A Critique of Kapleau's ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "To Cherish All Life" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A Critique of Kapleau's ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "To Cherish All Life" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ by Bruce Burrill 1820 Jefferson St. Madison, WI 53711 Copyright 1994 Bruce Burrill It is not difficult to find in popular books dealing with Buddhism or Hinduism issues that directly concern the study of the early civilizations of India. It almost goes without saying that lacking a careful consideration of the historical, philosophical, philological, anthropological, etc. issues, one is likely to take a stroll down the garden path of interesting but wrong conclusions. Examples of this are not hard to find, and the intention in this paper is to look at in detail an example that illustrates good intentions gone wrong for the lack of a solid background in Indian history and thought. There is no question that many of the issues of early Indian history -- and here we mean around the time of the Buddha -- are not finally decided leaving much room for conjecture. The question we must ask, however, is the conjecture sensitive to the questions (and answers) raised by historical study and the other disciplines that speak to issues of Indian civilization. What we shall look at is Philip Kapleau's book, TO CHERISH ALL LIFE: A BUDDHIST CASE FOR BECOMING VEGETARIAN (San Francisco: Harper, 1982; and Rochester: The Zen Center, 1986). Essentially this is a book written by a religionist for fellow religionists. It addresses a question of no small importance for Buddhists -- what is our relationship and responsibility to our fellow sentient beings? This book, a stern, uncompromising statement following many of the stern, uncompromising arguments of the Lankavatarasutra, is of interest having been written by a prominent Western Buddhist, and it is of interest for its historical claims, but we must ask whether or not it does justice to a careful study of Indian civilization. The text of Kapleau's statement is 56 pages with additional information on diet and protein written by a disciple of his. The first part is a standard outlining of the horrors of the factory farm and the abattoir. The second section deals with meat eating and the first precept of not killing. In the absolute, fundamental sense of Buddha-nature, Kapleau states (p. 6), "There is no demarcation between human and animal nature." He goes on to say (p. 19), "To willfully take life, therefore, means to disrupt and destroy this inherent wholeness and to blunt feelings of reverence and compassion arising from our Buddha-mind." He further states (p. 20): ...since our Buddha-nature has endless potential, the creature that is a cow today may in a future rebirth become a human being and from that state realize its innate perfection--that is, achieve buddhahood. Thus we have the fundamental Buddhist teaching that all life, human and non-human, is sacred. Though there are a number of issues raised in this second section, we find of vital interest to Kapleau are the Buddha's dying from eating bad pork, and the Pali canon's allowance of meat eating. Of this first issue Kapleau, following Arthur Waley, rejects the notion that the Buddha died from eating bad pork (pp. 23-5). Of this second issue, occupying over a third of the discussion of the second section, Kapleau by the way of preface states (p. 3): 1 Through textual and other evidential material, as well as by reasoned argument, I have sought to establish that the Buddha could not have uttered the words attributed to him in the Pali scriptures with regard to meat eating.... It is this second issue that we shall look at in some detail, for it is here we find the center of Kapleau's argument. He puts forward three arguments We shall first look at them and then respond. First, Kapleau contends (p. 34), "...that even before the Buddha's time the scriptures of the various spiritual traditions in India condemned flesh eating as not conducive to spiritual progress." Using Koshelya Walli's THE CONCEPTION OF AHIMSA IN INDIAN THOUGHT as a source, Kapleau states (p. 37), "The teaching of ahimsa influenced the spiritual climate of the Buddha's day." To illustrate this he quotes six passages of "ancient Hindu" texts from Walli's book.[1] The first reads (p. 37): Meat can never be obtained without injuring creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to heavenly bliss; therefore one should shun meat eating... How then could the Buddha have allowed (defended?) meat eating, being so much against the current of spiritual thinking of the time? Secondly, he states that the Mahayana sanction against meat eating flatly contradicts the Theravada position. He mentions the Sanskrit Lankavatara-, Surangama-, Mahaparinirvana- and, Brahmajala-sutras. He quotes from the first (p. 33): It is not true that meat is proper food and permissible when the animal was not killed by himself, when he did not order others to kill it, when it was not specially meant for him...Again, there may be some people in the future who...being under the influence of the taste for meat will string together in various ways sophistic arguments to defend meat eating... Of this Kapleau states (p. 34): ...as Conze and other scholars have pointed out, many of the Sanskrit scriptures were contemporary, or nearly so, with the Pali [Theravada]. Isn't it reasonable to suppose that if the elders of the Mahayana were satisfied that the Theravada suttas correctly reflected the Buddha's views as respect meat eating, they would have remained silent on this point? It is worth noting the above two arguments are used by Kapleau to show why (p.34) "the Mahayana teachings directly contradict those of the Theravada in the matter of meat eating." He also on the basis of these two arguments states that (p. 34), "...commentators [who] attribute the difference [between the Mahayana and the Theravada] to a shift in public morality that took place in the years between the compiling of the two set of scriptures" are wrong. Thirdly, Kapleau asks (p. 39-40), "How did those words imputed to the Buddha get into the Pali Canon? The answer is simple: Monks and scribes still attached to meat eating put them there." There are two issues underlining this statement. First, Kapleau states (p. 30): There has never been a genuine spiritual master either 2 before, during, or after the Buddha's time who has defended meat eating or denied that it is a bar to realization of the highest states of spirituality. Why? Because meat stimulates the lower passions.... In other words, it is inconceivable that as a "genuine spiritual master' the Buddha could have "defended" meat eating. Secondly, he points out, referring to Rhys Davids' and Conze's work, that the Pali canon (as it is with the other canons) shows editing, reflecting "the prejudices or points of view" of the school it belongs to. The conclusion has to be that, using the terminology of the Lankavatarasutra, that monk scribes "under the influence of the taste for meat" have edited into the Pali texts "sophistic arguments to defend meat eating." So stands Kapleau. Kapleau's first contention that early Indian scriptures prohibited the eating of meat can only in part be borne out by textual evidence. Some did and some did the opposite. If Kapleau wants us to believe that meat eating was not commonplace before, during, and after the Buddha's time, the evidence marshals strongly against such a view. Walli states that Indians of the Vedic and Upansishadic times were meat eaters, and some texts supported meat eating.[2] In volume two of R. C. Majumdar's THE HISTORY AND CULTURE OF THE INDIAN PEOPLE, dealing with the time between 600 B.C. and 320 A.D., we find this statement[3]: In spite of the growing spirit of ahimsa fostered by the Jains and Buddhists, and enforced by emperors like Asoka, various kinds of fish and meat, not excluding beef, were extensively taken by the people. Even the "ancient Hindu" texts that Kapleau quotes, like the one above are not without serious difficulty. The one above and three others -- that is, four out of the six that he quotes -- are quoted from page 145 of Walli's book and come from the Manusmrti. On the bottom of that page Walli quotes the Manusmtri, "An abstainer of meat and a performer of horse sacrifice, both these get equal merit." On the next page Walli states, "According to Manu, there is no sin in meat-eating, for that is the natural way of human beings, but abstention brings great rewards." On page 121 Walli states that according to the Manusmrti animals were created for the purpose of performing sacrifice. The texts that Kapleau quotes may argue against meat eating as it is a detriment to spiritual progress, but they also emphatically implore the wholesale destruction of animals for that end. This is something that Buddhism and Jainism strongly spoke against. These texts are hardly suited to be quoted in support of the first precept, for the context simply does not allow it, but Kapleau ignores this. The point is that despite what he wants the texts to say, the historical fact, as put forth by Walli, Majumdar, and others, is that meat eating was commonplace before, during, and well after the Buddha's time. If the lack of historical considerations is a problem with the first argument, it is no less bewildering with the second argument. Does Kapleau really mean that the Sanskrit Lankavatarasutra, et al. mentioned above are really "contemporary, or nearly so, with the Pali"? The Pali canon was written down in the first century B.C.