Vegetarianism and Animal Ethics in Contemporary Buddhism

James Stewart

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• eBook ISBN: 9781317623977
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Ethnic Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

Buddhism is widely known to advocate a stance of total pacifism towards all sentient beings, and because of this, it is often thought that Buddhist doctrine would stipulate that non-violent food practices, such as vegetarianism, be mandatory. However, the P?li source materials do not encourage vegetarianism and most Buddhists do not practice it. Using research based on ethnographic evidence and interviews, this book discusses this issue by presenting an investigation of vegetarianism and animal ethics within a Buddhist cultural domain.

Focusing on Sri Lanka, a place of great historical significance to Buddhism, the book looks at how lay Buddhists and the clergy came to understand the role of vegetarianism and animal ethics in Buddhism. It analyses whether the Buddha preached a view that encouraged vegetarianism, and how this squares with his pacifism towards animals. The book goes on to question how Buddhist food practices intersect with other secular activities such as traditional medicine, as well as discussing the wider implications of Buddhist animal pacifism including vegetarian political movements and animal rights groups.

Shedding light on a subject that, until now, has only been tangentially treated by scholars, this interdisciplinary study will be of interest to those working in the fields of Buddhist Studies, Religion and Philosophy, as well as South Asian Studies.

1 The lion and the cow

Non-violence towards animals in Sinhala myth and history

There is a myth in Sinhala society that the Sinhala people are the product of a union between a human princess and a lion. Indeed, the very name ‘Sinhala’ means ‘the lion people’.¹ This stems from the mythic origins of the Sinhala people: a people created from the union of a lion and a princess. This union is supposed to have originally taken place in north India in a mythic place called Sinhapura or ‘Lion City’.²

Lion imagery is common throughout the island and the lion has become a symbol of the Sinhala ethnicity. King Kashyapa (ruled 473–495 CE) moved his capital to Sigiriya which means ‘Lion’s Rock’. Today you can see the remains of an enormous lion shaped entranceway that is located near the start of the ascent to the top of the rock. Parakramabahu IX of Kotte (ruled 1508–1528 CE) reportedly had a throne built in the image of a lion.³ Many Sinhalese continue to believe that the traditional traits of the lion are evident in their cultural disposition: proud, beautiful, intelligent, powerful and, when challenged, able to respond with a confidence that guarantees success.

The image of the lion continues to be a basic symbol of the Sinhalese. For example, it features prominently on the Sri Lankan flag and pointedly represents the Sinhala people. Simple green and orange bands serve as a modest representation of the two main ethnic minorities: the Tamils and the (mostly Moorish) Muslims. The use of the lion even extends to trivial matters such as the national beer. Its slogan reads, ‘Is there a lion in you?’

When considering the question of food and animal ethics, the fact that the lion is a symbol of the Sinhalese is instructive on a number of levels. First of all, the lion is a carnivore – he cannot survive on vegetables but must eat meat. In keeping with that, the lion is a hunter who must prey upon other animals. Furthermore, the lion is the best of all hunters in the animal kingdom. The lion symbol is therefore a bloodthirsty symbol. It would therefore seem that the legitimacy of vegetarianism and animal non-violence as an ordinary Sinhala cultural activity is already called into question.

Yet although the Sinhalese cherish the lion, they also cherish another animal that – although not explicitly symbolic of the Sinhalese – is perhaps of more practical significance and celebration: the cow. As will become very apparent in Chapter 5, the cow is a pre-eminently favoured animal within Sinhala Buddhist society. The cow is a protected animal, more so, perhaps, than the widely respected elephant. Indeed, an entire movement has developed around the defence of the cow. The cow represents, for many Sinhala Buddhists, the nurturing and love expressed by one’s own mother. It is also the locus of discourse about the importance of the Buddhist view of non-violence (aḥiṃsavādiyo). The killing of the cow is used as a mechanism to expose the barbarity of other cultures and their religions and this is contrasted with the intrinsic peacefulness of the Buddhist religion and its arch adherents, the Sinhalese.

The cow is regarded as an innocent and gentle creature that generously supplies the Sri Lankan people with nutritious food that sustains the entire nation. It is the opposite of the fierce lion: it is not an animal that is on the offense, but is a helpless creature that needs protection. If anything, it is the aggressive lion-like quality of the Sinhalese that must be called upon to defend this creature against the barbaric ‘other’ that wants to kill the cow.

This duality between the lion and the cow lies at the heart of the complicated attitude Sinhalese have towards animals, animal welfare and the attitudes they have about food ethics. On the one hand, there is the aggressive, militaristic and meat-eating aspect of Sinhala culture. On the other hand, there is the pacific, non-violent, vegetarian side that wants to protect animals and cherish Buddhist principles.

These two sides are at once incompatible and at the same time mutually dependent. One of the key arguments made during the civil war was that Buddhism, which represents non-violence and peace, was to be defended through an aggressive military.⁴ This ethos is apparent in some aspects of the modern Sinhala Buddhist animal welfare movement where bloody protest and retaliatory violence is justified as a necessary way to defend animals from being slaughtered by certain minority groups.

This tension between violence and non-violence is one of the most interesting aspects of Sinhala Buddhism not only now, but throughout Sinhala history. Authors like Bartholomeusz⁵ and Tambiah⁶ have long commented on this peculiar tension. Here we will look at some of these tensions. At the same time, we will also be looking at the origins of Sinhala attitudes towards food and animal ethics. This chapter is a preparatory chapter to lay the groundwork for future ethnographical discussions.

Animal protectionism in India

In considering animal welfare in Sri Lanka, and therefore its food ethics, it is vital that the antecedent ancient Indian traditions are also examined. To begin with, Sinhala Buddhists often look to ancient India for moral guidance primarily because the Buddha himself had his origins in India. But it is not just the Buddha who is a source of moral guidance here. King Aśoka (304–233 BCE), the great king of the Aśokan Empire, is celebrated amongst the Sinhalese as a benevolent ruler, but also a ruler who was guided by Buddhist principles. These two historic figures are therefore widely recognised as authorities on matters to do with animal welfare and vegetarianism.

The Buddha’s views on these matters are complicated and will be examined in Chapter 2. That chapter focuses on literary sources that argue in favour of vegetarianism and animal welfare. Instead, in this chapter I will focus primarily on King Aśoka as well as aspects of the Vedic and Hindu religions that support vegetarianism.

In terms of heterodox religions, both Buddhism and Jainism famously promote non-violence as a central tenet. Of these two religious movements, only Mahāvīra of the Jains enforced vegetarianism as a religious ideal. As we shall see in the next chapter, the Buddha only made vegetarianism optional. As a general rule, Jainism seems to have little influence in Sinhala Buddhist culture and society. This is perhaps owed to the received view (which originated with the Buddha himself) that the Jain religion represents an ‘extreme’ view that is anathema to the moderate doctrine prescribed by the Buddha. This was made clear by one of our monastic informants who insisted that vegetarianism had no doctrinal basis in Buddhism because it was associated with the Jains and was therefore fundamentally an ascetic practice.

Despite the fact that Buddhism arose as a doctrine that, in many ways, challenged the prevailing orthodox Vedic view (in part because of how the Vedic tradition treated animals) Sinhalese in Sri Lanka have been deeply influenced by the Hindu tradition. If any outside force to have had an influence on Sinhala vegetarianism it is the Hindu tradition. One of the traditional medical doctors complimented Hindu practitioners on their vegetarianism since they carried it out authentically and, furthermore, did so in a healthy way.

India is famous for being a nation in which vegetarianism is favoured. This perception is also maintained in Sri Lanka. In the West, we are familiar with one famous Hindu exponent of vegetarianism: Gandhi. In Sri Lanka too, Gandhi is also recognised as a great vegetarian.⁷ Worldwide, the idea that Hindus are vegetarians is so integrated into the public perception that it is now understood to be a traditional dietary requirement of the Brahman caste.⁸

There is some basis for this perception. As will become apparent in a later chapter on cow protectionism, the Vedic and Brahmanical texts sometimes condemn animal slaughter and this tendency towards animal protection often results in the adoption of vegetarianism as a dietary ideal. Christopher Fuller points out that vegetarianism is widespread amongst Brahmans in South India and even amongst some non-Brahman castes.⁹ Fuller observes that the adoption of vegetarianism is controlled to a large extent by caste: caste purity is generally maintained through a strict adherence to a vegetarian diet the contravention of which requires the implementation of complex purification rituals.¹⁰

Pollution is therefore a key factor in food ethics in Hindu religious practices. Vegetarianism in these contexts has a great deal less to do with the avoidance of animal suffering and more to do with separation from other castes. Mary Douglas makes this clear as follows: ‘A Havik, working with his Untouchable servant in his garden, may become severely defiled by touching a rope of bamboo at the same time as the servant.’¹¹ She adds that, ‘Pollution lingers in cotton cloth, metal cooking vessels, cooked food’¹² and it is this reason, as Orenstein points out, that food represents a particular threat of contamination.¹³ Things are made worse by the fact that the pollutant is not merely touched, but also ingested. Fuller notes that castes are differentiated from one another in part through the dietary practices that they undertake. This state of affa...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgement
• Abbreviations
• Introduction: vegetarianism and dietary ethics in Sri Lanka
• 1. The lion and the cow
• 2. Eating, drinking, killing: vegetarianism and animal welfare in Sinhala literature
• 3. Food of compassion
• 4. The disciple’s diet
• 5. Milk of life
• 6. Meat aversions: vegetarianism, health food and medicine in Sinhala society
• 7. Food politics
• 8. Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index