Buddhist Spectrum

Vegetarian diet :

A Buddhist perspective

Dr. D P Atukorala

All vegetarians consume vegetables, fruits, nuts, cereals and yams and do not consume flesh (meat and fish).

Majority of vegetarians in the world consume milk and milk products such as butter, Ghee and cheese in addition to plants and they are called lacto-vegetarians.

Lacto-ovo vegetarians consume eggs in addition to milk-products and plant food. On the other hand, vegans or 'pure vegetarians' do not consume bee honey, milk products or eggs and consume only plant food i.e. vegetables, fruits, nuts, grains, cereals and yams. Vegans do not use leather goods fir coats - and vegan females do not wear silk sarees.

Many Hindus, Jains and Buddhists are vegetarians because of the 'Ahimsa' concept. Mahatma Gandhi and all his followers were vegetarians.

Why people become vegetarians

These include matters of both heart and soul. Vegetarian diet is a more nutritious and a more healthful diet compared to non-vegetarian diet and a large number of people especially in the Western countries become vegetarians because of health reasons.

Vegetarianism is a statement against violence and cruelty to animals. Animals are feeling creatures i.e. they are sentient creatures with complex behaviour and affinity to their offspring.

It is common knowledge that animals such as buffaloes, cows and goats are transported in appalling conditions over long distances, often without water and food, to the slaughterhouses. The process of slaughtering in Sri Lanka is inhuman, very primitive and very cruel. It is the flesh of animals that have been deliberately killed that non-vegetarians eat.

So when we wish "May all beings be happy" and eat the flesh of animals, what we do is eating the flesh of such animals we have prayed for. When we practice meditation on metta or loving kindness and eat flesh, consider with a clean mind what we are doing.

Buddhist aspect of vegetarian diet

Majority of Buddhists observe the five precepts daily. When we observe the first precept of vowing not to take life and not to harm any living being, we cannot consume flesh without someone else killing the animal for us. If we don't consume flesh, there is no killing of animals. Thus the first precept is an injunction against destroying life and hurting others.

The Buddha also tells us not to hurt others according to verse 131 of Dhammapada: "One who while him self-seeking happiness oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness will not attain happiness hereafter."

Who is protected by the first precept?

Dhammapada verse 143: "Even though he be well-attired, yet if he is posed, calm, controlled and established in the holy life having set aside violence towards all beings- he, truly is a holy man, a renunciate, a monk".

Dhammapada verse 225: "The wise who hurt no living beings and who keep their body under control, they go to Nirvana, where, once you go there sorrow is no more".

Dhammapada verse 405: "A man is not a great man because he is a warrior and kills others, but because he hurts not any living being; he in truth is called a great man."

Dhammapada verses 129 and 130: "all beings tremble before danger and all fear death. When a man considers this, he does not kill or cause to kill".

The Buddha believed that animals such as fish, mammals and birds are sentient and therefore these should not be killed according to first precept. As mentioned earlier the first precept in Buddhism is an injunction against killing. This in turn raises a number of fundamental questions.

1. Can the first precept be construed to prohibit meat eating? Some people claim that, as long as they don't kill the animals themselves it is all right to eat flesh of slaughtered animals. But verses 129 and 130 specify that we should not kill or cause to kill.

2. When we buy flesh or any animal products such as meat sausages or hamburgers we must cause someone to kill animals.

3. What about meat someone else has bought when meat-eating friends invite us over for dinner? They will buy extra meat for us. Therefore we must not accept meat served to us by others.

As mentioned earlier, according to first precept one should not kill or cause any harm to living beings. The matrix of all phenomena from which arises our sense of compassion and moral goodness arises from the first precept. In other words, this precept is based on the principal of mutual attraction and righteousness common to all nature.

Willfully taking life?

Therefore to willfully to take life i.e. deliberately shoot, knife, strangle, drown, crush, poison, burn or electrocute or otherwise intentionally to take life of a living being or purposefully to cause pain on a human being or an animal is to defile the first precept. Other way to defile the first precept is to cause another to kill, torture or harm any living creature. Therefore to put flesh of a slaughtered animal into one's belly makes one an accessory altar.

If fowls, pigs, cattle, goats and fish (including crayfish) were not eaten, they would not be killed. Therefore, the meat-eaters are responsible for violence and destruction of animals.

The First Precept and Rebirth

The first precept has another religious aspect. Buddhism teaches us that there is not a single being that has been our father, our mother, husband, wife, sister, brother, son or daughter in the descent of the ladder of cause and effect, through countless rebirths.

In other words, the creature that is the cow today, may in the last rebirth might have been your mother. The chicken you are going to eat for dinner tonight might have been your brother or sister during the last birth.

According to fundamental Buddhist teachings, life of human or non-human beings is sacred. That does not mean that human beings should be treated as cattle and cattle as human beings.

Clearly each has different capabilities and different needs. What it means is that, in a just society, rights of non-humans should not be ignored or trampled upon. How can a monk seeking liberation from suffering, persistently eat the flesh of animals, knowing the pain and terror it causes them at the time of their slaughter.

Did The Buddha Sanction Meat Eating?

In the Jeewaka Sutta, the Buddha is said to have been addressed by one Jeewaka and the Buddha is quoted:

"I forbid the eating of meat in 3 cases:

If there is evidence either of your eyes or of your ears or if there are grounds of suspicion. In three cases I allow it if there is no evidence either of your eyes or your ears and if there is no ground of suspicion."

How plausible is that the Buddha sanctioned the eating of animal flesh by his monks in all the circumstances except when they had to suspect that the animal has been killed specially for them? Are not domestic animals slaughtered for whoever eat their flesh? If no one ate their flesh, obviously, they would not be killed.

Jeewaka Sutta's implication

Jeewaka Sutta also implies that the Buddha approved of butchering and horror of the slaughter house. Yet slaughtering is one of the trades forbidden to Buddhists and with good reason. To say that on one hand that the Buddha condemned the blood trades of slaughtering, hunting, fishing and trapping and on the other hand that the Buddha sanctioned meat eating in all the cases given above not only denies the link between the two and is an absurd contradiction.

Who else but the meat eaters are responsible for the perpetuation of the blood trades of butchering, hunting and fishing? After all the slaughterers and meat packinghouses and meat traders that sustain them are only responding to the demands of the flesh eaters.

Was he so imperceptive that only by obtaining from flesh products can one effectively end both killing of dumb defenceless animals and the infliction of suffering upon them?

Science and Religion

Shamika SOYSA

"Medicine, electronic communications, space travel, genetic manipulation ... these are the miracles about which we now tell our children. These are the miracles we herald as proof that science will bring us the answers. The ancient stories of immaculate conceptions, burning bushes, and parting seas are no longer relevant. God has become obsolete. Science has won the battle. We concede."

The above is an extraction from the Book, 'Angels and Demons' by the famous author Dan Brown who has also authored Da Vinci Code. In brief this story is about a battle between an ancient group called 'Illuminati' and the Church. What is quoted above is an extraction of a speech delivered by 'Camerlengo' (the one in charge when electing a new Pope) at a stage where a discovery of science seems to have become the new God. Camerlengo in this speech also says:

"Who is this God science? Who is the God who offers his people power but no moral framework to tell you how to use that power? What kind of God gives a child fire but does not warn the child of its dangers? The language of science comes with no signposts about good and bad. Science textbooks tell us how to create a nuclear reaction, and yet they contain no chapter asking us if it is a good or a bad idea." The above speech by Camerlengo came to my mind when I read the article by Dr. Nath Amarakone, titled "Vegetarianism - Fad or Fraud that hurts the economy".

Can Science and Religion be related?

There are many attempts by both scientists and Religious leaders to interrelate these two. At the same time there are conflicting situations between these two subjects as well. It would be important to analyse the nature of both these areas to understand the interrelationship between them.

There is a leader in every prominent religion. There is a doctrine preached by every religious leader which then followed and taken forwarded by the followers.

Fundamental objective of any religion is supposed to make people good and develop virtues among them. In depth religions attempt to develop the spirituality of their followers in various ways and means specific to that religion. The fundamental doctrine preached by the original leader is not subject to change over the time.

Science is a subject which constitutes a set of man invented theories. These theories develop based on existing theories while some of them are disproved by new theories. Science evolves everyday.

The question here is whether these two can be linked to each other and either can be used to prove the other. In other words can something which is subject to change can prove something which does not subject to change or vice versa? It could be possible at some instances but if science proves some fundamental fact in a religion to be scientifically wrong just as in the above scenario in the novel, what would be the repercussions?

One will get power from science but would not know how to use it just like child would be given fire but would not be taught the danger of it.

The point made here is, science is a subject which is supposed to physically develop a being and his environment while religion virtues this being and the environment. Science can develop the most dangerous weapon in the world but social ethics together with a religion tells the weapon holder not to kill innocents. But if a religion is going to be set into a function of mathematical formulas or science is described in religious terms either would end up in turmoil. Therefore building relationships between science and religion is a dangerous experiment.

Vegetarianism and Economy

Dr. Nath Amarakone has professionally analysed the impact of promoting Vegetarianism on Economy. This I believe would be a quite factual analysis. Economics is a Science. Vegetarianism is not in Buddhism. Therefore Economics and Buddhism may not be directly interrelated in this case. However, it is important here to clarify few points. It is true that the act of Vegetarianism has become quite a debatable topic these days and gained considerable amount of publicity due to different opinions. My effort was to analyse a few of the opinions and clarify the stand in Buddhism on Vegetarianism. Buddha did not advise monks and followers to be vegetarians but had always discouraged eating meat as I had explained in that article.

Either guided or unguided if a person is becoming a vegetarian, that is a good move which would be appreciated by any religion. The person is indirectly contributing to save lives of animals. But there is a question or may be a dilemma whether that person should be encouraged based on religious influence or discouraged based on the economic impact on the society.

Vegetarianism in Buddhism

Buddhism shows its followers the path to follow. It shows them the benefits of adhering and consequences of deviating. They are not commanded to walk through the path but are always advised and encouraged. If a person chose the correct path desirable results would be there both mundane and supramundane. Consumption of meat by Buddhist monks is not at all required to be justified. They do not pay attention to the containing food items of alms they receive from lay followers. Food is just a requirement for their survival.

If meat is present in alms still it would not be paid attention by monks unless if by any chance those monks had seen the animal being killed or heard that it had been killed for them or had any suspicions that it was killed for their consumption. Therefore Thrikotika Parishuddha Mansa is mostly an issue for the Monks and it's the choice of people whether to provide meat or fish as alms for Monks. Monks never demand or comment on the containment of their alms unless there is a special health concern.

Attaining Nibbana and Economic prosperity

However, even in Buddha's time not all the living beings were able to attain Nibbana. Similarly, even how much the vegetarianism is promoted either religiously or non-religiously majority of the Buddhists in this country would not become vegetarians.

ABHIDHAMMA IN A NUTSHELL - XIX:

What is Mind? Second Review

Shamika SOYSA

The tenth episode reviewed the first episode titled 'What is Mind?'. By that time the 'Reality of Consciousness' (Chiththa Pramarthaya) was covered which describes various types of Consciousness arise for oneself. It was reviewed there that Mind is not just one thing but has many types and ways they arise.

Thereafter, till eighteenth episode the second reality the 'Reality of Mental States (Chethasika Paramarthaya) illustrated various features and containments of Consciousness described in the first Reality. Now if one asks the question 'What is Mind?' though a single answer could not be given a more descriptive answer about Mind, it's types, behaviors and features based on Chiththa and Chethasika Paramaththas could be given as below:

"Mind or the Consciousness arises at a certain fraction based on some cause or an object. Depending on the cause or the object there are many types of consciousness arise and there are resultants of those consciousnesses as well if they were rooted by Moral or Immoral causes.

A particular consciousness arises at a particular moment contains many features called Mental States. Mental States are sort of qualities possessed by one who is receiving objects externally and internally.

Thus Consciousness and Mental States, that is Chiththa and Chethasika together elucidate everything about Mind, its types, features and behaviors."

Introduction to Thought Process (Chiththa Vithi)

Having described Mind and Mental States and their application, it has now laid foundation to understand the order in which these Chiththas arise. It was mentioned earlier that it is only one Chiththa arise at a particular fraction of a moment. But all these Chiththas preceded and followed by another Chiththa. When an object is received by one of the six sense organs there is a particular Chiththa arisen based on that object. In order of occurrence this Chiththa is preceded and followed by some more Chiththas. Taken these, entire one set of Chiththas together defines a 'Thought Process' or a Chiththa Vithi.

There are many categories of Chiththa Vithis and one should be very much familiar with the first two Paramaththas to understand how it works.

shamikabsb@hotmail.com

A thought on Second Council

The second council was convened sometime between 110 to 137 years at presumably Valukarama in Vaisali.

The dissidents were the some Vajjian monks of Vaisali. The council apparently had no chairperson, but was headed by a panel of eight members: Sabbakami, Salha, Khujjasobhita and Vasabhagamika (from the East (if India)) and Revata, Sambhuta, Sanavasi and Yasa (from the West).

The council's

problems.

1. Vinaya issues

1. Carrying salt in a horn

2. taking food after mid day

3. going to neighbouring village and taking a second meal

4. observance of uposatha in different places within the same parish (sima)

5. performing an ecclesiastical act and obtaining its sanction afterwards

6. using precedents as authority

7. drinking milk-whey after meals

8. drinking palm juice, which is fermenting but not yet toddy

9. using borderless sheet to sit

10. accepting gold silver

Arhats:

1. are subject to temptation

2. may have residue of ignorance

3. may have doubts regarding certain matters

4. gain knowledge through other's help

5. the path is attained by an exclaimation (as 'aho').

The Paramartha

version

"In the council the controversy provoked by Mahadeva led to the division of the Sangha into two schools, Sthavira and Mahasamghika. Mahadeva's heresy was twofold.

On the one hand he wanted to incorporate all the Mahayana sutras into the Tripitaka and on the other hand he attributed to the arhats diverse imperfections such as doubt, a certain measure of ignorance etc.

Paramartha did not condemn the latter entirely as he recognised the imperfections of arhats as partially true and partially false.

He was inspired by the Mahayanic moral teachimg, which contained in essence, more particularly the vinnanavada views. He was a fervent supporter of vinnanavada.

It is said that After Mahadeva's death, the two sections of the Sangha became united by holding a fresh council, purifying the scriptures and modified those introduced by Mahadeva after examining them anew."