365bet娱乐

Actually, isn鈥檛 there a difference regarding the question of meat-eating between the two main schools of Buddhism, 鈥�罢丑别谤补惫腻诲补鈥� and 鈥�惭补丑腻测腻苍补鈥�? Two very fundamental teachings of Buddhism are non-violence and harmlessness. There is an associated popular conception that all Buddhist are therefore vegetarians. This is not automatically the case, but vegetarianism certainly matches the spirit of Buddhism described by those fundamental teachings. Followers of 罢丑别谤补惫腻诲补 reside mostly in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Myanmar and Sri Lanka while followers of 惭补丑腻测腻苍补 are living in China, Japan, Korea and Vietnam. Attitudes towards meat consumption are markedly different within these two traditions. In Theravada meat consumption has been accepted while in 惭补丑腻测腻苍补 meat consumption is frowned upon.

Principles of Buddhism have put many restrictions on the monks. First, no monk can kill an animal. Second, no monk can accept meat which has been specially prepared for him. Third, certain kinds of meat cannot be eaten under any circumstances. The monks were supposed to beg food. 惭补丑腻测腻苍补 monks and nuns in China and Korea are strictly vegetarian and prepare their own food.^[1]

In the countries which belong to the 罢丑别谤补惫腻诲补 Buddhism, the problem of meat-eating is an ordinary thing to monks. The most important problem to a Buddhist monk is how to control himself from greed, anger, and ignorance, to practice the teaching of the Buddha, to perform the compassion to all living beings, especially to cultivate the Knowledge of the Ultimate Truth, complete freedom in order to attain the true happiness in present life in this world. However, they are forbidden from accepting animal flesh if they know, believe or suspect that the animal in question was killed especially for them, i.e., if the visits of begging minks have become an occasion for the slaughter of animals.

The Vinaya for monastic is not a set of ethically based rules; it is a set of rules for living as a monastic in ancient Indian culture. As such, it has much that is specific to the ancient Indian way of life, and the expectations of that society. Some of those features did not translate into other cultures fully as Buddhism expanded out of the subcontinent. Specifically, 惭补丑腻测腻苍补 Buddhism came to value the universal ethical spirit of Buddhism over the transmitted letter of the Vinaya rules.

With regard to the killing of animals for food, it is obvious that the purer the food we eat the more fit will our body become for the functioning of our inner faculties, but once more common sense must be employed. The Buddha as saying: 鈥淢y disciples have permission to eat whatever food it is customary to eat in any place or country provided it is done without indulgence of the appetite, or evil desire鈥�.^[2] And the monk must follow the rule 鈥�Pure in three respects鈥�: the monk has not seen, heard or suspected that the animal has been killed specifically for him.^[3]

They should eat something else. But they should also not become neurotic trying to avoid everything that contributes indirectly to killing. When we think about it, a certain amount of indirect contribution to killing can be found in most contemporary lives. Even driving a car or walking across the lawn kills beings. Various types of medicines we use have been tested on animals killing them, maiming them, or making them sick. Benefiting from these medicines is not killing. The Buddha said very clearly that your intention is what really counts.^[4]

Ambedkar says that the circumstantial evidence on the point is that the Buddha had no objection to eating meat offered to him as part of his alms. The monk can eat meat offered to him provided he was not a party to the killing of it. The Buddha resisted the opposition of Devadatta who insisted the monks should be prohibited from eating meat given to them by way of alms. Ambedkar gives another piece of evidence on the point is that Buddha was only opposed to the killing of animals in sacrifice.^[5]

People in our society often eat meat out of habit, because they have developed a taste for it, and for the lack of information about its ill effects. But these factors do not represent moral justification. Meat-eating is immoral because it involves the inhumane treatment of animals. It violates a basic moral principle of heaven and earth: namely, that it is wrong to kill, wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon other creatures.

We have always understood that, given its strong principle of 补丑颈峁僺腻 or non-violence, Buddhism frowned upon meat-eating, since meat-eating inevitably meant doing violence to animals that were slaughtered for food. The Buddha 艢腻办测补尘耻苍颈 himself was against the eating of meat and was in fact a strong advocate of vegetarianism and compassion towards animals. 补丑颈峁僺腻 or non-killing forms a very important part of the Buddha鈥檚 teaching.^[6]

In the light of the three fold rule the 笔腻濒颈 texts make a distinction between two kinds of meat, called respectively 耻诲诲颈蝉蝉补办补迟补尘补峁僺补 and 辫补惫补迟迟补尘补峁僺补. The former term is used to refer to meat destined for a specific person鈥檚 consumption. Such meat would not be cleared by the threefold rule. Although not stated so a rough criterion which could be used to identify this kind of meat is that the person doing the killing has a clear notion that the meat would be consumed by a specific person, and if that person were to consume it that person would partake not only of the meat but also of the karmic consequences attached to the provision of that meat. The term used for the other kind of which it is permissible to eat literally means 鈥渁lready existing meat鈥�. There has been some controversy as to what types of meat would fall into this category of 鈥渁lready existing meat鈥�. Some interpreters have taken it to mean that it refers to the meat of animals killed accidentally or killed by other animals. But in fact it includes meat sold commercially. This is clear from another incident in the Vinaya where the lady Suppiya sends her servant to the market to fetch meat (to make a soup for a sick monk), and is told by the servant that 鈥渆xisting meat鈥� could not be found as 鈥渢oday is not a slaughter day鈥�. This shows that meat slaughtered for sale in the market was regarded as pavatta-尘补峁僺补 and therefore falling into the category of permissible meat. This kind of meat is considered blameless because it is karmically neutral as far as the consumer is concerned (but not of course for the provider of the meat who must take the full karmic responsibility). We shall refer to the two kinds of meat as karmically effective and karmically neutral meat.

In other words the Buddha made a distinction between Principle and Rule. He did not make 补丑颈峁僺腻 a matter of rule. He enunciated it as a matter of principle or way of life. Ambedkar says that a principle leaves you free to act. A rule does not. Rule either breaks you or you break the rule.^[7]

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

James A. Benn. 鈥楧iet鈥�, In Encyclopedia of Buddhism: Vol.1, ed. Robert E. Buswell, USA: Thomson/Gale, 2004: 229.

[2]:

Christmas Humphreys, Buddhism: An introduction and guide, London: Penguin Books Ltd, 1990: 112.

[3]:

Vinaya Pi峁璦ka I. 237- 238.

[4]:

Henepola Gunaratana, Op. Cit. 116.

[5]:

Leolla Karunyakara, Op. Cit. 99.

[6]:

Ibid. 99.

[7]:

Ibid. 99.