The Rathnakāra text represents a viewpoint on Buddhist Ethics that is shared amongst a significant number of the lay informants. This is not to say that the lay people express their views as forcefully as Rathnakāra. However, there is some overlap between the views expressed by Rathnakāra and with views expressed by at least some of the laity. The clergy, on the other hand, are a great deal more sceptical. Their general view can be summarised by the writings of Gñānanda Thera and his book The Question of Vegetarianism. I address this text in more detail the next chapter.
In this section, I divide my analysis into three parts. The first part deals with the accounts given by those who are vegetarians, while the second part concerns the non- vegetarian views. In the case of the vegetarians, we see that their reasons for becoming vegetarians are varied but Buddhism typically plays a very significant role. In most cases, the more religious an informant is, the more inclined they are to practise vegetarianism.
In the final part of this section, I consider the role of eating eggs and the attitudes informants have towards this dietary practice. The reason for treating this issue separately becomes apparent in the following discussion. The following section concerns giving meat to others in a more explicit way. In particular, I address the issue of giving meat and fish at the
buddha-pūjāva, as well as the giving of meat and fish at dānē ceremonies. In all cases, it is apparent that vegetarianism is generally viewed as an ideal practice. Most importantly, this is even the case for non-vegetarians.
(a) Issues with Caste Affiliation
Before I begin to examine the views of the informants in detail, it is helpful to reflect upon the role of caste (kula). In India, caste heavily influences attitudes towards food. Brahmans, for example, are usually — though not always — vegetarian. This is, to some extent, because meat is considered impure and corrupting. Hence, for Brahmans (the highest caste), eating vegetarian food expresses the elite nature of their caste, and highlights their moral purity compared to other castes. Caste in Sri Lanka is also related to religious affiliation: people along the coast are often from the karāva fishing caste and are, at the same time, often
Catholics.cxlix The relationship between food and caste in India is more detailed in Chapter 4 (p.139), however.
Although caste plays a role in Sri Lanka, caste organisation is different (and the impact that caste has on society at large is less significant) from in India. Generally, caste plays the largest role in matters such as occupation and marriageability. There is, of course, an element of moral purity at stake in respect to caste, but ritual pollution is not a significant factor in caste ordering, so food plays a very minor role in the Sinhala caste system — or, perhaps, no role at all (Gombrich 1991, p. 345). Consequently, and unlike in the case of India, different castes tend to interact a great deal more, and there is no real fear of contamination. As Gombrich conceives of the situation, little “social distance” exists between the castes (1991, p. 346). Ryan’s study of Sinhala caste is the most comprehensive, though his work is now dated (it was published in 1953). Nonetheless, much of what he claims still holds true. For example, Ryan observes that:
[…] the very mildness of the Sinhalese tabus leads many contemporary Ceylonese to view the system as crumbling and of little practical significance today. (1953, p. 17)
Yet, contrary these claims, caste still plays some role. According to Jeffrey Samuels, caste can affect social distance in some circumstances. For example, Samuels reports that a village he studied had trouble having its religious needs satisfied because village monks disliked associating with the villagers on account of their low caste (the beravā or drummer caste):
They […] mentioned that the monks and dāyakas of the nearby Bodhigama temple prefer not to associate with such ‘small people’ (poḍi minissu), [a] euphemism that is sometimes used to refer to members of the service castes. (2007, p. 779)
Samuels tells a similar story in which another group of beravā people break from a local temple due to discrimination from the clergy because of their low caste (2007, p. 785). As Samuels himself notes, contrary to the popular view, caste still matters. Notice, however, that in the case of Samuel’s study, the reason for the monks not associating with the beravā people was not because of an issue of ritual pollution, but rather out of reputation, and possibly out of financial concern — a poor village provides an impoverished dānē (2007, pp. 781-2).cl On this matter, Ryan observes that the Indian-Hindu vestigial organ of ritual pollution still only holds in the odd case of the roḍiyā caste.cli In respect to food and caste, Ryan states: “Food is but slightly associated with caste; eating together holds the association.”
(1953, p. 158) Since none of the informants were of the roḍiyā caste, the issue of ritual pollution through food was not relevant.
Because the Sinhala caste system is largely unaffected by issues of ritual pollution through food, it is perhaps unsurprising that vegetarianism and caste are not affiliated. Both high-caste and low-caste informants tend to both approve of vegetarianism (see tables 4 and 5).
Table 4: Caste affiliation
Goyigama Kārava Unspecified low caste
13 1 4
Table 5: Preference by caste
Pro vegetarian Indifferent Anti vegetarian
Go 7 4 2
Ka 1 0 0
Un 2 1 1
For example, Sumudu is of the karāva caste (fisherperson caste — which is low) but she also approved of vegetarianism. Renuka is high caste (goyigama) but was not enthusiastic about vegetarianism. Other high-caste informants such as Nawanga (also goyigama) were in favour of vegetarianism, however. Caste affiliation was not especially relevant then.
This is perhaps partly owed to the fact that (i) — as mentioned above — caste plays only a small role in day-to-day affairs in Sinhala communities; and (ii) the dominant caste in Sinhala society is the goyigama caste, which is a high caste. So, caste distribution is top heavy and uneven in Sinhala society (Gombrich 1991, p. 346). This latter observation is born out in our sample (13 out of the 19 informants were goyigama).
What seems more relevant than caste is the fact that of the informants were probably allied with so-called “Protestant Buddhism”. This ideas has been discussed in detail by Gombrich and Obeysekere (1988).clii Protestant Buddhists view themselves as not being subservient to the monastic order in the way Lankans traditionally might have been. Nowadays, many people are openly critical of the monastery and believe that salvation can be achieved without the monastery as an intermediary. This has led to various “reform” movements in Sinhala Buddhism (described in detail by Gombrich and Obeyesekere, ibid). As Gombrich and Obeyesekere observe, certain key figures in Protestant Buddhism have
this. Protestantism in Buddhism continues to play an important role in the next chapter on monastic attitudes to vegetarianism.
Caste affiliation is more relevant in the monastic context to the degree that monastic
nikāya are divided along caste lines. Most of the temples I visited were from the Siyam nikāya and were, therefore, high-caste temples. The Siyam nikāya only takes novices from the
goyigama caste. All other castes must apply to the Amarapura and Rāmañña nikāyas. Most monks were skeptical of ethical vegetarianism, irrespective of caste. As I will argue, the reason for this is more likely because, of, (i) monastic emphasis on Vinaya regulations — regulations which allow meat eating — and (ii) possible monastic distrust of protestant Buddhist reform movements. The latter possibility is something that I only suspect, but it was not a subject studied in any great detail. It is an issue that does, I think, come through in Gombrich and Obeyesekere’s study. In general, caste does not seem to be especially relevant, but if it were relevant this would need to be established through a dedicated study.
(b) View Point of Vegetarians
Chamika is the daughter of a three-wheel driver called Gayan. She is in her mid-to-late teens and attends school. Because of her father’s occupation, her family is on the low end of the socio-economic spectrum. Chamika is a vegetarian, which seems to stem primarily from a sense of compassion for other living beings. When asked why she does not give meat offerings to the buddha-pūjā — more on this particular matter later (see p.195) — Chamika answered: “[I don’t give meat because] this meat is another life, isn’t it? To take another life so that you can satisfy your stomach is not deserving. Therefore, we do not offer it to the
buddha-pūjā and we don’t take it for sustenance (ahārata).” (Int — 6.1, 1a)
The idea that we must consider the life of other beings in our dealings seems to be distinctively Buddhist in character. In particular, it is suggestive of the principle of co- dependency — the idea that our actions depend on antecedent causes and have certain consequent effects.cliii Eating meat depends upon something else: depriving an animal of life. Chamika argued that, while vegetarianism is not mandatory for a Buddhist, it is something that a Buddhist ought to practise voluntarily. She observed that:
The Buddha (buddha-hāmuduruva) did not preach that we should only eat vegetables, but as individuals who follow the five precepts, Buddhists should know not to eat meat and to only take vegetables for sustenance (ahāratayata). (Int — 6.1, 15a)
Chamika’s use of the word “sustenance” here is noteworthy. The word has technical implications insofar as, in Pāli (and also in Sinhala), the word has connotations of “fuel.” The
word can be compared with the more common Sinhala word for food, käma. That she has chosen this word in describing what we should eat is relevant: food is a type of fuel, and we should not view it as being something to which we ascribe considerable desire. This idea that food should be viewed as a fuel was a notion repeated also by the clergy — especially the third monk from Temple A, who emphasised this point (see p. 235). Viewing food in this way is importantly Buddhist, because cultivating desires (āsāva) constitutes the very antithesis of good Buddhist practice (and this is as true in Sinhala Buddhism, as it is in the case of the wider textual tradition).cliv
Charuni is also a vegetarian. She is the sister of Sanduni, whom I discuss presently. Charuni is in her early 40s and is involved in the organisation of Sanduni’s household. Interestingly, Charuni employs both secular and Buddhist reasons for adopting a vegetarian position. To begin with, Charuni argued that the Buddha forbids the killing of animals, and, consequently, that meat should not be taken for buddha-pūjāva or for personal consumption. Charuni connected these practices to the five Buddhist precepts (pañca-ṣīla):
One of our [Buddhist] precepts is to ‘refrain from killing animals.’ […] The Buddha, having told us this, [means that] it’s not good for us to offer it to the Buddha [i.e. during a buddha-pūjā ceremony]. Truly…to say that we should refrain from killing animals [is to say] that we [should] reconcile (sammadāna) with that [non-killing] every single day. The harming of animals has been completely forbidden. (Int — 2.1, 1-5a)
According to Charuni, then, the fact that the Buddha forbids the killing of animals seems to imply that vegetarianism is consequently endorsed. But Charuni also had secular reasons for adopting vegetarianism. As in the case of many people in the West, Charuni was partly motivated to adopt vegetarianism after watching a video about animal slaughter: “I saw a video on the TV… after I saw it I thought ‘I’m not going to eat it [i.e. meat and fish]… I’ll never eat it [again].’” (Int — 2.1, 15a) Charuni in particular noted the harms that fish are exposed to. This is especially interesting, because Sinhala Buddhists commonly avoid meats such as beef, but eating fish is extremely common. Fish eating is very much a social norm in Sri Lanka. To this extent, the principal challenge to a Sinhala vegetarian is whether or not they are able to resist eating fish. Charuni noted:
The way they are killing animals… now the time it takes a fish to die, it suffers a lot before it dies, it dies after being in pain a long time. (ibid)
Charuni connected the eating of fish to the accruing of bad karma: “If we eat that, it says [the Buddhist scriptures, I assumed] that it will influence us after a period of time (kālekaṭ a).” (Int – 2.1, 20a) Vegetarianism, therefore, has at least one prudential advantage: it is a way of avoiding the development of bad karma. In Sinhala, this word is pav and is commonly used in day-to-day conversation.
Perhaps the most important, and eminent, vegetarian we encountered was a middle- aged man called Nawanga. Nawanga can best be described as a devout Buddhist. He regularly attends the local temple (pansala), is engaged in organising temple activities, and also regularly practises meditation (bāvannā). He plays a critical role in household religious activities — I will describe some of these activities in detail later (pp. 197-199). In short, Nawanga is an upāsaka. An upāsaka is a very devout Buddhist, and is only one order away from monk ordination. A determined upāsaka often dresses only in white: the colour purity and lay devotionality (see Image. 3, p. 336).
In the case of Nawanga, he did not typically dress in this fashion, though he would make a point of doing so when visiting temples. Nawanga had previously spoken of his aspirations to join the saṇgha after his children all left home (two of his children are studying overseas, a third is finishing his school studies). His wife, Sumudu, was supportive of this idea. It could be observed that manySinhala Buddhists do not look upon people who leave their family to join the saṇgha poorly. Having a member of the family in the saṇgha is generally considered a boon for the household, since it is regarded as a great source of pin. In general, Nawanga took Buddhism very seriously: his collection of books are mostly Buddhist, he does not touch alcohol, and he is also a vegetarian.
Although Nawanga practised vegetarianism, he did not believe that a Buddhist should
be a vegetarian, or, rather, he did not think that it is mandatory for Buddhists to be vegetarians. In fact, Nawanga admitted that he sometimes had second thoughts about the virtues of vegetarianism:
Buddhists during the time of the Buddha… there were a lot of reports of that happening [i.e. Buddhists eating meat]. Even big Buddhistsclv accepted flesh at dānē. (Int - 1.1, 1c)
Because of this, Nawanga reflected: “Sometimes I think that refraining from meat is pointless,” (ibid) but he immediately points out that these historical disagreements are counteracted by the five precepts: “Despite this, as Buddhists, the first precept of the five precepts is, ‘Do not take life,’ (pāṇātipatā) [and this] means ‘Don’t take life from what has life.’” (ibid) Nawanga believed this to follow that directive fully requires universal
vegetarianism: “So in protecting that [directive], if everybody stopped eating flesh in that village, or in that province, butcheries [and] the killing of animals could disappear.” (ibid)
Nawanga even predicted that such a universal practice could cure worldwide animal killing:
Similarly, if everyone in the country, or everybody in the world, stopped eating flesh [then] the killing of animals would stop. If that were to happen that would be good. (Int – 1.1, 5c)
In saying this, Nawanga recalled a campaign in Sri Lanka where Buddhists were encouraged not to eat cows: “[For example], it was [at one time] advised that eating cows was bad and therefore a lot of Buddhists stopped eating cows (ibid).” The implication here is that this led to a decrease in cows being killed. A monk who ran The Organisation for the Accumulation of Life — which I discuss in Chapter 6, (see p. 253-259) — confirmed the existence of such a campaign running in the 1980s. In fact, he was running one just like it at the time of research. The basic argument of both campaigns was that it would be ungrateful to kill cows.
Among the laity, this campaign seems to have been quite significant. This is evident both in Sinhala literature — as we found with Rathnakāra’s Give us space to live — and in popular culture more generally. An example of cow protectionism in popular culture can be found in the song Milk Mother (kiri ammā) . The song is by Nihil Nelson, a celebrated baila musician.clvi The song lyrics areclvii:
Lyrics to Kiri Ammā chorus
She gave her milk from her body Perfect people grew from her power
Having done that goodness they are like empty people Don't eat the meat of the milk mother
verse 1
Even the innocent cow has life
Why do you want to kill an animal prematurely? Look and think a little bit - she eats clean grass But you have been born a human yet you eat rotten flesh
If a person eats cow meat for 35 years Multiply 35 by 365, the amount is 12,775
Do you realise the demerit you have done without looking into the future?
chorus repeat verse 2
Some people greedily feed cows for money After that the innocent animal’s destiny is resolved
Having bought tasty meat with that money
The fact that it was the meat of the cow you sold, he doesn't know Gee, buffalo curd, milk, the five products of the cow, are earned
Throw fertilizer to grow flourishing great vegetable gardens People that do not eat meat from animals have a contented heart
Then many gods live throughout pure hearts
chrorus repeatsclviii
A kiri ammā refers to one’s paternal grandmother. The chorus compares the cow to one’s own grandmother, and the cow is owed similar respect because, like one’s grandmother, it nurtures us — the cow does this by supplying milk, cheese, curd, and other food. The first stanza has a Buddhist twist. There, the lyrics indicate that eating cows results in the acquisition of a great deal of demerit. In the final stanza, vegetarianism is recommended. I address the importance of cow protectionism and the nature and content of such arguments more in the next chapter when I look at the Organisation for the Accumulation of Life (pp. 253-259). Cows are an important feature of Sinhala Buddhist animal protectionism, and Nawanga highlights this fact. The above lyrics illustrate, however, that cow protectionism is not just the purview of serious minded Buddhist protestors – as a movement it has a much wider appeal.
But Nawanga believed that the aforementioned campaign for cows did not go far enough. He says, rhetorically: “Is it only a cow that has a life? … [Even] if you look at small