Letter to Straits Times Forum sent on April 25th, 2008. Probably not going to be published.

---

I read Ms Jane Ng’s report and analysis on Project Work with great interest.

Much has been said about doing more to ensure consistency in its grading across different schools, and I agree with that. The Ministry needs to do more than to merely assert that Project Work “has stood up to rigourous consistency”—since that is exactly what the public does not believe in for years now.

But what surprises me is this mindset that schools that are “academically strong” must excel equally in Project Work—an assumption perpetuated in Ms Ng’s analysis (“Their rankings may not come as a surprise as…”), and which seems to be the cause of all this disgruntlement.

Students and their parents from these “elite schools” find it incredulous that students from a “neighbourhood school” such as Yishun Junior College could be on par—or even better than them in Project Work.

But Project Work is inherently different from the traditional, content-based subjects that students here are used to doing well in. The Ministry had introduced Project Work, as we are told, to shift the emphasis away from rote-learning and to better equip students with skills for the new economy.

It would thus be alarming if the results of Project Work were to mirror exactly the grades that students are currently getting for their content-based subjects— for the skills needed to do well in either are entirely different.

Beyond reeking of elitism and discrediting the hard work put in by these “neighbourhood school” students who have done well in Project Work, the assumption that a student who does well in Chemistry or History must surely do as well in Project Work is a non-sequitur.

There is said to be three circumstances under which meat may be eaten by a Buddhist without sharing in the fault of the killer, provided one:

1. has not seen,
2. has not heard, and
3. has no suspicion the animal in question has been killed for the purpose of one’s consumption.¹

According to Shabkar,²

In addition to being evil in itself, the act of killing, or causing another to kill, constitutes, for the sangha, a root violation that entails the destruction of monastic ordination. For monks and nuns, it is thus a matter of some importance whether the acceptance of a food offering containing meat involves complicity with the killer. The principle of threefold purity was thus intended to specify the occasions when the monks could eat meat—should it ever appear in their begging bowls—without damaging their ordination.

Curiously, many practising Buddhists today have been known to extrapolate these circumstances, also known as the threefold purity, to include meat bought from butchers, supermarkets, and those served by hawkers and restaurants—effectively sanctioning most, if not all, kinds of meat consumption.

These Buddhists argue they have neither seen nor heard of these animals being killed—both of which could be true since the slaughtering of animals in modern meat production are rarely witnessed by the consumer.

But in attempting to invoke Buddha’s directive to rationalise their own diet, various scenarios—often laughable—when meat should not be eaten have been thought of. It would, for instance, be wrong to eat crabs or frogs from a seafood restaurant where live crabs and frogs are often on the display. It would be okay, however, if these crabs and frogs were unseen and served in their dishes, as though the death of these animals would now be unconnected to them.

Taking advantage of the mass and large-scale production of meat today, these Buddhists would further rationalise that these seemingly faceless animals were not killed specifically for their consumption, but were killed for a presumably and equally faceless general public.

Even some highly accomplished Buddhist monks, such as Venerable Master Chin Kung, would argue today that “the tradition of Buddhism is to practice the three pure meat rule, not vegetarianism.”³

There is a distinction between monks who survive on alms and modern Buddhists who choose to buy meat for consumption—especially those who can clearly choose otherwise. Food given in alms were never specifically prepared for monks, but were portions of what the devoted lay people have prepared for their own consumption. These monks were “expected to eat mindfully the contents of their bowls, good or bad, delicious or revolting, accepting whatever comes their way in a spirit of detachment”;⁴ modern meat-eating Buddhists, however, make a conscious decision to assist in the killing of animals whenever they choose to buy food with meat.

There are, of course, conflicting views as to whether a Buddhist can, or should, eat meat. The source of this confusion stems from what appears to be contradicting teachings recorded in various Buddhist scriptures. Closer examination, however, would quickly reveal that Buddha’s teachings were hardly contradictory. Contradictions, if any, were more likely to be due to the reading of scriptures out of context by meat-eating Buddhists.

But however confused these Buddhists may be, one would have thought that the final teachings of Buddha as recorded in the Nirvana Sutra before his death would have been unequivocal and instructive enough as to Buddha’s attitude towards meat-eating, surmised by Buddhism scholar, Dr Tony Page:⁵

…the Buddha foresaw that a situation would arise in the future where those speaking in his name would pervert his doctrine and encourage meat consumption. So here, in this great Nirvana Sutra, he lays down his last will and testament on the matter: in no circumstances should one eat meat or fish-nor animal corpses, found in the jungle, for instance-nor even accept from a donor a meal which contains an abundance of flesh-foods.⁶ The very contact of other food with meat is deemed defiling and requires purification of the food by water.⁷ It is quite evident from all this that the Buddha in no way condoned the eating of meat and was keen for his monastic and lay followers to abjure the uncompassionate practice of meat eating and follow the pure path of vegetarian Mahayana. In this, we would be wise and benevolent to follow him.”

It is interesting to note that meat-eating Buddhists today would quote the threefold purity principle that Buddha had laid out for monks and nuns who survive on alms to justify their diet, and completely disregard the last words of Buddha as recorded in the Nirvana Sutra.

Such behaviour, Shabkar said, is not unusual:

…the use of scripture quoted out of context to justify the consumption of meat is part of a very human scenario. When people are constrained by weakness to act in a manner that is at variance with their ideals, it is natural for them, whether to save face or simply to alleviate the resulting psychological pressure, to try to rationalize their behaviour and justify it. In situations of genuine difficulty, it is also natural to follow the line of least resistance.

Ultimately the case for not eating meat lies less in what Buddha said, than in the fundamental teachings and beliefs of Buddhism: karma (cause and effect) and samsara (the cycle of reincarnation).

Buddhists believe that until one becomes enlightened, one remains in the cycle of birth and death, which can include being reborn into an animal. If animals are sentient beings like humans, and would have been related to us in our past rebirths, having animals for food appears to be every bit as un-Buddhist as it can be.

There should only be one reason why one would want to become a vegetarian—compassion. If one becomes a vegetarian because of “religion”, then clearly one has missed Buddha’s teachings completely.

There is little doubt that a vegetarian diet would not appeal to most practising Buddhists. But however unappealing or difficult such a lifestyle might be, it would be wrong to distort and misrepresent the teachings of Buddha to rationalise their inability, or unwillingness, to follow the teachings of Buddha.

It is one thing to be unable to lead a life as a Buddhist should; another to give others the impression that such a lifestyle is detrimental, especially when one does not even try to eat healthfully.

I am by no means an accomplished Buddhist and do not pretend to be one, but self-serving rationalisations by meat-eating monks and Buddhists irks me.