DEBATE: A questionnaire to all Ideo-Vegs such as Dr. Atukorale :

Religious extremism via vegetarianism -- a challenge

The esteemed national newspaper, Sunday Observer is unfortunately serving the cause of some extremists such as Dr. D. P. Atukorale and the likes, who are on a national campaign to push vegetarianism down the throats of all while maligning religions like Christianity and Islam where meat eating is permitted.

They discuss 'Pancha Seela' but their emphasis is on meat eating. In discussing meat eating, they very cleverly take an unethical whack at religions like Christianity and Islam, which have not banned consumption of meat.

Our ardent request is for you to teach Buddhists to adhere to the precepts of Buddhism, without ridiculing other religions. Ridiculing and criticizing others is not the Buddha's way, according to our understanding of this great human being.

He even once said: "Priests, if others speak anything against me, or speak anything against my doctrines, or speak anything against the priesthood, there is no reason why you should be angry, discontented, and displeased with them." "The hater does not grasp his weal, nor does he wish to see the TRUTH, for gloom and darkness reign supreme when hatred overpowers man. He knows no shame, no moral dread, is lacking tact whenever he speaks, and overpowered by his hate, he finds refuge nowhere". (Anguttara Nikatya Ch 7 Ver 60 - Sutta Pitaka.)

An independent reader will be at a loss to see culinary articles in the same newspaper explaining how to prepare mouth watering meat preparations, while there are numerous other articles explaining the ill effects of meat eating, a subject very vehemently pursued in these articles. Is this not a contradictory situation?

We are very much delighted that Dr. Atukorale and the concerned scholars have initiated action at least to explain one precept from the 'Pancha Seela' to the Buddhists of this country. Let us discuss the consequences and the responsibilities entailing this proposal.

Buddha very specifically states that anyone who violates any one of the five precepts of the 'Pancha Seela' will be destined to have his or her place of residence in the hereafter in 'Hell Fire'. What a dreadful warning!!! We find the following words in the book titled 'Path to deliverance' by Nayanatiloka Mahathera (1878-1957), published by the Buddhist Publication Society, Kandy, page: 63.

'The fact, on the other hand, that even the Buddha himself has sometimes eaten meat, is proved by many passages in the Canon (e.g. A. V. 44; VIII. 12 etc.,). It is further reported in the Vinaya that the Buddha has categorically rejected Devadatta's proposal to forbid meat-eating to the monks.

And that, normally, monks were allowed to eat meat, may be already inferred from the Vinaya-rule which forbids ten kinds of meat, but for merely extraneous reasons - such as that of a tiger, a snake, an elephant etc'.

Nayanatiloka Mahathera has quoted the above from 'Buddhist Dictionary' another work of this scholar monk.

In the 'Mahaparinibbana Sutta' of the 'Deega Nikaya' it is stated that the last meal (Daana) to the Buddha was offered by Chunda. His meal included 'sukara maddawa' which the Buddha instructed Chunda not to offer to the accompanying monks simply because it was a substance difficult to digest.

There is a controversy about 'sukara maddawa' as many have tried to interpret it as a bamboo shoot or a mushroom which is poisonous to human beings. But it was meat.

But, eating such meat is not an Akusala act according to this teaching. We have further observed that your emphasis was regarding the consumption of the flesh of cattle. Buddhist scriptures do not mention anything about slaughtering of cattle in particular and in general the teaching is that killing of any living being is prohibited.

According to 'Brahmajala Sutta' the Buddha even abstained from killing any plant life, and specific instructions were given in the 'Kutadanta Sutta' for all his disciples to follow the same. Then, why is there a protest about eating the flesh of cattle in particular? The specific reason for this could be found in a specific human experience.

In general, we could observe that the expression of grief is very limited when an old granny dies. She is a burden on the family and some family members may even internally feel relieved about her demise. Please do not think that I am trying to generalize this view.

This is what we mostly observe. In the event of a young person passing away, we see the incalculable grief and weeping amongst the family members. His demise is a great loss to the whole family.

Likewise, we see that out of 'Pancha Seela' the majority are only talking about killing, and their deafening silence about alcohol, gambling and lotteries which is another form of gambling is amazing. Even on killing, they only scream about cattle slaughter. Can anyone see the hidden reason behind this?

Cattle, is a big asset to the general public in Sri Lanka. We plough our fields and pull our carts with the help of cattle. We steal milk, violating another precept in the 'Pancha Seela' from them. Milk of the cow is for the calf, not for us. We only steal the food of the young calf for our nourishment. Considering these and many more benefits we reap out of cattle, justifies the activities of the anti cattle slaughter movement.

Untold cruelty

These champions who carry anti cattle slaughter banners have not considered for a moment the untold cruelty they inflict on cattle by making use of these animals for ploughing the fields and pulling carts.

Haven't you seen the branding of cattle with red hot iron for identification? What an awful sight is it? This lifelong cruelty inflicted on them is more serious than slaughtering. Why are they silent about these inhuman and ruthless cruelties that we have been inflicting on these innocent animals?

Astonishingly, they are very much silent about the fisheries department and slaughtering of pigs and poultry. What an amazing way to fulfill the precepts of the 'Pancha Seela'! Buddhism teaches total prohibition of killing of any living being, and anti cattle slaughter slogans alone are very hypocritical and deceitful.

Let us propose to close down the Department of Fisheries and cancel all licenses issued to fishing boat owners which will undoubtedly cause a chaotic situation amongst the population living in the coastal belt.

Annual per capita consumption of meat in USA in year 2001, according to US DA (Department of Agriculture) was 187.8 b. kg. In other words, a total population of 287 million in USA has consumed 53.9 billion kilograms of meat in year 2001.

Any concept to be rational and valid must have a world-wide application. Can you imagine the enormous task, almost impracticable and impossible, that involves the substituting of vegetable products instead of meat in the event of all Americans turning vegetarian?.

The Eskimos will have to change their life pattern and become vegetarians, which any person with an iota of common sense will never expect happening..

If Dr. Atukorale and other scholars are sincere and genuine in their approach to teaching Buddhism in its correct perspective, let them consider the other precepts in the 'Pancha Seela with the same vehemence. Lotteries have been established daily to make the coffers swell in the treasury.

Irrespective of all what we have said above, we appreciate the resolve of the Buddhists to prevent meat eating and cattle slaughter, which is part of their religion -- and we expect them to implement it only amongst their followers. Our main question is how could they impose their belief on others who are not followers of their faith?? This is very unethical, unlawful and immoral.

This is a violation of basic human right and human values. Buddhists may live according to the teaching of their religion. Please do not interfere with the lives of other non - Buddhists who have their own values and practices.

Let us think rationally and intelligently, leaving aside personal emotions, which will undoubtedly pave the way for better understanding of this subject. A genuine reciprocal desire to explore each other's minds, to appreciate each other's backgrounds, to comprehend each other's viewpoints, is the first prerequisite for achieving mutual understanding. Angry arguments, belligerent bigotry, furious fanaticism or inflexible insistence on our own conviction of what is true and right will only obliterate the actuality of opposite beliefs held firmly by others.

Let us discuss in detail about the Vegetarian and Non-Vegetarian food. Dr. William T. Jarves, is the advisor to the "American Council of Science and Health' "ACSH", and he is also the 'Professor of Public Health and Preventive Medicine' in the Lomalinda University and he is also the founder and the President of the "National Council Against Health Frauds', and he is the co-editor of the book "The Health Robbers - a closer look at Quackery in America'.

Most of the quotations he gives are from America. He classifies 'Vegetarian' based on the behaviour stand point, into two categories, "Pragmatic Vegetarian, and 'Ideological Vegetarian'.

A Pragmatic Vegetarian' chooses his diet on objective health reasons - he is more reasonable in his approach, rather than emotional. "The Ideological Vegetarian' on the other hand chooses his diet based on principle, which is based on ideology - he is more emotional, rather than reasonable.

And Dr. William T. Jarves says, "One can spot an Ideological Vegetarian, by his exaggeration of the benefits of Vegetarianism", and all of you could see that in Dr. Atukorale's discussions and his glorifying and exaggeration of benefits of Vegetarianism. Dr Jarves says that, "The ideological Vegetarian, pretends to be like a scientist, but he is more like a lawyer, than like a scientist.

They gather information selectively, against the information which is against the ideology. This may be good for a debate, but not for engendering scientific understanding. Dr. William T. Jarves says that 'Ideological Vegetarianism' is filled with hypothesis - "it is filled with extremism, from which even scientists and doctors are not immune'.

Let us analyze the various reasons, a person chooses a food habit. It can be Religious, it can be Geographical location, it can be a personal choice, We would like to make one point crystal clear, Which is that while we prove undoubtedly, that Non-Vegetarian food should be permitted for the human beings, we do not have the slightest intention to hurt the feelings of any Vegetarian.

While we prove logically and scientifically that Non- Vegetarian food is permitted, and if someone feels hurt, his sentiments are hurt, we sincerely apologize. Our intention is not to hurt anybody's feelings, but to explain the TRUTH, in an acceptable manner.

Let us analyze the geographical reasons and the surrounding environment, and as we know, it influences the person's food habit - like people living in the coastal region, who have more fish. People living in the North Central Province, have more rice. People living in the desert, where there is scarcity of vegetation, mainly survive on the flesh of animals.

The Eskimoes in the Arctic region, where there is scarcity of edible vegetation, survive more on sea food. Pure Vegetarians, say 'all life is sacred - and no living creature should be killed'. They fail to realize that today, it is a universal fact, that even plants have got life - so the main argument against killing a living creature, does not hold good today.

Justification

Previously, maybe a couple of centuries ago, it may have held some weight, but today it carries no weight. Then, they further argue today, and they say 'yes we know that plants have got life, but they cannot feel pain, therefore killing a plant, is a lesser crime and lesser sin, as compared to killing an animal'. Today, science has further advanced, and we have come to know that even plants can feel pain, they can even cry.

But the cry of the plant cannot be heard by the human ear, because the audible frequency range of the human ear, is from 20 cycles per second, to 20,000 cycles per second. Anything below and above this, the human ear cannot hear.

But the cry of the animal can be heard by the human being - but the cry of the plant cannot be heard by the human being. Just because you cannot hear the cry of the plant, that does not justify you inflicting pain or killing the plant.

There was an ideological Vegetarian, who had a discussion with us, and he told us that, 'Brother, I know the plants have life, they feel pain, but you know plants, they have got about two senses less, as compared to the animals'.

We said 'for the sake of argument we agree with you'. But then we asked him a simple question, that 'suppose your brother is born deaf and dumb - cannot hear, cannot speak - two senses less - and when he grows up, and when someone comes and murders him - will you go and tell the judge...' O my Lord give the murderer a lesser punishment, because my brother had two senses less'? In fact he will say 'he has killed an innocent person - give him a bigger punishment'. Our stand is that as far as non-human living creatures are concerned, no human being should harm them/these unnecessarily, should not kill unnecessarily, for sports, or for fun, or for target practice.

Even if we agree that the plants are a lesser species, as compared to the human beings - if you take the life of one animal, an average animal, it can feed about hundred human beings. For these same hundred human beings to be sustained, you may have to kill more than hundred plants.

So is it preferable to take the life of one living animal, or the life of 100 living plants? Which is a bigger sin? - You decide for yourself. There is a Vegetarian Society by the name of 'World Foundation in Reverence for all Life'. The name of the foundation is 'World Foundation on Reverence for all Life' - they forgot to mention (except plant life) within brackets.

And the foundation's credo says 'All creation is one family, all life is sacred'. What kind of an ideology is this, that you permit the killing of one family member, but do not permit the killing of another family member? - It is illogical and unscientific.

There are Vegetarian societies which take students to slaughter houses, and they make them see the gore, and convert them to Vegetarianism. It is like a doctor taking the young girls to observe and watch a difficult childbirth, and saying 'Its the reason you should not marry, and you should not have children'.

These are unethical forms of mind control - surely unethical. We can remember, an Ideological Vegetarian, Dr. D. P. Atukorale, in a newspaper article denied human beings having canine teeth. This alone shows very vividly that Ideological Vegetarians will make use of any blatant untruth and un-scientific data to propagate their ill founded concepts. If man was born to consume vegetables only, why is he given these pointed teeth - for what? 'Learned' Dr. Atukorale, it appears, did not have a basic knowledge on human Anatomy and we must ask him what he calls the conical pointed tooth, situated between the lateral incisor and the first premolar.

If you analyse the digestive system of the human being, it can digest both Vegetarian as well as Non-Vegetarian food. Why is it that we have a digestive system, which can digest both, Vegetarian as well as Non-Vegetarian food? The root word meaning of 'Eskimo' is 'Eaters of raw flesh'. So there are human beings who even have raw meat, they are conditioned for it.

Tomorrow if you are conditioned to eat raw Wheat and raw Rice, you may be able to digest it. But most human beings cannot digest certain raw vegetables. That does not mean you should not have Rice, you should not have Wheat, that you should not have Drumsticks. There are in the Herbivorous animals, an enzyme known as 'Cellulaze Enzyme' and every vegetable has 'Cellulaze' - and this Cellulaze enzyme, helps in digesting the vegetables. We human beings, do not have 'Cellulaze enzymes'.

Therefore in the vegetables we eat, the cellulose part remains undigested and you call them 'Fibres'. On the other hand, there are certain enzymes like Lipase, Trapezes, Kino Trapezes, which are mainly meant for digesting Non-Vegetarian food. If by nature human beings did not want to have Non-Vegetarian food, why are we humans endowed with all these enzymes? The primitive man, archaeological evidence shows us clearly, the Homo sapiens, the Eskimoes, the Austo Aborigines, they were all Non-Vegetarians.

So why the change now? We have the same teeth; we have the same digestive system. A Non-Vegetarian is a person who has the food of animal products, as well as Vegetarian food - an Omnivorous diet. It is said that the liver and the kidney in Carnivorous animals are large.

In the human beings these are small as in the Herbivorous, because animals have raw meat. Therefore they have to remove the toxins on a higher level - we do it by cooking the food. Therefore, nature gave us a small kidney, and a small liver, which is sufficient to digest both, cooked Non-Vegetarian food, and also vegetables.

Unscientific facts

The plants - many Vegetarians say ''they grow, therefore we are not killing the plants' . Some plants have that facility, not all plants You know if you cut the tail of the Lizard, it' grows.

Will you have the tail of the Lizard? - It is a delicacy. There are human beings the 'Australian Aborigines', they relish the Lizard - Will you have the tail of the Lizard? - And the answer will be 'No'.

We have another 100 more pages of facts, refuting all untruths and unscientific facts that the 'scholars' try to explain away in articles. I must quote another important statement by a prominent and a highly respected Buddhist priest, Harispattuwe Ariyawanslankara Thera, who very categorically stated in a meeting where I was present, that the Holy Book of Islam in a specific chapter prohibits animal slaughter. I had to consult many Muslim scholars to ascertain the validity of this statement.

Unfortunately it turned out to be another untruth in defence of Ideological Vegetarianism. Why violate one precept of the 'Pancha Seela' to defend another? Most of the facts presented in your articles have been similarly unscientific and we kindly request Dr.Atukorale and his 'scholars' to pay specific attention to the Drug Menace, Alcohol, Smoking, Gambling (including lotteries), and Prostitution which are causing a much greater damage to the society than any other evil.

G.G.
Colombo 06.