English
“ Diseases caused by eating do not harm the monk who at once sitting eats his food.” AHIMSA 245 (17) Sacred Books of the East by Max Muller. | Vol. NLIX Buddhist Mahayana. Page 121 (65). ‘To kill a helpless victim through a_ wish ‘.. future reward,—it would be an unseemly action for a merciful-hearted good man, even if the reward of the sacrifice were eternal; but what if, after all, it is subject to decay ?” (67) ‘“* Even that happiness which comes to a man, while he stays in this world, through the injury of another, is hateful to the wise compassionate heart } how much more if it be something beyond our sight in another life ?”” | Note. From the statements given above, it will be known that ahimsa has been correctly described in the Buddhist Scriptures. We shall see later on that this description quite agrees with what is given in the Jain literature, FLESH-EATING., It appears in the present time that Hesh-eating is much prevalent among the Buddhists. If I indepen- dently think of its cause, it appears to me that the old Poli books were first compiled in Ceylon in the ist century, as is written in the introduction to Buddha Charya. “In the first century A. D. at Ceylon, Sutra, Vinaya and Abhidhamma, which till that time were learnt by heart only, were at first written, This is the Tripitaka,” 246 JAINISM AND BUDDHISM I did not find in these Pali books the quotations explicitly prohibiting the taking of flesh. “ The Life of the Buddha’ by Edward J. Thomas, 1927. ' On page 129 there is the following statement :— “As. meat-eating was made an ethical question, the ritual aspect ceased to have a meaning for the Buddhist. Hence the practice was not in itself condemned, but only in so far as the partaker was in some way contri- butory to killing or giving pain. This position is stated most clearly in the Jivaka Sutta (M. N. I. 368). Jivaka * told Buddha that he had heard that people killed living things intending them for Buddha, and that he ate the meat prepared on that account. He asked if such persons were truth-speakers and did not accuse the Lord falsely. Buddha replied that it was not true, but that in three cases meat must not be eaten: if it has been seen, heard, or suspected that it was intended for the person. If a monk who practises the brahma-vihara of love accepts an invitation in a village, he does not think, “verily this house-holder is providing me with excellent food ; may he provide me with excellent food in the future.” He eats the food without being fettered and infatuated. ‘‘ What do you think, Jivaka, does the monk at that time think of injury to himself, to others, or.to both? * Certainly not, Lord.” ‘“ Does not a * The famous physician of Bimbisara and Ajatasattu. AHIMSA 247 monk at that time take blameless food?” “Even so Lord.” The teaching is the same in the Vinaya, where Buddha is said to have accepted a meal from the ~ Jain general Stha, who had provided meat. The report went about that he had killed an ox for Buddha, but the fact was that he had sent for the meat already killed in order to furnish the meal. The Vinaya forbids certain kinds of flesh, human, that of elephants, horses, dogs and certain wild animals. (F. N. Vinaya 1. 218-237; Macchamamisa is expressly allowed; This is usually taken to mean ‘flesh of fish.’ Pali books state in one or two places that Goutama Buddha ate flesh—Whether this was true or not is to be properly considered. Buddha Charya P. 148 M.N. 8. 1. 2. 2. Siha Sutta. “It appears that Jain Commander-in-Chief Siha of Vaisali served meat to Goutama Buddha.” - Note. It seems to me quite impossible that a Jain minister or King could have served Buddha with meat. Neither it seems to be possible that the compassionate Buddha who preached for the protection of immobile and mobile beings would have accepted flesh. More: over he was so kind that he did not eat even at night and prohibited his disciples from taking food at night. Buddha Charya Page 433. Chulla Vagga 7, 248 JAINISM AND BUDDHISM DEVADATTA VIDROHA. This Sutta tells that Devadatta told Buddha, “ He only, who does not accept fish and flesh for the whole life, should be received in the Order”; then Goutama said, “T have ordered for the pure flesh which is not seen, nor heard, nor supposed to be prepared.”’ Note: How far this statement is correct, is to be considered: Buddha Charya P: 535 Mahaparinibbana Sutta _D-N. 2; 3. In this Sutta it is said that in the last part of his life Goutama Buddha had taken Stikara maddava from Chunda, the smith. Here this italicised word is trans- lated by some as flesh of pig and by some as soft rice cooked with milk. So much is the statement about flesh in Buddha Charya. Sacred Books of the East Vol. III by Rhys Davids D. N. P. 11. 1910 at Page 110. At Vesali, he (Buddha) had finished eating the rice. FS ‘Page 138. ‘“‘ Now when the Exalted One had eaten the rice prepared by Chunda, the worker in metals, there fell upon him a dire sickness, the disease of dysen- tery and sharp pain came upon him, even unto death.” Note. Here the word Sitikara maddava is translated as rice. Except the few statements given above, no other statement in the whole Buddhist literature, as far as I have read, has been found to denote that Buddha AHIMSA 249 or his disciple have ever taken flesh or fish or any other creature. While the above passages of the Pali book express doubt about flesh eating, old Sanskrit Buddhist literature expressly prohibits flesh-eating, by any follower of Buddhism. There is one Lankavatara Sutra—published in Sanskrit by Bunyin-Nangio, M.A. (Oxon) D. Litt., Otam University—Kyoto (Japan) in 1922. It is also a very old Sutra. Its first translation in the Chinese language was done by one Gunabhadra of Central India in 443 A.D. Its.second translation in the Chinese was done by Bodha ruchi of India in 513 A. D. Its third translation in the Chinese was done by Siksanand of India in 700 A.D. The eighth chapter of the book deals specially about flesh-eating. This is called Mansa bhaksana pari varto. From this chapter, it is fully proved that any follower of Buddhism, whether he may be a monk, or a layman, should never eat any kind of flesh either of fish or of any other animal. We give below some Sanskrit passages with the translation :— | “Ua a wTaeAMTa ser ATH GTA ala- WAN DAT Aare area a AAcaAETACa aatTa TATA te Aaa HAs BAMA Waar ahearai aaa DeITt TAIN TAT THIAAT. sf 32 250 JAINISM AND BUDDHISM Desayatu me Bhagavan stathagatorhan samyak- sambuddho mdnsa_ bhaksane gunadosam yenaham chanyecha bédhisatvad mahdsatva anagata pratyutpanna Kdle sattvandm Kuvydda sattva gati Vasanda-V astta- nam mdnsabhojana griddhandam rasa trisud prahad naya dharmam desa yama.” “May the Lord Tathagata, Arhan rightly enlighten and preach to us the merit and demerit of flesh-eating, so that I and the other followers of Buddhism in the present time and in the future may preach the truth to those who are flesh eaters for the destruction of their desire for flesh.”’ y e a a ~ ~ c baX SS “anraiera azarrq aqitfa feraa arr eCE > s © ~ = aa Gana Haran aaa Aaeqwaasa qaae . 3 “ Bhagavanstasyat tadavochat aparinitair mahamate Kdranair mdnsam sarvamabhaksyam Kripdtmano bodhtsattvasya tebhyastupadesa mdatram vaksyamt.” “The Lord said to him, ‘““O Great wise man! On account of innumerable causes all flesh is to be avoided by the merciful follower of Buddhism! For them I shall preach in brief.”’ ee han vat ats q ee ; ce a en ee ee AAA RAIA: TIE Bl A ATATYRTAT aT wat at aeTAT at Yar ant afeat ar aeqaceTaztt at aaa AHIMSA 251 . . bea a IIT AT A teresa aeataarae aT qa ~ ec eo. By . TWearayaaaa: YT AT AayATH YATE aT aa =d MUMIA TT ara Hala wy aes = atwacaa qeTacaa. ° “Iha maha mate anena dirghena dhvand sansartém pranindm ndastyasau Kaschitsattvah sulabha-rupo yo na matabhitpitivd bhradta va bhagini vd putro vd duhita vd anyatardinyataro va svajana bandhu bandhubhiats vd fasya-nya janmaparivrittasrayasya mriga pasu pakst yonyantarbhitasya bandhoh bandhu bhitasya va sarva bhitatma bhita yagantu kamena sarva jantu prant bhite sambhitam mdnsam kathamiva bhaksyam syddbuddha dharma kamena bodhi-sattvena mahé sattvena.” “QO Great wise man! In this beginningless world the living beings having been wandering, there is not a single creature which had not been sometimes mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter or any other relative. The same adopting many re-births, are born as deer or other animal, bird etc. which are really our relatives. How can a follower of Buddhism, a saint or a disciple, who sees all the creatures as his brethren, cut the flesh of all these creatures ?”’ “marspartazargt atarate & wea a FINAN Aaa ata A AetaAa Ateaeareagrchswar wattnda Za Aeateataantaa azawmaty ema Aanae araacaey. ” 252 JAINISM AND BUDDHISM “ Sua Kharostra sva balibarda manusa mansadt- nihi maha mate lokasyd bhaksyant mansant tant cha maha mate bithyan taresvairabhrika bhaksyanitt kritva milyahitor vikri yanti yatastitopi mahdmatt mansa mabhaksyam bodhisattvasya.” ‘“COQ wise man! The flesh of dog, ass, camel, horse. bullock and human beings is taken to be un-eatable by the people; but even their flesh calling it to be that of lambs is sold in the streets for money. It is, there- fore, not eatable by a follower of Buddhism.” “pratt saat aaataarg a4 aaa ey AAA.” | “ S'ukrasonita sambhavadapt suchi-kamata-mupa- daya bodhi sattvasya mansa mabhaksyam.” “ Ac the flesh is formed from the blood and sperm, so it is not eatable by a follower of Buddhism, who wishes to have purity.