一直很想談葷素取向這題目, 實在太多人問過我. 結果有一次, 在中國文化協會的討論最有意思, 那源自一位朋友就佛學中「慈悲」這概念的提問.
I've long wanted to elaborate more on this most frequently enquired subject of vegetarianism． Let me described here a beautiful discussion we had at the Chinese Cultural Association, initiated by a stimulating question from the floor on the Buddhist concept of 'Mercy'.
經常聽到這樣的表述: 「為了佛法慈悲, 我 n 年前開始了茹素. 」. 當中的概念含混, 不能等閒視之, 蓋因佛祖正道, 最重「覺醒」. 能草率或顧自執妄得覺醒嗎?
It is not an uncommon declaration: "I practise the dharma of Mercy as preached by the Buddha to have become a vegetarian xxx years ago.", overlooking the plain fact that these 2 practices are utterly unrelated. Oh yes, sure it matters that we clarify misconceptions, for the very reason the Buddha teaches us to be the 'aware'! Awareness is never the fruit of rashness or stubbornness.
那麼「慈悲、慈悲」說得多了, 不如釐清一下. 慈悲乃是願眾離苦得樂: 「慈」心是願眾得樂, 「悲」心是願眾離苦. 對自己人人都能相當慈悲的 :-) 修行起來的關鍵, 卻是個程度的問題, 由自己這個原點出發, 把慈悲心擴到親友眷屬圈內是常性, 到陌生人已然難得, 慈悲心的極至是對怨懟仇恨的, 仍無異致. 絕對是知易行難的一回事.
Let us start w/ the concept of 'Mercy', which consists of 2 elements: benevolence & commiseration. Most of us won't have any problem to be merciful on ourselves :-) Like many other spiritual teachings, it is a matter of degree & extent, that makes the practice easier said than done. Much of our daily experience is to limit the practice of 'Mercy' to our immediate circles of friends & family. Yet true benevolence & commiseration in Mercy is to go beyond, to strangers & even enemies: That's all 'practising' is about.
行悲心, 自然令人傷其他物類之死, 故佛道戒殺. 在數次講座中, 引了這個小故事來說明: 多年前在美國某博物館, 看到一張毫不起眼, 關於早期移民的歷史照. 當中兩個男子閒適地把步槍擱在肩上, 雖然相距頗遠, 其滿臉傲桀的笑意, 卻仍躍然而出. 他們身後有巨型 (至少三倍於其身高, 亦佔地非常闊) 似乎是 ?貨物或是 ?農產品的一堆物事. 細看註解才慄然而驚-- 那座山模樣的是北美野生水牛的屍體.
One natural consequence of commiserating is empathizing deaths of other living organisms & thus the buddhist precept of no killing. I described in several talks the following personal experience to elaborate: an inconspicuous historic photo of early immigrants to the New World, that I spotted in a US museum years ago. Two men w/ rifles on their shoulders in leisury posts, yet their smirks of pride is almost tangible despite the distance from their photographer. Right behind them is a gigantic pile, at least 3x the men's height & extending quite an occupancy of space, of ?goods/ ?farm produce. It was only after reading the caption that I shuddered in horror-- carcasses of shot Bisons (native N American Buffaloes).
同是殺生, 整族印地安人一個冬季, 可能只獵幾隻水牛, 吃前還按傳統先得祭其亡靈, 這體顯了行悲心的普世性. 我所認知的佛學道理, 最最反對我們常掛在口邊, 要吃新鮮「生猛」禽畜海產的取向: 例如活魚只炸其尾, 啖其肉時, 魚嘴還會開合; 或把活蝦火鍋生焯的吃法. 剛死的動物, 肉身意識雖沒, 但靈魂「神色」仍在, 仍會感到痛*. 有些宗教嚴格規定肉食必先祭神, 其理在此.
This is a story of contrast: the act of killing is the same. A whole tribe of native Indians might kill a few bisons for the whole winter & they performed rituals to pacify the dead animals' 'spirits' before consumption. This is a live example of execution of this universal merit of commiseration. It is well in the odds of Buddhist teaching, as in my understanding, to consume 'fresh' meats, for the belief that dying animals' 'spiritual consciousness' still linger* & they can still feel pains of their death. That also explains why doctrines of certain religions forbid eating of animal parts without performance of specific rituals.
聽到這裡, 中國文化協會座上一位女士的提問很有意思: 「植物也有這種『神識』嗎?」．在靈能圈子中, 人們還討論山川湖海、沙漠草原、「蓋亞」以至宇宙/ 星際神識**哩，怎能少了植物的份兒? 那位逗人的女士好不失望: 「那我們都吃甚麼啦?」
The stimulating question asked by a witty lady in the Chinese Cultural Association was: 'Does the same apply to plants' spiritual consciousness?'. The spiritually-aware have been talking about spiritual consciousness of mountains & lakes & deserts & prairies & that of the Gaia & even a new term of 'exoconscious'**; the answer to the above question can only be a loud & obvious 'yes'! To her disappointment, her next question was: 'Then what CAN we eat?'
就是這個發人深醒的問題, 本來準備好的材料還沒這個精彩. 我不禁要說: 重點不在於能/ 可以/ 應否吃甚麼, 而是錯中複雜得多, 以何種態度吃的問題: 我們有尊重生命嗎? 我們有聆聽關心自己身體的需要嗎? 佛祖謂一滴水中也有眾生, 你以為吃片麵包沒有殺生嗎?
That very question led us into a wonderful discussion, aloft of all the material I'd prepared. I must say anyone who lingers on the issue of WHAT we can/ may/ should eat misses the whole point! It's never the single faceted simple question of WHAT or but the complex one of HOW: do we respect lives? do we listen to the natural calls of our own bodies? "There're lives in even one drop of water.", so the Buddha taught. There're lives sacrificed even when we eat a piece of bread.
都說「我執」是覺醒的一大障礙, 拘泥於「吃甚麼」這單一層面的死硬派, 執迷難悟啊. 毎一種飲食法則的產生, 自有其地緣或執行上的道理: 一樣的印度教, 居於南方北方或山中的教徒, 便可以有非常不同的糧食需要. 何解要作繭自縛於諸如 "奶類品可以, 那蒜頭洋蔥有犯戒嗎" 一類煩惱, 把自己坑死? 只要我們珍惜食物, 並心惦供我們養料而失去了的生命, 便不枉人間此一行了. 這就是 「我們有尊重生命嗎?」 的意思.
Die-hardism at the 'What' level, in fact this applies also to many situations in Life, is a great hindrance to advancement in awareness. The emergence of a particular type of diet must have its geographic & practical reasons: the faith of Hinduism is the same but followers in the North or in the South or in the mountains could have very different diets. Why do we frame ourselves w/ questions like: 'if diary products are ok, then how about garlic & onions?' As long as we treasure foodstuffs & the lives sacrificed for the provision of our nutritional needs, we're playing the games in Life beautifully. That's what I meant by "do we respect lives?"
那麼以科學的角度，怎樣才是「正確」的飲食? 最直接是從進化論出法. 現今人類學家的共識是, 現代人類, Homo Sapiens 的直接近祖, 是首類能直立活動 的Homo Erectus. Erectus 在地球的出現, 與另一較接近猿猴的素食人種生物 Homonids 的消失, 幾近同時發生. 也兼吃肉的 Erectus 的腦容量大1/3; 活動時, 手背不需像 Homonids 般不時著地, 科學家相信, 這是他們能製作工具的關鍵. 我不想把事情說成, 是因為Erectus 「進化」成兼吃肉，而達到上述的改變, 以免觸動某些人的神經 :-) 只想指出上述變化有時間上的關聯. 客觀事實上, 肉食確有助於拓展生存空間, 使不限於長有可食用植物的範圍, 而可沿河而居以捕魚, 或到野生動物出沒的地域去.
Still more people asked me the 'correct' diet from the scientific point of view & a direct approach is that based on theories in Evolution. Anthropologists' consensus is that the direct ancestor of modern human specie (Homo Sapiens), Homo Erectus, emerged w/ the disappearance of a group of more ape like vegetarian beings, the Homonid species, whose brain volumn is at least 1/3 less. Erectus's ability, as his name implies, to stand upright is thought a major physical advancement leading to tool-making ability. I do not want to put forward the notion that the above are results of Erectus' 'evolving' into an omnivore, in avoidance to hurt anybody's sentiments :-) I only want to hereby point out that these changes are temporally associated. As a matter of fact, meat eating does serve a major survival advantage, that Erectus' dwelling domains do not have to be limited to the natural habitats of edible plants, but possibly along rivers for fishes or into potential hunting grounds.
從解剖學上看, 我們的腸胃結構, 實是近於素食的雜食者. 我們沒有牛的四個胃，或其他素食動物獨有的消化酶或長長的消化道, 已說明了我們的糧食進化史, 亦側面說明了, 長期進食不恰當食物能致病的道理. 另一要點就是毎人的個別體質, 甲之補品, 乙之砒霜. 我真的認識, 只嗅到五花茶氣味便頭發暈的體質虛寒的人士. 盲從又絕對的偏食都大有問題, 特別是當這種飲食法, 被指為適合任何人士時. (現在還聽到有人在吃曾風行一時, 某Dr. Arkin 主張的全肉食減肥餐單嗎?) 為了口腹之欲, 或「跳樓貨」的價錢, 甜品、生蠔「食放題」，或大熱天吃火鍋都無謂之至. 這就是所謂「我們有有聆聽關心自己身體的需要嗎?」的意思.
From the anatomical point of view, the human intestine is typically omnivorous, w/ a vicinity to the vegetarian end. The plain fact that we do not have typically herbivorous guts (eg. 4 stomaches of cows, specific enzymes or lengthy digestive canals) tells a lot, especially our dietary developmental history, as well as implications in possible diseases if a grossly deviated diet has been taken for a prolonged period of time. Another no less important factor is INDIVIDUAL NEEDS; one's apple can be another's poison. I do know of people whose weak 'froid' physique renders them intolerant, feeling giddy and nauseated, to even the smell of certain strong herbal teas. It would be a blind breach of common sense to adopt an absolute vegan diet or a pure animal protein diet, esp when it's said suitable to EVERYBODY (where're U, old Dr Arkin's once faithful followers?). How much sense does it make in: dessert buffets/ taking plates of oysters/ hot pot in prime summer... just for the 'cut-throat' prices or mere satiety satisfaction? Where is the long forgotten virtue of our common sense? That's what I meant by 'do we listen to the natural calls of our own bodies'.
聖經上說: 「我們的身體, 乃是靈魂的聖殿.」看我們輕率的讓觀感物欲, 凌駕於聖殿的安寧, 不諦是愚中之最了 :-(
"Our bodies are the synagogues of our souls." Letting material desires override tranquility & serenity of our sacred temples could well be one of the silliest possible deeds of our kind :-(
那麼修行人的素食是錯嗎? 老友, 世事無絕對, 只有真情趣 :-0 沒有對或錯, 只是合適與否. 若修行人矢誓素食, 那管是為守戒或其他原因, 他的身體自應其誓言而作轉變, 就是這麼簡單. 這當然與「潮流興素食」, 或「希望皮膚好一點」, 或空言「為了慈悲」卻不明其理等等, 截然不同. 亦解釋了何以有人持素而神采奕奕, 有人卻臉無血色.
Then what about the vegetarian diet by practitioners? Are they wrong? My dear friends, there's no right or wrong; there's only appropriateness :-) when monks/ priests or other practitioners vow to adopt a vegetarian diet, may that be for observation of precepts or other reasons, w/ a sincere & strong wish, their bodies respond to their vows! As simple as that. Definitely a totally different story from vegetarian diet 'being fashionable' or 'good for the skin' or the empty talk of 'for the sake of being merciful'... blah. That explains why there're such variable outcomes among vegetarians.
註* 有聽說過剛死的人, 不曉得自己已死, 「神識」仍眷留其肉身所在處的說法嗎?
PS* As to the lingering on of the 'spiritual consciousness' of the dead, heard of a saying that 'the just dead are not aware of his death that his spirit lingers around his physical body?'
** 關於宇宙/星際神識, 聽聽專家的話好了:
www.exoconsciousness.com
** About "exoconscious', do go & see what the experts have to say:
www.exoconsciousness.com
看似有些朋友頗為 2012困擾... 亦心繫在此時代洪流中的參與. 以此為題真是項大工程啊 :-) 容我一試. 預告:
身心靈講座— 反思與迥響 B-1: 2012 又如何?
Many seems rather concerned or even bothered w/ the notion of 2012... & wonder what one's role is in the current tide of changes. That could occupy pages of writings :-) Let me try that in our next ones here. So coming next:
A Talk: The Scientific & Medical evidence in Spirituality— some reflections B-1: What about 2012?
發表文章
