Buddhabhasa

2008-12-14T22:52:00.000-08:00

Birth, Old age, Decay and Death.

The most deplorable aspect of living is the above four components that virtually include the entire lifespan of an ordinary being, putthujjana. The spheres of suffering take all forms, from a feeling that is not all there, on to a terrible misfortune and calamity that our brethren in the south, east and northeast had experienced just the other day. If such sufferings were not what they are I would not know what they would be.

In addition to these manifestations the Buddha had on many occasions made reference to these possibilities with vast vision surpassing that of Venerable Anuruddha, though it apears a comparative few had paid heed to his admonishments. It is in our interests that every syllable that the Buddha had uttered be paid heed to as one realizes their import even gradually. This would mean that all of us scrujpulously undertake a life even in accordance with the five precepts.

The Buddha had enunciated this with no half-measures and with the full impact to be directly felt in order that beings may take the life of the Path in all seriousness. The Buddha had not denied the prevalence of minute strands of happiness pertaining to worldly life though the bounties in the supramundane spheres surpasses all that is beyond any reckoning. Such a state cannot apprehend the minds that ordinary humans are imbued with. Such minds should be developed, propped up by a life of purity, buttressed by meditation. Then the mind is makde calm and luminous in a manner that a searchlight is held into it, so to discover the defilements that pollute the deep recesses of ones mind and to make them leave.

Some many question the validity of this claim, but one only has to take up the cultivation the serene calm of samatha bhavana in order that even a part of what awaits one could be surmised by the sense of calm and tranquility one experiences in samatha. Such a practice inevitably leads one to the summum bonum of all existence by diligent efort Nibana, together with all its outcrop of miraculous adjuncts. Really, Nibana, being of the supramundane sphere, there is no measure by which it could be described in mundane terms. One has only to experience it by one by one alone through treading the path leading to it, in order that one may apprehend its full impact.
The Buddha had not reproached who had come in their old age to take up the practice. Any age or stage of life is suitable. It is only the effort and energy etc is required to cultivate it, in addition to Saddha. Bhikkhuni Sona, in utter misery at being cast away by her sons in law and sisters in law, in great grief found herself among the Ariya SAngha and the Buddha. Immediately knowing her plight by supernormal vision. He questionged her in a searching manner couple with delicacy. He gave her the practice that became the elixir of her life.

Though well past her three score years and ten, she had by immense perseverance and courage became an Arya Pugala. Her inability to sit down, due to her ailments, made her keep awake the entire night practising by holding on to a wall until mindfulness took charge. Realization justly dawned on her indomitable attempt!

Veasak, being a thrice - holy day, is good, as any to begin the practice with the fervor and tenacity required for it perhaps in the manner displayed by Bikkhuni Sona. If one is not that courageous or does not need that much of exertion, one could begin by the following of the five precepts in a fitting manner, seeing that not one does transgress even minutely the precepts one had undertaken.

Buddhism and Peace

2008-11-11T00:02:00.003-08:00

This is indeed a very apt topic as we live through these perilous times in a world that is troubled by a number of violent conflicts, resulting in death, injury and misery to millions of innocent people.
Perhaps it would be appropriate to preface this talk with a short introduction to Buddhism for the benefit of those who may not be familiar with its teachings and principles - even at the risk of causing some boredom to those of you who already know.

As most of you know Buddhism is based on the teachings and philosophy expounded by Lord Buddha well over 2500 years ago. The word Buddha is not really a name - it simply means 'the one who knows'. His real name was Siddhartha Gautama. Basically he was a human being and he did not claim to be a prophet or a messenger of God. He was however, a very special human being and a great teacher. All his teaching was based on what he himself discovered through his own effort and experience.

More or less the entirety of His instructions to his followers could be found within a single verse from the Dhammapada - which is a well-known and much respected anthology of some of His teachings:
'Sabba papassa akaranan, Kusalassa upasampada, Sacitta pariyo dapanam, etan Buddhana sasanam.' "Not to do any evil; to cultivate good; purify the mind;This is the teaching of the Buddha."

What is evil? In this context the word embraces all thoughts, words and actions that are unwholesome and unskillful - that arise in association with the three unwholesome roots - greed, hatred, and delusion. Greed can manifest in several ways - selfishness, avarice, envy, jealousy, covetousness, and so on. Hate could manifest as ill will, malice, strife, resentment, revenge, pride, etc. Delusion is not understanding the true nature of the world - believing what is not real to be real, the impermanent to be permanent and not understanding the law of cause and effect.

Conversely, good, wholesome and skillful actions are based on the three wholesome roots - non-greed or generosity, non-hate or loving kindness and non-delusion or wisdom.
the ultimate goal of ever Buddhist is enlightenment, which is the total and permanent eradication of greed, hatred and delusion by cultivating generosity, loving kindness and wisdom.

The Buddha gave a very simple yardstick by which one could ascertain what is good or bad wholesome or unwholesome, skillful or unskillful - if an action, this includes thoughts and words as well, does harm to oneself or to others it is bad and unwholesome. If, on the other, it benefits others or oneself such action is good, wholesome and skillful. The Buddha urged his disciples to "use oneself as a standard" when deciding how to treat others - as the old proverb goes, "Do as you would be done by." further he has said," when you know for yourselves these things are unprofitable, blame worthy and censured by the wise; These things when performed and undertaken, conduce to loss and sorrow, then reject them."

Based on these principles one can derive the moral code, commonly known as the five Precepts, or Panca Sila, that all Buddhists should try to abide by. IN The Light of Asia, Sir Edwin Arnold has captured the essence of these precepts as follows:
"Kill not, for pity's sake, lest ye slay.
The meanest thing upon its upward way.
Give freely and receive, but take from none.
By greed, or force, or fraud, what is his own .
Bear not false witness, slander not nor lie;
Truth is the speech of inward purity.
Shun drugs and drinks, which make the wit abuse;
Clear minds, clean bodies, need no soma juice.
Touch not thy neighbour's wife, neither commit.
Sins of flesh unlawful and unfit."

I am sure that all of you could see how these precepts would mould the character and train the mind of one who lives by them. Not only that, if everyone lives by the there would be peace and harmony in society.
Peace and harmony - isn't that everyone wants - For there can be no happiness without peace. Peace is our birthright and we must win it peace based on justice, love, freedom and mutual respect.
Yet what do we see War, terrorism, suicide bombers, fighting, killing - all leading to misery and extreme suffering. Look at what is happening in the Middle East _ the conflict between the Jews and the Palestinians-the tit for tat killings, the ever escalating cycle of violence-will it ever end? In Sri Lanka, how many young lives were lost in nearly 20 years of violence. What happened in America on that fateful 11th of September last year when thousands of innocent people lost their lives? Then we have the reaction to this attack-the so-called war on terrorism, the bombing of Afghanistan and now the imminent attack on Iraq. Is there ever and end? To quote the famous English poetry, John Milton, "For what can war breed, but still endless war."

Yet the history of war is as old as mankind itself. even in the time of the buddha there were wars and there are occasions when he had personally intervened to prevent them. At other times he stood aside knowing that there was nothing He could do.
Historically war is a method to secure wealth, territory, trade etc. by violence and force. Sometimes they have their origins in tribalism, ethnicity or even religion. Yet at other times it is started through real or perceived fear-'let us get rid of Saddam Hussein before he uses his weapons of mass destruction against us!' We watch on helplessly as the leaders of the world's super-powers espouse the necessity of war and try to justify it on seemingly plausible grounds. the sure prescription for peace could be found in the words of the Buddha, proclaimed over 2500 years ago but equally true today as it was then: "hatred is never appeased through hatred in this world; by love alone does it appease. this is an ancient principle". (dhammapada).

In the early sixties, the Prime Minister of China, Mr. Chou en-lai visited India to discuss the Indo China border dispute, which some of you may remember led to violent conflict between those two great nations. At this historic meeting, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister of India cited a quotation from the Dhammapada:
'Jayan veran pasavati-Dukkan seti parajayo
Upasanto sukan seti-Hitva jaya parajayan'
"victory breeds hatred.
The defeated live in pain.
Happily the peaceful live,
giving up victory and defeat."

In recent times we have seen the emergence of war s a profit-making industry in its own right for arms manufacturers who have acquired great economic and political influence in the so-called developed world. They lead us to believe that if we want peace we should prepare for war. Thus countries are encouraged to purchase and stockpile huge arsenals of more and more sophisticated weapons - sufficient to destroy the whole planet may times over. We are told that these weapons of mass destruction will never be used and that they are only there as deterrents. Would not it be much more skillful to spend the billions and billions of Pounds spent on weapons to alleviate the poverty and suffering that we witness in the poor countries particularly in Africa? Would not that be a better way to promote peace, harmony and happiness and to prevent conflict and war? The Buddha has said that it is not right to earn one's living by producing or dealing with arms.

As human beings we occupy this planet we call Earth - a tiny speck in the vast universe. We have grandiose ideas that we are making progress. We aspire to conquer the universe and tame nature to do our bidding! It is true that we have made great scientific and technological advances to satisfy our ever-escalating material and sensual needs. Sadly none of these developments have brought us peace or happiness because we have not paid due attention to the development of our minds. If we want peace, if we want happiness, this is where we should concentrate our efforts. We must all individually establish peace in our own hearts before we carry other message of peace to others and to the rest of the world.

A few days ago some of us were horrified to hear that a large quantity to toxic industrial effluent had leaked into the River Dee. We are greatly concerned a bout this and other ways in which our air, land, waterway and the sea get polluted. Quite justifiably we worry about global warming, vehicle emissions and so on. We have big conferences and draft treaties to reduce environmental damage caused by our own greed but many of us seem not even to be aware of the pervasive moral pollution that is taking over our society. More than protecting the environment from external pollution we need to protect our hearts and minds from this cancer of moral degeneration.

We live in a world that believes economic progress is the be all and end all. The level of our happiness seems linked to stock market indices and interest rates. At our peril, we tend to ignore the importance of spiritual development. Economic security is certainly important because without it spiritual and moral progress would not be possible but these two aspects must go hand in hand and there much be a balance between our material and spiritual aspirations.

When we talk of world peace, we as representatives of various religions have an important role to play. Sadly our history is littered with conflicts that have had their origins in the religions themselves. Just a few days ago we heard he tragic news when gunmen stormed a Hindu temple complex in the Indian state of Gujarat killing 29 worshipers and wounding several more. In recent times we have witnessed the conflicts between roman Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, between Hindus and Muslims in India and between Muslims and Christians in Pakistan and the Far east. Looking further back in history the crusades between 1095 and 1270 were launched by European armies raise at the request of the Pope, and were directed against he Muslims who controlled some of the Christian holy sites in the Middle East. These are but a few examples of many such conflicts caused by fundamentalism and religious intolerance.

Some of you would have heard of Emperor Asoka of India who fought many wars and conquered many kingdoms to form a vast Empire, 23 centuries ago. However, he later realised his folly, regretted his actions and embraced Buddhism. He erected pillars throughout his Empire and engraved what have become famous as Edicts of Emperor Asoka. In one of these Edicts he has stated the Buddhist standpoint with regard to religious tolerance with these words:
"One should not honour only one's religion and condemn the religions for this or tht reason. S doing one helps one's own religion to grow and renders service to the religions of others too. In acting otherwise one digs the grave of one's own religion and also does harm to other religions. Whosoever honours his own religion and condemns other religions does so indeed through devotion to his own religion, thinking: 'I will glorify my own religion.' But on the contrary, in so doing he injures his own religion more gravely. So concord, indeed, is commendable. Let all listen, and be willing to listen to the doctrines professed by others."

If we are to have enduring peace, all of us, particularly the leaders of the powerful countries, should think peace, speak peace and act peace. Nations must work for their welfare and development but should not ride roughshod over the needs and aspirations of weaker and poorer countries. There must be peaceful co-existence without interference in each other's internal affairs, sovereignty and territorial integrity. There is a need to identify and remedy situations that lead to strife, dissatisfaction and a sense of injustice - for these are the forerunners of conflict and violence. the qualities of loving kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity, so highly recommended by the Buddha, should rule our hearts and minds. Then we would not be living in this atmosphere of mutual suspicion, fear, jealousy, arrogance, greed, hate and delusion that is leading us steadily towards the brink of total extermination of the human race. In conclusion let us listen to the words of the Buddha:
"Often one must reflect up one's mind thus: 'For a long time this mind has been defiled by greed hatred and delusion. Mental defilement make beings impure, mental cleansing purifies them."

Hopefully I have managed to give you some food for thought.
Thank you for listening.
Sukino va khemino hontu - Sabbe satta bhavantu sukhitatta.
May all beings be happy and safe - may they have happy minds.

By Ven. Katumuluwe Sumanajothi
Ketumati Buddhist vihara,
Manchester, United Kingdom ........ ( From - Special English Article - Budusarana)

The Dharma Cakra

2007-12-22T04:58:00.001-08:00

It very clearly seen that the discovery of the wheel not only revolutionized the life of the primitive people by dynamically activating it but also remarkably accelerated the progress of human civilization. The sun, and also the moon, which are circular in shape and hence wheel-like, with their regular traversing across thee wide expansive sky, visibly affecting and influencing human life and nature, undoubtedly did hold the attention of the primitive people and spurred their imagination. In such a background it is not surprising to find the wheel, the Sanskrit and Pali equivalents of which are 'cakra'/ 'chakka' reepectively, coming to be commonly used for multiple symbolic purposes. References to the early symbolic use of thee wheel are found in the Rgveda itself. It is from this common usage that Buddhism adopted the wheel symbol for diverse purposes.

Among the numerous symbols used in Buddhism the wheel (cakra/cakka) is not only of common occurrence but is also of special importance. Besides being used as a symbol representing the Buddha it is also used in such compound-words as 'bhava-cakra' (wheel of existence), 'samsara-cakra' (thee continuous process of births and deaths), cakravala (a mythical mountain range encircling thee world), cakravarti (a wheel-turning monarch, a Universal king), agnna-cakra (wheel of secular authority) and so on. The cakra also used in Tantric Buddhism refers to four vital points in the body.

However, the most significant use of the word 'cakra' from the Buddhist point of view, is in the compound term Dharma-cakra (Pali dhamma-cakka). This appears to be purely of Buddhist origin. This compound term occurs n accounts dealing with the Buddha's first discourse. Perhaps, one of the earliest occurrence of this is in the Ariyapariyesana Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya. This event is described also in the Mahavagga of the Vinaya Pitaka and also in the Saccasamyutta of thee Samyuttanikaya where in the first discourse is recorded.

These accounts refer to the Buddha's meeting with a wandering ascetic called Upaka who inquired from thee Buddha where he was going. The Buddha is reported have told Upaka that he was on his way to the city of Kasi to 'set rolling the wheel of thee Dhamma' (Dhamma-cakkam pavattetum gacchami Kasinam puram)

The first discourse delivered by the Buddha to the group of five ascetic monks (Panca vaggiya bhikkhu) is named the Dhamma-cakka-pavattana Sutta. Going by the canonical records, it appears that it is the Buddha himself who used this term 'Dhamma-cakka to refer to his inaugural preaching, thus using the wheel-symbol to express the idea of 'spreading the Dhamma. There is no doubt that he selected this 'symbol' of the wheel because it connoted dynamism and continuous onward motion. This is further evident from the use of the word 'pavattana' (Skt, Pravaratana from pratvrt, to turn, to roll on) meaning, rolling forward. His selection of the Wheel-Symbol indicates also the Buddha's intention of rapidly spreading His teaching far and wide for the benefit and happiness of many.

It is said that once the 'Wheel of the Dhamma' was set rolling by the Buddha, the gods dwelling in different realms - from the earth dwelling gods to those in the company of Brahma exclaimed in turn that the Buddha has set rolling the Wheel of the Dhamma which cannot be reversed by any ascetic or Brahmin, or anyone in the world or Deva or Mara or Brahma (appativattiyam samanena va brahmanena va devena va marena va brahmuna va kenaci va lokasmim).
The uniqueness of this irreversible even was such, that at that very moment, at that very instant, at that very second, this exclamation spread as far as the Brahma world, and the ten thousand world systems shook, quaked, trembled and immeasurable glorious radiance appeared in the world surpassing the divine majesty of the devas.

While the Wheel symbolizes the dynamism, the vigour, and the rapidity with which the message spread, what the word 'Dhamma signifies context is clearly seen that the Buddha's intention was to communicate to and share with as many as possible the truth he realized by becoming enlightened. So the 'Dhamma' in this context means the teaching the Buddha desired to communicate to his listeners. These teaching are embodied in the Dhammacakka pavattana Sutta. Though at times thee word Dhamma, as in this particular context, is rendered into English as 'righteousness' this does not convey the exact meaning of the term, and hence, it is better to leave it untranslated.

The word 'Dhamma' is one that is pregnant with meaning, and this has induced the commentators to add more meanings to the word 'Dhamma' in the Sutta titled "dhammacakka pavattana Sutta". Thus, at times in the commentarial tradition the Dhamma is explained as the twelvefold penetrative knowledge (dvadasakara pativedhanana) of the Four Noble Truths realized at the time of Enlightenment as well as the knowledge of the twelvefold exposition (dvadasakara desananana) of this penetrative knowledge.

At times Dhamma is taken to refer to the twelve-linked formula of dependent origination (dvadasakara paticcasamuppada). There is another explanation which says that all the thirty-seven factors of enlightenment (Bodhipakkiya Dhamma) together with 'Samatha' and 'Vipassana are subsumed under Dhamma.

These variations in interpretations are also sometimes refleected in the artistic representation oft he Dhamma-cakka in paintings and sculptures. In these the Dhamma-cakka is represented both in a very simple as well as in a very intricately decorative style. In creating these pictorial representations of the Dhamma-cakka the artists appear to have been influenced not only by the textual accounts describing the Buddha's setting in motion the Dhamma-cakka but also by graphic accounts of the 'cakkaratana' of thee cakkavatti-raja. In these the 'cakkaratana' is described as being complete in all aspects with its thousand spokes, with its rim and its nave (Sahassaram sanemikam sanbhikam sabbakaraparipannam).

emperor Asoka of India used a form of the Dhamma-cakra as the royal emblem. He is generally considered a ruler who tried to emmulate the cakkavatti-raja model put forward in Buddhism. It appears that he desired to project himself as both a temporal ruler wielding his wheel of secular authority (anna-cakka) as well as a sort of spiritual authority through the spread of his 'Dhamma', which appears to have been much influenced by the Buddha's political philosophy. This is quite in keeping with his dharmaveijaya practice. Therefore the Dhamma-cakka adopted by Eemperor Asoka could be the result of the influences of all these aspects: the 'anna-cakka' 'cakra-ratna' of the cakkravarti and the dharma-cakra.

The importance of the setting in motion the wheel of the Dhamma in the Deer Park at Isipatana is considered such a significant event that the Dhamma-cakka has been used to symbolize the Buddha himself, prior to the making of the Buddha image. Subsequently, when the Buddha image appeared, this event was symbolically represented by seated Buddha images depicting a particular hand-gesture of the Buddha (mudra) called the Dhammacakra-mudra.
In this mudra the tips of the middle finger and the thumb of the right hand are joined together and held near the heart. It rests on the left hand having finger tips in a similar position. It symbolises the first preaching of the Law by the Buddha at Saranath.

From the hand book,
Dharma Cakra and The Buddhist flag.

The Buddhist Flag

2007-12-21T05:14:00.000-08:00

Flags are commonly used in various cultures, for both secular and religious purpose. Early Buddhist texts also contain evidence to show that flags were used in India from ancient times. These references show that they were used not only by men, but also by gods and other super-human beings. the Sakka, the king of gods as well as other leading gods had their own flags.

Flags were used in celebration of important events. For example, when the Bodhisatta's mother, queen Mahamaya, went to her parental home for her confinement, the road from Kapilavastu to Devadaha was decorated with flags. The Buddhist texts also mention that the devotees built pavilions and hoisted flags to receive the Buddha and his disciples. Flags were used to honour the Bodhi-tree. The route, both in India and Sri Lanka, was beautifully decorated with flags. The railings of the Bharhut depict a stupa decorated with flags. In Sri Lank flags were used to celebrate Buddhist religious events. It is recorded in the great chronicle, the Mahavamsa, that when king Dutthagamini went to enshrine the Buddha-relics in the Great-Stupa - the Ruvanvalisaya in Anuradhapura, he was accompanied by one-thousand and eight youths carrying multicoloured flags. These evidence show that flags symbolised honour, respect, joy and unity.

In keeping with this age-old tradition of using flags, the Buddhists have designed a flag of their own to symbolise religious piety, solidarity and unity, it is the Sri Lankan Buddhists who first felt the necessity and took the lead in designing a Buddhist flag. As a consequence of the triumph of the Buddhist revivalist movement in Sri Lanka in the later part of the 19th century, some eminent Buddhist leaders, both clergy and laity, formed an organization called the Colombo Commitee. It comprised of Ven. Hikkaduwe Sri Sumangala Nayaka Thera (Chairman) Ven. Migettuwatte Gunananda Thera, Messrs. Don Carolis Hewawitharana, Muhandiram A.P. dharmagunawardhana, William de Abrew, Charles, A. de Silva, N. S. Fernando, Peter de Abrew, H. william Fernando and Carolis Pujitha Gunawardhana (Secretary). An immediate task of this Committee was to celebrate the Vesak festival of the year 1885 which, due to the continuous agitation of the Buddhists, was declared a public holiday by the British rulers. They also decided to highlight this event by hoisting a flag which had Buddhist significance. It is for this purpose that the Colombo Committee designed the new Buddhist flag.

This flag was made up of six colours. These colours are: blue (nila), yellow (pita), crimson (lohita), white (odata), tawng (manjesta) and a bright and resplendent colour (pabhassara), made up of mixture of the above five colours. These colours are of great significance to the Buddhists.

The Buddha, one of the greatest personalities the world has ever seen, was extremely charismatic person, a great being (mahapurusha). The early Buddhist texts record that the Buddha possessed thirty-two signs of a Great Being (mahapurusha lakshana) and also eighty-minor signs (asiti anuvyanjana). One of these signs is the aura - rays of splendour and lustre emanating from his whole body. In canonical Pali texts this is called sarirappabha, byamappabha or sarira ramsi. This radience consisted of six colourss namely:

Nila (blue)...... issuing from his hair and the blue portions of his eyes.
Pita (yellow)...... issuing from his skin and the yellow portion of his eyes.
Lohita (crimson) ...... from flesh, blood and red portions of his eyes.
Odata (white) ........... issuing from his bones, teeth and the white portions of his eyes.
Manjesta (tawny) ......issuing from different parts of his body.
Pabhassara ....combination of these colour issuing also from different parts of the Buddha's body.

These colours have been considered by Buddhists as denoting sanctity of the Great Being - the Buddha, and the Colombo Committee was quite right in selecting these colours for the Buddhist flag. This flag was first presented to the public on the 17th of April 1885, when it appeared in the newspaper called Sarasavi Sandarasa. The first occasion that it was used in public was when it was hoisted at the temple called Dipaduttarama, in Kotahena. This was on the Vesak Full Moon day which fell on the 28th of May, 1885. Ceremonial hoisting was done by Ven. Migettuwatte Gunananda Thera. This Vesak day, besides its religious significance, was of greeat importance for the Buddhists of Sri lanka, for it marked thee first occasion, under the British rule, of celebrating the Vesak Full Moon day as public holiday.

The original Buddhists flag underwent minor changes on the suggestion of Henry Steele Olcott, who pioneered the Buddhist education movement in Sri Lanka. He first saw the flag in 1886. He was greatly impressed by the idea behind the flag, but was not very pleased with its size and shape. This is clear from what he has said about the flag: "as the Colombo Committee has sketched the flag it was of the inconvenient shape of a ship's long streaming pennant which would be quite unsuitable for carrying in processions or hoisting in houses". Therefore he suggested that it should be made in keeping with the normal size of national flags. Modifications were made accordingly, and unanimously approved by the leading monks of the time. This modified Buddhist flag appeared in the Sarasavi Sandarasa of 8th April 1886, and it was this modified flag that was hoisted on the Vesak Fullmoon day of 1886. It is this modified flag that is in use now at all Buddhist functions.

This flag was introduced to Japan in 1889 by Anagarika Dharmapala and Henry Steele Olcott, and subsequently introduced to Burma.

This Buddhist flag that originated in Sri Lanka has now become the flag of all Buddhists in the world. Perhaps you are all aware that this is due to the farsighted proposal of the late Professor G. P. Malalasekera, the Founder President of the World Fellowship of Buddhist (W.F.B). He made this proposal at the inaugural conference of the W.F.B. held in Kandy, Sri Lanka, on May, 25th, 1950, which was attended by 138 delegates from 29 different countries. This proposal was unanimously accepted, and since then thee Buddhist flag has been enjoying international recognition as the emblem and symbol of Buddhist piety, unity and solidarity. This is why this Buddhist flag has been adopted as an important item n the official insignia of the W.F.B.

Thus it is seen that the Buddhist flag is of great sanctity and immense significance to all Buddhists should honour the Buddhist flag, hold it in the highest esteem and treat it as they treat their national flag. Care and attention should be paid both in making the Buddhist flag as well as in hoisting it. A standard size should be adopted and thee usual standard size is that of the national flag. The arrangement of colours, too, should be done methodically. The first five colours should be represented by vertical, narrow bands of equal size in the following order - blue, yellow, crimson, white and tawny. The sixth colour, which is made up of a combination of above five colours, is represented by horizonted rectangular bands with blue at the top and tawny at the bottom. When hoisting on a flag-staff the staff should be fixed to the vertical blue band. Similarly when hoisting on a string, the string should be attached to thee narrow blue band.

ွScope and Use of Freedom of Thought in Buddhism

2007-12-04T11:09:00.000-08:00

....................................By Sanath Nanayakkara.............
Freedom of thought is closely linked with the freedom of the individual and the operation of his free will. Both Brahmanism and a majority of the Sramana teachings did not consider the individual to be free. According to Brahmanism the individual is a creature created by the Creator. Hence he is more or less a puppet in the hands of his Creator. Brahmanism is a revealed teaching and hence, considered infallible and unquestionable. Devotees have to accept the teachings blindly. The Creator is the one who orders and plans an individual's life, with all its happiness and unhappiness predetermined and put in place. All that an individual has to do is to faithfully adhere to the revealed teaching and lead the life prescribed in the sacred texts. In such a situation the question of free will does not arise.

Many of the Sramana teachings, too, were deterministic and fatalistic. Some of them denied the efficacy of moral life, human action and human effort. While some maintained that the whole life is pre-programmed, and the individual action and effort to steer it to any other direction is futile. Some others maintained that the present happiness and unhappiness is predetermined by one's past deeds, and this is unalterable. Those who denied the efficacy of moral life advocated indiscriminate enjoyment of sensual pleasures.

In these religions and philosophies there was no room for freedom of thought and investigation. All these religions and philosophies advocated the following of a life laid down according to a stereotyped fromat in which all events, from the beginning to end, according to some not only up to death but up to final liberation, are predetermined and fixed.

Buddhism stands unique in this religious milieu. Buddhism considered the individual to be in dependent, endowed with free will, capable of thinking freely, choosing freely between alternatives, taking initiative, putting forth effort, and striving. The Buddha emphasized that one is one's own master (Dhammapada. stz. No. 160); that one is responsible for one's purity and impurity (ibid stz. Nos. 161, 165); and one's predicament is one's own creation. Hence, an individual has to use his discriminate knowledge, avoid evil, do good, take the initiative and strive hard to attain liberation.

The Buddha presented himself merely as a torch-bearer (ukka-dhara) a guide (maggassa akkhata). Each individual has to do his part of the duty to liberate himself. The Dhamma has to be individually understood by the wise. All these are features unique to Buddhism, and they call for investigation and discriminative thinking.

Buddhism rejects blind faith, which it refers to as 'amulika saddha' (lit. rootless or baseless faith), and encourages 'akaravati saddha' (reasoned faith) (see Canki Sutta, Majjhimanikaya) Buddhism is not a revealed teaching to be accepted on blind faith; hence it extends an invitation to those interested to ' come and see' (ehipassika). Not only the Dhamma, even the Buddha offered himself for scrutiny and investigation, a feature unparalleled in the history of religions. (Vimamsaka Sutta, Majjhimanikaya)

The Kalama Sutta of the Anguttaranikaya can be called a sort of 'charter of free inquiry'. This Sutta takes up the then accepted the criteria of the truth and examine their validity as means of obtaining true knowledge. These then are:
1) Vedic textual tradition (Anussava)
2) Unbroken tradition maintained by successive generations of teachers (Parampara)
3) Hearsay (Itikira)
4) Approved textual tradition (Pitakasampada)
5) Logic (Takka-hetu)
6) Reasoning (Nay-hetu)
7) Validity of reason contained in the teaching (Akaraparivitakka)
8) Agreement between the teaching and the views held by the individual (Ditthimijjhanakkhanti)
9) Competence of the teacher (Bhabbarupata)
10) Respectability and reputation of the teacher (Samanonogaru)
These ten can be broadly divided into two groups: Nos. 1,2,3,4,9 and 10 as means depending on some kind of authority and Nos. 5,6,7,8 as depending on reason.

The Buddha was neither a traditionalist nor a logician nor a mere inquirer but an experientialist (Sangarava Sutta, Majjhimanikaya). Hence he adopted a cautious attitude to these. He did not reject any of these outright. His advice was not to blindly accept any of them merely because they are approved criteria for obtaining the truth. In some other Suttas such as the Sandaka Sutta and Canki Sutta the Buddha explained the limitations of some of these criteria.

In the Kalama Sutta the Buddha presented a new criterion. This is the use of one's own experience and understanding in deciding between what is right and wrong, good and bad. the Buddha says that anyone if he finds, through his experience and understanding, that the adoption of some view or a course of action is unprofitable, blameworthy, censured by the wise, leading to loss and sorrow, or in other words, leading to the growth of greed, hatred and delusion, he should reject such a view or course of action and adopt whatever view and course of action leading to opposite results.

This shows that freedom of thought allowed in the Kalama Sutta has as its ambit of operation the moral issues involved in one's day to day life. This is understandable for the main focus of the Buddhist practice is to develop a moral life. This new criterion has much practical and it is seen that most of our day to day activities are of moral nature.

The Buddhist life is a life of abstention from evil or what is harmful, and cultivation of what is good and beneficial. The Buddha suggests numerous other methods, besides the one given in the Kalama Sutta, that could be used to guide one's thinking when deciding between good and bad. One is to consider the effect of one's action on oneself as well as on others. One is advised to give up all views and actions harmful to oneself and others (See Ambalatthika Rahulovada Sutta, Majjhimanikaya)

Similarly one could analyse one's motives and abstain from all actions motivated by greed, hatred and delusion. the Veludvara Sutta (Samyuttanikaya ef. Dhammapada Stz. No. 129) gives another very practical aid to guide one's behaviour. It says that one should take oneself as the example and avoid doing anything to others that one would not wish others do to oneself.
Besides, the Buddha says that one could adopt the three "authorities" (Adhipateyya) to help one decide and choose particular veiws or causes of actions. These are the authority of
1) one's own conscience ........(attadhipateyya),
2) public opinion ....................(lokadhipateyya), and
3) morality .............................(dhammadhipateyya).
Even with regard to customs and traditions Buddhism holds that one should not blindly hang on to them, merely because they are dear and long cherished. One should be ready to abandon tradition that are hindrances, and adopt beneficial and progressive ones. (See Payasi Sutta, Dighanikaya)

However, in the present, there is a widely prevalent wrong view about freedom of thought encouraged in Buddhism through the injunctions laid down in the Kalama Sutta. Some take these injunctions out of context and try to expand the ambit of their application. Such interpretations can lead one's freedom of thinking to a kind of 'wild as freedom'. this indeed will amount to utter misuse of freedom of thought and would, perhaps, bring about much harm to those who conduct their affairs in accordance with such unlimited freedom of thinking, and also cause immense problems to others.

See further:
K.N. Jayatilleke: ..................Early Buddhist Theory of knowledge.
O.H. de A Wijesekera: .......The Buddhist Concept of Mind (Bodhi leaves A 9)
Gunapala Dharmapsiri: ..........Fundamentals of Buddhist Ethics.
Sanath Nanayakkara: ............How Free is Freedom of Thought, (Bodhi leaves, 156)
Encyclopaedia of Buddhism: ....Articles on Ethics, Freedom, Free will.

Live a good secular life for the well being of here and hereafter

2007-11-29T05:07:00.000-08:00

Buddhism aims at the propagation of the Noble message of the Buddha 'for the welfare of the many' both here and hereafter. Some scholars have interpreted Buddhism as a religion which is meant only for persons that have renounced household life. They tried to show Buddhism as a pessimistic religion because Buddhism is a kind of religion which obstructive and hostile to worldly progress. But this is an utter misconception. Buddhism is a religion which provides for good and happiness both for the homeless life as well as household life. For one who goes forth to homeless life will attempt to find our the way to get rid of worldly pleasure. But for the person who enjoys household life he may take care of how to lead it in a happy way. Thus, the Suttas such as Sigalovada Sutta, Vyaggapajja Sutta, Parabhava Sutta, Vasala Sutta and Mahmangala Sutta show very clear how a lay-person leads his life for the good, happiness and welfare both here and hereafter.

Buddhism presents a very practical guide for people leading household lives to strive hard and make life successful, for Buddhism believes that poverty leads to lot of problems and corruptions, thus preventing people from turning towards religion. Cakkavattisihanada Sutta, Kutadanta Sutta and Ina Sutta all show the miseries caused by poverty. When we read such discourses it shows that Buddhism is not a pessimistic teaching. Buddhism encourages its followers to earn wealth through righteous means and tell them ways of using it properly for one's own good and for the good of others. One day the young man Deeghajanu (Vyaggapajja as addressed by the Buddha here) requested the Compassionate One some instruction concerning success in life here and hereafter. And the Buddha instructed him how the wealth should be earned, protected and used for his well being as well as the well being of other. Based on this fact the Buddha encourages lay-people who live in house satisfying the senses to follow his practical guidance. Herein, The Buddha instructed thus: There are four factors that contribute to the happiness of a person in this world.

What are those four factors?
(1) Achievement of indefatigable effort (utthana-sampada),
(2) Watchfulness of wealth (arakkha-sampada),
(3) To have good companions (kalyana-sampada), and
(4) Balanced livelihood (samajivikata).

Achievement of indefatigable effort (utthana-sampada) Buddhism encourage all to work hard and earn wealth because Buddhism considers poverty as a misery, as a cause of conflict among the society. Take the Noble Eight-fold Path of the Buddha, herein, sammavayama is given an important item for earning wealth and work hard by righteous means. Acquring wealth is good and encouraged in Buddhism. But this achievement of wealth should be based on moral values. The wealth should be earned by righteous means (dhammika dhamma laddha), the wealth should be earned by sweat (seda vakkitta) and the wealth should be earned by toil (bahubala paricita). The Buddha approved righteous means of earning as farming (kasi), cattle breading (gorakkha), trade (vanijja), industry (sippannatara) and state service (rajapurisa). There are also five trades one has to avoid. There are: sale of living beings (satta vanijja), sale of weapons (sattha vanijja), sale of flesh (mansa vanijja), sale of intoxicating drink (majja vanijja) and sale of poisons (visa vanijja).

Watchfulness of wealth (arakkha-sampada) One should take care of wealth and without wasting what one has earned righteously. The Buddha said (in Vyaggapajja sutta) that there are many ways that cause one's wealth to be ruined and therefore one should be careful and vigilant in keeping one's wealth. The wealth earned should be protected from, fire, thieves, confiscation and also should be protected by ill-disposed heirs who try to take away one's wealth. There are six ways or six avenues leading to loss of wealth (bhoga-apaya-mukha) mentioned in the Sigalovada sutta.
These are: addition to (1) intoxicants, (2) loitering in streets late in the night, (3) haunting clubs and theatres for entertainment, (4) gambling, (5) association with bad friends and (6) indolence. Addition to women and laziness are other causes, similarly extravagant living to cause problem.

Having a good companions (kalyana mittata) One should rely or associate with persons who instruct, help and encourage him in carrying out his business. One should be careful not to fall into association with persons of evil ways. The Buddha's instruction to have reliable companions is shown in Vyaggapajja sutta that there may be young men but possessed of maturing qualities. There may be elderly men but possessed of maturing qualities. Both young and elderly men who have faith n the Buddha or who are of morality (sila) of generosity (caga) of wisdom (panna) should be associated. If one associates with such persons, talks to them, discusses with them and follows the instruction given by them, he could progress in accumulating wealth and live a peaceful household life.
In the Sigalovada sutta the Buddha identified four types of bad friends and four types of good friends.
The four types of bad friends are:
(1) the friend who always seeks what he can get (annadatthuhara),
(2) the friend who talks much but empty words (vaciparama),
(3) the friend who merely flatters you (anuppiyabhani), and
(4) the friend who is fellow-wastrel (apayasahaya).
These four types of friends are really foes, not true friends. One should recognizing them and should hold himself aloof from them to avoid panic, fear or wasting one's wealth.
The four types of good friends are:
(1) the friend who is a helper (upakaraka mitta),
(2) the friend who is always in time good and bad (samana sukhadukkho mitta),
(3) the friend who is always show the right way (atthakkho mitta) and
(4) the friend who is full of sympathy (anukampako mitta). These four kinds of friends are really true ones. One should associate such kinds of friends for the progress in one's wealth.

Balanced livelihood (samajivikata) Balanced living is to avoid two extremes as extravagance and miserliness. This is seen when the Buddha has advised people to earn wealth and not be used excessive in spending. There are some people who lead a simple life and content with their income. They do not want to be very rich and they spend their income in the proper way. But for the person who wants to be charitable and generous and help the people who are in need of help, should try to earn much wealth by righteous means. Such a person should be virtuous and energetic. The Sigalovada sutta gives instruction how to use one's income. Herein, the wealth earned righteously should be divided into four portions. One portion should be used for daily expenses. Two portions should be used for the investment on business. One portion should be deposited carefully for the use in future in the time of need. The wealth earned by righteous means should make oneself happy and look after one's family. Besides, one has to perform five main duties (panca-bali).
These are:
(1) treating relation (nati-bali),
(2) treating visitors (attithi-bali),
(3) performing religious rites (devata-bali),
(4) performing rites, for dead parents and others (pubbapeta-bali) and
(5) paying taxes to the government (raja-bali). The Buddha also accepts that people should earn wealth to be happy. There are four kinds of happiness one could enjoy.
These are:
(1) Atthi sukha - the happiness an individual feels when he knows that he has enough. Satisfaction and contentment with the fulfillment of basis needs gives one's happiness.
(2) bhoga sukha - the happiness an individual feels when he enjoys what he has rightly earned. (3) Anana sukha - this is the happiness when one has enough and there is no need to fall into debt. Falling into debt is a great source of misery. If one is able to know one is free of debts, this s a great happiness one could enjoy.
(4) Anavajja sukha - this is the deep mental happiness an individual feels when his consciousness is clear that he has not done anything bad or wrong in earning his living.

The Buddha has never praised poverty as "it is an ordeal for a person living a household life who enjoys pleasures" "Daliddiyam dukkham loke kamabhogino". Thus, the admonition of the Buddha to householders is to try to earn wealth righteously and to spend it in the proper way and thus to live a good secular life to assure happiness here and hereafter.

BUDDHIST VIEW ON VEGETARIANISM AND MEAT EATING

2007-11-24T23:12:00.000-08:00

Conclusion
The Buddha is the only Teacher who never claimed that his teaching alone is right and others are wrong. Freedom of thought is the Buddha's perfect strategy of investigating what is right and wrong. Without further investigating what the essence of his teaching is one should not end up by merely thinking that refraining from food what is regarded as impure makes one a good Buddhist. Diet should not become a source of serious controversy with regard to one's sprituality.

Food, of course, is important to everyone because among the four necessities of human requisite (viz: food, shelter, cloth and medicine) food is one of them. Therefore the Buddha says (sabbe satta aharatthitika) "all beings subsist on nutriment or edible food". In the Kosalasamyutta of the Samyutta Nikaya, the Buddha advised King Passenadi Kosala to be moderate in food (bhojana mattannu). Whether it is vegetable or meat one has to be moderate in consuming them. This may also be related to the Vinaya rule of not to eat after mid day and the practice of bhojane mattannuta by monks. Over eating cause laziness, which is one of the six kinds of avenues leading to downfall mentioned in the Sigalovada Sutta of Dighanikaya. Monks are supposed to contemplate on food (paccavekkhana) before they partake it. In Puttamamsa Sutta, the Buddha taught to his disciples who to regard the material food (kabalinkara ahara). Food should be taken not for pleasure (davaya), not for indulgence (madaya), not for personal charm (mandanaya), not for comeliness (vibhusanaya), but for the sheer necessity of living. The Buddha gave a parable concerning parents with their child in desert about 100 yojanas extant. When their provisions have run out and extremely feel hunger, their beloved child was killed and they eat it flesh. They ate it without passion of the senses and as this simile shows material food also should be taken without passion, without further thinking that "this food is very taste, what is make of?" The material food is also important for living being. there are three other important nutriments for life. They are; Phassa-ahara (sense-impression), Manosancetana-ahara (volition thought) and Vinnana ahara (consciousness).
Living style of monks during the Buddha time was begging for food from house to house and accepting food when invited and offered by devotees. Therefore it is reasonable to set a rule of consumption of food. If the food offered was meat, monks are allowed to eat under three circumstances; that is unseen, unheard and no doubt. The ideal monkhood is described as controlled in deed and word, restrained food for the stomach, with small stomach, moderate in food, easily satisfied, and undisturbed. A person who immoderate in food is described as one who is thoughtless and unwise. He takes food for the sake of amusement, pride, decoration, ornamentation, insatiability, immoderation and thoughtlessness as to food.
Nutriment is not only a material phenomenon, but as an active process it is also a condition (ahara-paccaya) of support of two kinds: the relation of edible food to the body and the relation of immaterial support to co-existing states of mind and body. It is this nutritive support in the psychological field which forms the basis of the doctrine of kamma and the teachings connected therewith. Food or sustenance (ahara) is frequently synonymous with causal condition, e.g., "from the arising of food is the arising of the body; from the ceasing of food is the ceasing of the body; and the way leading to the ceasing of the body is the Noble Eightfold Path" (aharasamudaya rupasamudayo, aharanirodha rupanirodho; ayam eva ariyo attangiko maggo rupanirodhagamini patipada): (S. III, 59)

BUDDHIST VIEW ON VEGETARIANISM AND MEAT EATING (5)

2007-11-24T11:22:00.000-08:00

Arguments about meat eating
On the issue of argument has been continuing in Buddhist society between pro-vegetarian and pro-meat eater. The fact is that they want to identify as to which practice is superior and inferior on moral grounds. This is happening, mostly, between Theravada tradition and Mahayana tradition because of some misinterpretations of textual concepts. All Theravada Buddhists are not meat eaters and nor are all Mahayana Buddhists are vegetarians. It depends on personal inclination or feelings on the grounds that one's understanding.

Pro-vegetarians give various evidence by referring to many Mahayana sutras such as Shurangama sutra, Brahmajala sutra, Angulimaliya sutra, the Mahamegha sutra, Lankavatara sutra, Mahaparinirvana sutra, Scripture of Brahma's Net, etc. By rejecting Mahayana point of view Pro-meat eaters have pointed out many references such as Vinayapitaka chapter on Devadata, about general Siha, Jivaka Sutta of Majjhimanikaya, Mahaparinibbana Sutta on Kammaraputta chapter, Amagandha Sutta of Suttanipata, etc. These are references have been claimed by the two groups. In the article of Prof. M. Sivasuriya, emphasizing on Mahaparinibbana Sutta, he says "The Buddha condemned the consumption of meat. Citing from the Sanskrit version, the Buddha declared: "I instruct the disciples that from today onwards they should stop the eating of meat". This message is mysteriously missing in the Pali version of this Sutta. If it was so, it is doubtable whether this statement was interpolated to the Sanskrit version at later date or it was deleted from the Pali version." Anyhow, it is believed by majority that Theravada tradition is known as a tradition of preserving the original of the Buddha's teaching since the first Buddhist Council. They are even afraid of deleting minor rules of Vinaya and held the second Council to settle this issue. Therefore, the above statement is a questionable. On the contrary, the Lankavatara Sutra of the Mahayana text is a later compilation. It is generally believed that the Sutra was compiled during the 350-400 AC. The chapter 8th of this Sutra is supposed to be later addition to it. Another controversy that occurs in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta is the word sukaramaddava (the last meal the Buddha received from Cunda). Commentators have given different interpretations regarding this term: (1) tender and soft meat of the pig, (2) bamboo shoots or tender parts of a palm tree, (3) mushroom grown at the spot trampled upon by pigs, (4) name given to a certain elixir or panacea, (5) method of cooking soft boiled rice with the five liquid products of the cow, and (6) soft meat of the boar in a forest. All these views recorded in the udana Atthakatha, Digha Atthakatha, and its Tika. From these point of views we have learned that there is no clear information whether the interpreter of the term were of vegetarianism group or non-vegetarianism group. On the basis of those complex interpretations, the controversies seem to have occurred among Theravada tradition itself. Pro-vegetarians may claim that the Buddha did not eat pork from Cunda, but pro-meat eaters may say the Buddha did it. The Mahayana Sutras vigorously and unreservedly denounce the eating of meat, mainly on the ground that such an act violates the Bodhisattva's compassion. But the Pali canon of Theravada has no mention of endorsing or repudiating vegetarianism. Vegetarians argue that eating meat increases industries that cause cruelty and death to millions of animals. Therefore refraining from meat eating is spiritually wholesome and helps to cultivate compassion. Non-vegetarians also would have argued that merely eating meat from market has nothing to do with percept, unless one actually kills an animal by oneself or order someone to kill for him. If it is directly responsible for animal's death non-vegetarian is no different from vegetarian because farmer has ploughed his fields and in the process may have caused many creatures to die and sprayed chemical to protect from those creatures. Pro-meat eaters refer to the Jivaka Sutta of Majjhimanikaya to show that the Buddha allowed monks to et meat under three circumstances (unseen, unheard, not doubt). but some vegetarians still do not accept this to be non-attached to what food one ate, or being infatuated with food. They argue that could meat eater do so if it was direct poison that was offered to him to be eaten? Such argument can be put forth if they consider that eating meat itself is regarded as king of mind-pollution or karmically unwholesome. Furthermore, some may insist on arguing that eating meat may not reduce our craving (tanha), and so there must be something spiritually wholesome being a vegetarian. This can not be absolutely true. As the numbers of vegetarians increase in society, a unique style of Chinese vegetarian cooking also has developed where meat products are forged or mimicked in wheat gluten and soy products. Vegetarians who consume such food products or get attached to such kinds of food are spiritually corrupt. This is craving (tanha) and the mentality of such a person is worse than that of one who consumes meat. By eating such product of food, he is merely cheating himself, for his tanha remains strong. No one can say for certain that meat tastes better than vegetable or other kind of food products. For commercial purpose, people created different kinds of edible food, with meat or without, making consumers crave for them. Then they get addicted to certain food and try to say that I like this or that: I want this or that. The word 'like' and 'want' are, the true sources of suffering according to Buddhism. We should not first judge by looking one's diet. One who eats meat can have pure heart and one who does not can have impure heart. Likewise, one who refrains from meat eating can have pure heart just as one who eats meat can have impure heart. According to the Buddha's teaching, the important thing is the quality of one's morality not about one's diet. To highlight this view, once, the Buddha explained to the Brahmin Kassapa about the foul smell of carrion. The foul smell of carrion is for whom immorally practiced such as destroying life, torture, stealing, deceit, etc. and not the eating of flesh. The purpose of the Buddha's explanation is to show what the foul smell (amagandha) is, and to praise bhikkhus who lives having no desire of sensual pleasure. This is concerned with moral arguments pertaining this problem because it is regarded as more important than the religious point of view. There are many arguments advanced for vegetarianism such as the biological argument, the ecological argument and the socio-cultural argument. The clear discussions about those arguments are explained by Dr V.A. Gunasekara on his article titles 'The Rationale for the Buddha's View on the Consumption of Meat'.

BUDDHIST VIEW ON VEGETARIANISM AND MEAT EATING (4)

2007-11-24T09:16:00.001-08:00

First precept and meat eating
Among the five lay precepts the first one is usually translated as "I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living beings' play a very important role in human society. Taking this precept as consideration the Buddha, of course, admonished all his followers not only kill living beings but also advised not to harm any living beings by any means. The precept does not give any limitation of size of living creatures. Perhaps, its may included bacteria and other micro-organisms. If it is so, we may have to face difficulty in observing the percept.

There are four kinds of living being described in the Pali canon; They are; 1) Andaja (egg born), 2) Jalabuja (womb born), 3) Samsedaja (moisture born), and 4) Opapatika (spontaneous born). All those living beings, whether existing in niraya (hell), petti (hungry ghost), tiracchana (animals), manussa (human) or deva (heaven), are included here under the word 'sabbapana' is stated in the texts. Pana according to Pali English Dictionary is 'sentient being, creatures'; but in the book 'Buddhist Ethics and Essence of Buddhism by H. Saddhatissa' comments the word 'pana' in the highest and ultimate sense it is only psychic life or vital force. In the Mahavagga of the Vinaya, killing human being is the greatest offence (parajika) for monk, and killing other beings is not the gravest, and it consider as lesser offence. On the other hand, to safeguard society, killing of human being is the most important.
The commentarial tradition gives five conditions necessary to complete an act to be called murder. There are; (1) a living being; (2) knowledge that it is a living being; (3) a mind that thinks of killing; (4) the effort made to kill (including asking another to do it); and (5) the being dies through the effort. Taking these into consideration killing a living being by oneself and asking another to kill for him (indirectly) also is impure and he may not escape from the first precept.
Vegetarians claim that meat bought from market (already existed meat) is impure and it is proxy killing because it seems to be supporting the butcher to slaughter more animals for customers. If the first percept is applied to all creatures irrespective of size, eating mere vegetable also is impure and fall into this precept because micro insects which we can not see through our eyes are living every plantations. Emphasizing the first precept as characteristically eating meat which is already available in market is nothing related to this precept. By examining the five characteristics of the precepts both direct and indirect killing will not karmically completed. By bringing meat from market or ordering meat curry in restaurant is also has nothing to do with this. But one could increase this bad habit if he gets attached to it very much. And when meat is unavailable anywhere he may kill or order some one to kill for meat. Then the breaking of first precept is done by the cause of attachment to this. The Buddha allowed to his disciple to eat meat under three circumstances that is unseen, unheard and not doubt because monks in the Buddha time accepted food that offered by others. As monks are not seeking for meat, they try to avoid from being attached to it and they would never attempt to break the first precept whether by direct or indirect means. When we come to the vegetarianism, do we think vegetarian can not break the first precept if his attachment to vegetable is in extreme? Take the example of a person who plants vegetable for his daily meal because he is a strict vegetarian; and a person who plants vegetable for marketing. If animals or some insects destroy his plants, he might use material thing to drive away them. At least he has to harm or even kills those creatures. Then vegetable got from such sources also can be regarded as impure and he is a breaker of first precept. One who buys vegetable from market also seems to be supported to plant more and kill or harm more living beings. In this context, it would be fit to consider that merely consuming food, whether vegetable or meat without killing a being by one's own action or asking other to do so, has nothing to do with the first precept. This percept falls into bodily action as intention (cetana) is the basis. AS the Buddha statement 'cetanaham bhikkhave kammam vadami' volition or cetana is very important in every karmical act. This evidence point to the fact that meat already available in market or restaurant is not a breaking of first precept by those who buy it. It is related to those who killed and bring to the market for sale.

BUDDHIST VIEW ON VEGETARIANISM AND MEAT EATING (3)

2007-11-23T08:33:00.000-08:00

Mahayana and Vegetarianism
It is said that when Buddhism later moved to Tibet and China, large monasteries developed with landholding. The already existing Chinese Confucius culture did not accept begging for food, and newly established Mahayana Buddhism also followed their example. Monasteries were granted large tracts of land to grow their own food. unlike the situation in Indian Buddhism, monk in China started growing, storing, preparing, and cooking their own food. Thus, for the first time kitchens were appeared in monasteries.

The three-fold rules on meat eating which mentioned in Suttas become meaningless for Chinese monks becasue they were no longer begging for food daily. Then, perhaps, they interpreted Vinaya rules to match their situation. Therefore, meat eating was prohibited since they can prepare food for themselves. Chinese Mahayana Buddhism infulenced Korean and Japanese Buddhism. They also practiced vegetarianism and not only monks this was followed by laity as well. Since then, vegetarianism was highly praised by certain Mahayana Buddhist. This is so, because in the Sanskrit version of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, the Buddha says: "I order the various disciples from today that they can not any more partake of meat". Basing on this saying Mahayanists, who beliefs are based Sanskrit Buddhist literature, may undertake to follow this rule as a strict one. The condemnation of meat eating also found in the Brahmajala Sutra, and more importantly meat eating is condemned in Lankavatara Sutra. Herein, some explanation given by the Buddha against meat eating are: 1) present-day animals may have been one's kith and kin in the past; 2) one's own parents and relatives may born in future as animals; 3) there is no logic in exempting the meat of some animals on customary grounds while not exempting all meat; 4) meat is impure as it is always contaminated by body wastes; 5) the prospect of being killed spreads terrow amongst animals; 6) all meat is nothing other than carrion; 7) meat eating makes the consumer to be cruel and sensual; 8) man is not a carnivore by nature. In this Sutra, the Buddha further instructs the Bodhisattva Mahamati thus: "there is no meat that is pure in three ways; not premeditated, not asked for, and not impelled; therefore refrain from eating meat". This is the Mahayanists view of the Buddha's three-fold rules which are unlike the three-fold rules of Theravada given in the Pali canon. Some 24 statements regarding meat eating are further explained in this Sutra. Another more important source in support of vegetarians is also found in the Surangama Sutra. Five quotations from this Sutra are: "You owe me a life; I must repay my debt to you". Due to such causes and conditions we pass through hundreds of thousands of eons in sustained cycle of birth and death. "After my cessation, in the Dharma ending Age, these hordes of ghosts and spirits will abound, spreading like wildfire as they argue that eating meat will bring one to the Bodhi way." "Ananda, I permit the Bhikkhus to eat five kinds of pure meat. This meat is actually a transformation brought into being by my spiritual powers. It basically has no life-force. Those of you Brahmans who live in a climate so hot and humid, and on such sandy and rocky land, that vegetables will not grow; therefore, I had to assist you with spiritual powers and compassion. Because of this magnanimous kindness and compassion, this so-called meat suits your taste. After my extinction, how can those who eat the flesh of beings be called the disciples of Sakya?" "You should know that these people who eat meat may gain some awareness and they seem to be in samadhi, but they are all great rakshasas. When their retribution ends, they are bound to sink into the bitter sea of birth and death. They are not disciples of the Buddha. Such people as these kill and eat one another in a never-ending cycle. How can such people transcend the Triple Realm?" The Chinese adaptations of the Vinaya in the Brahma Net Sutra contain ten major and forty-eight minor precepts. The Third Minor precept specifically prohibits eating meat, perhaps the first time such a precept was codified in Buddhism thus: 'A disciple of the Buddha must eat no flesh of sentient beings. If he eats their flesh, he injures his potential for developing universal compassion. Sentient beings will flee from on sight. For this reason, Mahayana practitioners should not eat the flesh of any sentient beings.
The Mahayana ideal of vegetarianism restricted the rule of eating meat because they opine that one seeking to escape from suffering. Why should one inflict it upon others? To escape from suffering of life one has to practice dhyana and seeking to attain samadhi. To practice dhyana and seeking to attain samadhi should be kindness to living being and refrain from eating their flesh. Refraining from meat eating is to save beings, not to harm them, not to terrorize them by killing and eating them. The Mahayana's viewpoint of consumption of meat let others do the killing for him, causing suffering to the animals and future suffering to the butcher and the consumer as well. Anyhow, it would not be right to say that all Mahayana Buddhists are vegetarians, for some Japanese and Tibetan Buddhists have been consuming meat.

BUDDHIST VIEW ON VEGETARIANISM AND MEAT EATING (2)

2007-11-23T07:40:00.000-08:00

Theravada and Vegetarianism
Theravada Buddhists, at majority, believe that vegetarianism is not a kind of strict rule to be observed and a view put forward on this is explicitly rejected even by the Buddha himself. Therefore vegetarianism was not a part of early Buddhist tradition and the Buddha himself was not a vegetarian. But, of course, he did not advocate or praise meat-eating, or becoming attached to it or clinging to it. The Buddha knows how problem could occur when vegetarianism is taken to extreme forms as strict rules. Clear evidence in this regard is shown in the Devadatta's proposal to make five rules of discipline compulsory to all monks.

The Buddha neither accepts nor rejects these proposals. Of the five rules the last one is concerning the restriction of fish and meat eating and that all monks must be vegetarians. Perhaps this was a part of Devadatta attempt to form new Order which was not successful and the rules promulgated by him did not receive even the support of his group for long. As we know the living style of bhikkhu is either by going alms rounds or by being invited to the houses of devotees, and therefore he had to eat what he was offered. However, there were rules that prohibited on consumption of ten types of meat. Those are: flesh of humans, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears and hyenas. Human flesh should be avoided for obvious reasons; elephant and horse as these were then considered as royal animals; dog was considered by ordinary people to be disgusting; and the last six types of jungle animals was thought to give forth such a smell as to generate forth revenge from the same species. According to Theravada, following Buddhaghosa's commentary, the Buddha ate pork (sukaramaddava) for his last meal. The debate on this issue is still continuing in Theravada Buddhist countries. The term sukaramaddava has been interpreted differently and controversy remains. However, there are incidents recorded where the Buddha and the early bhikkhus ate meat. One of references to this is the story of the "conversion" of general Siha. Once, general Siha invited the Buddha and his followers to have meals at which meat was served. The Jains who had earlier enjoyed general Siha's patronage, now spread the story that the Buddha by knowingly partaking of meat had committed an act of grave karmic consequences (paticcakamma). In fact the meat had not slaughtered intentionally for this purpose, but had been purchased at the market. Basing on this incident the Buddha lay down the rule governing the consumption of fish and flesh. Addressing the monks he said: "Do not eat meat knowing that it has been killed specially for your use; I allow the use of fish and meat blameless (parisuddha) in three ways, unseen, unheard and unsuspected." (na bhikkhave janam udissakata mamsam paribhunjitabbam anujanami bhikkhave tikotiparisuddham maccamamsa aditam asutam aparisankitanti (Vin, VI, 233). The same was explained to Jivaka that meat should not be eaten by bhikkhu, if it is seen, heard and suspected to have been killed on purpose for him; and meat should be eaten, if it is unseen, unheard and unsuspected to have been killed on purpose for him. Throwing light the above mentioned three circumstances the Pali texts report two kinds of meat are called uddissakatamamsam and pavattamamsam. The first term is used to refer to meat destined for a specifice person's consumption and it is karmically effective meat. This kind of meat could so identified because the person doing the killing on a clear notion that it is meant for a specific person who partakes it. If a monk knowingly consumes this kind of meat, he is guilty offence (dukkha). The second term used to refer permissible meat (already existing meat) or karmically neutral meat. But there has been some controversy as to what types of meat would fall into this category of "already existing meat". Some interpret it as meat of animals killed by accident or by other animals. But it also can include meat sold in market. An incident is shown in Vinaya where lady Suppiya sends her servant to purchase meat slaughtered for sale in the market was regareded as pavattamamas or blameless meat. Theravada tradition scriptures cite many references where the Buddha and his bhikkhus being offered meat and eating it. The Buddha even regulated rule that ten types of meat should be avoided and meat under with three circumstances (i.e. seen, heard and suspected) should not be eaten if a certain animal has been slaughtered for him. Although it was related to monastic discipline it can be applied to the layperson too. But one should not end up by following these three instances and always perchasing meat through one's attachment. In fact what one needs to understand here is that all the incidents regarding meat eating in Theravada texts are told about bhikkhus whose life apply restrict in Vegetarianism. A mission is carried out to spread this message, pointing out that meat eating is contrary to the practice of loving kindness toward all living beings. In this regard there is a book named ' From Non-Violence to Loving Kindness' published in recent year. His aim in writing that book is to ask people to develop loving kindness toward animals. And not only that even eating meat or fish, by any means, is somewhat karmically unwholesome and it is regarded as merciless toward animals. The book strongly criticizes those who offer meat or fish as well as receivers those who consume it. In the modern world, in the Theravada countries like Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand and Cambodia, monks are bound by the Vinaya to accept almost food that is offered to them, often including meat, while some minority of Theravada Buddhists claim to be vegetarians.

BUDDHIST VIEW ON VEGETARIANISM AND MEAT EATING (1)

2007-11-21T21:26:00.000-08:00

The Buddha's attitude towards living beings
The Buddha was an ethical moral teacher and the teaching that was preached helps to lead one's own life peacefully and harmoniously in the world. To lead one's own life accordingly one should practice mental development. There are four practices of mental development (brahmavihara) presented by the Buddha for the sake of one's own happiness and others as well.
The four mental developments are; 1) Loving kindness (metta), 2) compassion (karuna), 3) Sympathetic joy (mudita) and 4) Poise (upekkha)
Cultivation of these teachings could bring the result of destruction of ill-will, of cruelty, of dislike and of lust. And he who cultivates the practice of brahmavihara will reborn in the world of Brahmas after death. Loving kindness (metta) signifies one's wishing good towards others. This is one of the ten perfections (parami) practiced by the great being (Bodhisatta). It shows how one should develop unlimited loving kindness towards all beings, irrespective of their size, whether they are seen or unseen or far and near. This is the ethical practice of loving kindness through which Buddhist developed his relationship with all living beings. Seven kinds of profit would result if one cultivates this loving kindness. Compassion (Karuna) is described as "the desire to move at the suffering of others" "The feeling that casues the good people's heart to be removed when they see others' suffering is compassion". The Buddha is the Great Compassionate One, whose compassion occupies an important place in his teaching. Thus it is an important social virtue that he extended to practice not only on human being's welfare but on all living being's. Therefore, the Buddha taught the advisability of showing compassion on one's own life as on that of other being: "All tremble at the rod. All fear death: life is dear to all. Comparing other with oneself, one should neither strike nor cause to strike." Sympathetic joy (mudita) means the quality of rejoicing at prosperous state of other beings, and it has characteristic of gladness. Cultivation of this attitude can defeat evil thought such as envy, disaffection, dislike etc. The poise (upekkha) is a mode of centrality as regards being. The Buddha would not be shocked when seeing other beings suffer from physical or mental weaknesses, because beings are subject to suffering and are the heirs of their kamma. It does not mean that the Buddha enjoyed or neglected being's suffering. In fact this was the Buddha's sole concern. He, after enlightenment, decided to preach his profound teaching to the worldly being for the purpose of alleviating their suffering. The first precept applies to all living beings irrespective of their status. It does not exclude the killing of animals for the Vedic sacrifices (yajna). The Buddha discouraged and condemned animal sacrifice which was considered as a cruel act and as a futile of means of achieving happiness. On one occasion the Buddha was asked by a Brahmin, Kutadanta, what was the conduct of successful and meaningful sacrifices? The Buddha gave the example of the king Mahavijita and chaplain's conversation and He further explained the simpler sacrifice that is less difficult, more fruitful and profitable. The Buddha remarking on the cruelty and suffering involved in the usual type of sacrifice, suggested a better means whereby gratitude might be expressed. Instead of slaying and shedding blood of many animals, giving alms and building shelters for bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, taking refuge to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, observing five precepts, are more suitable and fruitful than bloody sacrifices.
Among the duty of Ariyan Wheel-Turning monarch protection of beasts and birds is one. This is the example provided by righteous kings; and modern States are expected to protect, nourish and sustain flora and fauna within their territory. This monarchical norm shed light on the moral value of Buddhism. This leads to the principle of Ahimsa which held in high esteem in early Buddhism. The word Ahimsa is a compound term with the negative prefix 'a' and the word 'himsa' derived from the root 'han' meaning 'to kill' and 'to injure'. Thus it is rendered as not killing and not injuring. This word has been asserted in different definitions in the Indian religions. Basing on this principle of Ahimsa some group of Indian people practiced vegetarianism which practice is strictly followed by Jains. Buddhism adopts a moderate one and did not go to as extremes as Jainism did, because it held that mere action without intention does not produce karmic result. The world in which we are living is a miserable existence, and life is sustained by injuring each other usually the bigger harming the smaller. Therefore the Buddha knowing this as unsatisfactoriness of this life and said, "The world is establishing with suffering" (dukkhe loko patitthito). Sometime, we may think that the concept of Ahimsa is very difficult to understand and it is not an easy practice to be perfected if one struggling to safeguard one's own life from the dangerous attackers. That is to say, mosquitoes and flies are carrying dangerous, infectious diseases. Suitable food can not be obtained unless one has to resort to kill small insects. One may observe strict rules and even be willing to harm himself, even at the risk of one's life. But suicide or harming oneself in this way is also denounced in Buddhism. Therefore, Buddhism teaches and encourages everyone not to fall into extremes and to work for the welfare of oneself as well as other beings.

BUDDHIST VIEW ON VEGETARIANISM AND MEAT EATING

2007-11-21T07:12:00.000-08:00

Preface
This essay going to be discussed on the consumption of food that is a compel diet arguments which were occurred between vegetarian and meat eater. Since the number of veggie organizations have increased in the world some issues of new dimensions have arisen, both on religious and dieticians views. From early time primitive people led their lives in a simple way, barbarians by hunting animals and farmers by ccultivating crops for their daily consumption. Anatomists have differentiated the structure of living being's stomachs into three types: viz. carnivorous types such as lion, tiger: herbivorous type such as cow, dear: and omnivorous type such as dog, cat etc. Human anatomy is a compromise between the pure herbivore and pure carnivore, and therefore, human is included in omnivorous type of beings.
Consumption of fish and meat has given rise to controversy from early times. So the prohibition of meat eating can be found during the Buddha time itself. Jainism advocates the most extreme form of the principle of ahimsa. Jains prohibited the harming of all forms of life, even microscopic insects. Amongst the eight basic abstentions (mulaguna) of Jain laypersons restraining from meat eating is one. In Theravada tradition, we do not find any information as to whether there were Buddhist vegetarianism organizations. Ven. Devadatta attempted to make abstention from meat-eating mandatory on monks. The Buddha categorically rejected this proposal by Devadatta. It is certain Mahayana Buddhists of a later period, that have extolled and set up the rules and regulations pertaining to vegetarianism. They strongly condemn meat eating maintaining that it was prohibited by the Buddha according to their sources.
This essay constitute of five short Chapters. The first chapter describes how the Buddha's attitude towards living beings. Unlike other religious teacher of the time the Buddha rejected cruel sacrificial performance of the Vedic system and also disapproved extremist view of the Jain regarding abstention from killing. The Buddha's doctrine is known as non violent practice (Avihimsa), based on loving kindness and universal compassion.
Second and Third chapters talk about vegetarianism and meat eating. These will be containing discussions based on relevant sources found both in texts of Theravada and Mahayana. According this sources, it is obvious that both traditions have different views regarding this issue. The Fourth chapter attempts to discuss the question whether consumption of meat would bring the consumer into conflict with the first precept, directly or indirectly. Killing is violence according to Buddhism and whether meat eating may helps to increase violation of living being is focused in this. This will be explained according to the relevant sources.
The fifth chapter shows the ever persisting controversy on meat eating. Arguments mentioned therein are quoted from the views expressed by various writers as well as the views of one who eat meat and one who do not. This controversy has gained significance as vegetarian organizations are rapidly growing in numbers in the world. Some of the Mahayana scriptures, notably the Lankavatara Sutra, take a strong position in favor of vegetarianism. But not all Mahayanists refrain from meat eating; while Japanese Mahayana groups do not abstain from eating meat. Few of Theravada followers try to be vegetarian but meat consumption is followed by majority of Theravada Buddhists. This controversy may never see an end; yet its worth to examine what the true position of Early Buddhism is.
The Buddha is a moral ethical Instructor and spiritual Reformer. He said in the very first two stanzas of the Dhammapada that 'mind is the forerunner of all evil deeds and good deeds'. Mind is the main cause of suffering' and, therefore, the issue of argument on meat eating or vegetarianism is not a resolution. This essay will be focussed also on the teaching of purification of mind particularly in relation to consumption of edible food.