Save
all Life in the World of man and bird and beast
Bhikkhu Dhammavihari
---o0o---
All beings dread death. It is also true that all
dread being battered and beaten. This we must remember about ourselves as well.
Therefore we shall neither kill nor bring about the death of others. This idea
is beautifully expressed in the Buddhist Manual of Good Living called the
Dhammapada as follows.
Sabbe tasanti dasoassa sabbe bhayanti maccuno
attanam upama katva na haneyya na ghataye. Dhp. v.129
This Buddhist attitude of living in friendship
with all else that lives everywhere, i.e. both on this earth and in the
universe as a whole, is comprehensively covered under the terms metta [
in Pali ] and maitra [ in Sanskrit ]. It is often referred to as
'universal loving kindness'. It is, in other words, 'the spirit of friendliness
expressed without any reservations towards all living things'.
This magnanimous philosophy of amity or
friendship in Buddhism is fully enunciated in the Metta Sutta of the Buddhists
[ Sn. vv.143-152 and Khp. p.8f. ], and brings within its fold all grades
of life, of man and bird and beast, no matter how large or small they are. Seen
or unseen, near or far, all life is encompassed within thoughts of loving
kindness. In displeasure or in ill-will, one shall not long for or plan for the
destruction of another. With more or less maternal affection, one is called
upon to look at all life in the universe [ = Mata yatha niya putta ayusa
ekaputtam anurakkahe / Evam'pi sabba-bhatesu manasa bhavaye aparimanam.
op.cit. ]. This attitude to the vast world we live in is expected to pervade
all areas of Buddhist life, both religious and secular.
World Trends Today
As we take into consideration this wide concept
of the universe, we discover that life on earth, has to be a co-operative
process, based on the principle of inter-relatedness, not only of mutual
assistance but also of mutual non-interruption and non-interference, in order
that serious imbalances and consequent destruction of parts or the whole might
not be brought about. The scientists of the world today emphatically announce
the disastrous movement of man, unwittingly though, in the direction of
destroying the biota of the world we live in. Note what the men, whose thinking
in the world matters, say on this subject.
" The one process now going on that will
take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity
by the destruction of natural habitats. This is the folly our descendants are
least likely to forgive us.
Although oft-cited and reported, the scale of the
unfolding catastrophic loss of many and varied ecosystems through human
activity is still only dimly perceived, for the link between the degradation of
the biota and the diminishment of the human prospect is poorly
understood."
[ The Biophelia Hypothesis. Edited by Stephen R.
Kellart and Edward O. Wilson, Island Press, 1993 , p.4 ].
The protagonists of the idea of biophelia
hypothesis whom we have quoted above are laudably moving
today in the same direction as espoused in Buddhism. This is already in the
spirit of the teachings of Shakya Muni Buddha who expressed them more than two
and a half millennia ago. These thinkers of today whom we would unhesitatingly
call philosopher scientists, reiterate the utterances of this ancient wisdom.
But they cannot emphasize it any more than what their Sri Lankan predecessors
have implicitly done more than a thousand years earlier. The contemporary
stress on this kind of thinking, namely that the desire for the survival of man
must go closely hand in hand with an equal degree of respect for the survival
and well-being of the animal world around us is boldly reflected in the
writings of today's philosopher-thinkers like Peter Singer [ Professor of
Philosophy at Monash University,
Australia.].
One must co-operatively read his Animal Liberation [ 1975, 1990 ]
and his Save the Animals [ co-authored with Barbara Dover and Ingrid
Newkirk, 1990,1991 ], with an appreciable measure of sympathy, to comprehend
the total dimension of this line of thinking and to meaningfully relate it to
the Buddhist concept of love or universal loving kindness [ metta ].
In a beautifully written brief FOREWORD to the
small book Save the Animals referred to above, Linda McCartney writes
the following with a remarkably disarming candour.
' A long time ago we realized that anyone who cares
about the Earth -- really cares -- must stop eating animals. The more we read
about deforestation, water pollution, and topsoil erosion, the stronger that
realization becomes. Of course, anyone who cares about animals must stop
eating animals. Just the thought of what happens in a slaughter house is
enough. We stopped eating meat the day we happened to look out of our window
during Sunday lunch and saw our young lambs playing happily, as kittens do, in
the fields. Eating bits of them suddenly made no sense. In fact, it was
revolting. If you want to live a longer and healthier life, the conclusion is
exactly the same, naturally.'
This spirit of concern for the world we live in
and the total content thereof, both animate and inanimate, is reflected today
in many other parts of the thinking world. Here is Frances Moore Lappe
expressing a very candid opinion on this subject in her Diet for a Small
Planet [ Twentieth Anniversary Edition: November 1991 / Ballantine Books, New York ].
' The change you and I witness in a lifetime now
exceeds what in previous centuries transpired over many generations. And we who
were born after World War II are the first to know that our choices count :
They count on a global scale. They matter in evolutionary time. In our species'
fantastic rush toward "modernization" we obliterate millions of other
species, transfigure the earth's surface, and create climate-changing
disruption of the upper atmosphere, all powerfully altering the path of
evolution.
More personally, I feel the quickening of time in
realizing that what was heresay, what was "fringe," when I wrote Diet
for a Small Planet just twenty years ago is now common knowledge.
Then, the notion that human beings could do well
without meat was heretical. Today, the medical establishment acknowledges the
numerous benefits of eating low on the food chain.
Then, anyone who questioned the American diet's
reliance on beef -- since cattle are the most wasteful converters of grain to
meat -- was perceived as challenging the American way of life (especially ,
when that someone came from Fort Worth, Texas -- "Cowtown, USA").
Today, the expanding herds of cattle world-wide are not only recognized as poor
plant-to-meat converters but are documented contributors to global climate
change. They're responsible for releasing enormous quantities of methane into
the atmosphere, contributing to global warming.
Then, anyone who questioned industrial
agriculture -- fossil fuel and chemically dependent -- was seen as naive "
back to the lander." To challenge industrial agriculture was to question
efficiency itself and to wish us all back into the fields at hard labor. Today,
the National Academy of Sciences acknowledges the threat of agricultural
chemicals and even the U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that the small
family farm is at least as efficient as the superfarms undermining America's
rural communities. ' [ Ibid. p. xv f.]
More recently we discovered Jeremy Riffkin
writing on this same theme in his book which is amazingly titled BEYOND BEEF,
and even more meaningfully subtitled Breakdown of the Cattle Culture.
A New Awareness Around Us
Buddhism's basic policy, via its religious
direction, is first to maximize the healthy and harmonious acquisition of all
that is needed to make human life at its very down to earth level, both
physically and mentally, comfortable and pleasant. This policy, in fact, does
cover all beings, both human and non-human. Hence the recurrent Buddhist theme
' May all beings be well and happy' [ = Sabbe satt
bhavantu sukhitatt ].
This we would unhesitatingly declare as the ' living ethic ' of Buddhism. This
would constitute the basic ethics of living needed for the survival of humans
in the world. To us, this is vitally the heritage of Buddhism which has been
delivered to the world with such sensitivity and awareness. Out of this spirit
also grow the cultural and religious institutions which become natural
derivatives of the religion. It shall be our concern to talk about their
preservation and fostering as well.
Within this magnanimous gesture of wishing well
to the other are contained two concepts which are elegantly encompassed within
the words sukha [= physical comfort ] and somanassa [ = mental
satisfaction] as relevant factors relating to the process we call life or
living. Humans are declared to be characteristically pleasure seekers or sukha-km.
They are said to be equally averse, by their very nature, to displeasure and
discomfort [= dukkha-paikkl ]. On this principle, the world cannot, and must not
turn its back. When humans act contrary to this principle, the net result
thereof is misery and unhapiness in the world. And we are positively certain
that it is not the outcome of any wrath from elsewhere. It is definitely an
error of human judgement and cosequently of human action.
While death is declared in Buddhism to be more
real than life, it is true that people still recoil from death and from being
put to death [ = sabbe bhyanti maccuno ]. It is well and
truly nature's way that things [ including the inanimate ] which have come into
existence, also cease to be in the same way [ vayadhamm
sakhr ]. Therefore
it is assumed that it is incumbent on humans to keep death and destruction of
life, even in the animal world, at its farthest [ Na haneyya na ghtaye
= One shall not destroy life nor get others to do so ].
This respect for life is undoubtedly the most
fundamental feature of the Buddhist heritage which the Buddhists, who are truly
committed to the teachings of their Master, must stand up to promote and
uphold. As the impact of Buddhism came to be felt more and more on the life of
Emperor Asoka of India, we see him increasingly practice this love towards
animals. Not only the provision of sanctuaries for animals but even a reduction
in the slaughter of animals for the royal kitchen is witnessed.
At the time Asoka sent his son Thera Mahinda to
Sri Lanka with the message of Buddhism, Tissa who was the ruler of this land, was
unfortunately caught on the wrong foot, going out on his royal hunt to bag a
deer [ = migava gato]. Understandably, and us giving Tissa the benefit
of the doubt, he was at the time the ruler of a non-Buddhist Sri Lanka. It must
have caused him no small amount of embarrassment to be caught red-handed in
this act by the Thera Mahinda, the emissary sent by his unseen friend Emperor
Asoka, who arrived here with the Buddhism's message of love to all things both
great and small.
It did not take long in Sri Lanka for the turn of
this tide. Kings began to show consideration for the life of animals. Ban on
the slaughter of animals came to be imposed from time to time. Kings of Sri
Lanka like Amaagmin, Silkla,
Aggabodhi IV and Mahinda III, following this tradition of just kingship,
ordered from time to time that no animals should be slaughtered [Mghta
krayi dpe sabbesa yeva pinam.
Mhv. Ch. 41. v.30 ], and set up veterinary hospitals for the treatment
of sick animals. That even fishes, birds and beasts [ macchna
migapakkhna Ibid. 48. v. 97 ] came under the loving
care [ kattabba sabba cari. Ibid ] of a king like
Sena I is undoubtedly owing to the benevolent influence of Buddhism.
Sanctuaries for animals, including 'safe pools'
for fish in rivers and lakes became a common sight in the land. This is more to
be viewed as a magnanimous change of heart and a desirable change in the value
systems of the land. It seems to make much less sense to view this [ as some of
our own Sri Lankan researchers at times have done ] as a total imposition of
vegetarianism or as leading, on the other hand, to malnutrition or economic
disaster.
In fact, one of the kings is supposed to have
popularized the eating of fruits as against the 'easy way ' of meat eating and
himself undertaken the growing of various types of fruit like the red melon in
the land. Obviously they knew what they were doing and had commendable
long-range vision. They also seem to have held the view that it was too
presumptuous to believe that man had exclusive rights over the land in which he
lived to the exclusion of fauna and flora. On the other hand, they believed
that the fauna and flora not only had a right of their own but also contributed
in no small measure to the total harmonious growth of the land. This ecological
sensitivity and the respect man has for it, is the main stay which in the long
run saves him from extinction.
To be in harmony with the world around us, both
with the animate and the inanimate, is one of the principles advocated in
Buddhism, in order that man may attain his fullest development within himself
and also secure for himself the maximum degree of success and happiness in life
in the world outside. And this latter, Buddhism insists, must be achieved
without violence to anyone or anything, and at the same time fostering peace on
earth and goodwill among men. It must be remembered by all, the rulers and the
ruled, that within the framework of Buddhist thinking, no heavenly injunction,
no matter delivered from where, shall do violence to this.
We have adequately pointed out above that the
world at large has now reached this awareness that man on this planet must
forthwith stop his destruction of life around him. Man seems to destroy life
through his greed for what he believes to be his personal survival. This is the
calculated process of destruction through large scale rearing of cattle for
meat, hide and other needs. In this process, he little realizes that he is
destroying the chances of survival on this planet of everybody including
himself. This greed for personal need, and this we say emphatically together
with the social philosophers of the day, is a totally misdirected and
self-assumed need which blinds him to the worldwide destruction he brings upon
mankind.
The sources we have already quoted above like
Frances Moore Lappe, Peter Singer and Jeremy Riffkin, from different periods of
time and from many different parts of the world, have established with more
than adequate statistical evidence the folly of these endeavours of misguided
economists and planners in the world. Those who plan on paper, sitting at their
desks, unmindful of the consequences of their paper work, have to be put today
into the same category as the men who planned the splitting up of the atom,
unmindful of what could happen in Hiroshima.
Besides this massive global destruction of life
to feed humans which has been successfully pointed out by saner men and women
of greater sensibility to be a misguided foolish venture, there is also the
largely organized killing of animals for industrial purposes. These include
hunting of whales for oil, trapping of bears, foxes and others for furs and
hunting down of elephants for ivory. These are far too numerous to mention
here.
A Heritage to Preserve and Foster : Love
and Respect for life
In the name of Buddhism what do we wish to show
as our Buddhistness and offer to the world. It is the message of love which our
great Master Buddha Gotama announced to the world. He is the one whom the whole
Buddhist world including the Mahayanists and the Vajrayanists now recognize as
the historical Buddha and refer to by the name Shakya Muni. This was his
unmistakable message.
Love the world with the same degree of love you
show yourself : Attna upama katv.
Therefore kill not nor bring about any killing :
Na haneyya na ghtaye.
Dhp. v.129
This is where the religiousness of every Buddhist
begins and should necessarily begin. Out of the five basic precepts of the
Buddhist paca-sla,
the very first one begins with the restraint relating to destruction of life : ptipt
verama. This, we maintain, is the heritage worth
preserving, worth fostering. Let us begin by reducing killing to a minimum. The
world as a whole is now convincingly pointing out that neither for the sake of
more food for human consumption nor for the sake of more money for the state
coffers, do humans need to go menacingly at the animal world. It seems more a
bestial policy befitting life in the jungle than a civilized society of
so-called humans marching in the direction of the twenty-first century.
We have already indicated the diverse areas in
human society where love and respect for life can and must essentially come in,
both out of humane considerations and out of a need for our own survival on
this planet, as envisioned in modern scientific and philosophical writings like
Biophelia Hypothesis. It is now being daily argued and proved more and
more that no power besides man is holding the security of the world in hand.
And that more and more destruction of the world, no matter who created it, is
also being worked out by man with his own hands, whether they be the atomic
explosions over Hiroshima
or the destruction of the protective ozone layer above the earth through man's
destructive use of chemicals down below. No body besides man, evidently, seems
to step in to intervene and correct these misdeeds.
It is here that all religions and all
philisophies must come forward to emphasize the role of human endeavour to
correct human behaviour in thought, word and deed in the interest of human
well-being.
International Buddhist Research and Information Center
380/9 Sarana
Road
Off Bauddhaloka Mawatha
Colombo
7
Sri
Lanka.
Source :
www.buddhismtoday.com