Filed under: General
An interview with Dr Tony Page; Interview by Claudette Vaughan, August 2000.
Buddhism is world-famous for its philosophy of compassion towards all people. Yet what precisely do its scriptures teach on the subject of humanity’s rightful relationship with the animal kingdom? Dr Tony Page recently wrote a book on that very subject calling it “Buddhism and Animals”.
CLAUDETTE: How difficult was it to carry out research into Buddhist morality and the practice of flesh-eating?
TONY: It was surprisingly easy. I have been a student of Buddhism for 20 years but have always been disturbed by the number of modern Buddhists who ate meat, as well as by the relative neglect of animal rights as an issue with Buddhist groups in the West. I have always understood that, given its strong principle of “ahimsa” or non-violence, Buddhism frowned upon meat-eating, since meat-eating inevitably meant doing violence to animals that were slaughtered for food.
But I found that a lot of present day Buddhist teachers and practitioners were actually trying to justify meat-eating. Clearly, something was wrong. So I decided to see what the scriptural basis for meat-eating was. I resolved largely to by-pass what later commentators on Buddhism had said on the subject (many were meat-eaters) and go back to the original scriptures to see what the Buddha himself had stated. It is always best to go back to the source, as far as possible. And I was tremendously encouraged to see that there was a wealth of evidence showing that Buddha Shakyamundi was himself against the eating of meat and was in fact a strong advocate of vegetarianism and compassion towards animals. This formed the basis of my book.
CLAUDETTE: Isn’t there a difference regarding the question of meat-eating between the two big schools of Buddhism, “Theravada” and “Mahayana”?
TONY: Yes, seemingly so. The Pali scriptures of the Theravada school report the Buddha as having died from eating some rotten pork at the end of his life, and also claim that he said it was OK to eat flesh as long as you yourself have not seen, heard, or suspected that the animal was killed especially for you. On the first point, when one investigates the Pali work “sukara-maddava” – translated by meat eaters as pork – the evidence suggests that it actually means “pig’s delight”, ie. a type of food favoured by pigs, probably truffles, rather than pig’s meat.
On the second point, if one reads the relevant Pali scripture carefully, one sees that the phrase “killed especially for oneself” is not used by the Buddha. It is interpolated (in parentheses) by later commentators. All the Buddha says is that meat might not be eaten if it is seen, heard, or suspected, it may be used. It seems very clear to me that what this means is that any meat put into a Buddhist monk’s begging bowl (along with various other food items) should not be eaten if the monk actually sees, hears from others, or suspects for himself that what has been given to him is indeed meat. If by chance he does not notice this and unrealisingly goes ahead and swallows what actually turns out to be meat (it presumably being mixed in with other pieces of food), he is not committing an offence against Buddhist morality, since he is acting unwittingly.
CLAUDETTE: What does the Mahayana school say?
TONY: Things are even clearer in these scriptures. The Buddha emphatically condemns as “twisters of truth” those people who go around saying that the Buddha allows meat eating. He says in no uncertain terms that flesh eating is incompatible with the Buddhist principle of compassion.
CLAUDETTE: You mentioned the principle of non-violence or non-harming (ahimsa) as being important in Buddhism. What does this mean in a practical everyday sense to you?
TONY: It means respecting all beings – humans and animals – as having feelings, as being sentient, and not deserving deliberately to be hurt. So a Buddhist would never swat a fly or purposefully step on an ant or spider. “Non-harming” also means that one should not work in a profession that involves harming others, for example, a butcher or soldier. The main point to remember is to try and show kindness to all creatures, including of course humans. But animals are part of it too. After all, the Buddha took birth many times as an animal – sometimes a deer, or a monkey, or a fish, or a dog etc. He knew what it was like to be an animal. He also taught that we have been animals in our past lives and in fact all the animals are related to us, quite literally. At some point in the past they have been our mothers, fathers, sisters, cousins. So if we harm animals, we are actually harming members of our own family.
CLAUDETTE: What is your understanding of karma and eating animals?
TONY: Karma is the spiritual law of justice which makes us experience the good and the bad effects of what we do to others. So, if we harm animals by killing them, eating them, or experimenting on them, we will have to suffer analogous experiences ourselves in the future – or at least have to undergo some form of suffering. Only when we ourselves go through what the animals have been through will we definitely know that hurting animals is wrong. So eventually we will develop an empathy, a belief in our kinship with all sentient beings, including animals. It is interesting to note, also, that if we are kind to animals, kindness and happiness flow back to us. The Buddha says that if you perform one act of kindness to an animal, you will be recompensed a hundredfold.
CLAUDETTE: What is the climate like now in England now with regard to animal rights?
TONY: I think it is growing more favourable. More and more people are hearing about the wrongs of meat-eating, hunting and vivisecting, and recently some major animal experimental centres have been closed down. Young people in particular are turning against animal exploitation. But the Blair Government is little better than the Conservatives when it comes to animal rights. We must continue to put pressure (non-violent of course) on the MPs.
CLAUDETTE: Tell us about your own organisation Tony?
TONY: A few years ago I set up the UK Antivivisection Information Service, which is just a very small, unsalaried organisation aimed at getting the truth out about vivisection – especially how the practice is of no medical value due to its many unpredictable physiological differences between animals and humans. I have written books on the theme, plus Buddhist books, which approach the question of animal rights from a more moral/spiritual angle. So I try to distribute this kind of information to whomever is interested in it.
CLAUDETTE: In your opinion how can we best avoid oppressing our fellow non-human creatures?
TONY: Through educating as many people as possible about the suffering that animals are unfairly subjected to, and letting people know that there is an alternative – vegetarianism, veganism and natural medicines. And we must practice non-harming in our daily lives.
We should be a living example of what we preach. It is no good, in my view, to preach Compassion and then discount human suffering, for example. Animals and humans should be viewed as equally capable of suffering, so we should care about human rights and animal rights equally. This definitely gets more respect from the public. But never should any being be sacrificed involuntarily-wise, and the dire karmic consequences of harming any being, no matter what the alleged (but deluded) motives are.
CLAUDETTE: Do you have a Utopian dream regarding animals and humans?
TONY: Yes. I dream of a world where animals are viewed as sentient and sensitive people, whose right to be free from human-enforced suffering is respected and where our only relations with animals are motivated by the wish to love and help them. At the same time, I want to see a society that respects other humans much more, too, and our IQ variants, sex and sexuality. We also need to change the education system, so we are not churning out robotic, fact-and figure-filled automata, but feelingful, caring, creative and truly human beings, in touch with what the Buddha calls our innermost Buddha-Mind of Wisdom and Compassion.
CLAUDETTE: Any final thoughts?
TONY: Just to thank you all in Australia for the great work you are doing. Whether you know it or not, by being vegetarian, or better still, vegan and gently encouraging others to support animal rights you are truly helping to bring a little bit of Paradise down to our Earth. And what could be more rewarding for us all than that?
Dr Tony Page can be contacted at:
UKAVIS Publications
PO Box 4746
London SE11 4XF
15 Comments so far
Leave a comment
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Buddism in its purest form as describes here is the closest thing to any religioun that I would follow or respect. Its just a shame that people tend to hear and follow what is most convenient to them. I do believe that Buddha and jesus did not condone the killing or suffering of animals. (I am not religious.)
Comment by Northerntracey December 29, 2006 @ 5:03 amWhile the 3 conditions for eating meat are sometime interpreted differently by different groups of buddhist, there is no clear teachings by the Buddha in the suttas that says monks or lay followers cannot eat meat.
There is an incident in the suttas where Devadatta tried to split the Sangha and challenge the Buddha, one of the terms he proposed was to make it a training rule that all monks are to become vegetarians. The Buddha refused, saying it is up to each individual to take on that practice if they sees it as important.
The vinaya did says that there are certain types of animals that the Buddha did forbid the monks from eating. Reason given is that the smell of these meat would stay on their body and attract tigers or other meat eating animal to them, thus endangering their lives. If the Buddha did says that monks are to avoid ALL meat, then there would not be a need for that rule in the vinaya.
Comment by Alternative January 1, 2007 @ 1:31 pmCan or cannot? The Buddha never gave any commandments. He gives recommendations and guidelines. Vegetarian or animal-eaters? Which actualises compassion more? the answer is obvious. If you look more carefully at the articles in this section, there are many quotes by the Buddha discouraging eating of meat.
Devadatta’s request was not reasonable because most monks at the Buddha’s time ate random almsfood they cannot choose. Lay people and many monastics these days are NOT eaters of random almsfood – they can choose as intelligent compassionate consumers.
In the Bodhisattva precepts, those training to be Bodhisattvas (those who train to benefit as many as possible and harm as few as possible, directly or indiectly) are not supposed to eat meat. The Bodhisattva precepts can be taken up by monastics or laypeople.
Remember – the life and death of animals is no arbitrary matter. Please put yourself in the positions of tortured and slaughtered animals to comprehend this.
Comment by Vegan January 1, 2007 @ 11:02 pmI’m not arguing against vegetarianism, but rather Tony Page’s stand on the Buddha’s teachings. He seems to be saying that the Buddha taught against eating meat but modern day buddhist are trying to justify meat eating.
Yet if we look at the suttas, the Buddha rejected devadatta’s request and yet lay down precepts against eating certain type of meat. This show that Buddhist monk during the Buddha’s time did eat meat and is allow to eat meat offered to the monks(contrary to Tony Page’s interpretation on the 3 condition for meat eating) . There is also no rules stated clearly that Lay Buddhist are not to eat meat neither.
Do not get me wrong. Vegetarianism has many benefits and I have been on vegetarian diet from time to time. But it is wrong to bend the Buddha’s teachings to fit one’s view or to justify one’s stand on the issue.
While vegetarianism is very good, it is not a must and should not be mistaken to be taught in the suttas or give the impression that to be a good buddhist one has to be a vegetarian. Or many would-be-buddhist might be frighten away. If people are frighten away because they thought that to be a buddhist one must be a vegetarian then vegetarianism would be doing more harm than good.
There is, of cause, difference of opinion on vegetarianism between the suttas and sutras. Some sutras even says that one should not eat meat of animals even if that animal died of natural causes(e.g. old age).
Comment by Alternative January 2, 2007 @ 1:20 amIt is true, according to both the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions, that the Buddha did teach against eating meat. (See above comment on Bodhisattva precept). It is also true that many modern Buddhists are bluffing themselves that self-chosen consumer meat is “pure” morally.
The comment by Vegan also explained the difference between random almsfood and consumer meat, and the Buddha’s rationale for not making vegetarianism a must for non-Bodhisattva wannabes.
As Vegan mentioned, please see more articles in this section of Moonpointer.com for quotes by the Buddha against meat-eating.
It is possible to be a good Buddhist when non-vegetarian. But such a person can definitely be a better Buddhist, especially to thousands of hapless animals, when one chooses to be vegetarian, to spare them from the slaughterhouse by lowering demands for their deaths. (Which sutra says meat of animals that died of natural causes cannot be eaten?)
Comment by VeganToo January 2, 2007 @ 12:12 pmThat’s the pt Alternative is making. Tony Page is suggesting that you cannot be a good buddhist if you eat meat. He is ‘disturbed’ by buddhist eating meat n looked into the pali suttas and tries to interpreate the suttas to say that the Buddha prohibit meat eating. Tony Page is suggesting that modern Buddhist are using the commentary’s interperation of the 3 conditions to justify meat eating. He is suggesting that these buddhist are acting against the Buddha’s words. He is suggesting that you cannot be a good buddhist if you eat meat.
I think Vegan’s interperation of the almsfood/consumer meat is not correct neither. Because unlike monks, the lay buddhist in the buddha’s time can pick and choose what they want to eat. Even then the Buddha did not specifically prohibit meat eating by them.
The Buddha’s teachings in the pali canon is very specific; teachings on 5, 8, 10, 227 precepts, 4 Noble Truth, Nobel 8fold path, dependent orignation etc… when the Buddha talks about our debts to our parents he uses the imagery of a person carrying his parents on his shoulder and carrying out their instructions for his whole life, yet he cannot repay his debts to his parents. Very Powerful Imagery used.
But on prohibting meat, there is none to be found. All sources of the Buddha’s teachings in the pali canon against meat eating seems to be inferred.
I’m not against the Vegetarian Cause neither, but i’m against bending the Buddha’s teachings to fit ones views. Let just state the facts as it really is.
There is a big difference bt the Theravada n Mahayana stand on this issue. In fact some Mahayana teachers even suggest that you will be reborn 500( or a certain number of times) times as a chicken if you eat chicken. etc…Franky I do not know what to make of it.
Comment by outofthebox January 2, 2007 @ 3:51 pmDr Tony Page made good pts – “… if one reads the relevant Pali scripture carefully, one sees that the phrase “killed especially for oneself” is not used by the Buddha. It is interpolated (in parentheses) by later commentators. All the Buddha says is that meat might not be eaten if it is seen, heard, or suspected, it may be used. It seems very clear to me that what this means is that any meat put into a Buddhist monk’s begging bowl (along with various other food items) should not be eaten if the monk actually sees, hears from others, or suspects for himself that what has been given to him is indeed meat. If by chance he does not notice this and unrealisingly goes ahead and swallows what actually turns out to be meat (it presumably being mixed in with other pieces of food), he is not committing an offence against Buddhist morality, since he is acting unwittingly.” I think this is plausible.
Dr Tony Page does not suggests that “you cannot be a good buddhist if you eat meat.” Maybe u read it that way.
The Buddha in the Pali canon never gave clear rules to the laity as to meat-eating. The “pure meat” was taught to monks. This does not mean he was okay with it totally. At least, not according to the other two traditions.
The difficulty of paying back the good others have done for us has nothing to do with actively supporting slaughterhouses by buying meat produce.
Which Mahayana sutra speaks of being reborn a chicken 500 times if one eats chicken? Not sure if it’s possible – depends on the weight of karma and how much one is linked to the death of animals. What I know is a Mahayana Sutra did mention that one who slaughters say a goat, might be reborn a goat. Of course, the person slaughters usually for those who demand animal flesh. I opt out – for the animals’ sake. I hope you do – for the thousands of animals you will otherwise devour in your lifetime.
Comment by Vegan January 2, 2007 @ 10:36 pmDr Tony Page is ‘distrubed’ by buddhist eating meat and felt that ‘clearly it is wrong’ and looked into the scriptures. He has to ‘bypass the commentator, many of whom are meat-eaters’. Dr Page then discovered there is wealth of evidence that the Buddha was against meat-eating. Dr Page is suggesting that latter days Buddhist are mis-interpreating the Buddha’s words to justify meat eating. Its not mentioned in the interview, but its obvious to me that he is saying you cannot be a good Buddhist if you eat meat. The very act of bending the Buddha’s words to justfy meat eating is a very clear sign he thinks you cannot be a good buddhist if you eat meat.
My example of repaying our parent’s debt is to show how clear n lucid the Buddha is in the suttas when he has something impt to say or when he is speaking out against something. There are others abt caste system, abt animal sacrifice etc. But on vegetarianism, he is silent. All examples of the buddha supporting vegetarism in the pali canon seems to be inferred.
The ‘official’ stand theravada buddhism has on pure meat is that as long as the meat is not killed with the intention of feeding a monk and/or the monk is not aware, it is ok. Its ok because the karma of killing is not ‘imprinted’ onto the monk. The monk is free of the killing karma because there is no intention to kill the animal. That goes for the meat we find in the supermarket of today also. Having said that, I’m again not justifying the terrible suffering animals has in farm factories. Merely stating the facts.
One need not find scripritual justification to stop the terrible suffering animals are going thru. While I believe karmically i’m not involved in the killing of animals when i eat meat I do think it is impt for us to at least cut down on the amount of meat we eat because its contributing to the lessening of suffering of animals. Hope i stated my point clearly.
Its not a sutra but a certain well respected Tibetan master who said that. If you eat an animal, you create negative karma such that you will be reborn as an animal for serveral live time.
Comment by outofthebox January 3, 2007 @ 12:53 pmWe perceive words according to our perceptions. What is clear is we can ALL increase our compassion by sparing thoughts for continually murdered animals. Irrefutable.
As mentioned, the Buddha is NOT silent about vegetarianism in the sutras. (Er… How many times must the many folks commenting above remind you to read the quotes by the Buddha on the subject?) See Brahma Net Sutra at http://www.moonpointer.com/bvf.php?itemid=392
Meat at supermarket of millions of animals killed daily are not for meat eaters and the willing paying consumer? Killed for who then? Vegetarians? They are obviously out of this loop. Meat buyers are in the supply-demand loop. Simple economics irrefutable. Consumer meat does not meet the standards of “pure meat” – only random almsfood does. Surely, meat consumers collectively are the usual suspects of whom animals are killed for.
Which “certain well respected master” said what you said? Why not say his name and quote him?
Comment by outofthebox January 6, 2007 @ 2:27 pmthink OutOfTheBox is refering to the suttas (pali canon) that does not contain any teachings speaking out clearly and strongly against meat eating.
I agree with him that the karma of killing is not inprinted onto me if I go out to buy meat to eat. Because karma involves intention, but thoughs of killing does not arise when i go out to eat meat. Some may not like to admit it but there is a different between actions contributing to the suffering of animals and killing-karma. By the same arguement, the very act of going to work every morning means I would have stepped on some tiny animals but because there is no intentions to kill, there is no killing karma and I have nt broken my 1st precept.
As for random alsmsfood, there is already a strong tradition to give out alms food to both buddhist monks and other ascetics during the Buddha’s time and by all accounts, there were already alot of buddhist monks and nuns then, so it makes me wonder if the ‘random almsfood’ Vegan123 is speaking about exist even then. Groups of monks would have gone regualry to the same village for alms every morning. The villagers would have purposely prepared more food anticipating the monks.
Comment by Optimus Prime January 7, 2007 @ 10:58 amEven if the Pali Canon does not speak of vegetaranism strongly, is it kinder to be for or against it? Is it arbitrary? Please see the movie “Fast Food Nation” for great clips of animal slaughter – see what animals go through, and decide for yourself. Most meat-lovers CHOOSE to be BLIND to this plight of animals. It is a fact that most who read this comment will still not choose to see the blood and gore to face the facts. This saddens me greatly.
If one is aware that animals are killed for one, as a consumer, and has INTENTIONS to support killing by continual buying of meat, is there still no karma involved at all? It might be downplayed in intensity, but it’s surely there to some extent. There is no humane way to kill. All meat-buyers should know that. The Buddha spoke against butchery. It’s common sense that he wouldn’t think those who support butchery by constant bying of the butchered is perfectly blameless. Remember this – consumers have the power to stop animal butchery. If so, meat-eating is NEVER arbitrary ethically.
I watch out for insects best i can when I walk. I look at the floor – really. Friends often avoid stepping on insects after I warn them when they were about to. I do my best. I extend this doing of my best to choosing not to demand for butchered animals. The point is to minimise demand for killing – even if it’s imposible to make it zero. The question again is this – if you know animals HAVE to be killed for you to have meat, why choose to be connected to this? In this aspect, vegetarians are consciously disconnected. If this is more praiseworthy, then surely, meat-eating is more blameworthy.
Almsfood is random – The Buddha gave rules to monks to visit random households for food everyday. Every visit is unannounced. On special occasions when the Buddha is invited by the rich for meals, surely, if the devotees understand the Buddha’s teachings of compassion, will minimise offering meat. And even if meat is offered, the Buddha ensures it is “pure” – not suspecting they were animals killed for him. How can non-random voluntary meat-consumers who choose their meat not suspect animals WERE killed for them, the consumers? A collective problem is caused by the collective – which is made of individuals.
Comment by VeganTo January 7, 2007 @ 3:24 pmIn nature, there are fewer animals at the top of the food chain, like a pyramid. It’s unfortunate to all other animals that human, at the top of the food chain, has such a large population. Fortunately, in a sense, the human population in some developed countries has started to stagnate, as I used to fear over-population. Being able to rationalise and learn differentiate us from other animals. So is it more important to practice compassion, or is it more important to focus on the karma (whether or not you have kill-karma)? From my understanding, the first precept is more a guidance for you to perfect compassion. Is it really best to stop eating meat completely, just because of the first precept, or is it better to understand why one want to do stop eating meat. It certainly requires the right condition before people wil gain the perspective to stop eating meat.
Comment by arctanck January 8, 2007 @ 10:10 pmThe animal population is much much more than humans – that they are bred to be so – to be exploited – that is why literally millions of animals can be killed for humans, by humans, to feed the greed for meat.
Developed countries are eating more meat – so, the stagnation of population increase in some countries might not help lower meat-eating. Also, there are quite a number of developing countries. With more wealth, there is tendency to eat more meat.
People should be urged to stop or eat less meat using all good reasons as skilful means. Some classic good non-religious reasons can be found @ http://viva.org.uk/goingveggie/index.html
How can you persist in saving all beings,
Comment by sisyphus January 8, 2007 @ 11:40 pmwhen you cannot resist eating some beings?
I think the real definition of a “developed country” is one which treats weaker beings not as lesser beings, but with compassion. A country is truly “developed” only when its citizens develop great compassion and wisdom, which extends beyond themselves – to animals too.
As the great peace-loving (to both humans and animals) Ghandi, who was vegetarian said, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
The good news is that in developed countries like UK, more and more are going vegetarian. Last I heard some years back, 1/5 of the citizens are vegetarian in some way.
Comment by qwerti January 9, 2007 @ 2:02 amDEAR all Aspiring Bodhisattvas & Future Buddhas
It is great to see so much interests in arbitrating what should or should not be …or proofing a point or two in one’s perspective about Vegetarianism…. of what the Lord Buddha has said…
Oh What is the outcome of one’s intention or motivation after proofing a point or two ?
In my two cents worth of sharing :- Perhaps this can be helpful?
By taking quiet time into contemplating and investigating more deeply into the nature of interpendence and Attachment or Clinging to our 5 senses in terms of meat- eating would perhaps help one to see, understand or realize one’s own actions directly or indirectly in terms of choosing or not choosing to eat meat or how one is directly or indirectly related in the vicious cycle of suffering or causing suffering ?
The Mind is very trickly. It would be helpful for one to check one’s own state of mind when making a decision to act.
with metta & karuna
Comment by Lizzy the Dizzy January 13, 2007 @ 12:46 amLizzy the Dizzy