TAKING A STAND
By
Ven. Abhinyana - Courtesy of Venerable Abhinyana.
Universal
Dharma Website. Published in PDF by Shabkar.Org, Amster-dam 2006.
About
the author
 Venerable
Abhinyana was born in 1946, in Eng-land to a Protestant
family. In 1970, during sum- mer holidays
in India, he made his first contact with Buddhism and
found out this religion was what he needed
to follow and practice. Finally, in 1972, he left
his home and be- came Buddhist monk
in the Thai Theravada Tradi- tion in Malaysia.
From 1979 he started his teaching career here and there, to provide the
teachings of Buddha for everyone with the purpose of helping
them get rid of their suffering and
achieve happiness. Especially, he spent much
time in helping Vietnamese refugees in Malaysia,
Philippines, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Singapore and
Thailand. Vener- able Abhinyana is
constantly travelling to offer
the Dharma talk for those wishing to learn and practice Buddhism.
Some
time ago I picked up a Buddhist magazine,
on the cover of which was a design pur- porting to show the hand of the
Buddha turning the Dharma-wheel. On the back cover,
however, there was a commercial advertising, among other things,
meat and fish for sale. Strange companions,
front and back! Certainly, I am aware that money must be raised for the
publishing of such magazines; it does- n’t grow on
trees. But I also think that discretion
should be used in the selection of advertisements to be included in Buddhist
magazines, even if it means rejecting some and thereby losing some funds;
after all, the purpose of publishing such magazines is to propagate the
Dharma, is it not? If we compromise our principles, we
defeat our purpose. By allowing the pages
of a Buddhist magazine to be used
for advertising meat for sale, we are—even if only indi- rectly—condoning
killing.
Indefensible
Feel
free to disagree; it won’t prevent me speaking out. Some
Buddhists maintain that the
Buddha never said we should be
vegetarians, and that monks (who the bulk of the Buddhist
rules apply to), may eat whatever is offered to them, as long as they do
not see, hear, or suspect that the animals, fish or fowl were killed especially
for them; if they so see, hear or suspect, they are forbidden to eat the
flesh. But this standpoint is totally indefensible, as anyone who looks
at things a little objectively can see. And to say, as some people do,
that by eating meat, they are helping the animals with their spiritual
growth, is too ridiculous and transparent to
be seriously con- sidered for a moment.
Firstly,
the Buddha never called anyone to believe
or follow Him; instead, He urged people
to see for themselves and find out what is true. Even so, many
Buddhists become prisoners of books,
repeating things like parrots or tape-recorders, without investi- gating,
thereby missing the great value of the Bud- dha’s Way, which is a Way
of self-reliance. He ex- horted people to "Test my Teachings
as a gold- smith would test gold,"
and "Work out your own salvation with
diligence" (according to the Buddhist scriptures, these
were His last words), and not de- pend upon Him to
save them, because "Buddhas are only Teachers;
they do but point the Way"— which is the most that anyone can
do; belief in saviours is regarded as a myth,
with no foundation in fact.
Metta-Karuna
To
use scripture to justify the disgusting
and cruel habit of eating meat is both dishonest and unworthy. I’ve
never been able to reconcile the preaching
of Metta-Karuna (Loving-Kindness & Compassion) with the practice
of meat-eating; they contradict each other. And
as to seeing, hearing or suspecting that the animal was
killed especially for someone, well, for whom is
the animal killed if not for those who eat its flesh? No amount of twisting,
juggling and verbal gymnastics can get around that. If nobody ate meat,
the butcher would not kill the animals.
This is not only obvious to everyone
except those who refuse to see, but
is in line with the Buddha’s teachings
about the Law of Dependent Origination, or Cause- and-Effect in
the moral realm, whereby it is shown
how one thing leads to another in
a chain-like se- quence.
Let
us examine the eating of meat by this doctrine, and see what it involves:
The
Consumer
The
consumer likes to eat meat, and his desire to do so is the main force that
keeps this Killing Wheel turning.
The
killer
Because
of people’s habit of eating meat,
others see a way of earning a living
and take up the gun and knife to
engage in butchery. There will always be
butchers and war and senseless destruction
of life, as long as people condone killing; it is a matter of demand-and-supply:
if there is a market for meat, some will try to
supply it—just as with drugs, sex and weapons.
The
animals
The
animals are victims of the unwholesome desire for flesh. Though it may
be the karma of the animals to be killed—as some believe—that does
not excuse the killer. The cause produces
the effect, and the effect, in turn,
becomes the cause of other effects, and so
on.
The
buyer
The
butcher kills for money. If nobody ate meat, the butcher would have to
find another job. Those who buy and eat meat keep the butcher’s hands
bloody, and the only people to whom
this is not clear are those who do not want to
see.
Demand
It
is like the trade in ivory and rhinoceros-horn: be- cause of the demand
for these things, elephants and rhinos have been hunted and killed to the
point where they are now in danger of extinction. Ivory is prized for its
beauty and rhino-horn for what is be- lieved to be its
aphrodisiacal-properties, which is probably just another silly
and cruel superstition. In order to boost their libido, or sexual energy—so
they believe—people are prepared to let
these magnifi- cent animals be shot and
left to rot on the African veldt. The poachers
who kill them cannot be totally blamed for this, as they are just one link
in the chain and not the main link, either. Most of them are just poor
tribesmen who also need to live, and the possi- bility of making big money
far outweighs the risk of getting caught and prosecuted. No, the buyers
and users of the animal products are
the real cause of this, and there is no getting away
from the fact. Stop the demand, and the supply will cease. What a pity
people are so selfish and stupid—much more so than the animals on which
they look down on with scorn!
Someone
once told me of a
high- ranking Tibetan lama appearing
sur- prised to learn she was vegetarian, and asked her why.
And, far from praising and encouraging her for abstaining
from meat, he even disapproved of it (maybe because, being
carnivorous himself and greatly attached to the taste of meat—he
took it as a criticism of his habit).
Consequences
…Because
of Tibet’s altitude, few vegetables will
grow there and so the diet of the people is largely and unavoidably
animal-based. The majority of Tibetans are Buddhists
and very pious as such. They scrupulously avoid killing anything—even
to the extent of beating firewood vigorously on the ground to shake free
any insects before burning it. How, then, do they get the meat they eat?
The butchers of Tibet are Muslims, who are regarded by the Buddhists as
‘low caste’ or ‘defiled’ because
of their livelihood. The Buddhists obviously do not see the
discrepancy in their outlook on this, which smells strongly of hy- pocrisy.
"If you delight in killing, you cannot fulfil your- self,"
wrote Lao Tsu in the Tao Te Ching.
Are
these just empty words? How shall one
attain Enlightenment except by opening one’s heart and becoming sensitive
to the rights and feelings of oth- ers? We do not
live by and for ourselves alone. What kind
of Enlightenment is it if we are indifferent to the pain and suffering
of others? Enlightenment is not just something to be hopefully attained
as a re- sult of following the Dharma, but
should be some- thing that manifests in our lives as we go
about our daily living.
Movement
Now,
suppose one person here—perhaps you—and another one there, starts to
think about this, and re-flects thus: "If no-one ate meat or wore
furs or skins, the animals would not be killed for such. I
do not agree with killing, for the animals
have the right to live and do not want to die—just
like me. I can live quite well on
vegetables, and so, as a protest against killing
and as an expression of sympathy for the
animals, I will become vegetarian from now
on." Let us further imagine what would
happen if the 300,000- plus monks in
Thailand—where Buddhism, for the most part,
has become passive and moribund— decided
to stop eating meat, and asked the
lay- people to offer them only vegetarian
food: Every day, millions of animals—cows,
pigs, goats, chick- ens, ducks, fish, prawns, etc.—would
not be need- lessly slaughtered; many lay-people would also
probably become vegetarians. But I am happy to
report that now, at last, there is a new movement in Thailand which is
making quite an impres- sion. The monks of this
movement are strict vegetarians, which is
something I never expected to see there,
but am cer- tainly very happy about. They lead simple lives,
free from the modern paraphernalia that fills
many of the monasteries these days,
and wander around preaching. So there is
hope; it all depends upon understanding, and begins with peo-
ple like you and I.
We
cannot force anyone else to change, but we can change ourselves, and thereby
change the world, as we are part of
the world, and if we change, the world
also changes, be it ever so little.
Don’t always wait for others to make
the first move, therefore; if you are
convinced a thing is right, follow it; no matter if it seems that
you are all alone, you should know that you are never really alone.
People
become vegetarians for different reasons, but to
abstain from eating meat because one thinks it is better for health or
for ‘making merit,’ or from the
consideration
that a chicken or fish might have been one’s relative or friend in a
previous lifetime, are not Buddhist reasons for being
vegetarian. A Buddhist abstains from eating
meat because he knows it is right to abstain,
and not from what he might get, per- sonally, from doing
so. He is a vegetarian for the sake
of the animals, not for his own sake; he consid- ers the effects of his
actions upon others.
Mind of our
own
Forget
about what the Buddha may or may not have said about eating
meat; He died a long time ago, and
none of us ever met Him. We are not the slaves of the Buddha—or are we?—but
have minds of our own, which He exhorted us to use. The animals are being
killed right now, often with our tacit
consent and approval. What do you think about this? While it means
food for many, money for others and
sport for some, for the animals themselves it means suf- fering and death.
From
every point-of-view, therefore—including health and economy— vegetarianism
is better. And, as for the lame excuse that, without eating meat, we would
not get enough nourishment and would
be weak and sickly, well, what about elephants, horses, cows, buffaloes,
etc. They are herbivorous, and are not weak! It is our minds that
are weak, not our bodies! So, why hesitate?
Is it because of attach- ment to taste? Is it because
we might find it incon- venient to change our diet? Do we
live to eat, or eat to live? In order
for us to eat meat, the animals must be killed. Is that not a great inconvenience
for them?
Attachment
Ah,
attachment! Some people may counter what
I have said above by saying we can be attached to vegetarianism,
too, and that attachment is attach- ment
in any form, and ends in suffering; we can be bound just as firmly with
gold chains as iron chains, and should follow the
Middle Way that avoids extremes. But is this so?
Isn’t it a matter of who and how? Following the Middle Way doesn’t
mean living in a non-committal, wishy-washy manner,
without principles or firm foundations; nor does it mean fol- lowing
a set of rules imposed upon us
or adopted from outside.
Following
the Middle Way means living according to our understanding, and trying
to keep Dharma at the center as a focal point, not self; we can still be
flexi- ble while holding fast to the essence and not com- promising
one’s principles; it must come from
in- side— from realization of how things are— not out- side.
The Middle Way— or Noble Eightfold
Path— on paper, is a general guideline, and must be seen as such; the
Way is not in the books, but in walking it, not a concept or doctrine,
but a living thing of ex- perience. And some of
the Buddha’s final words were: "Be
an island unto yourself; be a lamp
unto yourself; be a refuge unto yourself.
With the Dharma as your refuge, look
not outside of yourself for a refuge."
He did not mean cling to it as a personal possession
and become attached to it, considering it a thing of
self, but to abide by it, live by it, accord with it, for in so doing,
we may break free of the idea of self.
And the basic Five Pre- cepts— covering
our relationships with other living things (not
just people)— are designed to help us refrain from causing suffering.
Support
It
is often difficult to talk about vegetarianism to non- vegetarians,
for there is always the implication
of criticism or disapproval of their meat-eating—indeed, just being vegetarian,
without saying a word, is to make a statement and few of us
can accept criticism gracefully, even when it
is con- structive, as in talk about vege-
tarianism. But if we refrain from saying what needs to be said because
we think people may not like it and there- fore might not support us, truth
will be fettered and gagged. Is this
why there is so little
Dharma- propagation in many of the big and rich temples in Asia,
where, more often than not, ceremonies
and superstition hold center-place, and crowd
out all else?
We
must sometimes choose between speaking
the truth and being popular, as
the
truth is often unpopular. Maybe this is why Lao Tsu said:
"The wise person hears of the Tao [Way, or Dharma],
and follows it carefully. The average person hears of
the Tao, and thinks about it now and then. The foolish person hears of
the Tao, and laughs aloud. If there
were no laughter, the Tao would not be what it is." Thus,
the laughter of fools, who are unable— or refuse— to comprehend,
is a tribute to Tao. The praise
of fools is something more to be concerned about than their laughter, while
the criticism and censure of the wise should be taken to heart. If we wish
to propa- gate Dharma, there is an element
of risk involved; we must face the possibility of being unpopular,
as we cannot please everyone, and if we try, we might end up pleasing no
one.
We
may dilute the Dharma to suit the tastes of those who are unable or unwilling
to accept it as it is, but what would happen to
the quality? There would hardly be any flavour left!
Many Westerners, new to Buddhism, spontaneously become vegetarians as a
result when they hear the teachings about Compas- sion and
Respect for Life. What a pity, therefore,
that many allow themselves to be influenced
and persuaded into dropping their gentler mode of eating when they
come into contact with forms of Buddhism
that do not espouse vegetarianism, instead of persisting in
it. It’s a pity they lack the
courage of their convictions, and conform, for the sake of con- venience
or so as not to be different.
Should
we not find out for ourselves what
is right and wrong, true and false?
In this world of confu- sion, where it is hard
to resist the pressure to con- form, if we know a thing to be right, should
we not try to abide by it? Not to do so would be to lose the precious little
integrity we might have and which we must try to increase. Why
should we follow oth- ers, like sheep?
Is it because we think others al- ways
know where they are going, while we do not? Using the Dharma and seeing
things as they are, we have a way to develop clearer vision and more self-
confidence than this.
To
conclude: Just as it is natural for a flower to give off scent, so
Vegetarianism should be a natural ex- pression of our understanding that,
just as we our- selves wish to be happy and avoid pain, other living things
feel exactly the same way. Is it really so eso- teric that only very few
people are able to compre- hend this? I don’t think so, and therefore
I’ll continue to stand up for the animals, and say:
Stop killing!
Be kind to
animals by not eating them!
Bản
PDF (99KB) 
Ven.
Abhinyana
Abhinyana@hotmail.com |
Sinh
năm 1946 ở Anh quốc trong một gia đình đạo Tin Lành.
Năm 1970, trong kỳ nghỉ hè ở Ấn độ, Thầy có dịp
tiếp xúc lần đầu tiên với đạo Phật
và nhận ra đây chính là đạo Thầy đang tìm kiếm để
thọ giáo và thực tập. Hai năm sau, 1972, Thầy
quyết tâm bỏ nhà ra đi và trở thành
một vị khất sĩ theo truyền thống Tiểu
Thừa Thái tại Mãlai. Từ năm 1979, Thầy bắt đầu
đi đó đây để chia sẻ lời Phật dạy cho
mọi người với mục đích giúp họ thoát
khổ và tìm thấy hạnh phúc. Có điều đặc biệt là Thầy
dành hầu hết thì giờ của Thầy để giúp đỡ đồng bào
tỵ nạn Việtnam tại các trại tỵ nạn Mã lai, Phi luật tân,
Nam dương, Hồng kông, Tân gia ba và Thái lan. (Hình
bên Thầy Abhinyana at the Ajanta Caves in India)
