BUDDHIST SPECTRUM

Buddhism and vegetarianism

Dr Vidhura Mahendra

‘Buddhists are not vegetarians’ uttered my colleague, ‘they eat anything and everything without respect’ he added.

That was the beginning of a lengthy conversation I had with the non-Buddhist fellow mate of mine.

‘I’m a Buddhist and a vegetarian too’ I stepped into the conversation.

Buddhism is primarily a philosophy and a path to good living and governance in a world driven by materials and ostentation. The Buddha never set any rules of extreme nature. It is apparent Buddhism is somewhat less understood by many Buddhists. One may assume that offering flowers and joss sticks followed by chanting gata may be sufficient to display the Buddhist nature.

This may be the starting point for any lay Buddhist but there are many more to assimilate further on to become a true spiritual Buddhist and to embrace Buddhism and respect it with substance, comprehension and logic. So why would many Buddhists consume meat or non-vegetarians.

To answer this question we must closely untangle what Buddhism tells us or to be more specific try to analyse the first precept of ‘I follow the non-killing of living beings’, Panaathi pata weramani sikkhapadan samadiyami’. Having vowed that why someone still consumes meat, that is the $64m dollar question.

It is a fine line between honestly comprehending what you have vowed and deviating from it without much conviction. For an example if one does not kill an animal what is wrong in consuming meat, this is the frequent belief among many Buddhists or to admit that ‘I eat meat but I did not kill it’. In fact there is nothing wrong in saying that except one wonders whether the Buddhist philosophy has anything to do with it.

Let’s analyse the first precept in more detail. In order to fully comply with ‘I follow the non-killing of living beings’, there are five sub-divisions to fulfil:

(i) Knowing it’s a form of a living being

(ii) Knowing it’s a living form

(iii) The thought of the killing

(iv) The method of the killing

(v) And finally the killing or the process

The aforementioned sub-divisions clearly express anyone who takes the oath to follow the first precept would abstain from consuming meat.

So why would a Buddhist still consume meat or not aware that eating meat hinders the first precept. In my view the first precept is interpreted in many a way that many Buddhists would not comprehend the ulterior motive within.

Buddhism is a philosophy and a mega subject that needs exploring carefully and dissecting finely for a better and just life. Without exploring or dissecting what Buddha had expressed one would find extremely futile in comprehending the crux of the religion or the philosophy it governs.

In fact many cannot see that Buddhism and vegetarianism go in tandem, though it clearly does. Most of us are blatantly poor in transparent logic and understanding of this great religion guided with philosophy.

If one abstains from consuming meat or any product that derives from a living form reflects directly in agreement with the first precept in other words Buddhists may opt to become vegetarians if they take the first precept as it expresses ‘non-killing’ of animals. Buddhism eulogises non-killing (Ahimsa) hence no records found that of Buddhists were/are meat eaters at large scale. Buddhists were Hindus by and large who converted subsequently in India.

The fundamental difference of these two religions is with respect to meat eating Hindus were compelled to become vegetarians while the Buddhists were anointed with philosophy behind it than force. The contemporary Buddhist has a duty to comprehend this difference and utilise with rational thinking.

Though one may argue that some Buddhist monks do consume meat, this has little significance in comparison to what Buddha expressed. He never set rules to monks to become vegetarians; in fact he rejected once he was approached to set similar set of rules by Dewadatta.

The prime objective of Buddhism pertaining to vegetarianism is clear rational thinking with regards to the first precept. If one is requested to or shown the way to ‘non-killing’ it does not have a leeway to consume meat which was taken subsequent to killing a living form thus violates the first precept. If the meat was a product that generated from non-killing of an animal one has all the rights to consume it.

As for monks it is clear that Buddha had acknowledged ‘any’ form of food that was offered by lay people as dana irrespective of its class, quality or genre. However, this does not imply he advocated killing for food.

Finally we must also look at the fundamentals of Buddhism which is based on ‘non-extremism’. Buddha showed the path to extremism leads to nowhere but to suffrage.

Vegetarianism is a concept based on human values, ethics, morals enhanced by religious education mainly on ‘non-killing’ (first precept) therefore a Buddhist has every right to query on vegetarianism pertaining to Buddhism as the latter is a philosophy than a set of commands.

However, if one obeys the first precept it is convinced why a Buddhist a vegetarian than otherwise.

The Buddhist Column:

Global Village: What’s Lanka’s contribution?

Sachitra Mahendra

Some scholars predict Jackson Anthony’s ‘Aba’ will harm the image of Buddhist culture. With this in the backdrop, we could listen to a well-prepared speech by Anthony on a book launch by Nuwan Nayanajith at BMICH recently. Nayanajith launched his fifth book Gaddarika Pravahaya Hevath Sookiri Batillange Lokaya.

Jackson Anthony’s bottom line was the Global Village concept. He raised the interesting question on why the popular concept was not titled ‘Global City’.

The village, in the general sense, is a small group of people sharing each others’ belongings. The village in the ancient Sri Lanka consisted of agriculture and religion. This symbolised the richness of the Buddhist tradition.

The Buddha ruled that any human being should be fed before preached, taking a hungry peasant for example. The ancient villagers had the financial freedom, hence they could spare enough time for religious and spiritual affairs.

Long before the money-involved modern civilisation, the general economy was the barter system sharing goods and services. The village physician may provide his services for a portion of harvest of a peasant, for instance. We have got into the global concept now.

Things have now become easier, thanks to the Internet and other convenient mediums available at hand. Now that money plays a major role in our lives, we have varying things to share. Each country, therefore, should have something distinctive to share with other countries in the village of globe.

Japan has a Sumo tradition, and they say the British are popular for punctuality. What is our major contribution to the globe as Sri Lankans, save tea and garments? Our attempt to absorb the European education is hard, though we have hardly anything original in a European country.

Our own traditions are what we are least concerned about. We consider Buddhism as an over-the-hill philosophy. We are concerned only about commercially-flourishing subjects like Information Technology. We have no base to argue against studying the subjects like Information Technology, though we should focus on our originality at the same time.

When our own people give up Buddhism, many Europeans tread on the philosophy. Some even become monks, let alone accept Buddhism. Many Europeans have the fulfilment of basic requirements - just as the peasant who should be fed before preached - hence they are in a good mental position to absorb the deep philosophy. Why is Buddhism considered original in Sri Lanka?

The Buddha was born in Nepal (an earlier part of ancient India) and he had visited Sri Lanka only thrice. However the philosophy was developed and nourished in Sri Lanka, not in Nepal. Even the foreign invasions did not affect the survival of Buddhism, because of devoted Sinhalese.

Sri Lanka, in fact, is the living epitome of the ancient philosophy, which marks its unrivalled position in the ‘Global Village’.

sachitra@gmail.com

ABHIDHAMMA IN A NUTSHELL - III

When committing evil acts

Shamika Soysa

“Bruce is a strong follower of his leader. He has been assigned a mission by his leader to steal a sacred object which is hidden in a highly protected place. His belief in his faith and leader tempt him to remove any obstruction on his way by any means including murdering.

He is burning with hatred to kill the possessor of the object as instructed by his leader. But he had to kill two more people without premeditation with unbearable anger as those two mislead him in finding the place of the sacred object.

At the end he killed the possessor and finally found the sacred object and stole it with joy in view that he did a sacred service to his leader by stealing the sacred object.”

Consciousness rooted in attachment (Lobha mulika chiththas) - 8:

(1) Somanassa sahagatha Dhittigatha samprayuktha Asankharika Chiththa Consciousness accompanied by pleasure connected with wrong view and unprompted.

(2) Somanassa sahagatha Dhittigatha samprayuktha Sasankharika Chiththa Consciousness accompanied by pleasure connected with wrong view and prompted.

(3) Somanassa sahagatha Dhittigatha Viprayuktha Asasankharika Chiththa Consciousness accompanied by pleasure disconnected with wrong view and unprompted.

(4) Somanassa sahagatha Dhittigatha Viprayuktha Sasankharika Chiththa Consciousness accompanied by pleasure disconnected with wrong view and prompted.

(5) Upekkha sahagatha Dhittigatha samprayuktha Asankharika Chiththa Consciousness accompanied by indifference connected with wrong view and unprompted.

(6) Upekkha sahagatha Dhittigatha samprayuktha Sasankharika Chiththa Consciousness accompanied by indifference connected with wrong view and prompted.

(7) Upekkha sahagatha Dhittigatha Viprayuktha Asasankharika Chiththa Consciousness accompanied by indifference disconnected with wrong view and unprompted.

(8) Upekkha sahagatha Dhittigatha Viprayuktha Sasankharika Chiththa Consciousness accompanied by indifference disconnected with wrong view and prompted.

Lobha or attachment is the likeness, lust, greed or passion for beautiful, attractive or desirable sensual objects. Displeasure is not associated with lobha mulika chiththas. Therefore, there is one class of lobha mulika chiththas associated with pleasurable feeling (somanassa vedhana) and another with indifference feeling (upekkha vedhana).

Impression that there is no sin and merit, no results of bad kamma, nothing wrong with doing any evil act to accomplish one’s mission is a “False View”. Ditthi mentioned in lobha mulika chiththas refers to this false view. Consciousness with either pleasurable or indifference feelings would again connected with false view (dhittigatha samprayuktha) or disconnected with false view (dittigatha vipprayuktha). Finally, one class of these chiththas arise unprompted (asankharika) and another being prompted by oneself or another (sasankharika) which makes the number of chiththas 8.

At the instance Bruce steal the sacred object the consciousness arise is the above (2)nd as he did it with joy (somanassa sahagatha), he thought stealing was a sacred service (dhittigatha samprayuktha) which is a false view and he did it being prompted by his leader (sasankharika). Similarly, depending on the feeling, view and temptation either of the above chiththa would arise at an act of attachment (lobha).

Consciousness rooted in ill-will or aversion (Dwesha mulika chiththas) - 2:

(9) Domanassa sahagatha Patigha samprayuktha Asankharika Chiththa Consciousness accompanies by displeasure connected with ill-will and unprompted.

(10) Domanassa sahagatha Patigha samprayuktha Sasankharika Chiththa Consciousness accompanies by displeasure connected with ill-will and prompted.

When ill-will, aversion, anger or hatred is there, the feeling experienced in chiththa is always associated with displeasure (dhomanassa). Dwesha mulika chitthas are always connected with ill-will (patigha samprauktha) and arise either unprompted (asankharika) or prompted (sasankharika).

Killing is always done with hatred feelings, ill-will and aversion. Therefore at the instance of killing either of the dwesha mulika chiththas arise.

In the above story when Bruce kills the possessor of the object the above 10th chiththa arises as he had been instructed to do it by his leader (sasankharika). When he performed the other killings it was the 9th chiththa as he did it without premeditation (asankharika). Consciousness rooted in delusion or ignorance (Moha mulika chiththas) - 2:

(11) Upekkha sahagatha Vichikichcha samprayuktha Chiththa Consciousness accompanied by indifference and connected with Doubts

(12) Upekkha sahagatha Uddhachcha samprayuktha Chiththa Consciousness accompanied by indifference and connected with Restlessness

Moha mulika chiththas occur due to the dullness or unawareness of mind at the time of performing a certain act. Therefore the feeling associated with these two chiththas is indifference (upekkha). Vichikichcha is the doubt about 8 places including Buddha. Uddhachcha is the restlessness of mind. When one is unable to concentrate on a certain object or aspect, consciousness arise is associated with restlessness (uddhachcha).

There are 10 kinds of evil acts committed by Deed (Kaya), Word (Vachanaya) and Thought (Sitha) described in Buddhism.

At the time of committing any of these evil acts one or more of the 12 types off immoral consciousness arises. It is important to understand that in a fraction of a second there are hundreds and thousands of chiththas arise (uppadha), existing (thithi), and terminate (bhanga). But at one instance only one chiththa arise and as soon as it terminates another chiththa arises.

For example when performing killing 9th or 10th, consciousness presides but in the whole process of killing other, chiththas may also arise depending on the mental state of the person.

Reference - A Manual of Abhidhamma by Ven. Narada Maha Thera

Concept of Buddhist prose

The Buddhist education largely influenced the professional broadcaster the late Kalakeerthi Wimal Abhayasundara who had authored a number of books based on Buddhism.

‘Bauddha Gadhya Kavya Sankalpa’, ‘The Aspects of Buddhist Prose’ is probably Abhayasundara’s last work, while some more are being printed and will be listed as posthumous publications. ‘The Aspects of Buddhist Prose’ deals with the sources that inspire Buddhist prose.

When Buddhism emerged, it was accompanied with many other religions, mainly Hinduism and Jainism. Over the death of the Buddha, the Buddhist literature had more or less the influence of other religions too. The emergence of gods and other hardly-related concepts started to appear in Buddhist literature as a result.

For many scholars, popular Buddhism means a conflict between prose and doctrine. This is primarily because many features are said to be fictionalised. Prince Siddhartha’s birth and immediate proceedings provide a good example for this point. However media have reported incidents of children speaking and walking immediately after birth in some countries.

Although the Buddha was free from all evil, he did not detest the aesthetic taste at all.

He appreciated the aesthetic capacity of Ven. Vangisa and Pansilu. The greatest source of inspiration in Buddhism is parables of the Buddha cited on numerous occasions.

The Buddha adopted creative ways to convey the deep matters. Apart from parables, Jataka stories have been an unending source for many creative writers of every medium. Many books have been authored on Buddha’s life, sometimes de-glorifying the tradition. When Martin Wickramasinghe authored ‘Bava Taranaya’ with a radical approach on Buddhism, he earned the wrath of all fronts.

One significant aspect of Buddhism is that it has inspired the hardly-related events too; God-based Kandy Esala Perahera is one such example. These features sometimes can harm the dignity of philosophy of Buddhism, misleading non-Buddhists.

This literary tradition started immediately after the Buddha’s Great Demise, when Ven. Arahath Kasyapa chaired the first convention of assembling the Dhamma. The monk community was categorised and tasked with keeping the Dhamma chapters in memory.

The book is a compilation of various articles Abhayasundara has written for radio, and other media. This is vital, as his scripts are hardly heard and seen over the mass media.

The Aspects of Buddhist Prose is a good manual to learn the way how an article should be written resourcefully. Abhayasundara’s articles are detailed and investigate some aspects into depth.

- SM

Bauddha Gadya Kavya Sankalpa
Kalakeerthi Pandita Wimal Abhayasundara
Published by Godage Book Emporium
186 pages. Rs.500