吃肉還是不吃肉：佛教的反思

TO EAT OR NOT TO EAT MEAT:  A BUDDHIST REFLECTION	吃肉還是不吃肉：佛教的反思 達爾卡法師 (Shravasti Dhammika) 著 伍煥炤 譯
An issue that has long divided Buddhists is whether or not meat-eating is consistent with the Dhamma, the teachings of the Buddha. Both modern ancient and modern scholars have debated with sometimes considerable rancor. In this very small book, Bhante Dhammika, a well-known Buddhist monk and writer, revisits the various arguments for and against meat-eating and examines them from a very different perspective. In doing so he also dispels several common misconceptions about Buddhism, highlights some rarely discussed problems associated with being vegetarian and details some of the good reasons for becoming one. This book will make you look at Buddhism very differently. It might make you look at your next meal very differently too.	長久以來使佛教徒分化的議題，就是吃肉是否與佛法 (即佛陀的教導) 一致。古今的學者有時候曾就此激烈爭論。在這本書中，著名的比丘作家達爾卡法師 (Shravasti Dhammika) 重溫各個支持和反對吃肉的論據，並從截然不同的角度審視它們。此外，他也消除了幾項對佛教的普遍誤解，強調一些與素食有關而甚少討論的問題，還詳述為何奉行素食的充份理由。這本書會讓你從截然不同的角度來看佛教，它亦可能使你從煥然一新的角度來看你的下一餐。
CONTENTS Vegetarianism In Ancient India Buddhist Arguments for Vegetarianism Motivation And Meat The Last Link In The Chain The Problematic Vegetarian Meat In The Buddhist Tradition How I Became a Vegetarian	目錄 古印度的素食主義 佛教支持素食主義的論據 動機和肉類 殺生鏈的最後一環 有問題的素食者 佛教傳統中的肉類 我如何成為素食者
VEGETARIANISM IN ANCIENT INDIA	›  古印度的素食主義  š
Vegetarianism is the practice of having a meat-free diet. There are different types of vegetarianism, e.g. lacto-vegetarians will eat dairy products but not eggs, and vegans will eat no products derived from animals. The first evidence for any type of vegetarianism comes from ancient Greece and India. The Greek philosopher Pythagoras (570-495 BCE) advocated vegetarianism and at around the same time in India, Mahavira, the founder of Jainism, was also advocating vegetarianism. Despite popular perceptions to the contrary, the Buddha, a younger contemporary of Mahavira, was not a vegetarian and did not explicitly insist on its practice in any of his teachings.	素食主義是奉行無肉的飲食。素食主義有不同的類別，例如乳品素食者會吃乳製品，但不吃雞蛋；純素食者不會吃任何產自動物的食品。最早有關素食主義的證據來自古希臘和印度。希臘哲學家畢達哥拉斯 (Pythagoras, 公元前570年-公元前495年) 提倡素食主義，而大約在相同時期的印度，耆那教的創立人瑪哈維拉 (Mahavira) 也同樣提倡素食主義。與普遍觀念不同的是，與瑪哈維拉同年代而較年輕的佛陀並不是素食者，在他的教導中從沒有明確主張奉行素食。
Many arguments are used to support vegetarianism – the health argument (a meat diet causes various diseases), the biological argument (humans are not naturally carnivorous), the economic argument (animal husbandry is an inefficient form of food production), and the humane argument (eating meat requires killing animals which is cruel). Some of these arguments are rather weak, others less so. But from the point of view of Buddhist ethics the only one of these arguments that has to be considered is the last one. Does the Pali Tipitaka, the earliest record of the Buddha’s teachings, contain anything suggesting that Buddhists should be vegetarian?	有很多論據支持素食主義 — 健康方面的論據 (吃肉導致各種疾病) 、生物方面的論據 (人類不是天生肉食性的)、經濟方面的論據 (畜牧業是沒有效率的食物生產模式)，以及人道方面的論據 (吃肉是殘忍的，因要殺死動物)。上述的論據有部份非常薄弱，其他則不然。但從佛教道德的觀點來看，只有最後一點要加以考慮。最早期記錄佛陀教導的巴利文《大藏經》，其內容有否顯示佛教徒應吃素呢？
There is no place in either the Sutta, the Vinaya or the Abhidhamma Pitikas where the Buddha says his disciples, monastic or lay, should avoid eating meat. Supporters of Buddhist vegetarianism like Philip Kapleau Roshi (To Cherish All Life, 1986) have claimed that the Buddha did teach vegetarianism but that all references to it were deleted from the sacred scriptures by meat-loving monks in later centuries. There is no evidence whatsoever of this having been done and this argument can be dismissed out of hand.	在《經藏》、《律藏》或《論藏》中，佛陀完全沒有提及他的弟子應避免吃肉，無論是出家或在家的。佛教素食主義的支持者，如凱普樓 (Philip Kapleau Roshi) (To Cherish All Life, 1986年) 曾表示佛陀確有教導素食主義，但佛典所有提及素食主義的內容全被後世喜歡吃肉的比丘們刪除。然而，並沒有任何證據證明有關的事件，因此這論據不能成立。
There are several places in the scriptures where the Buddha is described as having eaten meat. Anguttara Nikaya III, 49 mentions that the Buddha was once served sukara mamsa with jujube fruit. This term can be translated with certainty as sukara = pig, mamsa = meat or flesh. In another place it distinctly says that a man sent his servant to the market to buy meat so it could be prepared and offered to the Buddha (Anguttara Nikaya IV,187). Yet another text mentions in passing that a group of people “boiled porridge and rice, made soup and minced meat” (mamsani kottenti) while preparing a feast for the Buddha and his monks (Vinaya I, 239). Once some men slaughtered a cow, cooked it and then one of them gave “the best cuts of the cooked meat” (mamse pakke varamamsani) to a nun who subsequently offered it to the Buddha (Vinaya III, 208). It is important to point out that the Tipitaka very rarely mentions anything the Buddha ate, this not being its purpose.	佛經中有幾處地方描述佛陀吃過肉。《增支部》(III, 49) 提到佛陀有一次吃配有棗的sukara mamsa。這個詞語可以肯定翻譯成豬肉 (sukara = 豬，mamsa = 肉)。佛經另一處也明確提到，一個男人派僕人到市場購買肉類，烹調後以便供養佛陀 (《增支部》IV, 187)。另一經文也提及，一些人在為佛陀和比丘們準備膳食時「熬粥和煮飯，煲湯和煮碎肉」(mamsani kottenti) (《律藏》I, 239) 。有一次，一些男人把一隻牛屠宰和煮熟，然後其中一人把「最好一部份的肉」 (mamse pakke varamamsani) 供養一位比丘尼，而她隨後用來供養佛陀 (《律藏》 III, 208)。有一點很重要，就是《大藏經》很少提及佛陀吃的東西，這亦不是它的目的。
One of the criticisms the Jains directed towards the Buddha was that he ate meat. “Many Jains went through the town, through the main roads and side streets, the alleys and the lanes, waving their arms and shouting, ‘The general Siha has this very day slaughtered a large creature to feed it to the monk Gotama and he is going to eat it knowing that it was slaughtered specifically for him.’” (Anguttara Nikaya IV, 187).In this incident the Jains were trying to discredit or embarrass the Buddha for eating meat, which suggests that there was a feeling in India at the time that monks at least should be vegetarian. But this idea could have only been in its infancy because the Buddha became widely respected despite the criticism of him by the Jains on this issue. And he was not the only one. We read of a particular ascetic who was highly esteemed by the people of Vesali despite having taken a vow to consume only meat and alcohol (Digha Nikaya III, 9).	耆那教徒其中一項針對佛陀的批評是他吃肉。「很多耆那教徒走進城內，走過大街小巷，揮手高聲呼喚：『施哈將軍今日屠宰一隻大的牲畜給佛陀吃，佛陀將會吃掉牠，也知道那隻牲畜是特別為他而屠宰的。』」 (《增支部》IV, 187)。在這事件中，耆那教徒嘗試敗壞佛陀的名聲，或使他感到難堪。這事件意味着當時印度有一種想法，就是比丘們至少應是素食者。然而，這種思想可能只在萌芽的階段。儘管耆那教徒在這議題上批評佛陀，但佛陀在當時已經廣受人們尊崇，而且，吃肉的修行者不只他一個。我們知道有一個苦行者，雖然他發誓只飲酒吃肉，但他仍然非常受毘舍離人尊敬 (《長部》III, 9)。
There are several places in the Vinaya, the rules for Buddhist monks and nuns, where eating meat is mentioned or implied, for example where it says particular types of meat such as lion, snake, hyena, should not be consumed, implying that other types can be (Vinaya I, 218-8). It also recommends meat broth as a medicine (Vinaya I,206). In the section on medicine in the Vinaya it says that monks are allowed to take the oil, fat and tallow of fish, crocodiles, pigs, bears and other animals for medicinal reasons (Vinaya I,200).	戒律是佛教比丘和比丘尼須遵守的規則，它在幾處地方提到或暗示吃肉，例如獅子、蛇和鬣狗的肉不應吃，這意味着可以吃其他的類別的肉 (《律藏》I, 218-8)。戒律也建議用肉湯作為藥物 (《律藏》I, 206)。在有關藥物的章節，戒律提到指比丘們可使用魚、鱷魚、豬、熊和其他動物的油和脂肪，以作醫藥用途 (《律藏》I, 200)。
However, it would seem that the first evidence for Buddhist vegetarianism also comes from the Vinaya. Most scholars agree that much of the Vinaya dates from some time after the Buddha so some of the things it says may not necessarily reflect what was believed or done during his time. In the Vinaya, Devadatta is said to have demanded that vegetarianism be made compulsory for monks and nuns. “For as long as life lasts, let them not eat fish or meat (maccha mamsam). Whoever does so would be stained by a fault.” (Vinaya II,197). Devadatta is always depicted in Buddhist literature as a villain. This story suggests that within perhaps a century of the Buddha’s passing there was a strong movement in the Sangha for vegetarianism but a stronger one against it.	然而，最先有關佛教素食主義的證據也似乎來自戒律。大多數的學者都同意，有部份的戒律在佛陀之後的時期出現，因此，當中提及的一些內容未必能反映他在世期間的想法和情況。戒律中記載提婆達多曾要求強制比丘和比丘尼奉行素食。「只要他們仍然活着，不要讓他們進食魚或肉 (maccha mamsam) 。誰這樣做都會因過失而蒙污。」(《律藏》II, 197)。佛教經典多把提婆達多描寫成壞人。這個故事顯示約在佛陀去世後的一百年內，僧團出現一個強大的素食主義運動，但它遇上更強大的反對力量。
After this the next evidence of a Buddhist move towards vegetarianism comes from the edicts of the great Buddhist emperor Asoka Maurya. In an edict issued in 257 BCE he said, “Formerly, in the kitchen of the king, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer, are killed and the deer not always. And in time, not even these three creatures will be killed.” This edict reflects well the early Buddhist attitude to vegetarianism – it is a good thing, so we cut down our consumption of meat and in time we’ll get around to phasing it out. Later, in 243 BCE Asoka issued another edict banning the slaughter, branding, castrating of domestic animals on certain days of each month. In this same edict he also announced a ban on the hunting of certain wild animals and the setting up of forest reserves where no hunting was to be allowed. After this we get no evidence of Buddhist vegetarianism for several centuries.	另一個有關佛教趨向素食主義的證據是來自阿育王的法令，他是一名偉大的佛教皇帝。在一項公元前257年頒佈的法令中，他說：「以往御廚每日會屠宰成千上萬的禽畜來烹煮咖哩，但隨着這道佛法法令的制訂，只有三隻禽畜，包括兩隻孔雀和一隻鹿被屠宰，而鹿也不是經常被屠宰的，日後甚至不會屠宰這三隻禽畜。」這項法令很能反映早期佛教對素食主義的態度 — 素食主義是好事，因此我們要減少吃肉，日後我們會開始分階段停止吃肉。稍後在公元前243年，阿育王頒佈另一項法令，禁止在每月的特定日子屠宰、打烙和閹割禽畜。在這項法令中，他亦宣佈禁止狩獵某些野生動物，並設立禁止打獵的森林保護區。在往後的幾百年，我們再找不到有關佛教素食主義的證據。
It is commonly assumed that early Buddhism did not teach vegetarianism while Mahayana did. However, this is a perception that needs to be examined more closely. Of the hundreds of Mahayana sutras only a very small number discuss vegetarianism, the main ones being the Hastikaksya Sutra, Mahamegha Sutra, Angulimaliya Sutra, Nirvana Sutra, the Brahmajala Sutra and the Lankavatara Sutra. It is not easy to date any of these sutras but all of them were probably composed after the 2nd century CE with parts being added in later centuries. Of these sutras the one that most strongly advocates vegetarianism is the Lankavatara Sutra. It offers a series of arguments in favor of vegetarianism, some of them sound, others rather puerile, for example, that you will have a bad smell if you eat meat. However, the vehemence with which these arguments are presented suggests that many Buddhists at that time were not vegetarian. You only have to argue vigorously against something when there are others who disagree with you or oppose you. It is also interesting to point out that while the Nirvana Sutra condemns meat eating it also says that one is justified in killing people in order to protect monastic property, a weird contradiction of the type still found in the thinking of some strong proponents of vegetarianism.	一般認為早期佛教沒有提倡素食主義，但大乘佛教則有。然而，這種觀念需要深入的研究。在眾多的大乘佛經中，只有少量討論素食主義，主要的有《象腋經》(Hastikaksya Sutra)、《大雲經》(Mahamegha Sutra)、《央掘魔羅經》 (Angulimaliya Sutra) 、《涅槃經》(Nirvana Sutra)、《梵網經》 (Brahmajala Sutra) 和《楞伽經》 (Lankavatara Sutra)。要確定這些經文的年代並不容易，但它們大多於公元二世紀後撰寫，部份內容則是後世加上的。當中最大力提倡素食主義的是《梵網經》，它提出了一系列支持素食主義的論據，部份是合理的，而其他則頗為幼稚，例如你吃肉的話便會發出臭味。然而，這些論據的激烈表達方式，顯示當時很多的佛教徒並不是素食者。你只會遇到與你意見不同，或反對你的人時才激烈地爭論某些東西。有趣的是，雖然《涅槃經》譴責吃肉，但同時指出為保護寺院財產而殺人是情有可原的。這種奇怪的矛盾仍能在很多堅定的素食主義倡導者身上找到。
When the Chinese pilgrim Hsuan Tsang (602–664) was in India he made careful and extensive notes on Buddhists’ beliefs and practices but makes no mention of them being vegetarian. He noted that people ate meat and that the most important thing was not whether one was vegetarian or not but what kind of meat one ate. Those who ate beef and animals that were considered impure (dogs, monkeys, pigs, donkeys) were considered outcasts. The literature of Tantric or Vajrayana Buddhism, dating from after the 7th century CE, often advocates meat eating.  One of the ‘Five Ms’ (Pancamakara) mentioned in several Tantric texts was to consume flesh. Tantric practitioners even offered meat to the various deities they worshipped. It is clear from all this that Indian Buddhists were always in two minds about meat eating.	中國朝聖者玄奘 (602-664年) 在印度的時候，詳盡記錄了佛教徒的信仰和習俗，但沒有提到他們是吃素的。他記錄了人們吃肉的情況，最重要的並不是人吃素與否，而是吃哪種肉類。那些進食牛肉和稱為不潔動物 (狗、猴子、豬和驢) 的人被視為賤民。公元七世紀後佛教密宗或金剛乘的經典常主張吃肉。在一些密宗經文提到的「五摩字」(Pancamakara) 當中，其中一樣就是吃肉。密宗的修習者甚至把肉奉獻給他們崇拜的各個神。這清楚表明印度的佛教徒常對吃肉拿不定主意。
What about Indian society in general? The evidence shows that from its very beginning Jainism was strongly vegetarian and has been so ever since. There is no evidence that Brahmanisn, the main religion during the Buddha’s time, taught vegetarianism. Vedic sacrifices in which animals were slaughtered were still being practiced and are frequently mentioned in the Tipitaka (e.g. Anguttara Nikaya I, 66; II,42; IV,41). However, the Vinaya mentions what were called maghata, certain days of the month when animals were not slaughtered and meat was not available in the markets (Vinaya I, 217).The Jataka also mentions maghata and adds that they would be announced by the beat of a drum (Jataka IV, 115).Were these non-killing days a result of a general unease about meat eating, or due to the influence of Buddhism, or of Jainism? We don’t know. The Kama Sutra (3rd cent CE?) points out that alcohol and dog meat increase a man’s virility but then adds, somewhat halfheartedly, that a circumspect man would nonetheless take neither. It also gives recipes for aphrodisiacs, many of them including animal flesh and organs. So once again we have an ambiguous attitude towards consuming meat.	哪麼印度社會的普遍情形怎樣？證據顯示耆那教從一開始便積極奉行素食，並延續至今。沒有證據顯示佛陀時的主要宗教婆羅門教有宣揚素食主義。《大藏經》常提到在吠陀的祭祀中屠宰動物，而現在還繼續奉行這種做法 (例如《增支部》I, 66; II, 42; IV, 41)。然而，戒律提到禁殺令 (maghata)，它規定在每個月中的某些日子禁止屠宰禽畜，市場沒有肉類供應 (《律藏》I, 217)。本生也提到禁殺令，並補充人們會以鼓聲宣佈禁殺令 (《本生經》IV, 115)。這些禁殺日子的出現是出於對吃肉的普遍不安，還是由於佛教或耆那教的影響？我們不得而知。《愛經》(Kama Sutra, 公元三世紀？) 指出酒和狗肉能增強男性的生殖力，但亦有點不情願地補充說明，一個謹慎的男人不應選擇這兩樣東西。它亦提供壯陽的藥方，很多包括動物的肉和器官。因此，我們對吃肉再次感到模稜兩可。
Neither of the two great Hindu epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata teach vegetarianism and both often refer to eating meat as if it were normal and uncontroversial, as indeed it was. In his detailed study of everyday life as depicted in the Ramayana Ananda Guruge writes, “The Aryans of ancient India were not altogether vegetarians. Their diet was a mixed one; they ate fish as was offered to Bharata and his party by Guha. Meat too was consumed quite widely. Not only did Rama say that animals are killed by men for their flesh but he also killed many animals – deer, wild boar, antelope, etc., - for food during his sojourn in the forest. Meat was eaten with relish and a verse which describes a meal of Rama and Sita states, ‘He sat on a rock tempting Sita with meat (saying) this is pure, this is tasty and this is well cooked by fire.’ In Bharadvaja’s hermitage Bharata’s army was supplied with venison, mutton, pork and flesh of the peacock and the snipe. Likewise, Kumbhakarna consumed large quantities of venison, beef and pork and drank blood. Although the Vanaras are generally depicted as vegetarians, the Brahmans were actually not. The concept that ‘a purely vegetarian diet is an indication of spiritual progress and an advanced culture’ is a later development in India. Even ascetic Brahmans were not strict vegetarians. Although their usual fare consisted of vegetables, they did not abstain from meat-eating as a principle of either religious or social significance. In fact, Agastya is represented as eating rams and he says, ‘I am able to eat comfortably even one whole ram at a Sraddha ceremony.’ There seems to have been no ban on meat-eating by Brahmans even at the time of Bhavabhuti for his Uttararamacarita depicts Vasistha as eating a tawny calf. Further, Valin’s statement specifically mentions the animals whose flesh could be eaten by Brahmans.” (The Society of the Ramayana, 1960, p.147-8).	《羅摩衍那》(Ramayana) 和《摩訶婆羅多》(Mahabharata) 這兩本印度教的偉大史詩均沒有提倡素食主義，反而常提到吃肉，彷彿視吃肉為正常的，不具爭議，而事實也確是如此。古魯格 (Ananda Guruge) 詳細研究《羅摩衍那》中所描述的日常生活，他這樣說：「古印度的阿利安人不全是素食者，他們的飲食是葷素並存，他們吃魚，正如古哈 (Guha) 用魚來獻給婆羅多 (Bharata) 和他的同伴。肉類常被廣泛食用，羅摩 (Rama) 不僅提到人們屠宰動物以取其肉，他在森林居住期間，亦屠宰了很多動物 — 鹿、野豬和羚羊等，作為食物。人們津津有味地吃肉，一首描述羅摩和悉多 (Sita) 進餐的詩提到：『他坐在石上，以肉來誘惑悉多，說它是潔淨、美味和用火煮熟的。』在巴拉瓦伽 (Bharadvaja) 隱居的地方，婆羅多的軍隊獲供應鹿肉、羊肉、豬肉、孔雀肉和鷸肉。孔婆伽那 (Kumbhakarna) 也吃了大量的鹿肉、牛肉和豬肉，並喝血液。雖然猴子軍隊普遍被描繪為素食者，但其實婆羅門並不是。『純素食飲食是心靈提升和高等文化指標』這個概念，是印度後期的發展，甚至婆羅門的苦行者也不是嚴格的素食者。儘管他們的飲食通常包括蔬菜，但他們未有因宗教或社會意義的原則而戒絕吃肉。事實上，投山仙人 (Agastya) 被描繪進食公羊，他說：『我甚至可以在施拉特儀式 (Sraddha) 輕鬆地吃掉整隻公羊。』即使在薄婆菩提 (Bhavabhuti) 時期，婆羅門似乎也沒有禁絕吃肉，因為他的《羅摩傳後篇》(Uttararamacarita) 描述瓦希斯塔 (Vasistha) 進食一隻黃褐色小牛。此外，波林 (Valin) 的陳述特別提及婆羅門可以吃哪些動物的肉。」 (The Society of the Ramayana, 1960年, 頁147-8)。
In the chapter on food the Sushruta Samhita (1st– 4th cent CE) recommends all kinds of fish, bird and animal flesh showing that meat eating was commonplace during that period. This and a great deal of other evidence shows that like Buddhists, Hindus were for centuries in two minds about vegetarianism. It was only after the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries that vegetarianism started to become widespread in India.	《妙聞集》(Sushruta Samhita, 公元一世紀至四世紀) 有關食物的篇章建議食用所有種類的魚、雀鳥和動物的肉，顯示吃肉在當時是常見的。這和其他大量的證據顯示，幾百年來印度教徒和佛教徒一樣對素食主義猶豫不決。只有在公元九、十和十一世紀後，素食主義才開始在印度普及起來。
BUDDHIST ARGUMENTS FOR VEGETARIANISM	›  佛教支持素食主義的論據  š
So the next question is this – could vegetarianism be implied from or be more consistent with the Buddha’s teachings in general?	因此，接下來的問題是 — 素食主義是否隱含於或更符合佛陀的一般教導？
The cardinal virtue of Buddhism is respect for life. This is embodied in the first Precept; not to harm living beings. I use the word ‘harm’ rather than ‘kill’ because on many occasions the Buddha mentioned not just abstaining from killing but also from cruelty and violence as pertaining to the Precept. For example, he said that someone is unrighteous (adhamma) in body if they “kill living beings, are murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence and without mercy”. (Majjhima Nikaya I, 286). It is clear that to kill is to break the first Precept but so is pulling a cat’s tail, flogging a horse or punching someone in the face, although these actions would be less grave than killing. So this is the first point – (1) Not just killing but also being cruel to living beings is against the first Precept.	尊重生命是佛教的根本道德價值，這點體現在五戒的不殺戒：不傷害生命。我使用了「傷害」而不是「殺害」，因為在很多的場合，佛陀提到關於不殺戒不僅要避免殺生，更要避免殘忍和暴力。例如他說假如人們「殺害眾生、性格凶狠、雙手沾血，熱衷打鬥和和沒有憐憫之心」，他們的身體便是不義的 (adhamma) (《中部》I, 286)。這清楚指出殺生就是違反不殺戒，同樣地，拉扯貓的尾巴、鞭笞馬匹或揮拳猛擊別人的臉也屬違反不殺戒的行為，雖然這些行為沒殺生般嚴重。因此，這是第一點 — (1) 不僅殺生，對眾生殘忍也是違反不殺戒。
That true adherence to the Precept goes beyond the individual’s direct physical involvement in harming or killing is clear from the Buddha’s instructions that someone who takes the Dhamma seriously should “not kill, encourage (samadapati) others to kill, approve of (samamuñño hoti) killing, or speak in praise of (vannam bhasati) killing” (Anguttara Nikaya V,306). Here the Buddha says very clearly that one should take into account even the indirect and distant implications of one’s actions. So this is the second point – (2) Trying to influence and encourage others not to harm or kill living beings and to be kind to them would be consistent with the first Precept.	真正遵從不殺戒不僅指個人不直接參與傷害或殺害，佛陀的教導明確指出，認真奉行佛法的人不應「殺生、鼓勵 (samadapati) 其他人殺生、贊成 (samamuñño hoti) 殺生、或讚揚 (vannam bhasati) 殺生」 (《增支部》V, 306)。佛陀在這處清楚說明，人甚至應考慮個人行為的間接或長遠影響。因此，這是第二點 — (2) 嘗試影響或鼓勵其他人不要傷害或殺害眾生，並對它們仁慈是符合不殺戒的。
As is often pointed out, the Precepts have two dimensions, to stop doing wrong (varitta) and to actually do good (caritta, Majjhima Nikaya III,46). In the case of the first Precept its varitta aspect would be avoiding killing and its caritta aspect would be doing what one could to nurture, protect and promote life. This is expressed in the Buddha’s full explanation of the Precept when he said, “Avoiding the taking of life, he dwells refraining from taking life. Putting aside the stick and sword he lives with care, kindness and compassion for living beings.” (Digha Nikaya I,4).	正如人們經常指出，五戒有兩方面，分別是停止做「應該遠離」(varitta) 的事和做「應該奉行」(caritta) 的事 (《中部》III, 46)。在不殺戒的情況，「應該遠離」的方面是避免殺生，而「應該奉行」的方面則是做能夠培育、保護和促進生命的事情。佛陀在詳細解釋不殺戒時這樣說：「避免殺害生命，他在生活時避免殺害生命。放下棒和刀，對眾生存有關心、仁慈和同情。」(《長部》I, 4)。
Again and again throughout his teachings the Buddha asked us to empathize with others, to feel for them. “Put yourself in the place of others and neither kill nor cause killing.” (Dhammapada 129. “Think, ‘As am I so are others. As are others so am I’ and neither kill nor cause killing.” (Sutta Nipata 705). This then is the third point – (3) Feeling and acting with kindness and compassion towards living beings would be an integral part of the first Precept.	佛陀再三在他的教導中要求我們代入別人的感受，並同情別人。「推己及人，不應殺害生命或導致殺生」(《法句經》129)。「想一想『正如我這樣，其他人也一樣。正如其他人這樣，我也一樣，不要殺生或導致殺生。』」(《經集》705)。因此，這是第三點 — (3) 友善和慈悲對待眾生是不殺戒的組成部份。
The Buddha’s teachings of respect for life can be clearly seen in several of his other teachings as well, Right Livelihood (samma ajiva) being but one example of this. He gave as examples of wrong means of livelihood the selling (and/or manufacturing?) of weapons, human beings, flesh (mamsa vanijja), alcohol and poisons (Anguttara Nikaya III, 208). Although the Buddha does not specifically mention it, it is easy to see that the reason why these livelihoods are unethical is because they involve at some level harming or killing living things. So this is the fourth point – (4) Not killing or harming living beings and being kind to them, is an integral part of the whole Dhamma, not just the first Precept.	佛陀尊重生命的教導也反映在他其他方面的教導，例如正命 (samma ajiva) 就是其中之一。他列舉一些不正當生計的例子，如販賣 (和 / 或製造？) 武器、人口、肉 (mamsa vanijja)、酒和毒藥 (《增支部》III, 208)。雖然佛陀沒有特別指出，但很容易看出為甚麼這些生計是不道德的，因為它們在某程度涉及傷害或殺害生命。因此，這是第四點 — (4) 不殺害或傷害眾生，並友善對待它們不僅是不殺戒，更是整套佛法的組成部份。
Another of the Buddha’s important teachings is that things do not come into existence randomly or through the will of a divine being but through a specific cause or web of causes. The most well-known example of this is where the Buddha describes the conditions that give rise to suffering (Digha Nikaya II, 55). However, there are other examples of dependent arising – the sequence of causes that give rise to enlightenment (Samyutta Nikaya I,29-32) and to social conflict (Sutta Nipata 862-77), etc.	佛陀另一項重要的教導，就是事物不會無緣無故的出現，也不是由一位天神的意志主宰，而是通過一個或多個特定的因素決定，最著名的例子是佛陀講述導致苦的成因 (《長部》II, 55)。然而，緣起法還有其他的例子 — 覺悟 (《相應部》 I, 29-32) 和社會衝突等出現的一連串因素 (《經集》 862-77)。
Using this same principle, we can clarify issues related to meat eating. Farmers do not raise cows or chickens for fun; they do it because they can make a living by selling them to the abattoirs. Likewise abattoirs don’t slaughter animals for fun, they do it to make a profit. They sell their meat to the processors, who sell it to the local supermarkets or butchers who in turn sell it to the consumers. Any reasonable person would agree that there is a direct and discernible causal link between the farmer or the abattoir and the consumer. It may be a distant link but it is there. Put in its simplest terms, abattoirs would not slaughter animals if people did not purchase meat. So this is the fifth point – (5) Eating meat is causally related to the harming or killing of living beings and thus is connected to some degree to breaking the first Precept.	我們可利用同樣的原則，闡明有關吃肉的事宜。農夫不是為了樂趣而飼養牛或雞，而是將其肉販賣給屠宰場，以賺取生計。屠夫同樣不是為了樂趣而屠宰動物，他們是為了利潤才這樣做。他們把肉賣給加工商，加工商再把肉賣給超級市場或肉店，而超市和肉店則把肉賣給消費者。任何明理的人都會同意，農夫或屠宰場和消費者之間存有直接和可辨別的因果關係。簡單來說，假如人們不購買肉類，屠宰場是不會屠宰動物的。因此，這是第五點 — (5) 吃肉導致傷害或殺害眾生，因此在某程度上是違反不殺戒。
Now let us consider the implications of these five points. Avoiding the complexities of the modern food processing and production industries for the time being, let us look at the simple version of it as it would have existed at the time of the Buddha and how it may still exist in some developing countries and perhaps even in some rural areas in the West. Let’s say that during the Buddha’s time some monks were invited to the house of a devout family for a meal and that they were served, amongst other things, meat.	現有讓我們考慮這五點的含意。我們暫時避開複雜的現代食物加工和生產工業，看看佛陀時期食物行業的簡單模式，這模式可能仍然在一些發展中國家，甚至西方的一些郊區出現。比方說在佛陀的時期，一些比丘獲邀到一個虔誠的信眾家中用餐，主人家以肉和其他食物來款待他們。
In accordance with the Buddha’s instructions in the Jivaka Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya II, 369) they ate the meat because they had not seen, heard or even suspected that their hosts had gone to someone and specifically asked them to slaughter an animal so that it could be fed to the monks. While eating their meal these monks would have had no bloody intentions, no murderous anger, no perverse fascination in seeing a creature have its throat cut. It is likely that they gave no thought whatsoever to where the meat came from or what was involved in procuring it. From the narrowest, most literal, strictly direct interpretation of it, the first Precept would not have been broken.	根據佛陀在《耆婆迦經》( Jivaka Sutta) (《中部》II, 369) 的教導，他們吃肉是因為他們看不到、聽不到，或甚至懷疑他們的主人家特別找人屠宰一隻動物，以給比丘們食用。在進餐的時候，這些比丘不會有血腥的意圖、兇殘的怒氣和反常的興致看一樣生物生被割破喉嚨。他們可能沒有想到任何有關這些肉的來源，或者是涉及的處理情況。從最狹義、字面和完全直接的理解，他們沒有違反不殺戒。
But this narrow perspective raises, at least in my mind, quite a few troubling questions:	然而，這個狹義的觀點至少在我心中會生起很多使人困擾的疑問。
(A) Firstly, as we have seen above, all the evidence shows the Buddha wanted the Precept to be interpreted in a broad manner and to have all its implications taken into account.	(一) 首先，正如我們以上所見，所有的證據均顯示佛陀希望從廣義的角度解釋不殺戒，並考慮它所有的含意。
(B) If the monks did not directly break their rules, maybe the lay people broke the first Precept in that they “encouraged others to kill, approved of killing or spoke in praise of killing” by purchasing the meat.	(二) 假如比丘們沒有直接違反戒律，在家人可能因購買肉類「鼓勵其他人殺生、贊成殺生、或讚揚殺生」而觸犯不殺戒。
(C) Maybe the monks should have given some thought to the implications and consequences of their actions. Did not the Buddha say, “Before, while doing and after having done a deed one should reflect, ‘Will this action lead to my own or others’ detriment?’” (Majjhima Nikaya I, 416).	(三) 或許比丘們應該考慮到他們行為的含意和後果。佛陀不是說：「在做一件事情之前、過程中和完成後，人應深思『這行為會為我或其他人帶來損傷嗎？』」(《中部》I, 416)。
(D) Although they may not have seen, heard or suspected that an animal was killed specifically for them, the monks must have been aware that it was killed for people who eat meat, and that in eating meat they would fall into this category.	(四) 雖然他們可能沒有看到、聽到或懷疑這牲畜是特別為他們屠宰，比丘們應察覺到牠是為吃肉的人屠宰，而吃肉時他們便屬於這類人。
(E) Even if their role in the death of a creature is only indirect and distant, genuine metta would urge one not to be involved in killing even to that extent. The Buddha said, “Just as a mother would protect her only child at the risk of her own life, like this one should develop an unbounded mind towards all beings and love to all the world. One should develop an unbounded mind, above, below and across, without obstruction…” (Sutta Nipata 149-50). He also said we should think like this, “I have love for footless creatures. I have love for the two-footed. I have love for the four-footed and I have love for many-footed creatures.” (Anguttara Nikaya II, 72). Saying “It wasn’t killed specifically for me and while I ate it my mind was filled with love” does not sound like the deep, kindly and pervasive love the Buddha asked us to develop. Rather, it sounds like a love restricted by rather narrow concerns.	(五) 即使他們只是間接或隱約地導致一個眾生死亡，真正的慈心 (metta) 會促使人不牽涉入殺生的行為，姑且是以上的情況。佛陀說：「正如一位母親會不顧自己的生命來保護唯一的孩子，人同樣應培育對眾生無邊的胸懷和對全世界的愛心。人應培育對十方世界，上、下、左右，不受阻擾的胸懷。」(《經集》 149-50)。他說我們應該這樣想：「我對無足的眾生有愛，我們兩足的眾生有愛，我們四足的眾生有愛，以及我們多足的眾生有愛。」(《增支部》II, 72)。「牠不是特別為我而屠宰的，進食時我的心中充滿了愛心」這樣的說話，並不像佛陀教我們培育的深切、善良和無邊的愛心。相反，這種愛心好像被非常狹隘的考慮所局限。
(F) In a very important discourse in the Anguttara Nikaya the Buddha praises those who care about others as much as they care about themselves. He says, “There are these four types of people found in the world. What four? He who is concerned with neither his own good nor the good of others, he who is concerned with the good of others but not his own, he who is concerned with his own good but not the good of others and he who is concerned with both his own good and the good of others - and of these four he who is concerned with his own good and the good of others is the chief, the best, the topmost, the highest, the supreme.” (A.II, 94). And a little further along the Buddha asks the question, “And how is one concerned with both his own good and the good of others?” In part of the answer to this question he answers, ‘He does not kill or encourage others to kill.” (A.II, 99). We saw before that there is a casual link between killing animals and purchasing their meat. Quite simply, slaughter houses would not slaughter animals and butchers and supermarkets would not stock meat if people did not buy it. Therefore, when we purchase meat or even eat it when it is served to us, we are encouraging killing, and thus not acting out of concern for others, as the Buddha asked us to do.	(六) 在《增支部》一篇非常重要的經文中，佛陀稱讚那些關懷別人如關懷自己般的人，他說：「世上有四類人。哪四類？那些不關心自己和別人利益的人、那些關心別人利益而沒有關心自己利益的人、那些關心自己利益而沒有關心別人利益的人，以及那些關心自己和別人利益的人 — 在這四類人當中，那些關心自己和別人利益的人是最重要、最優越、最好、最高尚和無可比擬。」(《增支部 II, 94》)。佛陀再進一步問：「一個人怎樣關心自己和別人的利益？」在部份答案中，他答道：「他不殺生或鼓勵別人殺生。」(《增支部》II, 99)。我們早前看到屠宰牲畜和購買肉類之間存有因果關係。簡單來說，假如人們不購買，屠宰場不會屠宰動物，屠夫和超級市場不會出售肉類。因此，當我們購買肉類，甚至進食肉類的時候，我們正在鼓勵殺生。我們所做的行為沒有關顧別人，這是違背佛陀的吩咐。
The conclusions of all this seems to me to be inescapable – that intelligent, mature Dhamma practice would require vegetarianism, or at least reducing one’s meat consumption.	就有關這點的結論，我看來不可避免的是 — 聰明和慎重的佛法修習應包括素食主義，或至少減低個人的食肉量。
MOTIVATION AND MEAT	›  動機和肉類  š
Being true to the Dhamma in general and the first Precept in particular, would seem to require being vegetarian. Not everyone sees it this way and most Theravadin and nearly all Vajrayanist Buddhists do not interpret it as being so. We will now examine the motives in practising the Precepts and see how this could be relevant to the meat eating-vegetarian issue.	通常遵從佛法，而特別是不殺戒似乎要吃素。然而，不是所有人都同意這觀點，大多數的上座部和幾乎所有的金剛乘佛教徒都不是這樣解釋不殺戒。我們會研究奉行五戒的動機，找出它與葷素的問題如何相關。
The Buddha gave three reasons why we should take ethical discipline seriously:	佛陀提出三個原因，解釋為甚麼我們要認真看待道德戒律：
(1) The first is to avoid the negative effects of bad actions – usually called ‘bad kamma’ but more correctly ‘bad vipaka’. This is mentioned by the Buddha many times and is the only one of the three that is ever mentioned in traditional Theravada teaching, giving rise, with some justification, to the criticism that Theravada is selfish.	(1) 首先是避免惡行的影響 — 通常稱為「惡業」，但正確一點應是「惡果報」(Vipāka)。佛陀曾多次提及這點。它是三個提到的上座部傳統教義當中，唯一有些理由導致上座部佛教被批評為自私的教義。
(2) The second reason is because following the Precepts lays the foundation for positive qualities like restraint, awareness, mental clarity, the happiness of having a clear conscience (anavajja sukha, Digha Nikaya I,70), etc. and which in time lead to the ultimate good, Nirvana.	(2) 第二個原因是五戒為良好的品德奠下基礎，例如克己、覺悟力、頭腦清晰和戒除惡業的快樂  (anavajja sukha, 《長部》I, 70) 等，它日後能帶來終極的快樂 — 涅槃。
(3) And the third reason is love and concern for others. I avoid harming or killing others because I care about their welfare. I don’t steal from them because I respect their property. I don’t sexually exploit or misuse them because I respect their dignity and their right to choose. I do not lie to them because I respect their right to receive and know the truth. And I do not intoxicate myself with alcohol because when I encounter them I want meaningful communication between us. In short, fidelity to the Precepts is as much as anything an act of love, not just to the person I am directly relating to but the wider community.	(3) 第三個原因是對別人的愛心和關懷。我避免傷害或殺害別人，因為我關心他們的福祉。我不盜取別人的東西，因為我尊重他們的財產。我不對別人進行性剝削或虐待，因為我尊重他們的尊嚴和選擇的權利。我不對他們撒謊，因為我尊重他們獲取和知道事實的權利。我不會使自己喝醉，因為我希望在與他們接觸時彼此能進行有意義的溝通。簡單而言，忠於五戒就好像愛這種行為，不僅要對與我直接有關的人，還包括廣大的人們。
The Buddha highlighted this point when he said that right actions are a type of consideration or thoughtfulness (saraniya) to others that lead to “love, respect, kind regard, harmony and peace”. (piyakarana garukarana sangahaya avivadaya samaggiya…, Anguttara Nikaya III,289). Just so that there can be no uncertainty about what the Buddha said here, piya = love; karana = making, causing; garu = respect, esteem; sangaha, sympathy, togetherness, mutuality; avivada = non-dispute, harmony; samagga = peace, concord.	佛陀對此加以強調，指出正當的行為是一種對別人的關懷和體貼 (saraniya)，能帶來「愛心、尊重、親切的關心、和諧和安樂」(piyakarana garukarana sangahaya avivadaya samaggiya… 《增支部》III, 289)。毫無疑問，佛陀在這裏的說話可譯成piya = 愛；karana = 造成、導致；garu = 尊重、尊敬；sangaha = 同情心、團結、親密無間；avivada = 沒有爭議、和諧；samagga = 安樂、和睦。
Those who do not accept that eating meat creates negative kamma should have no problems about eating meat. If they feel that they can develop good qualities like patience, determination, mindfulness, generosity, courage and honesty while, again they should have no concern about doing so.	那些不相信吃肉造成惡業的人不會感到吃肉有問題。假如他們認為在吃肉時能培育良好的品質，例如耐性、決心、正念、慷慨、勇氣和誠實，他們便不用關注吃肉的做法。
But, anyone who genuinely feels that they should develop an expansive love and kindness towards others - all others (and the Buddha said we should), would have to feel uneasy about being connected in any way to the animals being killed. The knowledge that they are part of a chain that leads to some very nasty things happening (and I do not want to regale you with the horrors of the abattoirs) must make them feel uneasy. It would have to motivate a thoughtful Buddhist to try to do at least something about this cruelty; and the least one could do is not be a link in the chain, by abstaining from eating meat.	然而，任何人真誠地認為要培育對別人 — 所有人 (佛陀說我們應這樣做) 無邊的愛心和仁慈，他們會對任何涉及的殺生感到不安。當他們知道參與了導致非常痛苦的事情 (我不希望給你看到屠宰場的恐怖情景)，定會使他們感到不安。這會促使一個深思的佛教徒，至少嘗試對這種殘忍做點事情；他最少可通過戒除吃肉，從而不牽涉入殺生的環節中。
THE LAST LINK IN THE CHAIN	›  殺生鏈的最後一環  š
Here is a quandary for you. We saw before that a causal link can be discerned between eating meat and animals being killed. Nowadays there are many persons between these two points - the slaughter man, the meat packers, the distributors, etc. but in either its simplest or its most complex form the three key participants are (1) the slaughter man, the one who actually draws the knife across the animals throat; (2) the middleman who sells the meat and (3) the customer, the person who buys and consumes the meat. The existence of these three depends on each other.	這處有個難題給你。我們看到吃肉和屠宰動物之間存有因果關係。現在很多人身處屠夫、肉類包裝工人和經銷商等之間 ，但無論在最簡單或最複雜的模式中，三個主要的參與者都是 (1) 真正用刀割破動物喉嚨的屠夫；(2) 售賣肉類的中間人；(3) 購買和消耗肉類的顧客。這三類人的出現是互相取決於對方的。
Now it is obvious why the Buddha mentioned slaughter men, hunters, deer stalkers, fishermen, executioners, etc. as those who do not practice Dhamma (Samyutta Nikaya II, 256). It is also clear enough why he described people who sell meat as failing to practice Right Livelihood (Anguttara Nikaya III, 208). But interestingly, nowhere does the Buddha complete what seems to be the logical sequence by mentioning the third and last link in the chain, the buyer/eater. Why is this? If killing an animal is wrong and selling its meat is wrong, why isn’t buying meat wrong too?	現在明顯可見為甚麼佛陀提到屠夫、獵人、狩鹿者、漁民和劊子手等不是修習佛法的人 (《相應部》II, 256)。這亦清楚為甚麼他形容售賣肉類的人未能修習正命 (《增支部》III, 208)。但有趣的是，佛陀沒有在任何地方提到鏈結的第三和最後一環 — 即買家 / 進食的人，以完成整個鏈結的合理順序。為甚麼這樣？假如屠宰動物和售賣肉類是錯誤的，為甚麼購買肉類則不是呢？
Here is another quandary for you. The Buddha said that his lay disciples should avoid making their living by five trades (vanijja); these being trade in weapons (sattha), in human beings (satta), in meat (mamsa), in alcohol (majja) and in poisons (visa, Anguttara Nikaya III.208). Although this seems clear enough, looking at it a little more carefully might reveal something relevant to the question of meat eating. Why are these trades wrong, unwholesome or kammicly negative? Let’s have a look at arms dealing. While the blacksmith is forging steel to make a sword he is unlikely to have any evil intentions, he is probably preoccupied with forging his steel and he certainly does not kill anyone. The arms dealer who sells the sword does not kill anyone either. He’s just selling a commodity.	這處有另一個難題給你。佛陀說在家弟子應避免以五種貿易 (vaṇijjā) 為生；販賣武器 (sattha) 、人口 (satta) 、肉類 (mamsa)、酒精 (majja) 和毒藥 (visa,《增支部》III, 208) 。雖然這似乎已經很清楚，但細心一點觀察可揭示一些與吃肉有關的問題。為甚麼這些貿易是不對、不善和存有惡業的？讓我們看看武器交易。當鐵匠鍛造鋼材來製造一把劍時，他未必存有任何惡念，他可能只是專注在鍛造鋼材，並肯定沒有殺害任何人。售賣劍的武器商人同樣沒有殺害任何人，他只是在售量一樣貨物。
So why did the Buddha consider arms trading to be a wrong means of livelihood? Obviously because weapons, like poisons make killing possible. Their main purpose, indeed their only purpose, is to kill. The arms dealer is centrally situated in a chain that could lead to someone being killed, even though he himself does not kill anyone. A, arms manufacturer - B, arms dealer = C, purchaser and killing. Now if we reverse this sequence and apply it to meat eating then surely the same conclusion would have to be drawn; C - eating meat - B, meat seller = A, slaughter man and killing. Why in both these cases has the Buddha left out one or two of the key links in these chains?	因此，為甚麼佛陀認為販賣武器是一種不正當的生計？這很明顯是由於武器，正如毒藥一樣可用來殺生。武器的主要，亦肯定是它們唯一的用途就是用來殺生。雖然武器商人沒有殺害任何人，但他必定處身人們被殺的環節當中。甲，武器製造商 — 乙，武器商 = 丙，買家和殺生。現在假如我們把這順序倒轉，並應用在吃肉方面，肯定能得出相同的結論；丙 — 吃肉 — 乙，肉販 = 甲，屠夫和殺生。為甚麼在這些情況佛陀遺漏當中一兩個重要的環節？
THE PROBLEMATIC VEGETARIAN	›  有問題的素食者  š
One of the reasons why I only recently became vegetarian (and even now not 100% so) is the hypocrisy and inconsistency I observed amongst quiet a few vegetarians. The awareness of this and the resistance it caused prevented me from seeing intelligent, thoughtful vegetarianism’s consistency with the Dhamma. Arthur Koestler once described something as being “as dull as dining with a vegetarian” and I know exactly what he meant. Listening to vegetarians talk often gives one the impression that they are more concerned about mastication, digestive juices and bowel movements than they are about the lives of innocent animals.	我最近才吃素 (雖然現在仍非完全) 的其中一個原因，是我觀察到很多素食者的虛偽和言行不一。這樣的意識和因而生起的抗拒，使我不能看到理性和深思熟慮的素食主義是符合佛法的。庫斯勒 (Arthur Koestler) 曾以「沉悶如與素食者進餐」來形容某些東西，我就恰好明白他的意思。聽素食者的說話常給人一個印象，就是他們對咀嚼、消化液和排便的關注更甚於無辜動物的生命。
In 1996 when I visited Hong Kong and Taiwan I stayed in many Chinese Mahayana monasteries. I was always welcomed with the greatest courtesy but inevitably the subject of diet would come up. As is fairly typical of vegetarians, many of my hosts were fixated on food and about the only thing they knew about Theravada was that Theravadins will eat meat. When I was asked, and sooner or later I always was, “Are you vegetarian?” I would truthfully reply, “No I am not. But while here (Hong Kong or Taiwan) I am adhering to your discipline.” This answer was often followed by a long, usually polite but sometimes reproachful, lecture about how uncompassionate it is to eat meat.	1986年，我在香港和台灣旅行時入住很多中國大乘佛教的寺院。我常受到很熱誠的接待，但飲食的問題就無可避免地出現。很多主人家是相當典型素食者，他們對食物格外注意，而他們對上座部唯一的認識，就是上座部的僧侶會吃肉。當我遲早被問到「你是素食者嗎」時，我會如實地回答：「我不是。但當我在這裏 (香港或台灣)，我會跟從你們的戒律。」這個答案往往來冗長，通常是禮貌性，但有時帶有責備的教誨，指出吃肉是如何的不慈悲。
While fingers were being wagged in my face I couldn’t help noticing that nearly all my hosts were dressed in silk robes and I happen to know that approximately 50 silk worms have to be boiled alive to make one square inch of silk. I also noticed that all the banners, hangings, etc. in the monasteries’ shrines were likewise of silk. One monk delivered his lecture to me while sitting on what could only be described as a throne, flanked by two of the biggest elephant tusks I have ever seen, each intricately and exquisitely carved with images of Kuan Yin and other bodhisattvas. Both these tusks were still creamy-white indicating that their original owner had only been slaughtered (probably illegally) a few years ago.	當我被迎面指責時，我不禁發現差不多所有的主人家都穿着絲綢袈裟，而我碰巧認識到紡織一平方英寸的絲綢要活煮大約五十隻蠶蟲。我也發現寺院中所有的橫幅和簾子都是如絲般發亮。一位比丘在訓斥我的時候，坐在如王座般的椅上，兩側擺放着我從未看過那麼大的象牙，每條都有複雜精緻的觀音和其他菩薩的雕刻。這些象牙仍是奶白色的，顯示它們取自數年前被屠宰 (可能是非法的) 的大象。
Another thing I noticed was the furniture. You may know that running down the eastern side of Taiwan is a chain of very high mountains and that these are covered with thick forest made up of the most magnificent ancient trees. What you probably don’t know is that it has become the fashion in Taiwan to have furniture made out of these trees. A table may consist of a huge cross-section of a trunk a foot or more thick and the five or six chairs around it can be made out of cross-sections of smaller trunks or large branches. The attraction of this type of furniture is the often gnarled outer surface of the trunk slabs and the age-rings within them. I hardly need mention that this furniture is extremely expensive but as Taiwanese temples tend to be very, very, opulent, they usually have at least one or two sets of this furniture.	家具是另一樣我注意到的東西。你可能知道台灣東邊是聳高的山脈，它們被古樹參天的森林覆蓋。但你可能不知道的是，在台灣用這些樹木用來製造家具已經成為時尚。一張桌子可能由一英尺或更厚的巨大樹幹截面製成，而周圍五六張椅子則以較細的樹幹截面或大樹枝製造。這種家具的吸引力通常來自樹幹板面外的節瘤，以及當中的年輪。我幾乎不用提這些家具是非常昂貴的，但由於台灣的寺院大多是極其富裕的，它們通常至少擁有一兩套這樣的家具。
One incredibly lavish monastery I visited had five such sets in the visitor’s hall and one in the vestibule of each monk’s room. Another must-have I noticed in many temples is huge, twisted, gnarled tree trunks, sometimes including the roots, with Bodhidhamma, Kuan Yin or lohans carved into them. None of the gung-ho vegetarian monks I met seemed particularly concerned about their role in decimating Taiwan’s ancient forests by having these beautiful but completely unnecessary and destructive luxuries. It seemed to be that eating meat was unforgivable but stripping the forests of their trees and having silk worms boiled alive was okay.	我曾到過一座奢華得令人難以置信的寺院，客廳擺放着五套這種家具，而各比丘房間的前廳亦各有一套。我在很多寺廟發現另一樣必備的東西，就是雕刻上菩提達摩、觀音或羅漢的巨大扭曲的粗糙樹幹，有時候還包括樹根。這些美麗但完全沒有必要和破壞性的奢侈品，大規模地毀滅台灣的古森林，我從沒有遇上一個熱心的素食者特別關注自己在當中的角色。這似乎是吃肉是不可原諒，但砍伐森林的樹木和活煮蠶蟲卻是可以的。
But by far the worst thing I saw in Taiwan was the attitude towards pets. The Taiwanese are busy absorbing Western middle-class values and tastes but like all new-comers they still haven't got it quite right. So, for example, everyone wants a fluffy adorable puppy, kitten or bunny but they are not yet schooled in what to do with them once they get them. Three months later or when the animal has grown up and is no longer cute, they lose interest in it. This is particularly true of dogs who are often confined in tiny cages. Some of these caged dogs are put at front gates of peoples’ homes so they will bark when anyone comes. I recall looking down several streets and seeing one of these tiny cages at nearly every gate and hearing their occupants howling with boredom, barking incessantly and whimpering for attention.	但以上不是我在台灣看過最惡劣的事情，而是人們對待寵物的態度。台灣人忙碌吸收西方中產階級的價值觀和品味，然而，正如所有的初學者，他們仍未能正確掌握所學的東西。因此，例如每個人都想擁有一隻毛髮蓬鬆和可愛的小狗、小貓或兔子，但他們未有學習怎樣照顧牠們。三個月後或當寵物長大不再可愛時，他們便會對寵物失去興趣。這情況在狗隻身上尤為常見，牠們常被關入細小的籠中。一些關在籠子的狗隻被放在房屋的前門，當任何人走近牠們便會吠叫。我記起看過幾條街道，幾乎每道大門都放着這樣細小的籠子，聽到籠中的狗隻無聊地咆哮，不停地吠叫和悲嗥，以喚起人們的注意。
As in Taiwanese homes, so too in Taiwanese monasteries. In one monastery I saw two adult Alsatians locked in a cage barely big enough for them to turn around and in the three weeks I was at this place they were never let out once. Worse still, the abbot of this temple, a rather formidable man, was well-known as an outspoken and crusading advocate of, you guessed it, strict vegetarianism - no milk, no eggs, no animal products at all. Both his Alsatians suffered from severe rickets because being a vegan himself the abbot had imposed his fetish on his dogs when they were puppies by refusing to feed them milk or meat and thus causing their legs to be all bowed and bent. Having said all this I should point out that generally I was impressed by the vigor of Buddhism in Taiwan and that the country has an active animal rights movement. My problem was only with the way some Taiwanese Buddhist practiced vegetarianism.	台灣寺院和家庭的情況一樣。在一座寺院內，我看到兩頭成年的阿爾薩斯牧羊犬被在鎖籠子，籠子的面積只夠牠們轉身。我在寺院的三個星期，牠們都未曾被放出籠子。更可怕的是，寺院的住持是位頗令人欽佩的人，你可估計到他是一位坦率和義正辭嚴提倡嚴格素食主義的人 — 全戒除牛奶、雞蛋和動物產品。他亦因此而聞名。然而，他的阿爾薩斯牧羊犬卻患上嚴重的佝僂病。由於住持是一位純素食主義者，他把自己的對素食主義的固執強加於狗隻的身上，拒絕給牠們餵飼牛奶或肉類，結果導致牠們的腳彎曲。說了這麼多我會指出，普遍來說我對台灣佛教的強大，以及當地積極的動物權益運動留下深刻的印象。我的問題只是針對一些台灣佛教徒奉行素食主義的方式。
I’d have to say that some other vegetarians I have encountered suffer from a similar lopsidedness - a near obsession with meat and its consumption and virtually no interest in any other kind of cruelty to animals or a carelessness towards the environment in which they live. For many people, just not eating meat is enough - and from a Buddhist perspective it is not enough. You could be a scrupulous vegetarian and at the same time be thoughtless, unkind and uncaring about other beings. Vegetarianism is good, but if it does not go hand in hand with a compassionate regard for all human and animal life it’s just another food fad. So if you are going to be a vegetarian be an intelligent one.	其他一些我曾接觸過的素食者也有類似的偏頗 — 對肉類和其食用近乎癡迷，但卻對動物的任何殘酷行為簡直漠不關心，又或是對牠們的生活環境粗心大意。對很多人來說，不吃肉已經足夠 — 從佛教的角度這是不夠的。你可能是個謹慎的素食者，卻同時輕率、刻薄和冷漠地對其他眾生。素食主義是好的，但如果不配合慈悲對待人和動物的生命，這不過是一種食物一時的風尚。因此，假如你要做一個素食者，就要做個理性的。
MEAT IN THE BUDDHIST TRADITION	›  佛教傳統中的肉類  š
Now I would like to examine different Buddhist attitudes to vegetarianism. The simplistic picture - Hinayanists (Theravadins) eat meat and Mahayanists don’t - does not reflect reality. Although the Theravada interpretation of the Pali Tipitaka does not require vegetarianism, many Sri Lankans do not eat meat. Many will eat fish but not meat and many others will shun beef while eating other types of meat. Vegetarianism is uncommon in Burma, Thailand, Laos and Cambodia.	現在我會研究佛教對素食主義的不同態度。簡單化的描述 — 小乘 (上座部) 佛教的僧侶是吃肉的，而大乘佛教的僧侶則不吃肉 — 並不能反映現實。雖然上座部對巴利文《大藏經》的闡述沒有要奉行素食主義，但很多的斯里蘭卡人都不吃肉。很多人會吃魚，但不吃肉類。很多其他人避免吃牛肉，但吃其他類別的肉的。素食主義在緬甸、泰國、老撾和柬埔寨並不普遍。
Some Mahayana texts advocate vegetarianism, although only a few, and all Chinese and Korean monks and nuns and the more devout lay people are usually strictly vegetarian. Many other Chinese and Korean lay people will be vegetarian at least on certain holy days. Vajrayana texts do not advocate abstaining from meat, indeed some specifically endorse and even encourage it. Vegetarianism is rare in Bhutan, Tibet, Mongolia and also in Japan.	部份大乘佛經提倡素食主義，雖然數量很少。所有中國和韓國的比丘和比丘尼，以及較虔誠的信眾大多是嚴格的素食者。很多其他中國和韓國的信眾至少在某些宗教節日奉行素食。金剛乘的佛經沒有提倡戒除肉類，事實上一些更明確贊同，甚至鼓勵吃肉。素食主義在不丹、西藏、蒙古和日本都是罕見的。
There are three Theravadin justifications for eating meat. We have already discussed the “I didn't see, hear or suspect that the animal was killed for me so I’m off the hook” argument. The next common justification for meat eating, that it does not create negative kamma, is indicative of Theravada’s tendency towards narrowness and self-absorption. I do not mean this comment to be sarcastic. I am just pointing out a fact. In a survey I did of 16 Theravadin books and articles on vegetarianism or sections from Theravadin books discussing the subject, this was the only argument used - that the person who eats the meat, does not create any bad kamma for himself or herself.	上座部有三個支持吃肉的理據。我們已經討論了「我看不到、聽不到，或甚至懷疑動物是為我而屠宰，因此我不會有麻煩」的論據。第二個支持吃肉的理據是吃肉不會產生惡業，這點顯示上座部佛教傾於狹隘和自我陶醉。我的評論是無意嘲笑的，而只是指出事實。我研究了十六本上座部有關素食的書籍和文章，或上座部書籍討論有關議題的章節，這是唯一使用的理據 — 就是吃肉的人不會對自己造成惡業。
In fact, I have yet to find any Theravadin discourse on the vegetarian/meat eating debate which includes some discussion the effect that eating meat has on other beings, i.e. the animals being killed. The archetypal Theravadin is like the man who walks past someone whose life is in mortal danger without helping them. When asked why he didn’t help he says, “There is no penalty for not helping. So why should I?” In Theravada loving concern for others as described in the Metta Sutta and elsewhere, is too often left out of the equation. Perhaps too much of the focus is on the self.
The other common justification for meat eating goes like this. “Monks get what they need by begging and should eat whatever they are given without picking and choosing.” Like quite a few other claims of Theravada, this explanation of the theory bears little resemblance to the reality. The reality is, and I’m probably revealing an insider’s secret here, that monks nearly always get exactly what they want. When the average monk wants something he simply buys it or when one of his supporters asks him what he needs he replies, “I need A, B and C.” The more scrupulous monks will resort to hints, a slightly changed expression or insinuations. Either way, lay people are more than happy to provide monks with all their needs and most of their wants as well, and if a monk wanted a vegetarian diet he would get it without any difficulty at all.	事實上，我還要找其他上座部關於素食和葷食辯論的論述，包括一些有關吃肉對其他眾生的影響，例如被屠宰的動物。典型的上座部教徒就好像遇到一個生命受到嚴重威脅的人，但他沒有伸出援手。當被問到為甚麼袖手旁觀時，他說：「不幫助是不會受罰的，因此，為甚麼我要這樣做？」上座部《慈心經》(Metta Sutta) 和其他地方對別人關愛的描述常被忽視，這可能是太多的注意集中在個人方面。
Another weakness in this argument is that it only relates to a tiny percentage of all Theravadins, i.e. monks. All too often Theravada discourse focuses on issues that are relevant to or are the concern of monks, leaving out the other 98% of people. What about lay people to whom neither this argument or the “I didn't see, hear or suspect” argument would be relevant? They don’t go begging and they are free to make choices about what they eat! Why can’t they be encouraged to be vegetarian? And if they were vegetarian they would offer vegetarian food to monks.	另一個支持吃肉的常見理據就是，「比丘從化食中獲得東西，他們應該吃人們給予的食物，不應該挑三揀四。」與其他上座部所宣稱的一樣，這個理論的解釋與現實不太相符。我這裏可能透露了內幕秘密，其實比丘們大多能獲取他們想要的東西。當一般的比丘想要某些東西時，他可簡單地自行購買。又或當一位供養者詢問他的所需時，他可回答：「我需要A、B和C。」較謹慎的比丘會採取提示、稍為婉轉的方式，又或是暗示來回答。不管怎樣，在家人都很樂意為比丘提供所需，以及他們大多的想要的東西。假如一個比丘想要素食，他沒有任何困難便可得到。
Recently a slightly more sophisticated argument has been used to justify meat eating in Theravada. The argument goes like this. “Whether or not you eat meat, animals will be killed, to clear forests for agricultural land, by spraying crops to protect them from insect pests, by damming rivers to generate electricity and by many other ways. Even when we drive our car insects are squashed against the windscreen and larger animals are killed as we drive past.” (Dhammavuddha Thera, The Buddha’s View on Meat Eating, 2008). All this is undoubtedly true.	這個論據的另一弱點是，它只與一小部份的上座部教徒，例如比丘有關。很多時上座部的論述集中在與比丘相關的議題，因而忽略了其他百份之九十八的人。哪麼在家人怎樣？他們與這個論據或「我看不到、聽不到，或甚至懷疑動物是為我而屠宰，因此我不會有麻煩」的論據沒有相干。他們不用化食，可自由選擇吃的食物！為甚麼不鼓勵他們做素食者？假如他們是素食者，他們便會提供素食給比丘。
However, such an argument embodies a narrow, disengaged and one-dimensional perspective rather typical of much Theravadin thinking. It is equivalent to saying, “People are going to die of cancer anyway so why bother discouraging smoking? People are going to be killed in accidents no matter what you do so why bother enacting safety regulations? Even though we have serious punishments for murder people still kill each other so what’s the point in criminalizing murder?”	最近有一個較為精密的論據用來支持上座部吃肉的傳統。這個論據是這樣的：「無論你吃肉與否，動物亦會被殺死，例如在清除森林作農地、噴灑農藥來防止害蟲、在河流築壩生產電力和很多其他方面等時候。甚至當我們駕駛汽車時，昆蟲會被擠壓在擋風玻璃，較大的動物則會被行駛的汽車撞死。」 (Dhammavuddha Thera, The Buddha’s View on Meat Eating, 2008年)。以上所說的都是毋庸置疑的。
Even though a civilized humane society knows there will always be deaths from cancer, accidents, murder and other causes, it still feels it worthwhile to try to minimize such deaths. Can it regulate or protect its citizens from every possible life-threatening situation? No! But where it is feasible it does so and it does save many lives as a result. Will being vegetarian stop animals being killed? No! But it is one step I can take, a very simple step, a step that costs me nothing, which will diminish at least some of the great suffering in the world and my complicity in it.	然而，這個論據表現了一種狹隘、抽離和片面的觀點，是頗為典型的上座部思想。這等於說：「反正人們會死於癌症，何必麻煩勸阻別人不吸煙？無誰你做甚麼事情人們都會在意外中死亡，何必麻煩制訂安全規則？即使我們對謀殺罪有嚴厲的懲罰，人們還是會互相殺害，有甚麼理由要把謀殺定為犯法的行為？」儘管文明仁愛的社會知道癌症、意外、謀殺和其他原因會導致死亡，它仍然認為嘗試減少這些死亡是值得的。社會能否監察或保護市民，避免每個可能危及生命的情況？不能夠！然而，它能在可行的地方作出行動，而這樣也確實挽救了很多生命。吃素能停止動物被屠宰嗎？不能夠！但這是我能踏出的簡單一步，不會花費我任何金錢，它至少能減低世界上巨大的痛苦，以及我在當中的責任。
Vajrayana (I will use the term Tibetan Buddhism from now on) is another matter. Most Tibetan Buddhists - living Buddhas, manifestations of Manjusri, rimpoches and tulkus included, don’t just eat meat, they consume it with gusto. When I read works on Tibetan Buddhism I find the subject of compassion is nearly always mentioned somewhere; and so it should be. As if to emphasize its central position in Tibetan Buddhism, it is usually referred to not just as compassion but as ‘great compassion’ (maha karuna).	金剛乘 (我由現在起使用「藏傳佛教」這名詞) 是另一樣事情。大多數的藏傳佛教徒 — 包括活佛、文殊師利的化身、仁波切和祖古不僅吃肉，還會吃得津津有味。當我閱讀有關藏傳佛教的著作時，我發現某些地方常提到慈悲的議題，而這樣做是應該的。似乎為了強調慈悲在藏傳佛教的中心地位，它通常不僅被稱為慈悲，而是「大悲心」(maha karuna)。
Numerous ancient and modern commentaries on the Bodhicariyavatara linger with tear jerking emotion on Santideva’s aspiration to willingly give his life for others. The practice of “exchanging self with others” (paratma parivartana) forms an important element within the practices of all schools of Tibetan Buddhism. I won’t labor the point because I think you can see where this is going. Is there not a serious contradiction between the Tibetan Buddhist strong and persistent emphasis on compassion and the fact that they eat meat? I think there is. So Tibetan Buddhism may not be narrow and self-centered but it could be argued that it is hypocritical and inconsistent concerning meat eating.	很多古今對《入菩薩行論》(Bodhicariyavatara) 的註釋，都是感情真摯地環繞寂天 (Santideva) 捨己為人的抱負。「自他交換」(paratma parivartana) 是所有藏傳佛教派別的重要元素。我不用探討這一點，因為我想你能看到這是怎麼回事。在藏傳佛教徒一貫強烈着重的慈悲和他們吃肉的事實之間，不是存有一個嚴重的矛盾嗎？我想是有的。或許藏傳佛教不是狹隘和自我中心，但可以證明它在吃肉方面是虛偽和前後矛盾的。
Some years ago when I was staying at Bodhi Gaya, the Dalai Lama was due in a few days to give some talks and the town was filling up with Tibetans. A friend and I decided to get out of town for the duration to avoid the crowds. As we drove to Gaya we found the road blocked by a herd of a hundred or so buffaloes and goats being driven forward by several cowherds. Our driver hooted the horn, inched the car through the animals and when we got to one of the cowherds asked him where he was going with such a large number of animals. “To Bodh Gaya. They’re for the lamas,” he replied. One would think that the least they could do is abstain from meat while they are at such a sacred place receiving teachings that almost certainly included calls to have maha karuna for all beings. But no. The rimpoches must have their meat.	幾年前我住在菩提伽耶的時候，適逢達賴喇嘛將會到來演講，整個市鎮擠滿了西藏人。我們和朋友決定在這期間離開，以避開人群。當我們駕車到伽耶途中，道路被幾個牧人驅趕的上百隻水牛和山羊阻塞着。我們的司機鳴着汽車的喇叭，汽車從牲畜群中駛過。我們問其中一個牧人帶這麼多的牲畜往哪處。「到菩提伽耶，牠們都是給喇嘛的吃的。」他答道。人會想到在這神聖的地方接受教導，當中肯定包括呼籲對所有眾生持有大悲心，他們至少應該戒除吃肉。但事實並不如此，這些仁波切一定要吃肉。
Related to all this is a rather shameful hypocrisy that prevailed and indeed continues to linger in nearly all Buddhist lands, whether they be Theravada, Mahayana or Tibetan Buddhist. Butchers, leather-workers, hunters, fishermen and fowlers in Buddhist countries provided the community with various animal products including meat but were marginalized for doing so. Coastal-living fishermen in Sri Lanka were shunned by the majority and no monks ministered to their spiritual needs because they killed fish. Consequently these people were easily converted to Catholicism when the Portuguese arrived.	與此相關的是一個頗為令人可恥的虛偽行為，而它仍然在差不多所有的佛教地方出現，無論是上座部、大乘或藏傳佛教。佛教國家的屠夫、皮革工人、獵人、漁民和捕獵野禽的人為社會提供各樣來自動物的產品，包括肉類，但他們卻因此受到人們的排擠。在斯里蘭卡岸邊生活的漁民由於捕殺魚類，因而被大眾避開，也沒有比丘照顧他們的精神需要。結果，當葡萄牙人來到的時候，他很容易被改變信仰，皈依天主教。
Interestingly, soldiers, whose job was to kill humans, were never similarly ostracized. In Japan the burakumin were and still are treated as outcastes because they did slaughtering and other ‘unclean’ tasks. In Tibet a group of people called the ragyapa were likewise despised because they made their living as slaughter men and tanners and were relegated to the outskirts of towns where they lived in the most miserable conditions. I will stand being corrected here but I think ragyapa were not even allowed into temples. Even coracle men were likewise despised because their crafts were made of leather. Heinrich Harrer has some interesting comments on how the monastic hierarchy made these peoples’ lives difficult while benefiting from their services.	有趣的是士兵的工作是殺人，但他們從沒有同樣被排擠。在日本，部落民 (burakumin) 仍被視為賤民，因為他們從事屠宰和其他「不潔」的工作。在西藏有些人被稱為熱甲巴 (ragyapa)，他們也受人鄙視，因為他們以屠夫和製革工人的職業為生。他們被驅逐到市郊，居住在非常惡劣的環境。恕我直言，雖然別人不這樣認為，但我想熱甲巴甚至不准進入廟宇。製造小圓舟的工匠亦遭人鄙視，因為他們的製成品是以皮革製造的。就寺院階級如何使這些人的生活困苦，但同時從他們的服務中獲益方面，海因里希‧哈勒（Heinrich Harrer）對此作了有趣的評論。
Pious Burmese would never slaughter a large animal (cow or buffalo) but they think that killing small ones like fish, ducks or chickens is okay or that it only creates a manageable amount of negative vipaka. But they are happy to let the Muslims provide them with their beef and mutton and despise them for doing so. So it would seem that meat eating is an issue that all Buddhist schools are yet to intelligently, consistently and compassionately come to terms with.	虔誠的緬甸人從不會屠宰體型大的動物 (母牛或水牛)，但他們認為屠宰體型小的，例如魚、鴨或雞等則沒有問題，這樣產生的惡果能在控制範圍之內。他們樂意讓穆斯林為自己提供牛肉和羊肉，但同時又因此而蔑視他們。就吃肉這個議題，似乎所有佛教派別未能都理性、一致和慈悲為懷地面對。
HOW I BECAME A VEGETARIAN	›  如何成為素食者  š
It was a Saturday morning and I was in Phnom Penh walking through the central market looking for some fruit to buy. I unknowingly soon found myself in the meat section. Even a blind person would know they were there. The stench was overpowering. Chickens with wet feathers and blank expressions sat in tiny cages, probably oblivious to what was soon to happen to them. The goats certainly knew. You could see it in their eyes. But there was nothing they could do and they just stood there, heads bowed, resigned to their fate. Meat hung on hooks, knives and cleavers lay on chopping blocks and everything was covered with blood and flies. For a nonhuman animal it would be a vision of hell.	這是個星期日的早上，我走進金邊的中央市場選購水果，不知不覺地發現自己走到了售賣肉類的地方。這裏的惡臭讓人無法忍受，即使是一個失明的人也知道他們所處的地方。雞隻的羽毛濕透，呆滯地蹲在小籠內，可能未察覺到自己快將發的事情。山羊肯定知道是甚麼回事，你可從牠們的眼中看到。然而，牠們沒有甚麼可以做，只能站在那裏，低着頭接受命運的安排。肉掛在鉤上，刀子和切肉刀則放在砧板上，所有的東西都佈滿了血和蒼蠅。對於人類之外的動物而言，這就是地獄的情景。
I walked on hoping to get to the fruit and vegetable section and a few minutes later found my way blocked by a large round basket that was placed right in the middle of the aisle. The basket was full of dead and plucked chickens and a man was crouching beside the basket doing something to the chickens with a hose while a young boy stood on the other side doing something with what looked like a gas cylinder. I stood there for a moment trying to take in the scene before me.	我繼續走希望到售賣水果和蔬菜的地方。幾分鐘後，我發覺前路給一個圓形的大籃子阻擋着，它剛好擺放在通道的中間。籃子裝滿拔掉毛的死雞，一個男人蹲在旁邊，用軟管對着雞隻，而一個男童則站在另一邊，好像拿着一個氣瓶在工作。我站在那裏一會，想看看眼前的景象。
Then it dawned on me. The chickens were slightly putrid, in places their yellowish-white skin was going green or gray and the stench of decay wafted up into my nostrils. The man was sticking a needle attached to the hose into each chicken and as he did so the boy pumped the cylinder. In countries like Cambodia, when a butcher’s or fish monger’s wares have gone off, it is sometimes pumped full of formalin to disguise the putrefaction so it can continue to be sold. Of course this is illegal but in such countries the enforcement of health regulations are rather lax.	然後我明白了。這些雞隻已經輕微腐爛，部份黄白色的雞皮正變成綠色或灰色，腐爛的惡臭撲鼻而來。當這個男人把連着軟管的針插入每隻雞的時候，男童則泵着氣瓶。在一些好像柬埔寨的國家，當屠夫或魚販的貨物腐壞了，有時候會被注滿福爾馬林來掩飾腐壞，以便能繼續售賣。當然這是非法的行為，但在這些國家衛生法規的執行是相當寬鬆的。
The association in my mind of food, the chicken, and the formalin, which as you probably know is used by undertakers to preserve human cadavers, revolted me so much that I turned away and actually vomited. A man behind one of the stalls saw this and most kindly offered me a glass of water so I could wash my mouth out. When I got back to the temple I was still feeling a bit nauseous but not so much that I could not eat and when the lunch bell rang I made my way to the dining hall.	你可能知道殯儀業者用福爾馬林來保存屍體。我想到這些雞肉和福爾馬林加在一起時，感到極為噁心，轉頭便真的嘔吐起來。一個攤檔的男人看到了我的情況，很友善地給我一杯水來清潔口腔。我回到寺院後仍感到有點作嘔，但沒有嚴重到使我不能進食。當午飯的鐘聲響起後，我便前往飯堂。
As I sat at the table with all the dishes of food on it I immediately noticed that the main dish was, you guessed it, chicken. As soon as I saw it my stomach began to churn again and I had to rush from the hall. I didn’t vomit this time but my appetite had quite gone. Over the next few weeks my taste for meat, any meat, just went. It slowly returned but if the memory of the putrid formalin-dosed chickens was aroused I had to consciously suppress it or lose my appetite.	當我坐在放滿食物的桌子，你猜一猜我當時發覺主菜是甚麼，就是雞肉。我一看到後胃部又再劇烈攪動，我趕快離開飯堂。這次我沒有嘔吐，但我完全失去了胃口。在往後的幾個星期，我失去對任所肉類的興趣，要慢慢才恢復過來。但若想起攙入福爾馬林的腐爛雞隻，我便要刻意壓抑這記憶，要不是的話就會失去食慾。
Three months later, on a quick trip to Australia, a Sri Lankan friend gave me some things to deliver to his brother back in Sri Lanka. One of these things was a book called Animal Liberation by Peter Singer.* I had never heard of this book and its title aroused no interest in me. Back in Sri Lanka I called the brother and he said he would come the next day to collect the things. However, he didn't show up for another three months. The book and other things sat around my room acting as a sort of silent reminder of how casual Sinhalese can be towards keeping appointments.	三個月後，我在澳洲短期旅行，一位斯里蘭卡朋友托我帶些東西回當地的兄弟，其中一樣東西是一本彼得．辛格 (Peter Singer) 撰寫的《動物解放》(Animal Liberation)*。我從沒有聽過這本書，它的題目也沒喚起我的興趣。回到斯里蘭卡後，我通知朋友的兄弟，他說明日來取這些東西。然而，他在三個月內也沒有出現。這本書和其他東西就放在我的房間，無聲無息地提示着僧伽羅人對赴約是何等的隨意。 * 這本書在2009年由Harper出版社重新發行，書名Animal Liberation - The Definitive Classic of the Animal Liberation Movement。
One hot afternoon as I lay on my bed feeling rather bored and with nothing to read, I picked Singer's book up thinking to just browse through it. As it happened, the parts I read interested me so much that I returned to the beginning and read the whole thing in three sittings. I had been expecting it to take the usual vegetarian's approach, calling meat ‘carrion’ or ‘rotten flesh,’ quoting the opinions of famous odd-ball vegetarians, giving long descriptions of how meat ferments in the bowels and claiming that a vegetarians’ poo smells better than a meat eaters’ poo. Instead, Singer argues for the kind treatment of animals (including not eating them) soberly, objectively, logically and convincingly. Peter Singer is a professional philosopher and he writes like one. And incidentally, he has nothing to do with the extremist animal rights group Animal Liberation.	在一個炎熱的下午，我躺在床上，正為沒東西閱讀而感到很無聊。我拿起辛格的書，心想只翻一翻。事情凑巧，我被眼前閱讀的章節深深吸引着，於是由頭開始閱讀，並坐着三次把書讀完。我最初以為它採用常見的素食主義者的方式，稱肉類為「臭屍」或「腐肉」、引用著名古怪素食主義者的意見、長篇描述肉類如何在腸內發酵，並聲稱素食主義者大便的氣味比肉食者好。辛格沒有這樣做，而是冷靜、客觀、 符合邏輯和具說服力地主張友善對待動物 (包括不吃牠們)。彼得．辛格是一位高水準的哲學家，他的寫作也是一樣。順便提一句，他與極端的動物權益組織動物解放 (Animal Liberation) 沒有任何的關係。
As I followed his arguments I found myself forced by the logic of them to agree with him. Over the next week or two I returned to parts of the book and reread them and finally decided that anyone who wants metta and karuna to be a more important part of their character would have to seriously consider being vegetarian. As a Buddhist I do wish to have metta and karuna dominant in my life and so I made the decision to abstain from eating meat.	當我理解他的論據時，發覺自己不期然地被當中的邏輯說服。在往後的一兩個星期，我再次閱讀書的部份章節，最後得到一個結論，就是任何人若想慈心和悲心成為性格的重要部份，都應認真考慮吃素。作為一個佛教徒，我確實希望慈心和悲心主導我的人生，因此，我決心要戒除吃肉。
Since that time I have cut my meat consumption by at least 95%. The force of long established habit, circumstance or just the desire for a juicy steak accounting for the other 5%. So my decision to become vegetarian was brought about by three things - a gradual awareness of the need for active and engaged (as opposed to passive) metta in the Buddhist life, by an incident of visceral revulsion with meat, and then by the reasoning of a philosopher helping me see the implications in the Buddha’s words that I had not seen before. I could not honestly say that I am grateful to that Cambodian man with his putrefying chickens, but I am most grateful to Peter Singer.	由這時候開始，我減少了百份之九十五的肉食量，餘下的百份之五是由於長期建立的習慣、環境或只是對一塊多汁牛排的慾望。因此，我成為素食者的決定是由三樣東西促成的 — 漸漸領悟到佛教生活需要積極實踐慈心 (與被動的相反)、一次出自內心對肉類反感的事件，以及一位哲學家的論證幫助我領悟到佛陀說話的意義，這是我以往沒有認識到的。我實在不能說要感謝那位賣腐壞雞隻的柬埔寨男人，但我真的非常感激彼得．辛格。

---