In 1982, after I had been 56 years a vegetarian, Dr E.W.
Adikaram formed the
Sri Lanka Vegetarian Society and asked me to be one of its Patrons, the
other
being himself. Till then I had been a vegetarian, first due to sheer
upbringing and
later due to the gut feeling that it was not right, it was not fair, to
participate in
the process of killing animals to feed ourselves. By my own life
experience I
knew it was also not necessary - though at that time we did not have the
scientific support to vegetarianism that exists today.
At university I studied several languages one of which
was Pali. As Pali was
the language of Theravada Buddhism, that led me to an indirect study of
Buddhist religious texts. Many of the canonical texts of Buddhism
resonated
with my conscience and they were also intellectually satisfying; and so
gradually I began to give deep attention to what I read in those texts.
One of the things that struck me profoundly was that
what the Buddha
offered was not a religion of routine and habit, but one which, in spite
of its
extraordinary mix of simplicity and complexity, could also to a very
great extent
be tested on the anvil of reason. The other thing that struck me equally
strongly
was the indubitably ethical nature of the way of life that the Buddha
commen-
ded. The universal attraction of a text like the Dhammapada - which is
really a
good mirror of the simplicity and the complexity of Buddhism - lies
largely in the
fact that it teaches a way of life that appeals to the deepest ethical
sentiments of
the human species. And I would say that the ethics that one comes across
in
such texts as the Dhammapada rests infinitely more on human compassion
and
a feeling for justice and fairness than on any precepts.
Let me illustrate this by an example. We have all read
the famous stanza which
says that we should understand others by our own reactions: we would
then not
kill nor cause others to kill. There is no precept here. Rather, the
Buddha here
points out the result of empathy: what happens when one has sensitivity.
The
statement is a distillation of humane experience. It may be due to
civilization, or
it may be the result of a distinctive trait of human psychology;
whatever it is, the
fact is that unless you are hardened by the habits taught by a
villainous
environment, you shrink from inflicting on others what you yourself do
not wish
to suffer. After all, is this not the basis of all justice? Is this not
why we insist on
fair play?
The Buddha continues to appeal to this aspect of human
nature when, for
example he says that all beings are frightened by weapons that inflict
pain, that
every one tries to escape from death. Why does he say every one? Does he
not appeal to the conscience of his audience when he says this? Don't
think
that you are the only one who wishes to avoid pain and death. Every one
does.
And as we learn from what he says about compassion, every one does not
mean human beings only. The universal kindness that the Buddha commends
is quite clearly based on his own deep realization of the fact that all
beings are
capable of suffering and any sensitive person is prone by such
realization to do
what he or she can to eliminate or minimize such suffering. The point
then is
not whether we are mechanically going to obey a rule, but whether we can
be
sensitive, whether we can have that osmotic quality of the heart through
which
the pains and sufferings of others can seep into our own hearts.
Sensitivity
means that their pains and sufferings are also our own. If we can be
sensitive
in that way, it is not important whether we recite a precept or not. We
will
instinctively and of necessity desist from what the precept teaches us
to avoid.
Why then did the Buddha teach a code of conduct which we
recognise as the
five precepts? In his own words the world is full of all kinds of
persons. Some
have more �dust� on their eyes than others do. It would be fair to say
that he
tried to rub out some of that dust, though he knew that the full
elimination of it
can only be by the persons concerned themselves. Evidently, he did this
with
great passion and infinite hard work. The precepts perhaps should be
seen as
his anguished appeal to the conscience of human beings to lead an
ethical life.
In their utter simplicity, they represent almost all that is needed for
a society to
groom itself to a life of orderliness and compassion.
And now let us consider what are the implications of the
first of these precepts.
Actually the Buddha has not left any grey area where we have to grope in
the
dark as to what these implications are - what he had in mind when he
called on
us to take upon ourselves the discipline (sikkha) of refraining from
killing. In the
Dhammika Sutta in particular - but everywhere in spirit - he says that
not to kill
means three things: You do not do it yourself; you do not get others to
do it;
and you do not encourage, condone or applaud, you do not aid and abet,
when others do it. What more does one need to prove that one cannot
observe
this precept as long as one buys the flesh of animals slain for our
consumption?
What encouragement does the meat industry need from us except that we
eat
what they kill?
There are people who say that the first precept is
negatively formulated, and
that this is intentionally done - to allow us room to eat animals that
are killed by
others. Such people conveniently forget the positive corollary of the
negatively
worded precept. Buddhism does not stop at teaching us not to kill. It
also insists
that we protect and cherish all life. This is the teaching of loving
kindness:
"May all beings be happy". Everybody says - at least all Buddhists do -
that
Buddhism is a practical religion. If this practicality means that we can
eat
animals, then we have to admit that in insisting at the same time on
happiness
for all beings, it is being severely unpractical.
Actually Buddhism is practical. But the practicality
lies elsewhere. It does not
ask us to attempt the impossible - like tying a cloth over your nose
lest you
breathe in any invisible creatures, like refusing to walk lest you
trample on tiny
creatures that abound everywhere. We do what we can. We do the utmost
that
we can. That is all.
It is true that the Buddha did not lay down a rule for
monks to be vegetarian.
That was because they at that time depended on alms given by others,
many of
whom were not the Buddha�s followers. It was also not his style to be a
spiritual
autocrat. But then, he laid down that right livelihood of lay people
excludes the
sale of flesh. What does that mean? It means that if a community is
totally
Buddhist, there cannot be any trade in animal products in that community
and
therefore no consumption of flesh. Is that not sufficient as an argument
for
Buddhist vegetarianism, if one needs an argument?
There is one other point that I wish to call attention
to. As I said earlier, we are
not just being led by an arid wish to follow a rule, or even by a wish
to gather
merit for ourselves, when we consciously make the decision not to have
any-
thing to do with what killers of animals offer to us. We make that
decision
realising what is actually happening in the brutal world in which we are
fated to
live. In this world there are such things as animal farms. These factory
farms
are a hideous outgrowth of modern industry. They follow all of the
horrendous
evil that goes with the basic dictum of modern industry - greatest
profit at least
cost. From that flows the most unconscionable features of the modern
animal
farm: the techniques of "intensive confinement", denial of free movement
and
all other traces of a natural life to animals so confined - which
includes removal
of the young from contact with the mother, keeping them in total
darkness for
long periods of time, filthy and overcrowded living conditions,
over-feeding,
under-feeding, cutting their beaks and tails utterly merciless modes of
transportation and the final brutal act of the inevitable torturous
slaughter.
Especially the slaughter of large animals - cattle, pigs, goats, sheep -
is not a
job quickly done, like swatting a mosquito. It is an abominable long
drawn-out
process that offends the moral conscience of all sensitive human beings.
Slow murder. Torture at its worst thinkable.
(Please don't take me amiss. I do not mean that we have
to swat mosquitoes.
Or that killing smaller animals is all right. This is just an example to
highlight the
greater brutality of the slaughter of large animals.)
The modern animal farm is unlike anything that was known
in the world in which
the Buddha lived. Had he lived in the twentieth century, I can hardly
doubt that
he would have made the first precept still more explicit and recommended
vegetarianism to his followers.
The Buddha, had he lived in the world today, would have
certainly grasped the
tremendous ecological / environmental hazards to which the planet is
exposed
by the life styles that are now gaining universal currency. In this
context we
cannot fail to be struck by the fact that meat eating is one of the
prime reasons
for a great deal of damage to the environment of planet earth. Not many
people
realise that 33% of the world�s total harvest of grain (and 70% of the
massive
US harvest) goes to feed livestock of the animal farms of the world.
(This does
not include the free ranging cattle and goats and other animals in the
peasant
economies of the world). It is said that the entire human population
could be
adequately fed with just one quarter of the corn, soya etc. that are now
being
used to feed livestock destined to the slaughter-house. And that means
that
three quarters of the massive acreage devoted to cultivating this
livestock-feed
can be diverted to forestry. That alone will reverse much of the
environmental
degradation that the planet is currently going through, with all that it
costs to
the quality of life of every species of its living beings. Awareness of
this fact is
a compelling factor for millions of sensitive people of all faiths to
renounce
meat eating and take to vegetarianism and veganism.
The modern vegetarian movement, which is vigorous and
vitally active in many
parts of the world, is firmly anchored in an ethical foundation which
takes into
account the right of animals to life and freedom - and kindly treatment
at our
hands - as well as the duty of us all to protect the planet�s
environment: so that
all forms of life will flourish as they did before the onset of the
disastrous life
styles that are currently fashionable. If the Buddha were alive, he
would have
certainly been one of the prime advocates of such an ethical way of
life.
And as I see it, this is what the first precept is all
about: an ethical way of life
that stands for the welfare and protection of all living beings upon
this fragile
planet that is our common home.
Prof. Mahinda Palihawadana
President, Sri Lanka Vegetarian Society
Go on to Old Dogs Do
Not Die
Return to 24 March 1999 Issue
Return to Newsletters
** Fair Use Notice**
This document may contain copyrighted material, use of which has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owners. I believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your
own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.