Ethical Treatment of Animals in Early Chinese Buddhism

Ethical Treatment of Animals in Early Chinese Buddhism

By Pu Chengzhong

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © 2014 by Pu Chengzhong

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-4438-5456-5, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-5456-6

CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................................. 1

Chapter One ................................................................................................. 9 Governmental Prohibitions on Animal Sacrifices 1. Animal Sacrifice in Early China 2. Buddhist Views on the Killing of Animals 3. Edicts Prohibiting Animal Sacrifices and Killing Animals during the 5th-7th Centuries 4. Conclusion

Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 39 Chinese Buddhist Vegetarianism 1. Indian Buddhist Views on Meat Eating According to Chinese Sources 2. The Vegetarian Tradition in Early China 3. Chinese Buddhist Vegetarians prior to the Imperial Campaign for Vegetarianism 4. The Imperial Legitimisation of Vegetarianism for the Saṅgha 5. Conclusion

Chapter Three .......................................................................................... 101 The Buddhist Tradition of Releasing Animals 1. Releasing of Animals in Pre-Buddhist China 2. The Buddhist Practice of Releasing Animals Prior to the 5th Century 3. The Custom of Releasing Animals in 5th and 6th Century China 4. Conclusion

Contents

Chapter Four ............................................................................................ 133 Animals in Chinese Moral Beliefs 1. The Features of the Early Chinese Ethical System 2. The Buddhist Doctrine of Moral Causality 3. The Integration of Chinese and Buddhist Moral Values 4. Recompense for Helping Animals 5. Consequences for Harming Animals 6. Conclusion

Conclusion ............................................................................................... 205

Appendix ................................................................................................. 211

Bibliography ............................................................................................ 215 Index ........................................................................................................ 263

PREFACE

This is a revision of my PhD dissertation, ‘Kindness towards Animals in Early Chinese Buddhism’, submitted to the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London, in 2005. In this edition, most of the changes made are to the first chapter of the original version: the original first chapter has been split into two chapters dealing animal sacrifice and vegetarianism respectively. Apart from this structural change, I also added some details to contents of the two new chapters.

I would like to thank those who have helped me in one way or another in the years I spent in Sri Lanka and especially at the SOAS, London. I gratefully pay my homage to my spiritual mentor Ven. Kwang Sheng, abbot of the Kong Meng San Phor Kark See Monastery in Singapore, for his constant encouragement and financial support. Without his generosity my study of all those years would not have been possible.

Sincere thanks go to my supervisor Professor T. H. Barrett for the unfailing support, sustained encouragement, penetrating comments and tactful suggestions he provided. His sound scholarship and vast knowledge of the bibliography of Chinese studies were as invaluable as his long hours of careful reading of the drafts of my work. I also owe him a debt of gratitude for putting his own personal book collection at my disposal. I will cherish all the sessions of our conversations not only because of their academic value but also because they were enjoyable. I am also grateful to the examiners of my dissertation, Professor Roel Sterckx of Cambridge University and Dr. Antonello Palumbo of the SOAS, for their valuable comments and suggestions.

I acknowledge my gratitude to Dr. Isabel Kenrick and Mr. Corey Byrnes for carefully checking my English when I was in the SOAS (you will find your brilliant work has been spoiled because of the revision), and to Bankoku Sasagawa for aiding me to transliterate the titles of the Japanese publications into roman letter.

Preface

Last but by no means least, thanks are also due to the staff of the SOAS library, particularly to Yelena Shlyuger who helped me gain access to books unavailable in SOAS through the inter-library loan service, to Sue Small (librarian of the Chinese section) for her assistance in locating several difficult-to-find books, and to the staff of Special Collection Reading Room. I enjoyed their professional and friendly assistance.

Pu Chengzhong

Singapore, November, 2013

ABBREVIATIONS

INTRODUCTION

Chinese Buddhism is so named not only because it is Buddhism as practised in China, but also because it includes distinct Chinese beliefs and practices not present in other major Buddhist traditions also stemmed directly from Indian Buddhism (such as Theravada Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism). Although it may be an overstatement to say that we should treat ‘Chinese Buddhism as the legitimate, if not misunderstood, scion of Sinitic Culture’, some traditions of mainstream Chinese Buddhism can be safely regarded as created by the Chinese under the inspiration of Indian Buddhist doctrines and beliefs. As examples of the creation, Buddhist vegetarianism, the custom of liberating animals, and the beliefs reinforcing the foresaid two practices deserve to be included.

These creations are actually practices and beliefs which illustrate the moral treatments of (i.e. mainly kindness towards) animals in early Chinese Buddhism, and they are the objectives of this study. They are selected, because they are among the features that differentiate Chinese Buddhist practices from those of other Buddhist traditions, and because the formations of such practices and beliefs may shed much light on the early Chinese understanding and hermeneutics of Buddhism.

The study first treats the early development of Chinese Buddhist vegetarianism. Then, it addresses its similarly compassion-based practice of releasing animals. Finally, it analyses the moral beliefs in recompense and retribution which can well be viewed as doctrinal support for the two practices. The tradition of Chinese Buddhist vegetarianism and the custom of liberating animals have received some attention in Chinese and Japanese scholarships. By and large, however, these studies are in need of advancement for four reasons. First of all, most of them are general studies that cover the whole history of Chinese Buddhism in the form of journal articles. As the time scale of the present study is limited to early Buddhist history in China, i.e. from the time Buddhism entered China up to the Sui Dynasty (隋朝 581-619), it aims to provide a more in-depth, if not

thorough, investigation of the subject. Secondly, all of the previous studies seem to have failed to consider the many sources provided by the Chinese translations of Buddhist texts. But a complete understanding of the formation of these practices can only be achieved by making thorough use of both Buddhist translations and secular Chinese texts, for such a study as the present one is primarily based on textual materials. Thirdly, with one or two exceptions, the previous studies seldom relate the practices in question to the Chinese cultural environment. The studies that attempted to do so did not succeed in identifying the exact indigenous cultural elements that had contributed to the development of the practices nor did it succeed in analysing the contribution of these elements. Fourthly, none of the previous studies have concluded that the combination of indigenous Chinese moral ideas and Buddhist moral beliefs were also responsible for the recognition and continuation of these practices in Chinese society.

The development of Chinese Buddhist vegetarianism has been a special focus of the work of two scholars. The latest study was done by Yan Shangwen and deserves to be singled out. Yan tries to prove that the institutionalisation of vegetarianism for the Saṃgha (the community of Buddhist monks and nuns) was part of Emperor Wu of the Liang dynasty’s campaign to restore his control over the Saṃgha, an idea elaborated upon in his book entitled, Liang Wudi 梁武帝. Such a view, however, greatly oversimplifies the process of the development of vegetarian practice and fails to recognize, among many factors, the general attitudes of the public towards to the life of Buddhist monastics and the importance of the role played by the laity in that process. Nevertheless, the present study is indebted to Yan, and other scholars, for inspiration of their research and attempts to determine the nature of the tradition. Another work completed in 2008 has also partially dealt with the Emperor Wu, but I have not seen any newer materials than commonly known being used.

The custom of liberating animals in Chinese Buddhism has been either treated or touched upon by some academic publications. The earliest attempt was in a 19th century French article. It provides a general discussion of the custom that was in well practice in the Chinese Buddhist community back then. This study overlooked some important factors such as how the custom came to be. One of these factors was the precision in identifying canonical sources. What the author identified was a text whose translation time dated later than the earliest record on the activity of liberating animals. There are two other studies which also discuss the custom practised in the Ming dynasty. Obviously, they do not overlap with the concern of the present study in terms of the dynastic period covered. The most recent is the article written by Henry Shiu and Leah Stokes. This publication “suggests” two major issues. First of all, it is problematic to regard ‘animal release’ as a traditional Indian Buddhist practice. Secondly, the manner in which ‘animal release’ is currently performed raises environmental and ecological issues that are antithetical to the ritual’s intended cultivation of ‘compassion’. Their second issue is beyond what the current study concerns. As for the first issue, the authors have rightly pointed out that there is no evidence showing that the custom was a well-developed ritual of Indian Buddhism. However, they had not tried looking in the early Chinese Buddhist translations for passages that inspired Chinese invention and encouraged the practice. Instead, they relied on the scriptures suggested in some later and current general understanding of the custom.

The focal point of this study is kindness towards animals, a value that is represented by a couple of Buddhist ethical concepts and illustrated by popular Buddhist practices. Its structure consists of four chapters. Each chapter is organised in a similar pattern: an outline of beliefs and practices in Chinese culture which are similar or compatible with those presented in the Buddhist texts translated into Chinese within the period covered by this study is followed by discussions and analyses aimed to show how these practices and beliefs came to be transformed into new Buddhist cultures as a result of the encounter between Chinese and Indian Buddhist cultures. In Chapter One and Chapter Two, the two major ways to manifest Buddhist kindness towards animals—vegetarianism and the custom of releasing animals, are discussed. It is natural to think that being kind to animals starts with not killing them. So, the first part of Chapter One is an investigation of how the Buddhist doctrine of non-killing inspired some Chinese emperors in their policies of prohibiting the blood sacrifice, a long-standing state ritual in Chinese civilisation. This is followed by a detailed examination of the formation of Buddhist vegetarian practices in the Chinese Buddhist community and an examination of how vegetarianism was codified as a monastic rule required to be observed by every member of the Orders of monks and nuns. Vegetarianism should be considered a tangible expression of showing kindness to animals, even if the intention in adopting a vegetarian diet in some cases is not love or comapssion for animals. After all, even when a vegetarian diet is practised for the purpose of different Chinese fasts or when vegetarianism becomes a compulsory monastic rule, the act of restraining from eating meat still benefits animals in a practical way. Even more positive than restraining from eating meat is the action of setting animals free, the subject of the second chapter. If non-killing and vegetarianism are two passive rules benefitting the animals’ welfare, then liberating animals is an active means of caring for them.

Chapter Three deals with the similarity and integration of the moral beliefs of the Chinese and the Indian Buddhist and demonstrates how the beliefs contributed to the establishment and spread of the two aforementioned practices. The discussions include brief descriptions of various stories meant to illustrate the moral beliefs and their influential effects on the Chinese culture during that time. This is deemed to be a window through which we see how some Chinese Buddhists interpreted the newly arrived foreign religious system—Buddhism.

Before ending this introductory note, I would like to include a few words about practical matters and the sources consulted for this study.

All of the Buddhist texts made use of in this study are Chinese translations for the obvious reason that only the Buddhist culture presented in the Chinese translations was studied and accepted by the Chinese. Thus, with a few exceptions in which cross references are made, no Buddhist canonical text in other languages has been consulted, and since the time scope of this research is confined to the period between the earliest history of Buddhism in China up to the Sui dynasty, the translations consulted are limited to those rendered no later than that dynasty.

All the Chinese Buddhist translations had been collected and printed in a form of canon from as early as the 10ten century right up to current days. The widely used edition by today’s academics is the eighty-five-volume

Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō ( 大正新修大正藏 , ‘Taishō Canon: New

Edition’) that was edited under the direction of Takakusu Junjirō (高楠次郎 1866 -1945) and Watanabe Kaikyoku (渡邊海旭 1872-1933) and then published by Issaikyō Kankōkai in Tokyo from 1924 to 1932. For this study, the Taiwanese electronised edition which was made and has been continously updated by the Chinese Buddhist Electronic Texts Association (中華電子佛典協會) is used. Although the main body of this edition is a modern and punctuated reprint of the 13th century Korean edition and therefore inevitably comes with the defects of the base edition as well as human errors made during reprinting, it is still used in this study for ease of reference. Besides, it is the only edition used and easily accessed by the international scholarly world of Buddhist studies. The canon is abbreviated as ‘T’, which is followed by the page numbers and section letters ‘a’, ‘b’, or ‘c’.

Buddhist texts cited but not included in this edition came from the Wan xuzang (卍續藏 ‘Wan Sequel to the Canon’), which was originally called Dainippon Zokuzōkyō (大日本續藏經, edited in Zōkyōin in Tokyo during 1905 and 1912). The Xinwenfeng Publishing Company (新文豐公司) revised its catalogue and reprinted the whole collection in 1983. Here, it is abbreviated as ‘XZ’ and follows the same citation format as that of the Taishō Canon.

The Daoist canon consulted in this study is the Hanfenlou (涵芬楼) photo reprint of the Wanli 萬歷 period (1573-1619) edition of the Zhengtong daozang (正統道藏 The Zhengtong Taoist Canon). This reprint was made in Shanghai during 1923 and 1926 and in reference is shortened to ‘DZ’. The sequence numbers from the Daoist texts stem from the Harvard Yanjing Index version. The format of the reference is as follows: DZ followed by sequence number, fascicle number, and leaf number which again followed by ‘a’ and ‘b’ to refer to each page of the leaf. This format is also used when referring to other Chinese texts published in the traditional fashion. Unless otherwise specified, references made to the texts which were discovered from the Dunhuang Caves follow the conventional marking used in the scholarly world.

Unless unavailable, all the traditional secular texts used are modern editions which are mainly published by the Zhonghua shuju (中华书局) in Beijing. The only reason for doing this is because the modern editions have fewer errors than their traditional prints. Unless otherwise indicated, the dynastic histories and other early texts are Zhonghua shuju editions. Most university and college journals in Mainland China are published in two different forms. One of these is for natural science, while the other is for humanities. In this study, all of the articles cited are from humanities journals. So, no further specification will be made to each reference.

The authenticity of the texts relies on the evidence of new studies, though if none exists, traditional attributed dates will be used. For Buddhist texts, Shi Sengyou’s (釋僧祐 445-518) catalogue, the Chu sanzang jiji (出三藏記集 ‘collection of records on the making of the tripiṭaka’, compiled between 510 and 518), will be used unless a translation was made after its compilation. Texts, such as Soushen houji ( 搜神後記 ‘later records of searching for the supernatural’), which is traditionally considered to have been composed by a Six Dynasties author, are not used in arguments where dates of composition or appearance are crucial.

The dating of the persons of the past follows three books: the Zhongguo lidai renming dacidian (中国历代人名大辞典) which contains information on Buddhists, the Shishi yinian lu (釋氏疑年錄) which concerns mainly Buddhist monks and nuns of imperial China, and the Zhongguo fojiao renwu cidian ( 中国佛教人物辞典 ). If dates are unavailable in these books, they are approximated according to other sources and the general time period in which the person in question was alive. The translation of imperial Chinese official titles follows Charles O. Hucker’s work entitled, A Dictionary of Official Titles in Imperial China, unless otherwise noted. With regards to the names of the Chinese monks and nuns, their common religious surname Shi (釋) is omitted after its first appearance, and only their given names are provided. For the sake of convenience, this study uses ‘monastics’ to mean ‘members of the Saṃgha, including monks and nuns’.

The Chinese script is provided whenever appropriate. As for the characters, the simplified form is used only when listing modern studies in the Chinese language. For all other citations, traditional characters are used. All Chinese characters are transliterated according to the pinyin system currently in use for mandarin Chinese.

CHAPTER ONE GOVERNMENTAL PROHIBITIONS ON ANIMAL SACRIFICES

The fundamental form of Buddhist kindness towards animals is reflected in the spirit of non-killing. Unlike in imperial China where killing animals was only occasionally discouraged or prohibited, abstaining from killing living creatures was one of the essential mental training rules for any Buddhist, regardless of his/her sectarian affiliation. In Chinese Buddhism, this act is carried out by prohibiting blood sacrifices and practising vegetarianism and started from its early history.

In ancient China sacrifices were always regarded as important as any other form of state affairs. Particularly since the establishment of the authority of Confucianism as a political ideology in the Western Han dynasty (西漢 202BCE-9CE), the two ancient practices of state ritual and ancestor worship, both of which involved blood sacrifice, had been continuously justified as governmental duties. Yet, from time to time even under such exclusive and stringent Confucian ruling institutions the principle of Buddhist non-killing managed to interrupt the actual practice of these rituals in some Chinese dynasties. The first few sections of this chapter investigate how these interruptions were made possible as well as how they took place. The remaining sections will scrutinise the development of vegetarianism in the early period of Chinese Buddhism. It will also focus particularly on the contribution of indigenous Chinese vegetarian practices in regards to legitimisation and monastic institutionalisation of Buddhist vegetarianism. 1. Animal Sacrifice in Early China The history of animal sacrifice in China began with the practices of god and ancestor worships. Material sources show that from as early as the Shang dynasty (1600-1027 BCE) sacrifice in China had played an important part in the religious activity of the state as well as of its ordinary people, probably because it was ‘the principle method of approach to gods and ancestor spirits’. Sacrifice is mentioned by the fourth century BCE Zuozhuan (左傳) as one of the two national affairs of the people of the Shang and Zhou dynasties. According to Xun Kuang (荀況, 313-238 BCE), sacrifice is a means of commemorating one’s ancestors, a humanistic ritual to the elite, and a ghost-affair to the masses of the people. Confucians believed that sacrifice was the basis of ‘education and transformation’ (jiaohua 教化), one of the three duties for a filially pious son, and the paramount ritual of the central government.

There were a variety of types of sacrifices in ancient China. Some of them, such as the sacrifice to the ancestors, di (禘 lit. ‘sacrifice’), and to Heaven which covers jiao (郊 lit.‘outskirts’), feng (封 ‘sacrifice to Heaven’) and shan (禪‘sacrifice to Earth’), were only performed by the king/emperor. All of the other sacrifices were either performed by the local government on various occasions or by the common people in folk religious activities.8 In these sacrifices, receivers of offerings varied, too. They ranged from the most important, like ancestors and Heaven, to the least, like ghosts, the spirits of mountains, rivers, grains etc. From a very early time, heroes, be they cultural or military, had also been objects of sacrificial offerings. For instance, when Confucius was sanctified, the government and commoners alike offered sacrifices to him at a building called wenmiao (文廟 ‘culture temple’). Hero figures such as the peasant rebellion leader, Chen Sheng, (陳勝, fl.209 BCE) at least until Sima Qian’s (司馬遷 b. ca.145 BCE) time, received offerings at a shrine built specifically for him. Numerous other recipients of sacrifice were deities worshipped in shrines, and just before the Later Han, there were so many such cult centres consuming animals that Wang Chong (王充, 27 CE-97) tried to restrict this activity by appealing for a reduction in the number of shrines.

According to Confucius, vegetables were not good enough to be used as sacrificial material. What needed to be sacrificed was the flesh and blood of animals, although occasionally human beings were also used.

8 Evan Morgan, ‘Sacrifices in Ancient China’ (Journal of the North China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 70, 1939), p. 32. Ying Shao (應劭 ca. 140-204 CE) says that there were five state sacrifices, FSTYJS (dianli) 8: 291. This prerequisite was, in fact, reflected in the formation of the early graphs for sacrificial-related activities. The graph xie (血‘blood’), for example, which is found in oracle bone inscriptions, was glossed by Xu Shen (許慎

d. ca. 120) in his Shuowen jiezi (說文解字 ‘explaining phrases and analysing words’) as ‘the blood of victim animals offered during sacrifice’. 15 Accordingly, animal sacrifice was called xueshi (血食 ‘blood victuals’). Since there existed in ancient Chinese society a basic social classification of the people, materials used in sacrifices were also differentiated according to the social status of the individual performer.16This is to say that the size of the animal used in sacrifice corresponded to the social status of the sacrificer; the higher his social esteem, the bigger the size.

Hence, it is clear that the term sacrifice in pre-modern China referred to the sacrifice of animals in most dynasties. The few exceptional dynasties in which animal sacrifice was partially or completely banned were those in which Buddhism exerted its powerful influence on the ruling houses. Buddhism is an Indian religion that, since its inception, absolutely opposes animal sacrifices sanctioned by Brahmanism, a tradition much older than Buddhism itself. To see how Buddhism caused the prohibition of the use of animals in sacrifice, a summary of Buddhist views on the killing of animals is in order.

2. Buddhist Views on the Killing of Animals The doctrine of loving-kindness (maitri 慈) and compassion (karuṇā 悲) is very much emphasised in both pre-Mahāyāna Buddhist traditions and Mahāyāna Buddhism which includes Tantric Buddhism.17 It is regarded by

part II, 1990), p. 25; Yang Shi, ‘Mingdai renxun qiantan’ (Yandu 6, 1987), p. 43; Mou Xiaodong, ‘Qingchu de yiren xunzang’ (Wenshi zhishi 7, 1987), pp. 60-64; Qiu Xigui (Vernon K. Fowler trsl.), ‘ On the Burning of Human Victims and the Fashioning of Clay Dragons in Order to Seek Rain as Seen in the Shang Dynasty Oracle-Bone Inscriptions’ (Early China 1983-85), pp. 290-92, 297-303. 15 SWJZ 5B: 105a; Roel Sterckx, ADEC, p. 76.

16 Some primary sources on this hierarchic regulation are listed in Li Jinglin’s ‘Rujia de sangji lilun yu zhongji guanhuai’ (Zhongguo shehui kexue, 2, 2004), p. 111. 17 For a general study on the development of compassion from early Buddhism to Mahāyāna, see Kenneth K. Inada, ‘The Nature of Buddhist Compassion (karuṇā)’, in Kuala Lumpur Dharmmajoti et al. eds., Recent Researches in Buddhist Studies: Essays in Honour of Professor Karunadasa (Colombo, 1997), pp. 367-77. a scholar to be one of Buddhism’s supreme values.18 Yet, between these two forms of Buddhism, there is a difference of degree in relation to the term ‘compassion’: it is actually ‘kindness’ in the former, more of an altruistic attitude towards others’ welfare in the latter. 19 However, generally speaking, in both cases its basic function is rather of consequentialism as it is practised to perfect the practitioner’s religious goal: arhat (one who has laid down the burden) for the former and Buddhahood for the latter. The pre-Mahāyāna spirit of compassion is one basic reason for the Buddhist teaching of ‘non-violence’ (ahiṃsā) and the introduction of the ‘Four Boundlessnesses’ meditation. Non-violence

Richard Gombrich, Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo (London and New York: Routledge & Kekan Paul Ltd, 2002 reprint of 1988), p. 88. As an authority on Theravada Buddhism, Professor Gombrich also argues that ‘it was the Buddha who introduced love and compassion into Indian religion,’ and that kindness is a means to attain Nirvana. See his ‘Kindness and Compassion as Means to Nirvana in Early Buddhism’, p.1, http://www.ocbs.org/content/view/61/121/, visited on Sunday, April 11, 2010. 19 For a detailed study on compassion in the Theravada tradition, see Harvey. B. Aronson, Love and Sympathy in Theravāda Buddhism, Delhi: Matilal Banarsidass, 1980. For an understanding of Mahāyāna compassion, see John B. Noss, ‘Mutual Love in Mahayana Buddhism’, Journal of Bible and Religion, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Apr., 1952), pp. 84-89.

in Buddhism, being one of the starting points of the Buddha to refute traditional Brahmanism, is as important as its characteristic teaching of ‘non-self’. In effect, its importance can often be seen as the Buddha emphasizes this in his discourses and in the laying down of one of the principal disciplinary rules for all Buddhists—the rule of non-killing. In his discourses, the Buddha seems to condemn violence often either by pointing out its deterministic unfortunate and unpleasant consequences, such as the suffering that awaits the moral wrong-doers in their future lives in the realms of hell and animals, or by saying that non-violence leads to a fortunate and happy rebirth. For instance, he says that killing living beings will cause one to be reborn in a hot or screaming hell.22 He also states that by abstaining and preventing the mind from even thinking about killing consequently contributes to happiness in both this life as well as a rebirth in heaven.23 His most often quoted saying that can be found in both Pali and Chinese sources is, “laying aside the stick and the sword, he dwells with compassion and kindness to all living creatures.”24 The one possible rationale for non-violence in Buddhism appears to have been achieved by putting one’s feet in others’ shoes for we are also told in the wellcirculated Dharmapada (‘words of the doctrines’) that “all tremble at

equity to every living being in the universe. This teaching can be found in many sūtras, early as well as later ones: Fo kaijie fanzhi aba jing (佛開解梵志阿颰經, translater unknown), T. 1, p. 261a; Yuedeng sanmei jing (月燈三昧經, translator unknown), T. 15, pp. 612a, 614c, 615b; ZAHJ, T. 2, p. 344c; Ji yiqie fude sanmei jing (集一切福德三昧經, translator unclear), T. 12, p. 991b; Wumen chanjing yaofa (五門禪經要用法 trsl. by Dharmamitra 曇摩蜜多 fl. 424-443), T.15, p. 331a, etc. It has been suggested that the Buddhist technique of the four boundless meditations is an alternative to the way of uniting with Brahmā in the Upaniṇads. Richard. F. Gombrich, New Discoveries of Buddhism (a speech given on the seminar commemorating Ven. Saddhātissa on 14th Fabr, 2004, in a London Sri Lankan vihara).

22 “於此賢聖所，輕心起非義，及殺害眾生，墮斯熱地獄。” (ZAHJ, T. 2, p. 341a), and “瞋恚懷毒害，殺生血污手，造諸雜惡行，墮叫喚地獄。” (CAHJ, T.1, p. 125a). Even more horrifying consequences are described in detail in the Fo wei Shoujia zhangzhe shuo yebao chabie jing (佛為首迦長者說業報差別經, T. 1, p. 891, cf. The first fascicle of the Fenbie shan-e baoying jing 分別善惡報應經 T. 1, No. 81, pp. 895b-901b). 23 ZAHJ, T. 2, p273b, 357b, cf. FJJ, T. 4, p. 565b. 24 “灭杀除杀，舍于刀杖，怀惭愧心，慈悯一切.”CAHJ, T.1, p. 88c; D.i.4, Sn. 394. violence, all fear death. Comparing oneself with others, one should neither kill nor cause one to kill.”25

As a rule, ‘abstaining from taking life’ is in the gravest category of all disciplinary rules for monks and nuns and second only to the rule of ‘abstaining from having any sexual relations with others’.26 An even greater importance of this rule can be viewed in the cases of lay practitioners and monastic novices: for them, the foremost prohibition is not to take the life of a living being. According to this rule, any form of killing is prohibited: from the basic sense of taking other beings’ lives by any means, to suicide. Furthermore, it is not only limited to the human species but to animals and plants as well. It is also partly for preserving the spirit of this rule that the Buddha prescribed his disciples to retreat during the rainy season when insects and worms were breeding and use strainers when taking drinking water. Under normal circumstances, monks and nuns were also prohibited 25 “一切皆懼死，莫不畏杖痛，恕己可為譬，勿殺勿行杖.” FJJ, T. 4, p. 565a; Dhp. 129-130.

26 Five Vinaya versions belonging to different Buddhist schools are preserved in Chinese. As far as concerns the non-killing rule, every version places the same importance to it. For novice the non-killing precept comes first among the five main rules, e.g. T. 22, p. 116c. from using animal products. However, there is an exception: if a monk lives in a place where the weather is very cold and harsh, he is allowed to use animal skin to make shoes. Even with this exception, yet another exception follows, which is that the following ten kinds of animals can not be consumed: lion, tiger, leopard, otter, cat, elephant, horse, dog, fox, and black deer.

The question of how the rule of non-killing is directly conducive to the religious goal of enlightenment was answered by the Buddha on a number of occasions. Almost all the translations of earlier versions of the account about the Buddha’s demise agree in stating that the Buddha at his deathbed told his disciples that they should respect and value the vinaya (monastic disciplinary rules) as well as the sūtras (scriptures containing the discourses of the Buddha and the preaching of his chief disciples sanctioned by him), as they would be their teacher after his death. In one text, the vinaya is regarded as the foundation of religious emancipation, because it is on the basis of the vinaya that one-pointedness concentration is generated. Onepointedness concentration, again, produces the final salvation-obtaining wisdom. This is exactly how the general tradition of Buddhist practice is