BUDDHISM AND ANIMAL SACRIFICE

[Guest guest]

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=8,665,0,0,1,0 The Buddha was

against animal sacrifice by Professor Mahinda Palihawadana, Source: Info

Lanka, Published on the Buddhist Channel Jan

 

*Colombo, Sri Lanka* -- The Buddha was against animal sacrifice. He had to

be, for he was staunchly opposed to killing. Killing, not just human beings,

but all beings without exception. He expressed the view that it was all

beings (sabbe sattaa/ sabbe bhuutaa) that deserved our compassion.

 

During the time of the Buddha, many kinds of sacrifices were practised by

Brahmins who were the priests of the Vedic religion professed by the upper

castes of contemporary Indian society. The Buddha did not see any value in

these sacrifices, primarily because they were entirely external rites. If

one could speak of a 'right sacrifice', it had to be something that was

internal or 'spiritual'.

 

" I lay no wood, Brahmin, for fire on altars

Only within burneth the fire I kindle "

 

- says the Buddha, mindful of the Brahmins' practice of tending a regular

'sacred fire' and pouring oblations into it for the various gods of the

Vedic pantheon.

 

This however was only a relatively harmless, albeit in the eyes of the

Buddha useless, activity. The Vedic priests also advocated and performed

several types of cruel animal sacrifice such as:

 

" The sacrifices called the Horse, the Man,

The Peg-thrown Site, the Drink of Victory,

The Bolt Withdrawn - and all the mighty fuss-

Where divers goats and sheep and kine are slain " .

 

The Buddha rejected all these sacrifices in no uncertain terms. For example,

when he was told of a 'great sacrifice' that the king of Kosala was about to

perform, where 2500 cattle, goats and rams were to be immolated, he

declared:

 

" Never to such a rite as that repair

The noble seers who walk the perfect way. "

 

And, in one of the Jataka stories (Bhuridatta), the future Buddha is

reported to have said:

 

" If he who kills is counted innocent,

Let Brahmins Brahmins kill.

We see no cattle asking to be slain

That they a new and better life may gain;

Rather they go unwilling to their death

And in vain struggles yield their final breath.

To veil the post, the victim and the blow,

The Brahmins let their choicest rhetoric flow " .

 

Many times in his discourses the Buddha speaks of four kind of persons -

those who (1) torture themselves, (2) torture others, (3) torture both self

and others and (4) who do not torture themselves or others. The first are

the strict ascetics and the second the butchers, trappers, fishers and

robbers. It is however the third group that is of special interest in our

context. It includes kings and powerful priests who, on such occasions as

the opening of a public building, hold a great ritual, " with the sacrifice

of many cattle, goats and rams, with wood-cutting and grass -strewing and

with much bullying and hustling of servants and slaves, working in

fear of chastisement. "

 

 

The Buddha does not approve of the conduct of these three classes. It is the

last kind, who do not torture themselves or others, that he admires and they

are none other than those who follow a compassionate ethic such as the one

the Buddha himself advocated.

 

A particularly touching discourse of the Buddha on animal sacrifice comes in

one of the most ancient Buddhist texts, the Sutta Nipata. Here in a

discourse on the ethical conduct fit for a Brahmin (Brahmana-dhammika

Sutta), the Buddha speaks respectfully of ancient Brahmins who spurned the

taking of life and never allowed their religious rites to be tainted by the

killing of animals. But corruption set in and they started the practice of

animal sacrifice. When the knife was laid on the neck of cattle, the gods

themselves cried out in horror of that crime of ingratitude and

insensitivity perpetrated on an animal that was to humans such a faithful

worker, such a sustainer of life.

 

In the piece known as the Discourse with Kutadanta we come across a king's

Brahmin counsellor who is preparing a great animal sacrifice, concerning the

right procedures of which he consults the wisdom of the Buddha. T. W. Rhys

Davids, the distinguished translator of this text, alerts us to the fact

that this would be the last thing that an eminent Brahmin is likely to do -

to seek the Buddha's opinion on how to conduct a sacrifice. So he describes

the discourse as a " deliberate fiction full of ironical humour " .

 

The Buddha tells Kutadanta of a worthy sacrifice held in ancient times under

the guidance of a certain enlightened Brahmin counsellor. In this sacrifice

no living thing is injured; all the labour is voluntary and the sacrifice is

offered not only on behalf of the king, but of all the good.

 

The Buddha then tells Kutadanta of even better forms of sacrifice. In the

course of this discourse, as Mrs C. A. F. Rhys Davids points out

(Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, article on Sacrifice/ Buddhist), the

stations in the road to the good life - the perfect lay life and the perfect

religious life - are set forth as so many degrees of sacrifice, each better

than the other. Thus the highest sacrifice is that insight and wisdom which

signifies the abandonment of the sense of self - i.e., the sacrifice of

ego-centredness.

It is not a matter for surprise that the Buddhism along with Jainism, the

other great religion of Ahimsa, as well as several sects of Hinduism,

rejected animal sacrifice, although many other religions approved of it to

some extent or another. The Buddha in fact was outspoken in his criticism of

such entrenched features of the contemporary religious and social scene as

sacrificial rituals and the caste system. (His 'detachment' was not

indifference or withdrawal of judgement, as has been often misunderstood.

 

Consider his reply to Potaliya who told him that the best person was one who

neither praised the praise-worthy nor blamed the blame-worthy: Far better is

the person who speaks in dispraise of the unworthy and in praise of the

worthy, saying in due time what is factual and truthful. Anguttara ii 100)

 

In the modern world, there is a powerful movement which seeks to reduce and

eliminate the crimes that are perpetrated on animals and to introduce to the

social ethic an element of justice to other sentient beings who share the

planet with us humans.

 

This movement is all the more remarkable in that it reflects an attitudinal

shift in the predominantly Christian West which is beginning to see the true

nature of the moral evil that the abuse and exploitation of animals is. The

fundamental thrust of this movement stems from the realisation that animals

are like us when it comes to suffering pain and the prospect of the

deprivation of life. It is this very sympathy with the suffering of animals

and other sentient beings that is at the core of Buddhist compassion or

loving kindness (mettaa). Says a verse in the Dhammapada, the most popular

of Buddhist texts:

 

" All fear the rod

Of death are all scared.

(Understanding others) from one's own example,

One should neither kill nor cause to kill. "

 

In the very next verse much the same is said with this addition: 'For all is

life dear'. Here in simple terms is the 'philosophy' behind the Buddhist

ethic of Ahimsa: other living beings are like us; we should treat them the

way we want to be treated ourselves. This is the spirit behind the

first precept

which enjoins us neither to kill, nor to encourage killing as clearly

explained in the Dhammika Sutta. This is the spirit that prompts the Noble

Eightfold Path to forbid the trade in flesh and engaging in fishing, hunting

etc. for those who profess to follow that Path. It is the same spirit that

projected an ideal of kingship in which the ruler provided defence and

protection (rakkhavarana-guttim) not only to the different classes of the

human population, but also to birds of the air and beasts of the land

(miga-pakkhisu).

 

The natural corollary of such a teaching in modern parlance is that animals

have the same right to life which we humans claim for ourselves. And it is

the sensitivity to this right that made Emperor Asoka, whose life was

abundantly inspired by the teachings of the Buddha, to promulgate, in the well

known Rock Edict I: " Here no animal shall be killed or sacrificed " . This is

an outstanding e xample of an ethical teaching being made the basis for a

legal pronouncement. In somewhat similar vein, as Senaka Weeraratna has

pointed out in his paper " The Requirement for New Animal Welfare Legislation

in Sri Lanka " , seven states and territories of the modern Republic of India

have enacted statutes prohibiting animal sacrifice for the purpose of any

religious worship or adoration.

 

Moreover, according to the Constitution of India, it is a fundamental duty

of every citizen to have compassion for living creatures.

 

The tradition of royal decrees based on the ethic of respect for animal life

was also followed in Sri Lanka prior to the advent of colonialism. Consider

the MAAGHAATA (Do not kill) proclamations of five kings of Lanka from the

first to the eighth century, beginning with Amandagamani Abhaya, which

forbade the killing of any living being within the realm. King Vijayabahu I

in the 11th century and Parakramabahu the Great in the 12th also made

proclamations of protection of wild life and fishes in the forests and lakes

of Sri Lanka. Kirti Sri Nissankamalla, one of the kings who came after

Parakramabahu, promulgated a remarkable decree, which he publicised in six

of his famous inscriptions, forbidding the killing of all living beings in

the irrigation lakes of the entire country. In his Anuradhapura inscription

he decreed that no animals should be killed within seven leagues of the city

and induced a certain group of hunters to desist from the trapping of birds.

These few instances suffice to give us an idea of the pervasive influence of

the Buddhist attitude to animal life in the social and legal history of Sri

Lanka.

 

In conclusion, it is pertinent to ask what has post-independence Sri Lanka

done to foster the Ahimsa ethic? Constitutionally and legally, nothing - as

far as one can see. As for state intervention in favour of compassion

towards animals, the record is equally barren. One among many examples will

suffice to underscore this point.

 

A stark contrast to the respect for animal life shown throughout the history

of this country is the present-day encouragement of inland fishing. There

can be no doubt that it is the greatest threat to the fabric of the Ahimsa

ethic which still prevails to a considerable extent among the village

communities

of Sri Lanka. The destruction of this ethic will undoubtedly facilitate the

subversion of Buddhist values and the conversion of Buddhists to ideologies

which are not averse to the killing of animals.

 

Recent events show that the Sangha hierarchy of Sri Lanka will be as guilty

of complicity as the rest of us who stand as silent and helpless onlookers

in the face of this onslaught on a humane and compassionate religious ethic

which had stood the test of time for twenty five centuries.

 

----------------

Prof. Mahinda Palihawadana is currently the President of the Sri Lanka

Vegetarian Society