process may have caused many creatures to die and sprayed chemical to protect from those creatures. Pro-meat eaters refer to the Jivaka Sutta of Majjhimanikaya to show that the Buddha allowed monks to et meat under three circumstances (unseen, unheard, not doubt). but some vegetarians still do not accept this to be non-attached to what food one ate, or being infatuated with food. They argue that could meat eater do so if it was direct poison that was offered to him to be eaten? Such argument can be put forth if they consider that eating meat itself is regarded as king of mind-pollution or karmically unwholesome. Furthermore, some may insist on arguing that eating meat may not reduce our craving (tanha), and so there must be something spiritually wholesome being a vegetarian. This can not be absolutely true. As the numbers of vegetarians increase in society, a unique style of Chinese vegetarian cooking also has developed where meat products are forged or mimicked in wheat gluten and soy products. Vegetarians who consume such food products or get attached to such kinds of food are spiritually corrupt. This is craving (tanha) and the mentality of such a person is worse than that of one who consumes meat. By eating such product of food, he is merely cheating himself, for his tanha remains strong. No one can say for certain that meat tastes better than vegetable or other kind of food products. For commercial purpose, people created different kinds of edible food, with meat or without, making consumers crave for them. Then they get addicted to certain food and try to say that I like this or that: I want this or that. The word 'like' and 'want' are, the true sources of suffering according to Buddhism. We should not first judge by looking one's diet. One who eats meat can have pure heart and one who does not can have impure heart. Likewise, one who refrains from meat eating can have pure heart just as one who eats meat can have impure heart. According to the Buddha's teaching, the important thing is the quality of one's morality not about one's diet. To highlight this view, once, the Buddha explained to the Brahmin Kassapa about the foul smell of carrion. The foul smell of carrion is for whom immorally practiced such as destroying life, torture, stealing, deceit, etc. and not the eating of flesh. The purpose of the Buddha's explanation is to show what the foul smell (amagandha) is, and to praise bhikkhus who lives having no desire of sensual pleasure. This is concerned with moral arguments pertaining this problem because it is regarded as more important than the religious point of view. There are many arguments advanced for vegetarianism such as the biological argument, the ecological argument and the socio-cultural argument. The clear discussions about those arguments are explained by Dr V.A. Gunasekara on his article titles 'The Rationale for the Buddha's View on the Consumption of Meat'.
On the issue of argument has been continuing in Buddhist society between pro-vegetarian and pro-meat eater. The fact is that they want to identify as to which practice is superior and inferior on moral grounds. This is happening, mostly, between Theravada tradition and Mahayana tradition because of some misinterpretations of textual concepts. All Theravada Buddhists are not meat eaters and nor are all Mahayana Buddhists are vegetarians. It depends on personal inclination or feelings on the grounds that one's understanding.
Pro-vegetarians give various evidence by referring to many Mahayana sutras such as Shurangama sutra, Brahmajala sutra, Angulimaliya sutra, the Mahamegha sutra, Lankavatara sutra, Mahaparinirvana sutra, Scripture of Brahma's Net, etc. By rejecting Mahayana point of view Pro-meat eaters have pointed out many references such as Vinayapitaka chapter on Devadata, about general Siha, Jivaka Sutta of Majjhimanikaya, Mahaparinibbana Sutta on Kammaraputta chapter, Amagandha Sutta of Suttanipata, etc. These are references have been claimed by the two groups. In the article of Prof. M. Sivasuriya, emphasizing on Mahaparinibbana Sutta, he says "The Buddha condemned the consumption of meat. Citing from the Sanskrit version, the Buddha declared: "I instruct the disciples that from today onwards they should stop the eating of meat". This message is mysteriously missing in the Pali version of this Sutta. If it was so, it is doubtable whether this statement was interpolated to the Sanskrit version at later date or it was deleted from the Pali version." Anyhow, it is believed by majority that Theravada tradition is known as a tradition of preserving the original of the Buddha's teaching since the first Buddhist Council. They are even afraid of deleting minor rules of Vinaya and held the second Council to settle this issue. Therefore, the above statement is a questionable. On the contrary, the Lankavatara Sutra of the Mahayana text is a later compilation. It is generally believed that the Sutra was compiled during the 350-400 AC. The chapter 8th of this Sutra is supposed to be later addition to it. Another controversy that occurs in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta is the word sukaramaddava (the last meal the Buddha received from Cunda). Commentators have given different interpretations regarding this term: (1) tender and soft meat of the pig, (2) bamboo shoots or tender parts of a palm tree, (3) mushroom grown at the spot trampled upon by pigs, (4) name given to a certain elixir or panacea, (5) method of cooking soft boiled rice with the five liquid products of the cow, and (6) soft meat of the boar in a forest. All these views recorded in the udana Atthakatha, Digha Atthakatha, and its Tika. From these point of views we have learned that there is no clear information whether the interpreter of the term were of vegetarianism group or non-vegetarianism group. On the basis of those complex interpretations, the controversies seem to have occurred among Theravada tradition itself. Pro-vegetarians may claim that the Buddha did not eat pork from Cunda, but pro-meat eaters may say the Buddha did it. The Mahayana Sutras vigorously and unreservedly denounce the eating of meat, mainly on the ground that such an act violates the Bodhisattva's compassion. But the Pali canon of Theravada has no mention of endorsing or repudiating vegetarianism. Vegetarians argue that eating meat increases industries that cause cruelty and death to millions of animals. Therefore refraining from meat eating is spiritually wholesome and helps to cultivate compassion. Non-vegetarians also would have argued that merely eating meat from market has nothing to do with percept, unless one actually kills an animal by oneself or order someone to kill for him. If it is directly responsible for animal's death non-vegetarian is no different from vegetarian because farmer has ploughed his fields and in the process may have caused many creatures to die and sprayed chemical to protect from those creatures. Pro-meat eaters refer to the Jivaka Sutta of Majjhimanikaya to show that the Buddha allowed monks to et meat under three circumstances (unseen, unheard, not doubt). but some vegetarians still do not accept this to be non-attached to what food one ate, or being infatuated with food. They argue that could meat eater do so if it was direct poison that was offered to him to be eaten? Such argument can be put forth if they consider that eating meat itself is regarded as king of mind-pollution or karmically unwholesome. Furthermore, some may insist on arguing that eating meat may not reduce our craving (tanha), and so there must be something spiritually wholesome being a vegetarian. This can not be absolutely true. As the numbers of vegetarians increase in society, a unique style of Chinese vegetarian cooking also has developed where meat products are forged or mimicked in wheat gluten and soy products. Vegetarians who consume such food products or get attached to such kinds of food are spiritually corrupt. This is craving (tanha) and the mentality of such a person is worse than that of one who consumes meat. By eating such product of food, he is merely cheating himself, for his tanha remains strong. No one can say for certain that meat tastes better than vegetable or other kind of food products. For commercial purpose, people created different kinds of edible food, with meat or without, making consumers crave for them. Then they get addicted to certain food and try to say that I like this or that: I want this or that. The word 'like' and 'want' are, the true sources of suffering according to Buddhism. We should not first judge by looking one's diet. One who eats meat can have pure heart and one who does not can have impure heart. Likewise, one who refrains from meat eating can have pure heart just as one who eats meat can have impure heart. According to the Buddha's teaching, the important thing is the quality of one's morality not about one's diet. To highlight this view, once, the Buddha explained to the Brahmin Kassapa about the foul smell of carrion. The foul smell of carrion is for whom immorally practiced such as destroying life, torture, stealing, deceit, etc. and not the eating of flesh. The purpose of the Buddha's explanation is to show what the foul smell (amagandha) is, and to praise bhikkhus who lives having no desire of sensual pleasure. This is concerned with moral arguments pertaining this problem because it is regarded as more important than the religious point of view. There are many arguments advanced for vegetarianism such as the biological argument, the ecological argument and the socio-cultural argument. The clear discussions about those arguments are explained by Dr V.A. Gunasekara on his article titles 'The Rationale for the Buddha's View on the Consumption of Meat'.
No comments:
Post a Comment