BUDDHIST VIEW ON VEGETARIANISM AND MEAT EATING

Conclusion
The Buddha is the only Teacher who never claimed that his teaching alone is right and others are wrong. Freedom of thought is the Buddha's perfect strategy of investigating what is right and wrong. Without further investigating what the essence of his teaching is one should not end up by merely thinking that refraining from food what is regarded as impure makes one a good Buddhist. Diet should not become a source of serious controversy with regard to one's sprituality.

Food, of course, is important to everyone because among the four necessities of human requisite (viz: food, shelter, cloth and medicine) food is one of them. Therefore the Buddha says (sabbe satta aharatthitika) "all beings subsist on nutriment or edible food". In the Kosalasamyutta of the Samyutta Nikaya, the Buddha advised King Passenadi Kosala to be moderate in food (bhojana mattannu). Whether it is vegetable or meat one has to be moderate in consuming them. This may also be related to the Vinaya rule of not to eat after mid day and the practice of bhojane mattannuta by monks. Over eating cause laziness, which is one of the six kinds of avenues leading to downfall mentioned in the Sigalovada Sutta of Dighanikaya. Monks are supposed to contemplate on food (paccavekkhana) before they partake it. In Puttamamsa Sutta, the Buddha taught to his disciples who to regard the material food (kabalinkara ahara). Food should be taken not for pleasure (davaya), not for indulgence (madaya), not for personal charm (mandanaya), not for comeliness (vibhusanaya), but for the sheer necessity of living. The Buddha gave a parable concerning parents with their child in desert about 100 yojanas extant. When their provisions have run out and extremely feel hunger, their beloved child was killed and they eat it flesh. They ate it without passion of the senses and as this simile shows material food also should be taken without passion, without further thinking that "this food is very taste, what is make of?" The material food is also important for living being. there are three other important nutriments for life. They are; Phassa-ahara (sense-impression), Manosancetana-ahara (volition thought) and Vinnana ahara (consciousness).
Living style of monks during the Buddha time was begging for food from house to house and accepting food when invited and offered by devotees. Therefore it is reasonable to set a rule of consumption of food. If the food offered was meat, monks are allowed to eat under three circumstances; that is unseen, unheard and no doubt. The ideal monkhood is described as controlled in deed and word, restrained food for the stomach, with small stomach, moderate in food, easily satisfied, and undisturbed. A person who immoderate in food is described as one who is thoughtless and unwise. He takes food for the sake of amusement, pride, decoration, ornamentation, insatiability, immoderation and thoughtlessness as to food.
Nutriment is not only a material phenomenon, but as an active process it is also a condition (ahara-paccaya) of support of two kinds: the relation of edible food to the body and the relation of immaterial support to co-existing states of mind and body. It is this nutritive support in the psychological field which forms the basis of the doctrine of kamma and the teachings connected therewith. Food or sustenance (ahara) is frequently synonymous with causal condition, e.g., "from the arising of food is the arising of the body; from the ceasing of food is the ceasing of the body; and the way leading to the ceasing of the body is the Noble Eightfold Path" (aharasamudaya rupasamudayo, aharanirodha rupanirodho; ayam eva ariyo attangiko maggo rupanirodhagamini patipada): (S. III, 59)

Read More...

Collapse...

BUDDHIST VIEW ON VEGETARIANISM AND MEAT EATING (5)

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'.

Read More...

Collapse...

BUDDHIST VIEW ON VEGETARIANISM AND MEAT EATING (4)

First precept and meat eating
Among the five lay precepts the first one is usually translated as "I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living beings' play a very important role in human society. Taking this precept as consideration the Buddha, of course, admonished all his followers not only kill living beings but also advised not to harm any living beings by any means. The precept does not give any limitation of size of living creatures. Perhaps, its may included bacteria and other micro-organisms. If it is so, we may have to face difficulty in observing the percept.

There are four kinds of living being described in the Pali canon; They are; 1) Andaja (egg born), 2) Jalabuja (womb born), 3) Samsedaja (moisture born), and 4) Opapatika (spontaneous born). All those living beings, whether existing in niraya (hell), petti (hungry ghost), tiracchana (animals), manussa (human) or deva (heaven), are included here under the word 'sabbapana' is stated in the texts. Pana according to Pali English Dictionary is 'sentient being, creatures'; but in the book 'Buddhist Ethics and Essence of Buddhism by H. Saddhatissa' comments the word 'pana' in the highest and ultimate sense it is only psychic life or vital force. In the Mahavagga of the Vinaya, killing human being is the greatest offence (parajika) for monk, and killing other beings is not the gravest, and it consider as lesser offence. On the other hand, to safeguard society, killing of human being is the most important.
The commentarial tradition gives five conditions necessary to complete an act to be called murder. There are; (1) a living being; (2) knowledge that it is a living being; (3) a mind that thinks of killing; (4) the effort made to kill (including asking another to do it); and (5) the being dies through the effort. Taking these into consideration killing a living being by oneself and asking another to kill for him (indirectly) also is impure and he may not escape from the first precept.
Vegetarians claim that meat bought from market (already existed meat) is impure and it is proxy killing because it seems to be supporting the butcher to slaughter more animals for customers. If the first percept is applied to all creatures irrespective of size, eating mere vegetable also is impure and fall into this precept because micro insects which we can not see through our eyes are living every plantations. Emphasizing the first precept as characteristically eating meat which is already available in market is nothing related to this precept. By examining the five characteristics of the precepts both direct and indirect killing will not karmically completed. By bringing meat from market or ordering meat curry in restaurant is also has nothing to do with this. But one could increase this bad habit if he gets attached to it very much. And when meat is unavailable anywhere he may kill or order some one to kill for meat. Then the breaking of first precept is done by the cause of attachment to this. The Buddha allowed to his disciple to eat meat under three circumstances that is unseen, unheard and not doubt because monks in the Buddha time accepted food that offered by others. As monks are not seeking for meat, they try to avoid from being attached to it and they would never attempt to break the first precept whether by direct or indirect means. When we come to the vegetarianism, do we think vegetarian can not break the first precept if his attachment to vegetable is in extreme? Take the example of a person who plants vegetable for his daily meal because he is a strict vegetarian; and a person who plants vegetable for marketing. If animals or some insects destroy his plants, he might use material thing to drive away them. At least he has to harm or even kills those creatures. Then vegetable got from such sources also can be regarded as impure and he is a breaker of first precept. One who buys vegetable from market also seems to be supported to plant more and kill or harm more living beings. In this context, it would be fit to consider that merely consuming food, whether vegetable or meat without killing a being by one's own action or asking other to do so, has nothing to do with the first precept. This percept falls into bodily action as intention (cetana) is the basis. AS the Buddha statement 'cetanaham bhikkhave kammam vadami' volition or cetana is very important in every karmical act. This evidence point to the fact that meat already available in market or restaurant is not a breaking of first precept by those who buy it. It is related to those who killed and bring to the market for sale.

Read More...

Collapse...

BUDDHIST VIEW ON VEGETARIANISM AND MEAT EATING (3)

Mahayana and Vegetarianism
It is said that when Buddhism later moved to Tibet and China, large monasteries developed with landholding. The already existing Chinese Confucius culture did not accept begging for food, and newly established Mahayana Buddhism also followed their example. Monasteries were granted large tracts of land to grow their own food. unlike the situation in Indian Buddhism, monk in China started growing, storing, preparing, and cooking their own food. Thus, for the first time kitchens were appeared in monasteries.

The three-fold rules on meat eating which mentioned in Suttas become meaningless for Chinese monks becasue they were no longer begging for food daily. Then, perhaps, they interpreted Vinaya rules to match their situation. Therefore, meat eating was prohibited since they can prepare food for themselves. Chinese Mahayana Buddhism infulenced Korean and Japanese Buddhism. They also practiced vegetarianism and not only monks this was followed by laity as well. Since then, vegetarianism was highly praised by certain Mahayana Buddhist. This is so, because in the Sanskrit version of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, the Buddha says: "I order the various disciples from today that they can not any more partake of meat". Basing on this saying Mahayanists, who beliefs are based Sanskrit Buddhist literature, may undertake to follow this rule as a strict one. The condemnation of meat eating also found in the Brahmajala Sutra, and more importantly meat eating is condemned in Lankavatara Sutra. Herein, some explanation given by the Buddha against meat eating are: 1) present-day animals may have been one's kith and kin in the past; 2) one's own parents and relatives may born in future as animals; 3) there is no logic in exempting the meat of some animals on customary grounds while not exempting all meat; 4) meat is impure as it is always contaminated by body wastes; 5) the prospect of being killed spreads terrow amongst animals; 6) all meat is nothing other than carrion; 7) meat eating makes the consumer to be cruel and sensual; 8) man is not a carnivore by nature. In this Sutra, the Buddha further instructs the Bodhisattva Mahamati thus: "there is no meat that is pure in three ways; not premeditated, not asked for, and not impelled; therefore refrain from eating meat". This is the Mahayanists view of the Buddha's three-fold rules which are unlike the three-fold rules of Theravada given in the Pali canon. Some 24 statements regarding meat eating are further explained in this Sutra. Another more important source in support of vegetarians is also found in the Surangama Sutra. Five quotations from this Sutra are: "You owe me a life; I must repay my debt to you". Due to such causes and conditions we pass through hundreds of thousands of eons in sustained cycle of birth and death. "After my cessation, in the Dharma ending Age, these hordes of ghosts and spirits will abound, spreading like wildfire as they argue that eating meat will bring one to the Bodhi way." "Ananda, I permit the Bhikkhus to eat five kinds of pure meat. This meat is actually a transformation brought into being by my spiritual powers. It basically has no life-force. Those of you Brahmans who live in a climate so hot and humid, and on such sandy and rocky land, that vegetables will not grow; therefore, I had to assist you with spiritual powers and compassion. Because of this magnanimous kindness and compassion, this so-called meat suits your taste. After my extinction, how can those who eat the flesh of beings be called the disciples of Sakya?" "You should know that these people who eat meat may gain some awareness and they seem to be in samadhi, but they are all great rakshasas. When their retribution ends, they are bound to sink into the bitter sea of birth and death. They are not disciples of the Buddha. Such people as these kill and eat one another in a never-ending cycle. How can such people transcend the Triple Realm?" The Chinese adaptations of the Vinaya in the Brahma Net Sutra contain ten major and forty-eight minor precepts. The Third Minor precept specifically prohibits eating meat, perhaps the first time such a precept was codified in Buddhism thus: 'A disciple of the Buddha must eat no flesh of sentient beings. If he eats their flesh, he injures his potential for developing universal compassion. Sentient beings will flee from on sight. For this reason, Mahayana practitioners should not eat the flesh of any sentient beings.
The Mahayana ideal of vegetarianism restricted the rule of eating meat because they opine that one seeking to escape from suffering. Why should one inflict it upon others? To escape from suffering of life one has to practice dhyana and seeking to attain samadhi. To practice dhyana and seeking to attain samadhi should be kindness to living being and refrain from eating their flesh. Refraining from meat eating is to save beings, not to harm them, not to terrorize them by killing and eating them. The Mahayana's viewpoint of consumption of meat let others do the killing for him, causing suffering to the animals and future suffering to the butcher and the consumer as well. Anyhow, it would not be right to say that all Mahayana Buddhists are vegetarians, for some Japanese and Tibetan Buddhists have been consuming meat.

Read More...

Collapse...

BUDDHIST VIEW ON VEGETARIANISM AND MEAT EATING (2)

Theravada and Vegetarianism
Theravada Buddhists, at majority, believe that vegetarianism is not a kind of strict rule to be observed and a view put forward on this is explicitly rejected even by the Buddha himself. Therefore vegetarianism was not a part of early Buddhist tradition and the Buddha himself was not a vegetarian. But, of course, he did not advocate or praise meat-eating, or becoming attached to it or clinging to it. The Buddha knows how problem could occur when vegetarianism is taken to extreme forms as strict rules. Clear evidence in this regard is shown in the Devadatta's proposal to make five rules of discipline compulsory to all monks.

The Buddha neither accepts nor rejects these proposals. Of the five rules the last one is concerning the restriction of fish and meat eating and that all monks must be vegetarians. Perhaps this was a part of Devadatta attempt to form new Order which was not successful and the rules promulgated by him did not receive even the support of his group for long. As we know the living style of bhikkhu is either by going alms rounds or by being invited to the houses of devotees, and therefore he had to eat what he was offered. However, there were rules that prohibited on consumption of ten types of meat. Those are: flesh of humans, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears and hyenas. Human flesh should be avoided for obvious reasons; elephant and horse as these were then considered as royal animals; dog was considered by ordinary people to be disgusting; and the last six types of jungle animals was thought to give forth such a smell as to generate forth revenge from the same species. According to Theravada, following Buddhaghosa's commentary, the Buddha ate pork (sukaramaddava) for his last meal. The debate on this issue is still continuing in Theravada Buddhist countries. The term sukaramaddava has been interpreted differently and controversy remains. However, there are incidents recorded where the Buddha and the early bhikkhus ate meat. One of references to this is the story of the "conversion" of general Siha. Once, general Siha invited the Buddha and his followers to have meals at which meat was served. The Jains who had earlier enjoyed general Siha's patronage, now spread the story that the Buddha by knowingly partaking of meat had committed an act of grave karmic consequences (paticcakamma). In fact the meat had not slaughtered intentionally for this purpose, but had been purchased at the market. Basing on this incident the Buddha lay down the rule governing the consumption of fish and flesh. Addressing the monks he said: "Do not eat meat knowing that it has been killed specially for your use; I allow the use of fish and meat blameless (parisuddha) in three ways, unseen, unheard and unsuspected." (na bhikkhave janam udissakata mamsam paribhunjitabbam anujanami bhikkhave tikotiparisuddham maccamamsa aditam asutam aparisankitanti (Vin, VI, 233). The same was explained to Jivaka that meat should not be eaten by bhikkhu, if it is seen, heard and suspected to have been killed on purpose for him; and meat should be eaten, if it is unseen, unheard and unsuspected to have been killed on purpose for him. Throwing light the above mentioned three circumstances the Pali texts report two kinds of meat are called uddissakatamamsam and pavattamamsam. The first term is used to refer to meat destined for a specifice person's consumption and it is karmically effective meat. This kind of meat could so identified because the person doing the killing on a clear notion that it is meant for a specific person who partakes it. If a monk knowingly consumes this kind of meat, he is guilty offence (dukkha). The second term used to refer permissible meat (already existing meat) or karmically neutral meat. But there has been some controversy as to what types of meat would fall into this category of "already existing meat". Some interpret it as meat of animals killed by accident or by other animals. But it also can include meat sold in market. An incident is shown in Vinaya where lady Suppiya sends her servant to purchase meat slaughtered for sale in the market was regareded as pavattamamas or blameless meat. Theravada tradition scriptures cite many references where the Buddha and his bhikkhus being offered meat and eating it. The Buddha even regulated rule that ten types of meat should be avoided and meat under with three circumstances (i.e. seen, heard and suspected) should not be eaten if a certain animal has been slaughtered for him. Although it was related to monastic discipline it can be applied to the layperson too. But one should not end up by following these three instances and always perchasing meat through one's attachment. In fact what one needs to understand here is that all the incidents regarding meat eating in Theravada texts are told about bhikkhus whose life apply restrict in Vegetarianism. A mission is carried out to spread this message, pointing out that meat eating is contrary to the practice of loving kindness toward all living beings. In this regard there is a book named ' From Non-Violence to Loving Kindness' published in recent year. His aim in writing that book is to ask people to develop loving kindness toward animals. And not only that even eating meat or fish, by any means, is somewhat karmically unwholesome and it is regarded as merciless toward animals. The book strongly criticizes those who offer meat or fish as well as receivers those who consume it. In the modern world, in the Theravada countries like Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand and Cambodia, monks are bound by the Vinaya to accept almost food that is offered to them, often including meat, while some minority of Theravada Buddhists claim to be vegetarians.

Read More...

Collapse...

BUDDHIST VIEW ON VEGETARIANISM AND MEAT EATING (1)

The Buddha's attitude towards living beings
The Buddha was an ethical moral teacher and the teaching that was preached helps to lead one's own life peacefully and harmoniously in the world. To lead one's own life accordingly one should practice mental development. There are four practices of mental development (brahmavihara) presented by the Buddha for the sake of one's own happiness and others as well.
The four mental developments are; 1) Loving kindness (metta), 2) compassion (karuna), 3) Sympathetic joy (mudita) and 4) Poise (upekkha)
Cultivation of these teachings could bring the result of destruction of ill-will, of cruelty, of dislike and of lust. And he who cultivates the practice of brahmavihara will reborn in the world of Brahmas after death. Loving kindness (metta) signifies one's wishing good towards others. This is one of the ten perfections (parami) practiced by the great being (Bodhisatta). It shows how one should develop unlimited loving kindness towards all beings, irrespective of their size, whether they are seen or unseen or far and near. This is the ethical practice of loving kindness through which Buddhist developed his relationship with all living beings. Seven kinds of profit would result if one cultivates this loving kindness. Compassion (Karuna) is described as "the desire to move at the suffering of others" "The feeling that casues the good people's heart to be removed when they see others' suffering is compassion". The Buddha is the Great Compassionate One, whose compassion occupies an important place in his teaching. Thus it is an important social virtue that he extended to practice not only on human being's welfare but on all living being's. Therefore, the Buddha taught the advisability of showing compassion on one's own life as on that of other being: "All tremble at the rod. All fear death: life is dear to all. Comparing other with oneself, one should neither strike nor cause to strike." Sympathetic joy (mudita) means the quality of rejoicing at prosperous state of other beings, and it has characteristic of gladness. Cultivation of this attitude can defeat evil thought such as envy, disaffection, dislike etc. The poise (upekkha) is a mode of centrality as regards being. The Buddha would not be shocked when seeing other beings suffer from physical or mental weaknesses, because beings are subject to suffering and are the heirs of their kamma. It does not mean that the Buddha enjoyed or neglected being's suffering. In fact this was the Buddha's sole concern. He, after enlightenment, decided to preach his profound teaching to the worldly being for the purpose of alleviating their suffering. The first precept applies to all living beings irrespective of their status. It does not exclude the killing of animals for the Vedic sacrifices (yajna). The Buddha discouraged and condemned animal sacrifice which was considered as a cruel act and as a futile of means of achieving happiness. On one occasion the Buddha was asked by a Brahmin, Kutadanta, what was the conduct of successful and meaningful sacrifices? The Buddha gave the example of the king Mahavijita and chaplain's conversation and He further explained the simpler sacrifice that is less difficult, more fruitful and profitable. The Buddha remarking on the cruelty and suffering involved in the usual type of sacrifice, suggested a better means whereby gratitude might be expressed. Instead of slaying and shedding blood of many animals, giving alms and building shelters for bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, taking refuge to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, observing five precepts, are more suitable and fruitful than bloody sacrifices.
Among the duty of Ariyan Wheel-Turning monarch protection of beasts and birds is one. This is the example provided by righteous kings; and modern States are expected to protect, nourish and sustain flora and fauna within their territory. This monarchical norm shed light on the moral value of Buddhism. This leads to the principle of Ahimsa which held in high esteem in early Buddhism. The word Ahimsa is a compound term with the negative prefix 'a' and the word 'himsa' derived from the root 'han' meaning 'to kill' and 'to injure'. Thus it is rendered as not killing and not injuring. This word has been asserted in different definitions in the Indian religions. Basing on this principle of Ahimsa some group of Indian people practiced vegetarianism which practice is strictly followed by Jains. Buddhism adopts a moderate one and did not go to as extremes as Jainism did, because it held that mere action without intention does not produce karmic result. The world in which we are living is a miserable existence, and life is sustained by injuring each other usually the bigger harming the smaller. Therefore the Buddha knowing this as unsatisfactoriness of this life and said, "The world is establishing with suffering" (dukkhe loko patitthito). Sometime, we may think that the concept of Ahimsa is very difficult to understand and it is not an easy practice to be perfected if one struggling to safeguard one's own life from the dangerous attackers. That is to say, mosquitoes and flies are carrying dangerous, infectious diseases. Suitable food can not be obtained unless one has to resort to kill small insects. One may observe strict rules and even be willing to harm himself, even at the risk of one's life. But suicide or harming oneself in this way is also denounced in Buddhism. Therefore, Buddhism teaches and encourages everyone not to fall into extremes and to work for the welfare of oneself as well as other beings.

Read More...

Collapse...

BUDDHIST VIEW ON VEGETARIANISM AND MEAT EATING

Preface
This essay going to be discussed on the consumption of food that is a compel diet arguments which were occurred between vegetarian and meat eater. Since the number of veggie organizations have increased in the world some issues of new dimensions have arisen, both on religious and dieticians views. From early time primitive people led their lives in a simple way, barbarians by hunting animals and farmers by ccultivating crops for their daily consumption. Anatomists have differentiated the structure of living being's stomachs into three types: viz. carnivorous types such as lion, tiger: herbivorous type such as cow, dear: and omnivorous type such as dog, cat etc. Human anatomy is a compromise between the pure herbivore and pure carnivore, and therefore, human is included in omnivorous type of beings.
Consumption of fish and meat has given rise to controversy from early times. So the prohibition of meat eating can be found during the Buddha time itself. Jainism advocates the most extreme form of the principle of ahimsa. Jains prohibited the harming of all forms of life, even microscopic insects. Amongst the eight basic abstentions (mulaguna) of Jain laypersons restraining from meat eating is one. In Theravada tradition, we do not find any information as to whether there were Buddhist vegetarianism organizations. Ven. Devadatta attempted to make abstention from meat-eating mandatory on monks. The Buddha categorically rejected this proposal by Devadatta. It is certain Mahayana Buddhists of a later period, that have extolled and set up the rules and regulations pertaining to vegetarianism. They strongly condemn meat eating maintaining that it was prohibited by the Buddha according to their sources.
This essay constitute of five short Chapters. The first chapter describes how the Buddha's attitude towards living beings. Unlike other religious teacher of the time the Buddha rejected cruel sacrificial performance of the Vedic system and also disapproved extremist view of the Jain regarding abstention from killing. The Buddha's doctrine is known as non violent practice (Avihimsa), based on loving kindness and universal compassion.
Second and Third chapters talk about vegetarianism and meat eating. These will be containing discussions based on relevant sources found both in texts of Theravada and Mahayana. According this sources, it is obvious that both traditions have different views regarding this issue. The Fourth chapter attempts to discuss the question whether consumption of meat would bring the consumer into conflict with the first precept, directly or indirectly. Killing is violence according to Buddhism and whether meat eating may helps to increase violation of living being is focused in this. This will be explained according to the relevant sources.
The fifth chapter shows the ever persisting controversy on meat eating. Arguments mentioned therein are quoted from the views expressed by various writers as well as the views of one who eat meat and one who do not. This controversy has gained significance as vegetarian organizations are rapidly growing in numbers in the world. Some of the Mahayana scriptures, notably the Lankavatara Sutra, take a strong position in favor of vegetarianism. But not all Mahayanists refrain from meat eating; while Japanese Mahayana groups do not abstain from eating meat. Few of Theravada followers try to be vegetarian but meat consumption is followed by majority of Theravada Buddhists. This controversy may never see an end; yet its worth to examine what the true position of Early Buddhism is.
The Buddha is a moral ethical Instructor and spiritual Reformer. He said in the very first two stanzas of the Dhammapada that 'mind is the forerunner of all evil deeds and good deeds'. Mind is the main cause of suffering' and, therefore, the issue of argument on meat eating or vegetarianism is not a resolution. This essay will be focussed also on the teaching of purification of mind particularly in relation to consumption of edible food.

Read More...

Collapse...