Buddhism and Vegetarianism
Ajahn Jagaro
---o0o---
On a previous occasion when I gave a talk on
Buddhism and vegetarianism there were some very strong reactions from some members of the
audience. People who have strong reactions to talks are people who have very strong
feelings about the topic, which means they have very strong views about the topic. This is
a great danger, because as soon as we develop very strong, fixed views about anything, it
tends to make us rather rigid. We develop a closed mind, which makes us over-react to
anything that is said. If it's not in agreement with us it must be against us. That's all
we see - black and white - and that is a great shame. The Buddha warned against attachment
to views and opinions as one of the fundamental causes of suffering.
We see this over and over again in every aspect of
life. Most of the conflicts that we are involved in during our lives arise out of
disagreement with regard to certain views about things. These conflicts and due to
attachment to our views and our perceptions.
Of course, we need views, we cannot live without
them. A view is the way we see something, the way we understand something, our preference
with regard to the variety of choices available in regard to things. This is quite
natural. As long as we think, perceive, or have been conditioned in a certain way, we will
have views, and on some topics these may be very strong and fixed.
Vegetarianism is one such topic. This evening I will
talk about the topic as a contemplation. It is not my intention to sit here and tell you
what the final word on Buddhism and vegetarianism is. That is neither my intention nor the
Buddhist way. My understanding comes from my experience, from my perspective, from my
contemplation. You may agree or you may not; it doesn't matter as long as you reflect
clearly on the matter and come to your own conclusions. I take a neutral position because
I do not feel that this particular topic can be seen simply in terms of black and white. I
take the Buddhist position as I understand it.
Scriptural basis
Let's begin with a fundamental question: Is it a
prerequisite for a Buddhist to be a vegetarian according to the teachings of the Buddha,
as far as we can assess? I would have to say, No, according to the Buddhist scriptures it
is not a prerequisite for a person to be a vegetarian in order to be a Buddhist.
People say, "Well how do you know what the
Buddha taught, anyway?" It's true. I don't know from personal experience; if I was
there, I don't remember it. So what do we have to rely on? We have to rely on these
scriptures that have been handed down through the centuries. As to whether we can trust
these scriptures depends on whether we accept them as accurate recordings of the Buddha's
teaching or not. In the Theravada tradition we have what we call the Pali Canon, the
Buddhist scriptures. There are many volumes, the Vinaya Pitaka, the discipline for monks
and nuns, the Suttanta Pitaka, which contains the discourses or teachings given by the
Buddha, and finally the Abhidhamma Pitaka, which is the system of philosophy and
psychology developed from the basic texts. Most scholars agree that the Abhidhamma Pitaka,
the 'higher teaching', was developed by teachers of later periods from the basic texts of
the Suttas as a system of analysis for easier explanation and for use in debate.
So there are three collections of scriptures. My
research is limited to the Vinaya and the Suttas, the books of discipline and the books of
discourses. From my studies I have great confidence that what is presented in these
scriptures accurately represents what the Buddha taught. However, I do not claim that
every word in these scriptures is exactly the word of the Buddha. There have been some
changes, some additions and some alterations through the ages, but the essence is there.
In essence the texts are a very true and accurate record of what the Buddha taught.
My basis for this reasoning is simply the fact that
the people who passed on these teachings and checked them were disciples, monks and nuns
who had tremendous respect for the Buddha, just as monks today have, and I don't think
that many monks would dare to intentionally change the teachings of the Buddha. Very few
monks would be prepared to do that. Any alterations that have taken place were simply an
expedient means for making recitation more convenient. There may have been accidental
alterations, but I do not think that the texts were corrupted intentionally, certainly not
in any serious or major way.
This is verified in particular with regard to the
Books of Discipline, which deal with the monastic discipline. Through the ages Buddhism
slowly spread from the Ganges Valley throughout India, moving south to Sri Lanka, across
to Burma and Thailand, then north towards Tibet and eventually China. Over the centuries
it began to fragment into various schools. Some of these schools flourished in different
parts of India and more distant locations, and so had very little or no contact with each
other. When we compare the Books of Discipline, however, there's remarkable similarity
between these different schools. They are so similar that they must have originally come
from the same source.
So there is good reason for confidence in what we
call the Pali Canon and to accept that it does represent the teachings of the Buddha. In
any case, this is the evidence we have to deal with, because there is no one here who can
say, "I heard the Buddha say differently." These scriptures are the most
authoritative or the most definitive representation of the Buddha's teachings.
If we study these scriptures very carefully we will
find that nowhere is there any injunction to either lay people or to monks with regard to
vegetarianism. There is not a single mention of it as a Buddhist injunction on either the
monks and nuns or lay people. If the Buddha had made vegetarianism a prerequisite it would
have to be somewhere in the scriptures. Quite to the contrary, one does find a number of
instances where the Buddha speaks about food, especially on the rules pertaining to the
monks, indicating that, during the time of the Buddha, the monks did sometimes eat meat.
If you'll bear with me I would first like to present
to you some of this historical evidence. In these scriptures, particularly in the Books of
Discipline, there are many references to what monks are and are not allowed to do. A lot
of these rules have to do with food; there are rules about all sorts of things pertaining
to food, some of them very unusual. If the monks had to be vegetarian then these rules
would seem to be completely useless or irrelevant.
For instance there is one rule which forbids monks
from eating the meat of certain types of animals, such as horse, elephant, dog, snake,
tiger, leopard and bear. There are about a dozen different types of meat specified by the
Buddha which are not allowed for monks. That he made a rule that certain types of meat
were not to be eaten by monks would indicate that other types of meat were allowable.
There is another rule: a monk was ill, and as he was
quite sick a devout female disciple asked him if he had ever had this illness before and
what did he take to cure it? It was some sort of stomach problem, and he said that he'd
had it before and last time he had some meat broth which helped to relieve the symptoms.
So this woman went off looking for meat to prepare a meat broth for the sick monk. However
it was an uposatha (observance) day, so there was no meat available anywhere. It was a
tradition in India not to slaughter animals on such days. Out of great devotion this lady
decided that the monk could not be left to suffer, so she cut a piece of her own flesh and
made a meat broth. She took it to the monk, offered it to him, and apparently he drank it
and recovered. When the Buddha heard about this, he made a rule that monks are not allowed
to eat human flesh. Thank goodness for that!
So here is another strange rule that would be
completely pointless if there had been a stipulation that the monks never eat meat. There
are many similar instances both in the Rules of Discipline and in the Discourses. When the
Buddha heard a charge that Buddhist monks caused the killing of animals by eating meat, he
stated that this was not so. He then declared three conditions under which monks were not
to eat meat: if they have seen, heard or they suspect that the animal was killed
specifically to feed them, then the monks should refuse to accept that food. At other
times, when the monks go on almsround, they are supposed to look into their bowls and
accept whatever is given with gratitude, without showing pleasure or displeasure. However,
if a monk knows, has heard or suspects that the animal has been killed specifically to
feed the monks, he should refuse to receive it.
There are many more examples than I have given here,
scattered throughout the scriptures, indicating that it was not a requirement that either
the monks or the lay people be vegetarian.
Furthermore, we can see that throughout the history
of Buddhism there has not been one Buddhist country were vegetarianism was the common
practice of the Buddhist people. This would indicate that it hasn't been the practice
right from the very beginning. Although some Mahayana monks, in particular the Chinese,
Vietnamese and some of the Japanese, are vegetarian, the majority of lay people are not.
Historically, right up to the present day, Buddhist people in general haven't been
strictly vegetarian. This would seem to support the conclusion drawn from an examination
of the scriptures, that it has never been a prerequisite for people who want to be
Buddhists to be vegetarian.
Of course it can be argued, and it often is argued,
by vegetarian monks in particular, but also by lay people, that the scriptures were
altered. They argue that the Buddha did teach vegetarianism, but those monks who wanted to
eat meat went and changed every reference to it in all the texts. They didn't have a
computer to just punch in 'reference to meat' and get a whole list. The scriptures were
initially handed down by word of mouth and many monks were involved. No one had it on a
disk so that it could be changed in half an hour. It would have been very difficult to
change as there are many references to it throughout the scriptures. You could change it
in one place but then it would be inconsistent with other references. It is highly
unlikely that the monks could have achieved consistency in changing so many references
throughout the scriptures, so I think the claim of corruption of the scriptures by
meat-loving monks is a bit far-fetched. I think the scriptures are accurate. I think that
the Buddha did not make it a prerequisite for people, nor do I think that it was laid down
as a rule of training for monks.
Another point of contention arises over the Buddha
teaching, as one of the training rules for everybody who wanted to be his disciple, that
they are not to kill any living creature. The very first precept for a lay Buddhist is:
'Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami.' (I undertake the training rule of not
killing any living creature.) This is a training for every Buddhist monk, nun, novice,
postulant, layman and laywoman, which is absolutely fundamental to the training in
harmlessness.
There appears to be an inconsistency, it doesn't
seem to add up, but this is simply due to not thinking clearly about the topic. Obviously
the Buddha saw a great difference in these two trainings - the training of not killing and
the training regarding diet. They operate at different levels.
The Buddha was very pragmatic. When he laid down
training rules, he laid down rules that people could keep, that they had a good likelihood
of keeping. For instance, he did not lay down a training rule saying that you must not
over-eat. The monks are supposed to be alms mendicants and he laid down a lot of rules
about eating for monks - they are allowed to eat only in the morning, when they eat they
are not supposed to make chomping or slurping sounds, they are not supposed to drop grains
of rice, they are not supposed to scrape the bowl, they are not supposed to look around -
yet he didn't make one rule about over-eating. You can really stuff yourself and not break
a rule. You would think that the Lord Buddha would have made a rule about that. Why not,
when he made all these other rules? It's up to the individual to train oneself to eat in
moderation. It is something you take responsibility for and train yourself toward
gradually, but it is not a rule to start with.
There is a big difference between eating meat and
killing animals, although it can be argued that when we eat meat we indirectly support the
killing of animals. There's something to that, and I'll go into it in greater detail later
on. There is a big difference between the two, however, because the killing of animals
refers to intentionally depriving an animal of life or intentionally causing or directly
telling somebody else to kill an animal. That is what the first precept is about - the
intention to kill an animal. That is the purpose behind the action. There is intention,
there is purpose and there is the actualisation of that purpose in killing.
If you drove your car here this evening I'm sure
that you killed something - on your windscreen there would have been a few smashed
insects. When we drive from the monastery where I live in Serpentine to Perth, which is
approximately 60 kilometres, the windscreen gets covered with dead insects, especially in
the mornings and evenings. I know when I get into the car and ask someone to drive me
somewhere that some insects are going to die. I know that, but that is not my intention
for getting into a car and being driven somewhere. I don't say, "Let's go for a spin
to see how many insects we can squash." If that was my intention then I would be
killing, intentionally killing. But we don't do that. We get into a car to go from A to B
for a purpose. Perhaps some beings get killed, but it's not our intention to kill them.
That is not killing - there is death but you are not
creating the kamma of killing animals. This rule is the foundation of the Buddhist
training in harmlessness: you refrain from intentionally killing living creatures.
When people eat meat what is their intention? How
many people eat meat with the intention to kill cows, pigs and sheep? If their intention
in eating is to kill more cows, that would be very close to killing. If you consider why
people really eat meat you will see that it is for very different reasons. Why did people
in more basic, rural societies, such as in northern Thailand where I lived, where most of
the people were Buddhist, eat meat? They ate frogs, grasshoppers, red ants, ant larvae
.... all sorts of things. Why? For protein, they had to survive, they had to have food and
it's very hard to get food. What did a caveman eat? He ate whatever he could get. Due to
the fundamental drive to survive he would eat whatever he could get. That has a lot to do
with what we eat - the primary instinct of survival. It depends on what is available.
Then there is the cultural influence, the way your
tastes are conditioned by your upbringing. If you are accustomed to certain types of food,
you find those kinds of food agreeable. That is why you buy them. That is the sort of food
that you know how to cook. Why are most Australians non-vegetarian? They eat meat because
that is what they are conditioned to eat. That is part of the conditioning of the
Australian culture.
So when most people who are not vegetarians eat
meat, it is not because they want to kill animals. It's just that that is what they have
been conditioned to eat since childhood. It is part of their culture, that is what they
know how to cook and that is what they know how to eat. It agrees with them, that is why
they eat it.
You might say it's ignorance. Well, most people are
ignorant; most people have limited scope in their overall understanding of options and
possibilities; most people live according to their conditioning. It doesn't have to be
that way, but that is how it is for most people.
It is important to make this distinction. Eating
meat is not the same as killing animals, because the intention is different. The Buddha
laid down this rule, to refrain from intentionally killing any living creature, as the
first step towards respecting life, both human and animal. It's just a start, not the end.
And most people can't even do that. How many people in the world can truly refrain from
killing living beings? We could get into an idealistic battle as to why everybody should
be vegetarian, but you have to admit that the great majority of people on this planet
cannot even keep to the level of not intentionally killing. If they could keep to that
level, things would be a lot better. The Buddha had a pragmatic approach to things, so he
said to at least start at this level.
Thus far I have given you reasons why Buddhism
doesn't make vegetarianism compulsory. Does Buddhism then encourage the eating of meat?
Nowhere in the scriptures do we read that the Buddha said, "Eat more meat, it is good
for you." Nowhere does it say to "give the man meat." There is not a single
reference to giving the monks more meat. The scriptures certainly do not encourage the
eating of meat; there are no references to it, no suggestion of encouragement for it. What
are we to make of this? Simply that each individual must consider this matter carefully,
come to his or her own conclusions and take responsibility for them.
Ethical considerations
Now we must consider whether vegetarianism is
compatible with the teachings of the Buddha. I would say wholeheartedly that it is
compatible. Vegetarianism is a very beneficial practice for one who is developing two
conditions which every Buddhist should be trying to develop: compassion and wisdom. That
is what we endeavour to cultivate through the spiritual path. Compassion means feeling
with, feeling for, being sensitive to the pain of others. The natural outcome of
developing such compassion is that we do not want to kill, we do not want to hurt others.
Through wisdom we begin to realise that not only do
our actions have direct results, but also indirect results. This is the arising of
understanding. I've often referred to one of the fundamental laws of nature, called
Dependent Origination or Conditioned Arising - "When this is, that comes to be."
In other words, certain conditions bring about certain results. As we develop greater
clarity of mind and greater awareness, we begin to see the relationship. Whatever we do
has its consequences. The way we live gives rise to causes and results. We begin to see
that this is a fundamental law of nature and we become a lot more aware of how we are
living and the consequences of our actions. As we become more compassionate and wise we
will start to direct our lives so that we become more harmless, or contribute less to the
suffering and destruction in life.
Now let's consider this on a broader scale than just
vegetarianism, because this topic of 'Buddhism and Vegetarianism' is far too narrow. We
cannot discuss vegetarianism as if it was an isolated thing all by itself. There's much
more to it; it involves the ecology, it involves every aspect of life. Perhaps 'Buddhism
and Ecology' or 'Buddhism and Life' would be more fitting titles.
Once we realise that how we live has its
consequences, what effect will this have on how we live and how we regard what we are
doing? Everything we do and say has its consequences, because we are part of a system.
Every person sitting here is part of the system, the whole universe. There is one system
and you are part of it. Everything you do has an effect on the universe.
You may think, "What can I do to affect the
movement of the planets and the galaxies?" Perhaps very little, but according to the
relationship of interdependence, everything you do affects everything else. If you can't
see it as a whole you can certainly see it in this room. What you do here this evening
will affect everybody else. What I do is affecting you. What we do affects the outside.
Everything we do has its long range effect on everything else.
So when we eat meat, that has its consequences. What
are the consequences? We are directly supporting an industry that is based on rearing
animals, quite often under terrible conditions, for the sole purpose of slaughter. The
meat can then be available in neatly wrapped little packages so that we can buy it can eat
it. Our intention when we cook and eat meat is not to kill animals - I don't think anyone
has that intention - however the fact remains that by the acts of buying, cooking and
eating, we indirectly support the killing of the animal. It's not killing, but it is
supporting.
Now, with that understanding, certain individuals
may decide not to support killing. They won't want to be part of it; they will want to
remove themselves from it. If there is one reason why a Buddhist should decide to be a
vegetarian, it should be based on this perspective. There is only one good, valid reason,
and that is compassion - not wanting to contribute to the suffering any more than one has
to.
Vegetarianism is a matter of individual choice and
responsibility, not something that can be forced, but it is certainly praise-worthy and
compatible with the Buddha's teaching. But does it stop there? Are you now pure? You've
become vegetarian, but are you blameless? Are your hands clean?
Let me tell you that as long as you are alive on
this planet, as long as you are a member of this system, your hands will never be clean.
It doesn't matter what you eat, you are always contributing to death and destruction,
regardless of what you do. You can be a vegetarian, but you still contribute to
destruction just because you are part of this system. You can't escape it. You are sitting
on chairs, where do they come from? The chairs are on the carpet: where does the carpet
come from? The electricity? Air-conditioning? The building, the motor car, the trains, the
buses, where does all that come from? It's all interrelated. Everything is interrelated.
We're always involved in the whole system, and as long as we live in this system we are
always contributing. We make use of the air-conditioning, we make use of the electricity,
which means that we are in a way supporting the building of dams, which entails the
destruction of forests. There can be no doubt about it. You are wearing clothes, you are
wearing shoes. If you don't wear leather shoes, you wear plastic shoes. Who makes the
plastic shoes? The chemical companies, the ones that make napalm and poisons. You are
supporting them.
As I said, the training for a monk is to accept what
one is given and not to ask for anything special. Most of the food we get is vegetarian,
but not all. So I can be accused of contributing. I confess, my hands are not clean. Even
if I am vegetarian, as I can be most of the time, my hands are still not clean. Where do
you think the fruit and vegetables come from? How do those vegetable gardens get to be so
free of trees and bushes? What happened to all the trees and bushes? Those huge fields of
wheat and corn and the orchards - what happened to all the forests? - gone with the
ploughing and spraying. We have nice vegetables, but for them to be nice vegetables you've
got to do something about the insects.
On an individual basis, if you really are
compassionate, if you really are wise, you can do as much as you can to minimise the
damage. But when you consider that there are some six billion people on this planet,
that's a lot of people to feed and clothe, so there has got to be a lot of destruction,
either directly or indirectly. Life is like that.
What I am saying is not fatalistic. It is simply
making us aware of reality. Within this reality we all can and should consider carefully
what we are doing, how we are living and what we are consuming. How much are we
contributing to death and destruction? It's not just a matter of vegetarianism. That is
praise-worthy if done properly, and, as I said, compatible with the teachings of the
Buddha, but there's more to it than that - much more.
Treading lightly
Even if one isn't vegetarian there's a lot to do.
Nowadays we are beginning to understand this. We cannot continue to consume more and more,
demand more and more, want more and more of everything and expect that this limited planet
with its limited resources can supply it for us. One of the fundamental teachings of
Buddhism is to be contented with little. It doesn't mean starving yourself, it's just a
matter of being contented, of not being continually caught in the obsession to get more,
which is basically the present-day consumer society syndrome, isn't it? Nearly all of us
in Western society are suffering from it.
I have an American student who complains because
there is such a limited range of food here in Australia. We've only got three kinds of
this type of chocolate, she says, whereas in America they have twenty kinds. Twenty kinds
of chocolate, one hundred and twenty kinds of ice-cream to choose from - a marvellous
achievement for the human race, the apex of human civilisation. This is consumerism, where
the word is 'more, more, more'. It's always more, with little or no emphasis on
contentment.
You can see where this is going to lead, this hungry
ghost syndrome of forever wanting more, of never being satisfied. It's going to destroy
the whole planet. The planet is limited and the consequences are very far reaching. One
hungry ghost is not so bad, but when you start getting millions of them, this wanting more
and more is going to consume the whole world. It already is consuming the world at an
alarming rate.
The Buddha was pointing to a very fundamental
principle: craving is the source of the problem and it can never be satisfied by feeding
it. Contentment, being satisfied with few needs, is so important. Of course this had to be
a personal judgement. The Buddha can't sit down and say, "I allot twenty grams of
cheese per person per day." That's ridiculous! The Buddha was an enlightened being
and he wanted people to become enlightened, to become responsible. The Buddha doesn't take
responsibility away from you, it is up to each individual. He offers guidelines which each
one of us must use in considering our lives, reflecting on what we are doing, the
consequences thereof, and taking responsibility. How much are we willing to give up? Each
person must find his or her own limit. For some people that may be one car, for others two
cars; some people may only want a bicycle - that is their assessment of their need.
The more we stress compassion and understanding of
the consequences of actions, the more people will be able to make the right choices, to
simplify, to develop more contentment and know moderation. This is much more important
than just vegetarianism. Vegetarianism is just one factor, just one aspect of the whole
picture. The whole is much greater because it deals with how much we consume, even of
fruit and vegetables, clothing, shoes, power, air, fuel, everything - because all
consumption brings about destruction.
This is the Buddhist way of life: beginning to
cultivate compassion and understanding, and from there beginning to redirect our lives by
making the right choices. It's up to each individual to decide how far he can go, but the
direction is toward trying to tread as lightly as possible on the planet, so that our
lives won't be the cause of so much destruction.
It is a personal thing. It does no good going around
pointing fingers at people and demanding that they stop: "You'd better stop using
bleached toilet paper otherwise we'll imprison you." If society reaches that point,
then banning such a product may be a good thing, but you can't do so until sufficient
people appreciate and understand the need for it. The main thrust of Buddhism is always to
encourage compassion and understanding. From there, everything else will come about in
accordance with the individual's response and sense of personal responsibility.
You can see why I feel quite confident that the
Buddha would not have made vegetarianism compulsory, because that is not the way he would
approach it. His main concern would be to set a fundamental standard, but even that would
be voluntary. It is then up to you whether you follow it or not. It is up to the
individual, through the teaching, to become more compassionate and wise, to take
responsibility for one's life. Whether you make a rule or not, what matters is whether
people are going to keep it. The Buddha's approach, the main thrust of his teaching, was
to try to encourage more understanding and compassion, so that the individual would make
the appropriate choices - not only vegetarianism, but about many other things.
Vegetarianism is a very noble choice, but that
choice should be made from the right stand point - out of compassion and understanding.
Having made such a choice, don't pollute it with aversion for those who are not
vegetarian. The goodness generated by such a choice then becomes corrupted, and in some
ways you will be worse than non-vegetarians. We make our choice out of compassion. If we
are in a position to explain, we explain it to others according to reason and logic, not
by being critical of them for not being vegetarian.
I respect people who are vegetarian. They are acting
very nobly; it is a gesture of renunciation. It is a small thing but noble, and very much
in keeping with the Buddha's teaching of compassion and understanding. But don't stop
there. Even if you are not vegetarian don't think there is nothing else you can do.
There's a lot to be done in every area of life, in the way we speak, in the way we act, in
everything. Be one who treads lightly, be one who doesn't add unnecessarily to the
suffering of humanity and all other sentient beings on this planet. Once we have the
intention to at least try, to move in the right direction, we are good disciples of the
Buddha. Each person has to walk at his or her own pace.
Ajahn Jagaro (1994)
About the Author
Ajahn Jagaro was born John Cianciosi in 1948, in
Italy, and migrated with his parents to Australia at the age of ten. After completing a
Diploma in Applied Chemistry and working for a short time, he took leave of his home to
travel in Asia. With no clear aim in mind, his travels eventually took him to a Buddhist
monastery in Bangkok, where a casual interest in meditation developed into a decision to
take ordination as a Buddhist monk in 1972.
After a year spent in Bangkok and Southern Thailand,
he travelled to the north-east, where he met his teacher, Venerable Ajahn Chah, the
well-known forest meditation teacher, and spent the next ten years in and around Ajahn
Chah's monastery, Wat Pah Pong, and its many branches.
In 1979, Ajahn Chah invited Venerable Jagaro to
become the senior monk, or Abbot, at Wat Pah Nanachat, a monastery not far from Wat Pah
Pong. Wat Pah Nanachat had some years previously been established by Ajahn Chah and Ajahn
Sumedho (his senior Western disciple, who now lives in England, Abbot of Amaravati
Buddhist Centre) as a centre for Westerners interested in training in the monastic
lifestyle of the forest tradition. During his time at Wat Nanachat, Ajahn Jagaro gained
invaluable experience in dealing with monastic administrative duties, in addition to
developing a reputation in Thailand as a gifted teacher.
In February, 1982, he was invited to Perth, Western
Australia, as resident monk for the Buddhist Society of Western Australia. Interest there
was sufficient to see the establishment of Bodhinyana Forest Monastery in Serpentine, 60
kms south of Perth, where he led a small community of Buddhist monks and nuns of varying
nationalities and acted as mentor for the Buddhist Society of Western Australia up until
1995.
In 1995, Ajahn Jagaro made the difficult decision to
disrobe, expressing his gratitude for his contact with Ajahn Chah and all his Dhamma
friends within the Buddhist Community.
** Prepared at BuddhaNet for free distribution 2000
** Transcribed by Antony Woods email:
antony272@hotmail.com
DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
The copyright holder retains all rights to this work
and hereby grants electronic distribution rights to BuddhaNet. This work may be freely
copied and redistributed electronically, provided that the file contents (including this
Agreement) are not altered in any way and that it is distributed at no cost to the
recipient. You may make printed copies of this work for your personal use; further
distribution of printed copies requires permission from the copyright holder. If this work
is used by a teacher in a class, or is quoted in a review, the publisher shall be notified
of such use. See the title page of this work for any additional rights and restrictions
that may apply. It is the spirit of dana, freely offered generosity, which has kept the
entire Buddhist tradition alive for more than 2,500 years. If you find this work of value,
please consider sending a donation to the author or publisher, so that these works may
continue to be made available.
May your generosity contribute to the happiness of
all beings everywhere.
BuddhaNet: Buddhist Info Network - Buddha Dharma
Education Assoc.
P.O. Box K-1020
Haymarket. NSW 2000. AUSTRALIA
http://www.buddhanet.net
Special thanhs to Dr. Binh
Anson for sending us with this article.
Update : 01-12-2001
