Buddhism and Vegetarianism
by Ajahn Jagaro
On a previous occasion when I gave a talk on Buddhism and
vegetarianism there were some very strong reactions from some
members of the audience. People who have strong reactions to talks
are people who have very strong feelings about the topic, which
means they have very strong views about the topic. This is a great
danger, because as soon as we develop very strong, fixed views
about anything, it tends to make us rather rigid. We develop a closed mind,
which makes
us over-react to anything that is said. If it's not in agreement with us it
must be against us.
That's all we see - black and white - and that is a great shame. The Buddha
warned against
attachment to views and opinions as one of the fundamental causes of suffering.
We see this over and over again in every aspect of life. Most of the conflicts
that we are
involved in during our lives arise out of disagreement with regard to certain
views about
things. These conflicts and due to attachment to our views and our perceptions.
Of course, we need views, we cannot live without them. A view is the way we
see
something, the way we understand something, our preference with regard to the
variety
of choices available in regard to things. This is quite natural. As long as
we think, perceive,
or have been conditioned in a certain way, we will have views, and on some topics
these
may be very strong and fixed.
Vegetarianism is one such topic. This evening I will talk about the topic as
a
contemplation. It is not my intention to sit here and tell you what the final
word on
Buddhism and vegetarianism is. That is neither my intention nor the Buddhist
way. My
understanding comes from my experience, from my perspective, from my contemplation.
You may agree or you may not; it doesn't matter as long as you reflect clearly
on the
matter and come to your own conclusions. I take a neutral position because I
do not feel
that this particular topic can be seen simply in terms of black and white. I
take the
Buddhist position as I understand it.
Scriptural basis
Let's begin with a fundamental question: Is it a prerequisite for a Buddhist
to be a
vegetarian according to the teachings of the Buddha, as far as we can assess?
I would have
to say, No, according to the Buddhist scriptures it is not a prerequisite for
a person to be a
vegetarian in order to be a Buddhist.
Transcribed by Antony Woods. All rights reserved.
Published in PDF with permission of John Cianciosi (Ajahn Jagaro) at Shabkar.Org
– Amsterdam, 2006.
People say, "Well how do you know what the Buddha taught, anyway?"
It's true. I don't
know from personal experience; if I was there, I don't remember it. So what
do we have to
rely on? We have to rely on these scriptures that have been handed down through
the
centuries. As to whether we can trust these scriptures depends on whether we
accept them
as accurate recordings of the Buddha's teaching or not. In the Theravada tradition
we have
what we call the Pali Canon, the Buddhist scriptures. There are many volumes,
the Vinaya
Pitaka, the discipline for monks and nuns, the Suttanta Pitaka, which contains
the
discourses or teachings given by the Buddha, and finally the Abhidhamma Pitaka,
which
is the system of philosophy and psychology developed from the basic texts. Most
scholars
agree that the Abhidhamma Pitaka, the 'higher teaching', was developed by teachers
of
later periods from the basic texts of the Suttas as a system of analysis for
easier
explanation and for use in debate.
So there are three collections of scriptures. My research is limited to the
Vinaya and the
Suttas, the books of discipline and the books of discourses. From my studies
I have great
confidence that what is presented in these scriptures accurately represents
what the
Buddha taught. However, I do not claim that every word in these scriptures is
exactly the
word of the Buddha. There have been some changes, some additions and some alterations
through the ages, but the essence is there. In essence the texts are a very
true and accurate
record of what the Buddha taught.
My basis for this reasoning is simply the fact that the people who passed on
these
teachings and checked them were disciples, monks and nuns who had tremendous
respect
for the Buddha, just as monks today have, and I don't think that many monks
would dare
to intentionally change the teachings of the Buddha. Very few monks would be
prepared
to do that. Any alterations that have taken place were simply an expedient means
for
making recitation more convenient. There may have been accidental alterations,
but I do
not think that the texts were corrupted intentionally, certainly not in any
serious or major
way.
This is verified in particular with regard to the Books of Discipline, which
deal with the
monastic discipline. Through the ages Buddhism slowly spread from the Ganges
Valley
throughout India, moving south to Sri Lanka, across to Burma and Thailand, then
north
towards Tibet and eventually China. Over the centuries it began to fragment
into various
schools. Some of these schools flourished in different parts of India and more
distant
locations, and so had very little or no contact with each other. When we compare
the
Books of Discipline, however, there's remarkable similarity between these different
schools. They are so similar that they must have originally come from the same
source.
So there is good reason for confidence in what we call the Pali Canon and to
accept that it
does represent the teachings of the Buddha. In any case, this is the evidence
we have to
deal with, because there is no one here who can say, "I heard the Buddha
say differently."
These scriptures are the most authoritative or the most definitive representation
of the
Buddha's teachings.
If we study these scriptures very carefully we will find that nowhere is there
any
injunction to either lay people or to monks with regard to vegetarianism. There
is not a
single mention of it as a Buddhist injunction on either the monks and nuns or
lay people.
Transcribed by Antony Woods. All rights reserved.
Published in PDF with permission of John Cianciosi (Ajahn Jagaro) at Shabkar.Org
– Amsterdam, 2006.
If the Buddha had made vegetarianism a prerequisite it would have to be somewhere
in
the scriptures. Quite to the contrary, one does find a number of instances where
the
Buddha speaks about food, especially on the rules pertaining to the monks, indicating
that, during the time of the Buddha, the monks did sometimes eat meat.
If you'll bear with me I would first like to present to you some of this historical
evidence.
In these scriptures, particularly in the Books of Discipline, there are many
references to
what monks are and are not allowed to do. A lot of these rules have to do with
food; there
are rules about all sorts of things pertaining to food, some of them very unusual.
If the
monks had to be vegetarian then these rules would seem to be completely useless
or
irrelevant.
For instance there is one rule which forbids monks from eating the meat of certain
types of
animals, such as horse, elephant, dog, snake, tiger, leopard and bear. There
are about a
dozen different types of meat specified by the Buddha which are not allowed
for monks.
That he made a rule that certain types of meat were not to be eaten by monks
would
indicate that other types of meat were allowable.
There is another rule: a monk was ill, and as he was quite sick a devout female
disciple
asked him if he had ever had this illness before and what did he take to cure
it? It was
some sort of stomach problem, and he said that he'd had it before and last time
he had
some meat broth which helped to relieve the symptoms. So this woman went off
looking
for meat to prepare a meat broth for the sick monk. However it was an uposatha
(observance) day, so there was no meat available anywhere. It was a tradition
in India not
to slaughter animals on such days. Out of great devotion this lady decided that
the monk
could not be left to suffer, so she cut a piece of her own flesh and made a
meat broth. She
took it to the monk, offered it to him, and apparently he drank it and recovered.
When the
Buddha heard about this, he made a rule that monks are not allowed to eat human
flesh.
Thank goodness for that!
So here is another strange rule that would be completely pointless if there
had been a
stipulation that the monks never eat meat. There are many similar instances
both in the
Rules of Discipline and in the Discourses. When the Buddha heard a charge that
Buddhist
monks caused the killing of animals by eating meat, he stated that this was
not so. He then
declared three conditions under which monks were not to eat meat: if they have
seen,
heard or they suspect that the animal was killed specifically to feed them,
then the monks
should refuse to accept that food. At other times, when the monks go on almsround,
they
are supposed to look into their bowls and accept whatever is given with gratitude,
without showing pleasure or displeasure. However, if a monk knows, has heard
or
suspects that the animal has been killed specifically to feed the monks, he
should refuse to
receive it.
There are many more examples than I have given here, scattered throughout the
scriptures, indicating that it was not a requirement that either the monks or
the lay people
be vegetarian.
Furthermore, we can see that throughout the history of Buddhism there has not
been one
Buddhist country were vegetarianism was the common practice of the Buddhist
people.
This would indicate that it hasn't been the practice right from the very beginning.
Transcribed by Antony Woods. All rights reserved.
Published in PDF with permission of John Cianciosi (Ajahn Jagaro) at Shabkar.Org
– Amsterdam, 2006.
Although some Mahayana monks, in particular the Chinese, Vietnamese and some
of the
Japanese, are vegetarian, the majority of lay people are not. Historically,
right up to the
present day, Buddhist people in general haven't been strictly vegetarian. This
would seem
to support the conclusion drawn from an examination of the scriptures, that
it has never
been a prerequisite for people who want to be Buddhists to be vegetarian.
Of course it can be argued, and it often is argued, by vegetarian monks in particular,
but
also by lay people, that the scriptures were altered. They argue that the Buddha
did teach
vegetarianism, but those monks who wanted to eat meat went and changed every
reference to it in all the texts. They didn't have a computer to just punch
in 'reference to
meat' and get a whole list. The scriptures were initially handed down by word
of mouth
and many monks were involved. No one had it on a disk so that it could be changed
in
half an hour. It would have been very difficult to change as there are many
references to it
throughout the scriptures. You could change it in one place but then it would
be
inconsistent with other references. It is highly unlikely that the monks could
have
achieved consistency in changing so many references throughout the scriptures,
so I think
the claim of corruption of the scriptures by meat-loving monks is a bit far-fetched.
I think
the scriptures are accurate. I think that the Buddha did not make it a prerequisite
for
people, nor do I think that it was laid down as a rule of training for monks.
Another point of contention arises over the Buddha teaching, as one of the training
rules
for everybody who wanted to be his disciple, that they are not to kill any living
creature.
The very first precept for a lay Buddhist is: 'Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam
samadiyami.' (I undertake the training rule of not killing any living creature.)
This is a
training for every Buddhist monk, nun, novice, postulant, layman and laywoman,
which
is absolutely fundamental to the training in harmlessness.
There appears to be an inconsistency, it doesn't seem to add up, but this is
simply due to
not thinking clearly about the topic. Obviously the Buddha saw a great difference
in these
two trainings - the training of not killing and the training regarding diet.
They operate at
different levels.
The Buddha was very pragmatic. When he laid down training rules, he laid down
rules
that people could keep, that they had a good likelihood of keeping. For instance,
he did
not lay down a training rule saying that you must not over-eat. The monks are
supposed
to be alms mendicants and he laid down a lot of rules about eating for monks
- they are
allowed to eat only in the morning, when they eat they are not supposed to make
chomping or slurping sounds, they are not supposed to drop grains of rice, they
are not
supposed to scrape the bowl, they are not supposed to look around - yet he didn't
make
one rule about over-eating. You can really stuff yourself and not break a rule.
You would
think that the Lord Buddha would have made a rule about that. Why not, when
he made
all these other rules? It's up to the individual to train oneself to eat in
moderation. It is
something you take responsibility for and train yourself toward gradually, but
it is not a
rule to start with.
There is a big difference between eating meat and killing animals, although
it can be
argued that when we eat meat we indirectly support the killing of animals. There's
something to that, and I'll go into it in greater detail later on. There is
a big difference
Transcribed by Antony Woods. All rights reserved.
Published in PDF with permission of John Cianciosi (Ajahn Jagaro) at Shabkar.Org
– Amsterdam, 2006.
between the two, however, because the killing of animals refers to intentionally
depriving
an animal of life or intentionally causing or directly telling somebody else
to kill an
animal. That is what the first precept is about - the intention to kill an animal.
That is the
purpose behind the action. There is intention, there is purpose and there is
the
actualisation of that purpose in killing.
If you drove your car here this evening I'm sure that you killed something -
on your
windscreen there would have been a few smashed insects. When we drive from the
monastery where I live in Serpentine to Perth, which is approximately 60 kilometres,
the
windscreen gets covered with dead insects, especially in the mornings and evenings.
I
know when I get into the car and ask someone to drive me somewhere that some
insects
are going to die. I know that, but that is not my intention for getting into
a car and being
driven somewhere. I don't say, "Let's go for a spin to see how many insects
we can
squash." If that was my intention then I would be killing, intentionally
killing. But we
don't do that. We get into a car to go from A to B for a purpose. Perhaps some
beings get
killed, but it's not our intention to kill them.
That is not killing - there is death but you are not creating the kamma of killing
animals.
This rule is the foundation of the Buddhist training in harmlessness: you refrain
from
intentionally killing living creatures.
When people eat meat what is their intention? How many people eat meat with
the
intention to kill cows, pigs and sheep? If their intention in eating is to kill
more cows, that
would be very close to killing. If you consider why people really eat meat you
will see that
it is for very different reasons. Why did people in more basic, rural societies,
such as in
northern Thailand where I lived, where most of the people were Buddhist, eat
meat? They
ate frogs, grasshoppers, red ants, ant larvae .... all sorts of things. Why?
For protein, they
had to survive, they had to have food and it's very hard to get food. What did
a caveman
eat? He ate whatever he could get. Due to the fundamental drive to survive he
would eat
whatever he could get. That has a lot to do with what we eat - the primary instinct
of
survival. It depends on what is available.
Then there is the cultural influence, the way your tastes are conditioned by
your
upbringing. If you are accustomed to certain types of food, you find those kinds
of food
agreeable. That is why you buy them. That is the sort of food that you know
how to cook.
Why are most Australians non-vegetarian? They eat meat because that is what
they are
conditioned to eat. That is part of the conditioning of the Australian culture.
So when most people who are not vegetarians eat meat, it is not because they
want to kill
animals. It's just that that is what they have been conditioned to eat since
childhood. It is
part of their culture, that is what they know how to cook and that is what they
know how
to eat. It agrees with them, that is why they eat it.
You might say it's ignorance. Well, most people are ignorant; most people have
limited
scope in their overall understanding of options and possibilities; most people
live
according to their conditioning. It doesn't have to be that way, but that is
how it is for most
people.
It is important to make this distinction. Eating meat is not the same as killing
animals,
because the intention is different. The Buddha laid down this rule, to refrain
from
Transcribed by Antony Woods. All rights reserved.
Published in PDF with permission of John Cianciosi (Ajahn Jagaro) at Shabkar.Org
– Amsterdam, 2006.
intentionally killing any living creature, as the first step towards respecting
life, both
human and animal. It's just a start, not the end. And most people can't even
do that. How
many people in the world can truly refrain from killing living beings? We could
get into
an idealistic battle as to why everybody should be vegetarian, but you have
to admit that
the great majority of people on this planet cannot even keep to the level of
not
intentionally killing. If they could keep to that level, things would be a lot
better. The
Buddha had a pragmatic approach to things, so he said to at least start at this
level.
Thus far I have given you reasons why Buddhism doesn't make vegetarianism
compulsory. Does Buddhism then encourage the eating of meat? Nowhere in the
scriptures do we read that the Buddha said, "Eat more meat, it is good
for you." Nowhere
does it say to "give the man meat." There is not a single reference
to giving the monks
more meat. The scriptures certainly do not encourage the eating of meat; there
are no
references to it, no suggestion of encouragement for it. What are we to make
of this?
Simply that each individual must consider this matter carefully, come to his
or her own
conclusions and take responsibility for them.
Ethical considerations
Now we must consider whether vegetarianism is compatible with the teachings
of the
Buddha. I would say wholeheartedly that it is compatible. Vegetarianism is a
very
beneficial practice for one who is developing two conditions which every Buddhist
should
be trying to develop: compassion and wisdom. That is what we endeavour to cultivate
through the spiritual path. Compassion means feeling with, feeling for, being
sensitive to
the pain of others. The natural outcome of developing such compassion is that
we do not
want to kill, we do not want to hurt others.
Through wisdom we begin to realise that not only do our actions have direct
results, but
also indirect results. This is the arising of understanding. I've often referred
to one of the
fundamental laws of nature, called Dependent Origination or Conditioned Arising
-
"When this is, that comes to be." In other words, certain conditions
bring about certain
results. As we develop greater clarity of mind and greater awareness, we begin
to see the
relationship. Whatever we do has its consequences. The way we live gives rise
to causes
and results. We begin to see that this is a fundamental law of nature and we
become a lot
more aware of how we are living and the consequences of our actions. As we become
more compassionate and wise we will start to direct our lives so that we become
more
harmless, or contribute less to the suffering and destruction in life.
Now let's consider this on a broader scale than just vegetarianism, because
this topic of
'Buddhism and Vegetarianism' is far too narrow. We cannot discuss vegetarianism
as if it
was an isolated thing all by itself. There's much more to it; it involves the
ecology, it
involves every aspect of life. Perhaps 'Buddhism and Ecology' or 'Buddhism and
Life'
would be more fitting titles.
Once we realise that how we live has its consequences, what effect will this
have on how
we live and how we regard what we are doing? Everything we do and say has its
consequences, because we are part of a system. Every person sitting here is
part of the
system, the whole universe. There is one system and you are part of it. Everything
you do
has an effect on the universe.
Transcribed by Antony Woods. All rights reserved.
Published in PDF with permission of John Cianciosi (Ajahn Jagaro) at Shabkar.Org
– Amsterdam, 2006.
You may think, "What can I do to affect the movement of the planets and
the galaxies?"
Perhaps very little, but according to the relationship of interdependence, everything
you
do affects everything else. If you can't see it as a whole you can certainly
see it in this
room. What you do here this evening will affect everybody else. What I do is
affecting
you. What we do affects the outside. Everything we do has its long range effect
on
everything else.
So when we eat meat, that has its consequences. What are the consequences? We
are
directly supporting an industry that is based on rearing animals, quite often
under terrible
conditions, for the sole purpose of slaughter. The meat can then be available
in neatly
wrapped little packages so that we can buy it can eat it. Our intention when
we cook and
eat meat is not to kill animals - I don't think anyone has that intention -
however the fact
remains that by the acts of buying, cooking and eating, we indirectly support
the killing of
the animal. It's not killing, but it is supporting.
Now, with that understanding, certain individuals may decide not to support
killing. They
won't want to be part of it; they will want to remove themselves from it. If
there is one
reason why a Buddhist should decide to be a vegetarian, it should be based on
this
perspective. There is only one good, valid reason, and that is compassion -
not wanting to
contribute to the suffering any more than one has to.
Vegetarianism is a matter of individual choice and responsibility, not something
that can
be forced, but it is certainly praise-worthy and compatible with the Buddha's
teaching. But
does it stop there? Are you now pure? You've become vegetarian, but are you
blameless?
Are your hands clean?
Let me tell you that as long as you are alive on this planet, as long as you
are a member of
this system, your hands will never be clean. It doesn't matter what you eat,
you are always
contributing to death and destruction, regardless of what you do. You can be
a vegetarian,
but you still contribute to destruction just because you are part of this system.
You can't
escape it. You are sitting on chairs, where do they come from? The chairs are
on the carpet:
where does the carpet come from? The electricity? Air-conditioning? The building,
the
motor car, the trains, the buses, where does all that come from? It's all interrelated.
Everything is interrelated. We're always involved in the whole system, and as
long as we
live in this system we are always contributing. We make use of the air-conditioning,
we
make use of the electricity, which means that we are in a way supporting the
building of
dams, which entails the destruction of forests. There can be no doubt about
it. You are
wearing clothes, you are wearing shoes. If you don't wear leather shoes, you
wear plastic
shoes. Who makes the plastic shoes? The chemical companies, the ones that make
napalm
and poisons. You are supporting them.
As I said, the training for a monk is to accept what one is given and not to
ask for anything
special. Most of the food we get is vegetarian, but not all. So I can be accused
of
contributing. I confess, my hands are not clean. Even if I am vegetarian, as
I can be most of
the time, my hands are still not clean. Where do you think the fruit and vegetables
come
from? How do those vegetable gardens get to be so free of trees and bushes?
What
happened to all the trees and bushes? Those huge fields of wheat and corn and
the
orchards - what happened to all the forests? - gone with the ploughing and spraying.
We
Transcribed by Antony Woods. All rights reserved.
Published in PDF with permission of John Cianciosi (Ajahn Jagaro) at Shabkar.Org
– Amsterdam, 2006.
have nice vegetables, but for them to be nice vegetables you've got to do something
about
the insects.
On an individual basis, if you really are compassionate, if you really are wise,
you can do
as much as you can to minimise the damage. But when you consider that there
are some
six billion people on this planet, that's a lot of people to feed and clothe,
so there has got to
be a lot of destruction, either directly or indirectly. Life is like that.
What I am saying is not fatalistic. It is simply making us aware of reality.
Within this
reality we all can and should consider carefully what we are doing, how we are
living and
what we are consuming. How much are we contributing to death and destruction?
It's not
just a matter of vegetarianism. That is praise-worthy if done properly, and,
as I said,
compatible with the teachings of the Buddha, but there's more to it than that
- much more.
Treading lightly
Even if one isn't vegetarian there's a lot to do. Nowadays we are beginning
to understand
this. We cannot continue to consume more and more, demand more and more, want
more
and more of everything and expect that this limited planet with its limited
resources can
supply it for us. One of the fundamental teachings of Buddhism is to be contented
with
little. It doesn't mean starving yourself, it's just a matter of being contented,
of not being
continually caught in the obsession to get more, which is basically the present-day
consumer society syndrome, isn't it? Nearly all of us in Western society are
suffering from
it.
I have an American student who complains because there is such a limited range
of food
here in Australia. We've only got three kinds of this type of chocolate, she
says, whereas in
America they have twenty kinds. Twenty kinds of chocolate, one hundred and twenty
kinds of ice-cream to choose from - a marvellous achievement for the human race,
the
apex of human civilisation. This is consumerism, where the word is 'more, more,
more'.
It's always more, with little or no emphasis on contentment.
You can see where this is going to lead, this hungry ghost syndrome of forever
wanting
more, of never being satisfied. It's going to destroy the whole planet. The
planet is limited
and the consequences are very far reaching. One hungry ghost is not so bad,
but when you
start getting millions of them, this wanting more and more is going to consume
the whole
world. It already is consuming the world at an alarming rate.
The Buddha was pointing to a very fundamental principle: craving is the source
of the
problem and it can never be satisfied by feeding it. Contentment, being satisfied
with few
needs, is so important. Of course this had to be a personal judgement. The Buddha
can't sit
down and say, "I allot twenty grams of cheese per person per day."
That's ridiculous! The
Buddha was an enlightened being and he wanted people to become enlightened,
to
become responsible. The Buddha doesn't take responsibility away from you, it
is up to
each individual. He offers guidelines which each one of us must use in considering
our
lives, reflecting on what we are doing, the consequences thereof, and taking
responsibility.
How much are we willing to give up? Each person must find his or her own limit.
For
some people that may be one car, for others two cars; some people may only want
a
bicycle - that is their assessment of their need.
Transcribed by Antony Woods. All rights reserved.
Published in PDF with permission of John Cianciosi (Ajahn Jagaro) at Shabkar.Org
– Amsterdam, 2006.
The more we stress compassion and understanding of the consequences of actions,
the
more people will be able to make the right choices, to simplify, to develop
more
contentment and know moderation. This is much more important than just vegetarianism.
Vegetarianism is just one factor, just one aspect of the whole picture. The
whole is much
greater because it deals with how much we consume, even of fruit and vegetables,
clothing, shoes, power, air, fuel, everything - because all consumption brings
about
destruction.
This is the Buddhist way of life: beginning to cultivate compassion and understanding,
and from there beginning to redirect our lives by making the right choices.
It's up to each
individual to decide how far he can go, but the direction is toward trying to
tread as
lightly as possible on the planet, so that our lives won't be the cause of so
much
destruction.
It is a personal thing. It does no good going around pointing fingers at people
and
demanding that they stop: "You'd better stop using bleached toilet paper
otherwise we'll
imprison you." If society reaches that point, then banning such a product
may be a good
thing, but you can't do so until sufficient people appreciate and understand
the need for it.
The main thrust of Buddhism is always to encourage compassion and understanding.
From there, everything else will come about in accordance with the individual's
response
and sense of personal responsibility.
You can see why I feel quite confident that the Buddha would not have made
vegetarianism compulsory, because that is not the way he would approach it.
His main
concern would be to set a fundamental standard, but even that would be voluntary.
It is
then up to you whether you follow it or not. It is up to the individual, through
the
teaching, to become more compassionate and wise, to take responsibility for
one's life.
Whether you make a rule or not, what matters is whether people are going to
keep it. The
Buddha's approach, the main thrust of his teaching, was to try to encourage
more
understanding and compassion, so that the individual would make the appropriate
choices - not only vegetarianism, but about many other things.
Vegetarianism is a very noble choice, but that choice should be made from the
right stand
point - out of compassion and understanding. Having made such a choice, don't
pollute it
with aversion for those who are not vegetarian. The goodness generated by such
a choice
then becomes corrupted, and in some ways you will be worse than non-vegetarians.
We
make our choice out of compassion. If we are in a position to explain, we explain
it to
others according to reason and logic, not by being critical of them for not
being vegetarian.
I respect people who are vegetarian. They are acting very nobly; it is a gesture
of
renunciation. It is a small thing but noble, and very much in keeping with the
Buddha's
teaching of compassion and understanding. But don't stop there. Even if you
are not
vegetarian don't think there is nothing else you can do. There's a lot to be
done in every
area of life, in the way we speak, in the way we act, in everything. Be one
who treads
lightly, be one who doesn't add unnecessarily to the suffering of humanity and
all other
sentient beings on this planet. Once we have the intention to at least try,
to move in the
right direction, we are good disciples of the Buddha. Each person has to walk
at his or her
own pace.
Transcribed by Antony Woods. All rights reserved.
Published in PDF with permission of John Cianciosi (Ajahn Jagaro) at Shabkar.Org
– Amsterdam, 2006.
About the Author
Ajahn Jagaro was born John Cianciosi in 1948, in Italy, and migrated with his
parents to Australia at the age
of ten. After completing a Diploma in Applied Chemistry and working for a short
time, he took leave of his
home to travel in Asia. With no clear aim in mind, his travels eventually took
him to a Buddhist monastery
in Bangkok, where a casual interest in meditation developed into a decision
to take ordination as a Buddhist
monk in 1972. After a year spent in Bangkok and Southern Thailand, he travelled
to the north-east, where he
met his teacher, Venerable Ajahn Chah, the well-known forest meditation teacher,
and spent the next ten
years in and around Ajahn Chah's monastery, Wat Pah Pong, and its many branches.
In 1979, Ajahn Chah invited Venerable Jagaro to become the senior monk, or Abbot,
at Wat Pah Nanachat, a
monastery not far from Wat Pah Pong. Wat Pah Nanachat had some years previously
been established by
Ajahn Chah and Ajahn Sumedho (his senior Western disciple, who now lives in
England, Abbot of
Amaravati Buddhist Centre) as a centre for Westerners interested in training
in the monastic lifestyle of the
forest tradition. During his time at Wat Nanachat, Ajahn Jagaro gained invaluable
experience in dealing with
monastic administrative duties, in addition to developing a reputation in Thailand
as a gifted teacher.
In February, 1982, he was invited to Perth, Western Australia, as resident monk
for the Buddhist Society of
Western Australia. Interest there was sufficient to see the establishment of
Bodhinyana Forest Monastery in
Serpentine, 60 kms south of Perth, where he led a small community of Buddhist
monks and nuns of varying
nationalities and acted as mentor for the Buddhist Society of Western Australia
up until 1995.
In 1995, Ajahn Jagaro made the difficult decision to disrobe, expressing his
gratitude for his contact with
Ajahn Chah and all his Dhamma friends within the Buddhist Community. At the
time of publication of this
talk at Shabkar.Org, in 2006 , John Cianciosi is working for the Theosophical
Society in America.
Transcribed by Antony Woods. All rights reserved.
Published in PDF with permission of John Cianciosi (Ajahn Jagaro) at Shabkar.Org
– Amsterdam, 2006.