Dr. D. P. Atukorale
Dr. D. P. Atukorale rose from humble beginnings to become a celebrated cardiologist in Sri Lanka.
Early Life and Background
Dr. D. P. Atukorale was born into a very poor family in Sri Lanka. Despite financial hardships, he demonstrated remarkable determination and resilience from a young age. His upbringing instilled in him a strong work ethic and a commitment to education, which became the foundation for his future medical career .
Education and Medical Training
Driven by his ambition to serve others, Dr. Atukorale pursued medical studies and specialized in cardiology. Through dedication and perseverance, he successfully completed his medical education and training, equipping himself with the knowledge and skills necessary to excel in the field of heart medicine .
Career Achievements
Dr. Atukorale became a highly respected cardiologist in Sri Lanka, known for his expertise in diagnosing and treating heart conditions. His professional reputation was built not only on his medical skills but also on his compassionate care for patients. Over the years, he contributed significantly to the advancement of cardiology in the country, helping countless patients and mentoring younger doctors .
Legacy and Recognition
His life story is celebrated as an inspiring example of overcoming adversity through perseverance and dedication. Dr. Atukorale’s journey from poverty to prominence in the medical field serves as a motivational narrative for aspiring doctors and the general public alike .
Dr. D. P. Atukorale remains a symbol of excellence in Sri Lankan cardiology, demonstrating that determination, education, and compassion can lead to remarkable achievements in medicine.
කීර කොටුවෙන් බිහි වුණ දකුණේ දොස්තර මහත්තයා දැයෙන් සමුගනී ( දකුණ පිටුවෙන් )
.jpeg)
Dr. Atukorale wrote articles to the newspapers from time to time, on health issues for the guidance of the general public. They were invariably informative and educative. His stature as a Cardiologist ensured that the general public accepted and followed his advice.
Some of these articles are reproduced below. He also took part in radio programmes, and later TV programmes, covering health issues.
Posted on July 20th, 2015
By : Dr. D P Atukorale Courtesy Infocoolmix
Myocardial Infarction (heart attack) is the biggest killer in Sri Lankan and more and more young Sri Lankans (those below 40 years) are getting heart attacks because they do not live with nature, eat bad food and eat at the wrong time in the night. It is not surprising that Sri Lankans are getting heart attacks about ten to twenty years before people in the West. This is due to a number of reasons.
A majority of Sri Lankans pass off the good food such as cheap vegetables, greens, nuts and red rice to the servants and eat so-called good food such as polished rice, eggs, butter, cheese, mutton, pork and beef. They eat fast food and a significant number of them, especially those living in the urban areas eat junk food. They end up dining at expensive restaurants, whose fare is not the best for a healthy heart.
Deep Frying with Vegetable Oils
It is common knowledge that most of the hotels and restaurants use vegetable oils for frying. As a result, the amount of trans-fats in vegetable oils is increased. Trans-fats increase your bad (LDL) cholesterol, decrease your good (HDL) cholesterol and increase your serum triglycerides.
High LDL cholesterol, low HDL cholesterol and elevated serum triglycerides are coronary risk factors and deep frying with vegetable oils result low HDL and high serum triglycerides.
Low HDL (good) Cholesterol Among Asians
Sri Lankans and other Asians are prone to have low HDL cholesterol, unlike people in the West and excessive use of vegetable oils and deep frying making use of vegetable oils makes this low HDL cholesterol worse and some of my patients who use vegetable oils have dangerously low (below 40mg%) HDL cholesterol.
Epidemic Of Obesity In The Young
We Sri Lankans consume too much of aerated water, sweet drinks and too much of high calorie food such as ice cream, puddings, watalappan, yoghurt etc. We eat too much of rice at night and there is an epidemic of overweight and obesity among teenagers and young Sri Lankans. Obesity is a coronary risk factor and obese persons have high LDL cholesterol, low HDL cholesterol and high triglycerides.
Diabetes Mellitus
Eating too much of sugar and other sweets is one of the causes of diabetes and uncontrolled diabetic patients have high serum triglycerides and low HDL. Diabetes mellitus is a common risk factor for heart attacks and elevated LDL (bad) cholesterol is not uncommon among uncontrolled diabetics.
Eating Dinner Late At Night
Eating a late dinner is bad for your heart. In the urban areas of Sri Lanka , a significant number of people ate getting used to having a late dinner.
Lack Of Exercise
Lack of exercise is another well known risk factor for heart attacks. HDL (good) cholesterol is low in a high proportion of people who do not exercise regularly. HDL is normal in people who exercise regularly.
When I was studying in the sixth standard at the Government Junior School Elpitiya, in 1949, I used to walk two miles daily in the morning to Catch” the school bus. I can remember once we students went on strike against the private bus owners who increased student’s bus fare and we walked 24 miles a day (12 miles up and 12 miles down) for two consecutive days. The private bus owners brought down the bus fare and we won the strike. I do not think any of the present day students will ever walk even one mile a day to school. Even to travel a distance of two bus halts, most Sri Lankans in the urban areas use a bus or a three-wheeler.
To sum up, lack of exercise, low HDL cholesterol, high LDL cholesterol, high serum triglycerides, eating too much of sugar and other high calorie diets, including fast food and junk food and eating a large dinner late at night are some of the common causes of heart attacks in Sri Lankans.
Thanks to the present government, smoking is rare among Sri Lankans now. When Dr. Wallooppillai and I carried out a research project to find out the common causes of heart attacks among young Sri Lankans in 1974, it was found that the commonest cause of heart attacks among those patients below 40 years was heavy smoking.
Most of the heart attacks among Sri Lankans can be prevented if we live with nature, eat good food, take regular exercises and take dinner early. Other coronary risk factors such as high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity and abnormal blood lipids (fats), can be controlled with the help of correct medication and the correct diet.
http://infocoolmix.com/2015/07/why-heart-attacks-are-common-in-sri-lanka/
----------'---------------
Courtesy :https://www.sundaytimes.lk/011202/plus9.html
A healthy cuppa
By Dr. D.P. Atukorale
Tea is one of the healthiest beverages today due to its high content of antioxidants, called flavonoids. Antioxidants can protect us from the harmful effects of free radicals.A free radical is an unstable substance which can disrupt and damage molecules in the body and have been implicated in the slow chain reaction of damage leading to heart disease, cancer and the aging process. The best known antioxidants are Vitamin C,E and beta - carotene found in fruits, vegetables, cereals and vegetable oils. The antioxidant capacity of tea depends on how long you brew it. Within five minutes of brewing, 85% of the antioxidant potential of tea was released and the other 15% after another five minutes.
One should not drink more than 10 cups of tea per day. If consumed in excess, tea produces undesirable effects.
At the Epidemiological Congress 2001, a joint meeting of Canadian and American Scientific Societies, a new research paper on the health benefits of drinking black tea was presented. The paper recorded that of 1764 Saudi women studied, tea drinkers were 19% less likely to suffer from cardiovascular disease. The women who consumed black tea had total cholesterol, triglycerides and LDL cholesterol (bad cholesterol) levels which were significantly lower than in non-tea drinkers. The most marked reduction in blood lipid levels was observed in women who consumed six or more cups of black tea per day.
Studies confirm the critical role of antioxidants found abundantly in tea to prevent heart disease. Drinking tea can soak your brain in antioxidants thus slowing down brain decline. There is evidence that tea can cut the risk of strokes. Japanese researchers at Saitoma Cancer Center Research Institute have found that in heavy consumers of green tea, the cancer spread to lymph nodes was less frequent.
Green tea appears to improve prognosis and survival by suppressing the spread and growth of breast cancer.
A little milk with tea actually boosts protection against breast cancer, but, too much abolishes the anti-cancer effects. So take a couple of teaspoons of milk in an eight ounce cup of tea. Tea also helps prevent tooth decay as it contains a solid dose of fluoride. Black tea helps to keep plaque from forming on your teeth. British researchers have found that female tea drinkers have stronger bones than non-tea drinkers. Tea also helps you to burn more calories and may stave off signs of aging.
---------------
https://archives.dailynews.lk/2006/08/12/fea10.asp
Lightening the load using vegetarian diets
VEGETARIANS: Obesity is a worldwide problem and affects developed countries more than developing countries. World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that a total of 1.2 billion people are overweight or obese and these numbers are rapidly increasing.
Better eating habits lead to slimmer bodies. Vegetarians have a body weight that is on average 0.3 per cent to 20 per cent lower than that of non-vegetarians.
|
The Body Mass Index (BMI) or body weight of vegetarians was observed to be lower than that of non-vegetarians in both genders in blacks (both African-Americans and Nigerians), whites and Asians.
Similar observations have been reported in widely separated geographical areas according to a review by Susan Berkow Phd. and Neal Bernard MD (President, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine). The above authors found that obesity rates in vegetarian population range from 0 per cent to 6 per cent.
On average, vegans (pure vegetarians who don't consume any animal products including dairy products, bee's honey and don't use leather goods, fur and silk sarees) have a lower BMI than lacto - vegetarians, lacto -ovo - vegetarians (who eat eggs and dairy) who in turn have a lower BMI than meat eaters).
Clinical trials
The authors also examined randomized control trials that put the vegetarian diet to test. In a 12 week study that compared a group of individuals on a vegetarian diet deriving 10 per cent of calories from fat with a control group of individuals following guidelines of the American Diabetes Association.
The vegetarians lost 15.9 pounds while the control group lost 8.4 pounds. Both groups in this study were asked not to alter their exercise habits. Vegan diets seem to lead to weight loss even without restriction of calories intake.
In clinical studies of low fat vegan diets mean body weight dropped significantly even though energy intake and portion size was not limited.
Some research has combined a vegetarian diet with other lifestyle interventions. For example Dean Ornish MD (President Clinton's official physician and advisor on diet to White House, and who was the author famous best seller 'Reversing Heart Disease') compared adults with coronary heart disease (CHD) on a low fat vegetarian diet and walking programme with adults with CHD receiving care from their physicians.
After one year those in the vegetarian diet group had lost an average of 23.7 pounds compared with a gain of 3.2 pounds in the physicians care group.
Dean Ornish proved to the world that comprehensive life style changes can reverse the progression of even severe coronary heart disease without cholesterol lowering drugs, angiography before and after life style changes and was surprised that in majority of his CHD patients coronary artery blocks have either regressed or disappeared.
His research has been published in Lancet, JAMA, Circulation and American Journal of Cardiology and elsewhere.
How do vegetarian diets aid weight loss
One important mechanism may be a high intake of vegetables, fruits and other high fibre foods which are filling but in low in calories contribute to weight loss.
Vegan diet also increases insulin sensitively which lets nutrients to enter cells more quickly to be converted to heat instead of fat. Evidence suggests that a vegan diet causes an increased calorie burn after meals which means that plant - based foods are being used more efficiently as opposed to being stored as fat.
The simplicity of vegan diet which excludes meat, dairy products and eggs appeals to people busy with work and family. At least from studies published in peer reviewed journals show that people give a high rating in terms of acceptability and transition only takes about 3 weeks or less.
Of course, meat-less meals can do more for health than just creating a slimmer body. Vegetarians also have lower rates of heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure and at a lower risk for some forms of cancer such as prostrate cancer, cancer of breast, cancer of large bowel and cancer of ovaries.
Courtesy:
https://archives.dailynews.lk/2007/01/15/main_Letters.asp
Heart attacks common during festive season
ACCORDING to my clinical experience as a specialist when I was serving the Institute of Cardiology, National Hospital, Colombo (1973-1996) the incidence of myocardial infraction (heart attacks) was quite common during the festive season (late December and early January).
This high incidence of myocardial infracts during the festive season has also been documented in Western countries such as UK and USA.
When I was doing my C-plan Fellowship in Cardiology in the University Department of Cardiology, Infirmary, Manchester (1971-1973) the Royal Infirmary Coronary Care Unit (CCU) could not cope up with the increased number of myocardial infract patients referred to infirmary CCU for admission, during the festive season.
I was told by my cardiology colleagues at the Royal Infirmary, that, this high incidence of infracts had been quite common in UK according to their experience as consultant cardiologists.
When I was undergoing training in Advanced Cardiology at the National Heart Hospital, London, my cardiology teachers at the Heart Hospital too informed us that myocardial infracts are common in London during late December and early January.
As far as I am aware, the high incidence of heart attacks during the festive season is due to following reasons:
a. People (Catholics, Christians and some Buddhists and others) especially those living in the urban areas, eat too much of rich high fat food during the festive season.
b. Certain people especially those who have been consuming alcohol in moderation, drink too much of alcohol during the festive season.
c. Some people smoke too much during the festive season. Thanks to the present Government, this unhealthy habit is now limited.
d. Some people 'strain' too much after consuming heavy meals preceded by taking strong drinks such as whisky, brandy and arrack.
It is noteworthy that strenuous exercise after meals especially after 'heavy' dinner can precipitate angina and heart attacks in those with coronary risk factors such as smoking, hypertension, diabetes, high blood cholesterol, obesity and strong family history of heart attacks.
There is a misconception among some Sri Lankans that alcohol dilates the coronary arteries and prevents heart attacks even in those who take heavy meals and smoke and take strenuous exercise.
As mentioned earlier, strenuous an unaccustomed exercise such as dancing after a heavy dinner preceded by boozing can precipitate a major heart attack.
It is common knowledge among doctors that only about 30 per cent of those who get major heart attacks reach hospital alive.
e. The chilly temperature during December and early January may contribute to high incidence of heart attacks during the festive season.
f. Lack of sufficient rest, lack of proper sleep and stress during the festive season may be another contributory factors for the high incidence of infracts. If you are a middle aged or elderly person you should have about six hours of good sleep at night.
Majority of patients who get admitted to our hospitals with chest pain have never gone to a doctor for a check-up prior admission to an Intensive Care Unit.
A regular check-up (at least once a year) by your GP or by your physician is a must if you are a male over 40 years of age especially if you have a strong family history of heart attacks.
Your GP will arrange for an ECG, blood sugar and blood cholesterol test after checking your weight, blood pressure and will give you the correct advice.
In conclusion, my advice to all Sri Lankans (Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists etc.) is;
(a) don't eat too much of rich food especially at night, if you are a middle aged or elderly person,
(b) don't booze too much
(c) take enough rest
(d) don't strain after heavy meals
(e) don't smoke and
(f) don't stop the medication prescribed by your physician if you have already been taking medication for Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) hypertension or diabetes.
Always carry a few glycerol trinitrate (GNT) tablets with you if you attend late night parties during the festive season if you are a heart patient.
Bees Honey occupies an equivocal place in vegetarian cooking and ayurvedic medicine. Its proponents ascribe health giving properties. But those who are opposed to all types of animal cruelty and exploitation notably vegans oppose honey on the grounds that production of honey involves suffering and even death to the insects who manufacture the honey.
Chemical Analysis
Chemically honey is a mixture of glucose, fructose and water. The bee gathers plant nectar a kind of sweet sap secreted by flowers, for eventual use as a food for larva. During this process the bee also serves the function of pollinating the plant. When the bee’s honey sac is full it returns to the hive and disgorges it into the cells of the honeycomb. Natural evaporation concentrates the sweetness of the plant nectar and the bee adds two enzymes, one to create a different type of sugar and another to prevent bacterial infection.
Bees are also used to produce a range of other health products including royal jelly (a substance secreted by worker bees and fed to future queen bees (for which extravagant health claims have been made by drug firms) and propolis ( a waxy resinous substance collected by the bees from the buds of various conifers and used to repair the cracks and openings in the hive).
There is some truth in the assertion by the drug companies and vendors of honey products that honey possesses health giving properties. It is known that honey has been used for wound dressing for over 4000 years. The honey and sugar can prevent or hinder bacterial growth on wounds by a process of osmotic action. The enzymes of honey also can produce hydrogen peroxide (H202), a powerful antimicrobial agent and there is evidence that some types of bees honey contain antibacterial substances produced by the flowers that the bees have visited.
The average bees hive contain about 60,000 bees and produce about 8 gallons of honey every year. The shear effect involved in this is quite astonishing. To produce 450G(11b) of honey, bees have to gather about 1.8Kg (41bs) of nectar, which means visiting 2 million flowers. Furthermore each worker bee has an average life span of only 3-6 weeks just long enough to collect about one teaspoonful of nectar.
Connoisseurs of honey claim that it is possible to detect differences in taste between the various types of flowers visited by the bees, the more popular varieties being acacia, alafa, buckwheat, clover, heather, lavender, lime and orange blossom. In practice it would be unusual for bees to collect nectar from one exclusive plant.
Commercial honey production is a very largescale enterprise and accordingly techniques of mass production are used. Honey bees live in artificial hives designed to facilitate the easy removal of the combs. When these are removed and returned to the hive after even with the utmost care, bees will be crushed and killed.
Bees are transported all round the world where they will face new diseases and new enemies and alien environmental conditions. This once again is unnatural and is bound to cause stress and casualities.
When it is necessary to destroy a hive either because of disease or simply because it is too expensive to keep the colonies going in the harsh winter of the more northerly countries. This is done by pouring petrol over the hive, fumes from which kill most of the bees.
Queen Bee
The queen bee is obviously of paramounat importance both to the hive and beekeeper. To prevent swarming of bees the queen’s wings are removed. Although queen would naturally live for about 5 years in the wild, in commercial production, the queen bee will be killed off as her fertility declines usually at the age of 2 or soon afterwards. Not content with the bee’s natural techniques of procreation, large scale beekeeping now increasingly resorts to the technique of artificial insemination, a process which necessarily involves close physical handling and resulting discomfort.
Bee is an extremely intelligent creature with a sophisticated language and complex forms of communation which are one of the most advanced of any of the animal species. It has a brain and several smaller ganglia (sub brains) running through the body and its capacity to experience pain and distress is beyond dispute (Amanda Rofe, the Honey Bee, The Vegan, Summer 1992).
Another sobering reality of bees honey is the possibility of contamination with agrochemicals. If the bees are kept near agroculturally active land, possibility of such contamination cannot be excluded.
Nutrition Value of Honey
One cup of honey (339g) contains 279g of carbohydrate, 1.02g of protein, 3.39mg of vitamin C, 0.02mg of thiamine 0.14mg of riboflavin, 1.02mg of nicotinic acid, 17mg of calcium and 1.7mg of iron. For vegans who don’t use honey there are many substitutes such as molasses, maple syrup, barley malted syrup and treacle of which molasses is the healthiest.
Courtesy: Guide To Vegetarian Living
By Peter Cux
Health watch Question box
All questions in this column are being answered by Dr. D.P. Atukorale ,Consultant Cardiologist and a Member of the Health Watch Medical Advisory Panel. :
Vegetarianism
Question by D.E. Abeyweera from Kelaniya
May I have your confirmation on the following since a large number of our people have a number of misconceptions:
(a) From the cradle to the grave can a person be a vegetarian? Does a person at any age need to consume any kind of meat, fish or eggs to be in good health?
(b) If a person does not consume meat, fish or eggs, will such a person be subject to any kind of vitamin deficiency in his system such as poor eye sight ? I would kindly appreciate a lucid reply from you through the esteemed page of "Health Watch," Daily News.
Reply: A person can be a vegetarian from the cradle to the grave and such a diet is very much superior to a non-vegetarian diet in so many respects. Vegetarian diet which is composed of fruits, vegetables, cereals, nuts and fats contains (i) all the carbohydrates, (ii) good quality proteins (containing all the essential amino-acids), (iii) fats containing all the essential fatty acids, (iv) all the vitamins (v) minerals and (vi) fibre which is not present in meat, fish and eggs. In fact, vitamin C and fibre are present only in vegetables and fruits.
Magnesium which is essential for our health is almost always present in vegetarian diet. For a meat eater who does not consume vegetables and fruits, only way to get his/her magnesium is by eating bones.
There are millions of vegetarians who never consume meat, fish and eggs in India, USA, Europe and other more developed countries. Vegetarians are healthier and live longer lives free of chronic diseases such as cancer, ischaemic heart disease and other degenerative diseases. Vegetarians are subject to less heart diseases, less hypertension, less cancer, less kidney diseases, less food poisoning, less osteoporosis, less fractures, less obesity, less gastro-intestinal diseases, less alcoholism, less stress and less psychoneurotic illness when compared to non-vegetarians.
(b) If a person does not consume meat, fish or eggs such a person is not subject to any vitamin deficiency as majority of vegetarians in the world are lacto-vegetarians (i.e) they consume milk and milk products). Vegans (Vegetarians who don't consume milk and honey and who don't use anything made out of animal leather) theoretically can get vitamin B 12 deficiency. There are thousands of vegans in Sri Lanka, but todate B12 deficiency has not been reported in our country.
There are millions of vegans in India but vitamin B12 deficiency is not a problem among vegans in India.
No more than four hours sleep
Question by D.T. Goonesekera of Ratmalana
Your advice on health matters in the Health Watch page has been an immence value for thousands of readers of this page. Many a time we have been spared of going to specialist. And also there by saving a few hundreds of rupees.
I am 86 years. I am in fairly good health except for light defects in my eye sight and hearing. I can read and write fairly well. I eat anything that comes on my way, limiting sugar made products. I have no high or low blood pressure or blood sugar, not a diabetic. I have had regular checks on these matters but my present problem is sleep.
I do not have a comfortable sleep in the night. I am awake most of the night rolling from one side to the other on the bed. I feel that sometimes I do not sleep for more than 4 hours. Even during day time I do not sleep except for about half and hour after lunch. That is also not always the case but my main health problem is sleep - "That balm of peace and that indifference between the high and low".
I will appreciate your experience and learned views on this health problems. I think there are thousands of others who are victims of the same problem of sleep.
Reply: Insomnia has many causes and an accurate differential diagnosis is required before treatment. Prescription of hypnotics without regard to underlying disturbance, subjects the person to the risk of abuse, may mask the symptoms and signs of a pernicious disease and may dangerously exacerbate an unrecognised sleep apnoea. Furthermore, behaviourial therapy, psychotherapy or a non-hypnotic drug when the insomnia has a specific cause may be indicated.
Antidepressants improve sleep in people with endogenous depression and phenothiazines or haloperidol improve sleep in psychotics, phenytoin when there are paroxysmal nightmares and analgesics when sleep is impaired by pain.
Some people who take heavy fatty meals for dinner have insomnia. Others who consume coffee at bedtime get insomnia.
At your age of 86 years you don't need 8 hours of sleep. Perhaps 5-6 hours of good sleep is sufficient for you. Since you are a case of long-term insomnia use of sedative hypnotic drugs is controversial.
Your insomnia is ideally managed by psychiatrists who are experts in the field of insomnia. My advice for you is to see a psychiatrist with a referral letter from your family physician.
On cashewnuts
Question by S. Adikari from Negombo
I am a 75-year retired government servant. I have undergone heart surgery recently and now I have come back to normal and now I am following the same dietary habits as you have mentioned in your letter to 'Health Watch' column.
Some are of the opinion that all the nuts are conducive to health except cashew nuts (which I like most) and avocado which are not good for health as both above items contain cholesterol. Please enlighten me on this subject and please let me know whether any recent research has been done to this effect."
Reply: All nuts including cashew nuts are good for health. Avocado is the most nutritious fruit found in this world. All nuts including cashew nuts and avocado do not contain cholesterol. One ounce of dry roasted cashew nuts contain 7.76 gm of monounsaturated fat, 2.23 gm of polyunsaturated fat and 2.60 gm of saturated fat.
Cashew nuts also contain significant amounts of protein, fibre, thiamine (vitamin B1), riboflavin, biotin, pantothenic acid, vitamin B6, folic acid, calcium, iron, zinc and trace mineral selenium (known to be essential for prevention of cancer).
On the other hand 200 gm of avocado contains 19.31 gm of monounsaturated fat, 2.93 gm of polyunsaturated fat and 4.90 gm of saturated fat, 2.98 gm of protein, 4.24 gm of fibre, 122.61 mg of vitamin A, 15.88 mg of Vitamin C, 0.22 mg of thiamine, 0.25 mg of riboflavin, 3.86 mg of nicotinic acid, 1.95 mg of pantothenic acid, 0.56 mg of vitamin B6, 126.40 mg of folic acid, 22 mg of calcium, 0.34 mg of iron, and 0.14 mg of zinc.
Cholesterol is found only in animal fats and all plant products do not contain cholesterol. As you are a heart patient, it is advisable for you to consume cashew nuts and/or avocado daily as both these are very rich in heart healthy mono-unsaturated fat which increases your HDL (good cholesterol) and decreases your LDL (bad cholesterol).
Plenty of research has been done in most of the developed countries especially in Australia and USA after 1980 and the researchers have come to the conclusion that consumption of both cashew nuts and avocado is beneficial to patients with coronary artery disease especially those who have low HDL cholesterol. Low HDL is a well-known risk factor for heart attacks.
===========================
Cashew, avocado and heart patients by Dr. D. P. Atukorale With reference to the article on "Cashew, Avocado and heart patients' by Nutrition Consultant Ministry of Health Welfare and Nutrition (to whom I shall hereafter refer as N.C.) entitled "Cashew, Avocado and Heart patients: A reply (D.N., Health Watch 13.12.2002). The above article by N.C. is full of grossly erroneous and misleading statements which N.C. uses to attack me personally by my name. I have reason to suspect that her motive is maliciously to tarnish my image and to induce the readers and my patients to lose confidence in me. In her article to "Health Watch" N.C. says that she will refer to me as "The Learned Doctor (L.D.)." The general tone of her article and its contents lead one to the inference that she uses the word "Learned" there with some sarcasm as the general tenor of her article seems to show that I am by no means a learned man. N.C. says that "it is human to err and we are all bound to make mistakes and that she is no exception. She certainly has made many mistakes in her article and I would like to point out some of those errors and inaccurate statements made by N.C. which confirms her own statement that it is possible for her to make mistakes. N.C. alleges that I have recommended the eating of cashew and avocado "without conditions or ad libitum (without limits). This statement is a falsehood. I have never made such a statement. I have taken the trouble to write a large number of articles on nutrition to Sinhala journals and to both Sinhala and English newspapers during the last few years. In none of these articles on nutrition, I have advised the readers to consume any nutritional item including cashew and avocado "ad libitum" (without limits). The Health Watch readers are intelligent people and I have never heard of any Sri Lankan who consumes avocado and cashew nuts without limits. No person with an atom of commonsense will do such a foolish thing. Too much of anything is undoubtedly bad and "even drinking water in excess can cause water intoxication" (Dr. K. N. K. Wijewardena, Health Watch 20.12.2002). I challenge N. C. to quote any article written by me or any other medical doctor which states that any particular food items may be consumed without limits. N.C. says that I have written an article entitled "Avocado, A solution to Heart Disease (D.N. 30.05.2001). The title I gave to the abovementioned article was "nutritional value of avocado. This title has been altered to "Avocado a solution to heart disease" by someone at the press. Therefore N.C.'s lengthy and pompous exposition starting with the statements "Heart Disease has a multi-factorial aetiology" (which even a junior nurse is aware of) is quite unnecessary. The same article which I sent to the Sunday Observer appeared in that paper on 24.06.2001 with the caption "Avocado, The Wonder Food". It is customary for subeditors of newspapers when publishing articles to give their own captions which attract the attention of the readers. N.C. says "I don't want to be harsh on Dr. Atukorale. But most readers of the article will certainly think otherwise. N. C. says that a nutritionist )dietician) may incorporate foods such as cashew and avocado in limited quantities. This is what I have always been advising the readers. N. C. has stated that my articles are "factually incorrect and misleading and nutritionally incorrect". But N.C. has not quoted a single instance where I have been wrong. N. C. has failed to point out a single example of "incorrect and misleading and nutritionally incorrect" statements in any of the large number of articles on nutrition I wrote to newspapers and journals. In all my articles on nutrition, I have cited the latest authoritative information available and I have given the references wherever it is necessary quoting chapter and verse. For example in my article on avocado (D.N. 30.05.2001) I have quoted ten references. This is the established practice when writing articles on scientific or technical subjects. N. C. however makes pompous statements on scientific subjects without citing any authority for her statements. Perhaps the suggestion may be that they are her own original discoveries. A large number of articles have been written from time to time by doctors, ayurvedic practitioners, journalists and many others. However N. C. has singled me out of all these writers and attacked me personally by name for reasons best known to her. ,I have over the years taken the trouble to contribute a large number of articles on nutrition (as I am qualified in nutrition) to three English dailies, four Sunday English newspapers, one English weekly, four Sinhala dailies, five Sunday Sinhala newspapers, and eight Sinhala journals with the sole motive of educating the readers on this subject which interests every person. I have written articles on the nutritional aspects of cashew nuts, avocado, papaya, peanuts, legumes, dhal (lentils) gingili oil, olive oil, coconut oil, coconut milk, king coconut water, tea, jak fruit, seaweeds, garlic, Soya, rice, vegetarianism, mushrooms, margarine, polyunsaturated oils, essential fatty acids, protein requirements, essential amino-acids, food poisoning, diet in coronary artery disease obesity, complications of excessive meat consumption, free radicals, antioxidants, eggs, chicken, vitamins, salt and many other nutritionally important topics. However, although there are so many distinguished and respected specialists and family physicians in this country, no one has pointed out any errors in any of my articles or statements I have made. N.C. is the exception and she (whose existence I came to know only after her article in question was published in Health Watch in Daily News) I understand is not a doctor of medicine though her name is published in the said article after the title "Dr." I am made to understand that she has been awarded a Ph D by some University and as such she is of course fully entitled to have the title "Dr." before her name. While there are so many qualified and experienced medical practitioners in our country, it was a Ph. D that has criticized my articles and that too without citing any authorities to justify her allegations. All my articles on nutrition are based on facts published in reputed international journals such as American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, latest information provided by the American Dietetic Association (A.D.A), text books on nutrition written by medical doctors such as (a) Food and nutrition by Prof. T. W. Wickremanayake (who was my nutrition teacher in medical school) (b) Davidson and Passmore - Human Nutrition and Dietetics (c) Contemporary Nutrition Support Practice (d) Science and Practice of Nutrition Support by Michele et al, and other text books all written by internationally reputed doctors of medicine and not by any nutritionist (dieticians). The large number of articles I have written on vegetarianism are based on "Guide to Vegetarian Living" by Peter Cox, which is the only encyclopedia on vegetarian nutrition available at present as far as I am aware. Some of the articles on nutrition are based on facts and figures in "Food and Nutrition by Dr. (Mrs.) Kusum Gupta and Dr. L. C. Gupta who hold a world record of writing 77 medical books. All medical doctors, dieticians and nurses (who are given lectures on nutrition at nurses' training school) should give advice on nutrition to the patients and the community. In fact, all dieticians who have obtained their MSc in Food and Nutrition in Sri Lanka have been given lectures on nutrition by Prof. T.W. Wickramanayake who is a world authority on nutrition for whom I have the greatest respect. All medical doctors including all family physicians and consultant specialists give advice on nutrition to their patients. In fact, N.C. herself has admitted in her article that it is the cardiology clinic doctors who give advice on nutrition to cardiology clinic patients. During the 23 years I have served in the Institute of Cardiology, National Hospital Sri Lanka (NHSL) dietary advice to in-ward patients was generally given by the nurses. Extremely rarely did I refer a patient to the N.H.S.L. dietician. Out of over 100,000 patients treated in the Institute of Cardiology, N.H.S.L., I do not think even one hundred patients were referred to the N.H.S.L. dietician during those 23 years. Our family physicians are experts on nutrition. I contacted a few senior family physicians when writing this reply and all of them said that they have never referred a single case to any dietician. There are less than 15 dieticians in Sri Lanka. Can this handful of dieticians give individualized advice on nutrition (which N.C. is advocating) to a population of 19 million. Does N.C. know that at the premier N.H.S.L. Colombo there is only one dietician (who is on duty at hospital only from 8 a.m. to 12 noon) to give dietary advice to over 3000 patients warded at N.H.S.L. Colombo ? As far back as 1974, I have been writing articles on nutrition to Sinhala and English newspapers and journals. The two books I have written for heart patients and laymen in 1974 and 1975 devote a significant portion of the texts to nutritional advice. More the 10,000 copies of these books (published in two languages) have been distributed free to patients, family physicians and others attending the Institute of Cardiology, N.C. was perhaps a school girl at that time. Can N.C. name any Sri Lankan dietician who has made a significant contribution in the field of nutrition by writing articles to Sri Lankan newspapers especially Sinhala newspapers (as 70 percent of Sri Lankan don't read English Newspapers and journals) As Mr. Tilak Ponnamperuma in a reply to NC's article has mentioned, even mass circulation magazines such as Reader's Digest, Time and Newsweek sometimes give columns on health and diet by eminent doctors and medical scientists. Such articles are also not individualizes (DN Health Watch 20-12-2002). The latest and the first booklet written on vegetarian nutrition in Sinhala by me (a copy of which I have sent to N.C. after I read her defamatory article) was highly appreciated by the Hon. Minister of Health, Welfare and Nutrition. I understand that 5,000 copies of this booklet have been received by the Health Ministry a few days ago. 4,000 copies of this booklet have already been distributed free to the people who have asked for it. Discussion about cashew and avocado at S.L.M.C. Both N.C. and the Mr. Wickremasinghe mentioned by her in her article appear to be grossly ignorant of the functions of the Sri Lanka Medical Council (S.L.M.C.) Even a third year medical students knows that S.L.M.C. does not meet to discuss nutritional value of cashew and avocado, or similar topics. It is advisable for N.C. to ascertain the functions of the S.L.M.C. before making such silly statements in the mass media. N.C. says "Nuts or MUFA are not the issue here. The key issue is the unscientific and irresponsible manner in which scientific information has been distorted and disseminated" However N.C. fails to point out a single instance of unscientific information in any of my articles. Nor does she mention any example of "distortion of scientific information in an irresponsible manner". Dieticians (including N.C. of Allahabad fame) has not made any significant contribution to dissemination of information on nutrition. Major contribution to education in nutrition in Sri Lanka has been made by authorities on nutrition like Prof. T. W. Wickramanayake who is a doctor of medicines, who has written the most comprehensive book on nutrition. It is the Doctors of Medicine and not Doctors of Philosophy who have made major contributions on nutrition by writing hundreds of articles on nutrition to Sinhala and English newspapers and journals. Doctors of Medicine are more qualified to give advice on nutrition to patients as they have studied nutrition (with all other aspects of human medicine) from the time they were in medical school as nutrition is a part of the medical syllabus in medical school. N. C. owes an apology to the thousands of readers for misleading them by writing the irresponsible article published in the Daily News Health Watch (13.12.2002) Lastly N.C. and all other dieticians with or without a Ph D, as well as all heart patients should read Dr. Dean Ornish's (New York Times best seller) "Reversing Heart Disease". Dr. Ornish is a cardiologist and is the official advisor on nutrition to the White House. He was the adviser on nutrition to President Clinton. William C. Roberts MD Editor - in - chief of the American Journal of Cardiology has said "Dr. Ornish is on the right road". Dr. Ornish has given a large number of recipes for heart patients in his best selling book on nutrition. His research on nutrition has been published in "The Lancet", "Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) And" Circulation". Dr. Ornish has shown that people can clean out their coronary arteries by changes in their lifestyle and without any medication or bypass surgery. I have quoted from this epochal book in some of the articles written by me, citing as always, I did the relevant authority. -----------'--'------------- |
Limited" was the key word
With reference to 'Cashew, avocado and heart patients - a scientific explanation' (The Sunday Times, January 26 and February 2) the main thrust of the nutritionist's allegation is that I have advised "patients to eat cashew and avocado without reservations as against the advice of many doctors". Any careful reader will see that I have never recommended the consumption of these food items "ad libitum", words used by the nutritionist herself. The words "ad libitum" were never used in any of my articles on nutrition.
She, the nutritionist quotes Mr. Wickremasinghe who had said, "It is high time that the Medical Council meets, and arrives at a final decision etc."
It will be interesting to find out how this nutritionist, a non-medical person, responded to the Medical Council and whether she had a mandate to do so by this august body (to borrow another doctor's observations in a different context, is also an example of the donkey replacing the dog's bark with his braying!).
The Medical Council has so far remained silent apparently because I am not guilty of the spurious allegation and my advice has been least unscientific.
If the nutritionist has seen this dilemma going on for a long time, why did she wait to educate the public until Mr. Wickramasinghe brought it up? Since she herself has admitted that "foods such as cashew and avocado contain mono-unsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) and a professionally qualified dietician (nutritionist) may incorporate such foods in limited quantities, she joins the issue with me.
My recommendation too is limited consumption of the above items. I have never recommended, as she has said, unlimited consumption of cashew and avocado (vide all my articles).
Dr. D.P. Atukorale Colombo
-------------------------
Meat Eating
Not eating flesh: Shouldn’t the Sangha show the way?
As far as I am aware, a majority of Sri Lankan Buddhist monks consume flesh. Any monk invited to an alms-giving (dana) at the home of a Buddhist knows that in almost all the cases, the dayakaya will offer food that the monk would like to eat.
A majority of dayakayas usually ask the monk or his ‘abithhaya’ (attendant) or people known to the monk as to what kind of food the monk normally eats, so that the dayakaya can avoid giving food that does not agree with him physically or spiritually.
As all the monks to whom we give alms happen to be vegetarians, this problem does not arise in our case.
During the days of the Buddha, the would-be donors of meals to Buddha often consulted Ven. Ananda Thera who was his chief attendant.
When we serve food at alms-givings the monks who don’t like any item offered to them have a pleasant manner in which they say, ‘No’ without uttering a single word.
More and more monks especially those living in hermitages do not consume any flesh (meat and fish) including Maldive fish or eggs because that kind of food rouses their passions and are not conducive to their spiritual upliftment. Monks who preach the Dhamma can in no way accept flesh for food without going into a stage of mental conflict with Ahimsa.
As far as I am aware Anepidu Situthuma, Buddha’s chief dayakaya, who offered alms to Buddha and thousands of monks when Buddha was staying at the Jethavanaramaya temple for about 25 years, never offered fish and meat.
Even before Buddha’s time various religions in India condemned flesh eating as it is not conducive to spiritual progress.
The Encyclopedia of Buddhism points out that in China and Japan eating meat was looked upon as an evil act. No meat was brought to temples and monasteries. Meat-eating was taboo in Japan until the middle of the 19th century and people avoided giving alms to flesh-eating monks.
Dr. Kashaliya Walli in her well-known book ‘Conception of Ahimsa in Indian Thought’ says meat which can never be obtained without injuring sentient beings, is detrimental to heavenly bliss and, therefore, one should shun meat-eating.
He who permits the slaughter of animals, he who cuts up, kills, buys, sells, serves it up and eats, is a slayer of animals. Meat cannot be obtained from straw or stone. It can be obtained only by slaughtering a creature; hence meat is not to be eaten.
I know instances where monks or their attendants inform the dayakayas that they eat meat and fish and indirectly request them to serve chicken.
These flesh-eating monks quote the Jeewaka sutra when they want to eat meat. However, it is common knowledge that a majority of Sri Lankan Buddhists have much respect for vegetarian monks.
Buddhism is a religion to be practised and the monks who preach the Dhamma should also practice the Dhamma.
If the Sangha as a group launches a drive for vegetarianism it would save a large number of animals from slaughter. The Sangha should show the way and the laymen, at least a good proportion of them, will follow the good example set by the monks.
There is a misconception in the minds of some people that (a) man is created to eat meat and (b) that eating meat is essential for man to lead a healthy life.
(9) Flesh-eaters pass putrid excreta unlike vegetarian animals whose excreta is not so offensive.
-----------------------------------------
https://www.sundaytimes.lk/010408/plus5.html
Cancer bustersBy Dr. D.P. AtukoralePeople who follow vegetarian or near vegetarian diets have the lowest rates of cancer in the world. There is evidence to show that vegetarian diets protect against breast cancer:i. Vegetarians have lower levels of blood estrogens- hormones that raise the risk of breast cancer (B.K. Armstrong et al 1990). ii. Vegetarians begin menstruation somewhat later than average and there is a longer time between periods. Dietary fat shortens the menstrual cycle while fibre increases it. (Cassidy et al 1990). Colon cancer Diet is more strongly linked to colon cancer than to any other type of cancer and vegetarians are less liable to get this disease. (Journal of National Cancer Institute, Vol. 30:1983). In vegetarians, unlike in meat eaters, colon cells are much less active (The more the colon cells divide, the greater the risk of cancer). Secondary bile acids which are carcinogenic are more in omnivores compared to vegetarians. Oesophagus and stomach Although tobacco and alcohol intake are major risk factors for oesophageal cancer, a low intake of vitamin A and C are also associated with increased risk of this cancer. Lack of consumption of fruits and vegetables has been linked to cancer of the oral cavity. Vegetarians have higher blood levels of betacarotene which is thought to protect against cancer. Polyphenols prevent cancer of the oesophagus and the stomach and non vegetarian diets contain powerful carcinogens such as nitrosamines. Vitamin C found in fruit juices inhibit these carcinogens. Prostate Among men in the USA prostate cancer is the second most common malignancy but this cancer is not common among Seventh Day Adventist men as compared to general population, suggesting that vegetarianism is the protective factor (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1994). High fibre intake decreases the risk of prostate cancer and high fat intake raises that risk (Cancer, Vol. 58, 1986). ------'--------'------ Courtesy https://www.infolanka.com/org/srilanka/cult/18.htm
Dr. D. P. Atukorale | |||||
 | |||||
The Buddha also tells us not to hurt others according to the first precept. According to passage number 131 of Dhammapada. "He who, for the sake of happiness hurts others who also want happiness, shall not hereafter find happiness". Therefore according to Buddhism not killing and not hurting living beings are very important. Passage no 225 of Dhammapada says "The wise who hurt no living beings and who keep their bodies under self-control, may go to immortal "Nirvana" where once gone they sorrow no more". Again Dhammapada passage no. 405 says " A man is not a great man because he is a warrior and kills others, but because he hurts not any living beings, he in truth is called a great man". Dhammapada passages 129 and 130 say "All beings fear before danger, life is dear to all. When a man considers this, he does not kill or cause to kill". According to Buddhism all animals such as fish, mammals and birds are sentient creatures and should not be killed or hurt. According to Buddhism, Buddhists should not be hunters, fishermen, trappers, slaughterhouse workers, vivisectors etc. What About Eating Meat? Some people argue that, as long as people don’t kill animals themselves, it is all right to eat meat. But passages nos 129 and 130 of Dhammapada specify that we should not kill or cause to kill. When somebody buys meat and meat products he or she must necessarily cause someone to kill these animals. By accepting meat served to us by someone else, we are causing others to kill. Dhammapada passage no. 7 says " He who lives only for pleasures and whose soul is not in harmony, who considers not the food he eats, is idle and has not the power of virtue, such a man is moved by "Mara", is moved by selfish temptation even as a weak tree is shaken by the wind". Why Should Buddhists Be Vegetarians? The main reason is mercy. Mcrcy is an important way of learning to be a better person. Being without mercy is incompatible with being a Buddhist. Having a merciful and a compassionate heart will show up in all aspects of ones life. Think of the intense pain you would get when a bee or a wasp or a centipede attacks you. A person who has ever seen how a crab is cooked in boiling water and its desperate and doomed efforts to crawl and jump out betray the unbearable pain it experiences, will never eat crabs. Finally the crab gives up the life in sorrow as it turns bright red. What a painful end. A person who has ever seen the excruciating pain suffered by a cow when the slaughterer cuts a part of the neck, bleeds the animal and skins the animal long before it dies will never have the heart to eat beef. Not eating the flesh of these animals is an expression of mercy. For meat-eaters, every banquet, every wedding and every birthday party and every wedding anniversary means death of thousands of animals. Preventing the suffering of living creatures by not using their flesh to satisfy our taste buds and hunger is the minimum expression of compassion we as Buddhists can offer. To shoot, knife, strangle, drown crush, poison, bum or electo or otherwise intentionally to take life of a living being, purposefully to cause pain on a human being or an animal is to defile the first precept. Another way to defile the first precept is to cause another to kill, torture or harm any living creature. Therefore to put flesh of an animal into one’s belly is another way to cause another to kill. If fowls, cows and fish are not eaten, they would not be killed. Therefore meat eaters are responsible for the violence and destruction of animals. Buddhism also teaches us that there is not a single being that has not been our father, our mother, husband, wife, sister, brother, son or daughter, in the ladder of cause and effect through countless rebirths. In other words the creature that is the cow today might have been our mother during the last birth. The chicken you are going to eat for your dinner to night might have been your brother or sister during your last birth. Therefore rights of nonhumans should not be ignored or trampled upon. How can a monk seeking liberation from suffering, persistently eat the flesh of animals, knowing the excruciating pain and terror caused to them at the time of their slaughter? Did The Buddha Sanction Meat Eating? The laymen and Buddhist monks who eat meat quote the Jeewaka sutra in which the Buddha is said to have been addressed by one Jeewaka. Buddha is quoted as saying. "I forbid the eating of meat in 3 cases. If there is evidence either of your eyes, or of your ears or if there are grounds of suspicion. In three cases, I allow it, if there is no evidence of your eyes or of your ears and if there is no ground of suspicion". Are not domestic animals such as cows, goats, pigs and hens slaughtered for those who eat their flesh? If no one eats their flesh, obviously they would not be killed. Can anyone imagine a monk saying to his "dayakaya" who had offered him meat, "Sir, it is kind of you to donate this meat to me. But as I have reason to believe that the animal from which it came was killed just for me, I cannot accept it." Jeewaka sutra also implies that the Budda approved of butchering and the horrors of the slaughter house. Yet slaughtering is one of the trades forbidden to the Buddhists and with good reason. To say that on the one hand that the Buddha condemned the blood trades of slaughtering hunting? fishing and trapping and on the other hand allowed Buddhists and Buddhist monks to eat flesh of slaughtered animals when the animals have not been killed specifically for them is an absured contradition. Who else but the meat eaters are responsible for the blood trades of butchering, hunting and fishing? After all the slaughterers and the meat packing houses that sustain them are only responding to the demands of the flesh eaters. "I am only doing your dirty work" was the reply of a slaughterer to a gentleman who was objecting to the brutality of slaughtering harmless dumb animals. Every individual who eats flesh whether the animal is expressly killed for him or not, is supporting the trade of slaughtering and contributing to the violent death of harmless dumb animals. Was the Buddha so obtuse that, He failed to understand this, He who has been described as the "Perfect one", in whom, all mental, spiritual and psychic faculties have come to perfection and whose consciousness encompasses the infinity of the Universe? Was the Buddha so imperceptive as not to see that only by abstaining from flesh eating can one effectively end both killing of defenceless and dumb animals and the infliction of terror and suffering upon them. The Budda, we are told forbade his monks to eat flesh of such animals as dogs, elephants, bears and lions. Why should the Buddha sanction the eating of one kind of flesh and condemn another? Does a pig or a cow whose meat is supposed to be approved for eating, suffer any less pain, when it is slaughtered than a dog or a bear? All Buddhists who are familiar with numerous accounts of the Buddha’s extra-ordinary compassion and reverence for living beings, for example, his insistence that, his monks carry filters to strain water they drink, lest the death of micro organisms in the water could occur, could never believe that he would be indifferent to the suffering and death of domestic animals caused by their slaughter for food. As all Buddhists are aware, monks have a separate code of conduct called the "Vinaya". Surely the Buddha could have demanded of his monks what he could not have demanded of his lay followers. Monks by virtue of their training and their strength of character, are different from the lay people and are better able to resist the pleasures of senses to which ordinary people succumb. That is why, they renounce sexual pleasure and also not eat solids beyond 12 noon. Why is taking solids after 12 noon a more serious offence than eating animal flesh? Did the Buddha really say the things the compilers of the Pali Sutras would have us believe, he said on the subject of meat eating? Mahayana Version of Meat Eating Let us now consider the Sanskrit version as regards meat eating. I quote from "Lankavatara" sutra which devotes one whole chapter on the evils of meat eating. "For the sake of love, of purity’ the Bodhisatva should refrain from eating flesh which is born of semen, blood etc. For the fear of causing terror of living beings let the Bodisatva who is disciplining himself to attain compassion refrain from eating flesh". "It is not true that meat is proper food and permissible when the animal was not killed by himself, when he did not order others to kill, and when it is not specially meant for him". "Again there may be people in the future who being under the influence of taste for meat, will string together in various ways sophistic arguments to defend meat eating". But meat eating in any form, in any manner, and in any place is unconditionally and once and for all, is prohibited. I will not permit". Surangama Sutra says "The reason for practising "dhyana" and seeking to attain "Samadhi" is to escape from suffering of life. But in seeking to escape from suffering ourselves, why should we inflict it upon others. Unless you can control your minds, that even the thought of brutal unkindness and killing is abhorrent you will never be able to escape from bondage of world’s life". "After my parinirvana in the last kalpa, different kinds of ghosts will be encountered everywhere, deceiving people, and teaching that they can eat meat and still attain enlightenment. How can a bhikku who hopes to become a deliverer of others himself, be living on the flesh of other sentient beings?" The "Mahaparinirvana" Sutra (Sanskrit version) states "The eating of meat extinguishes the seeds of compassion". Even before the Buddha’s time various religions in India condemned flesh eating as not conducive to spiritual progress. If elder bhikkus of Mahayana were satisfied with Theravada version of flesh eating, they would have remained silent. The fact that they spoke out so vehemently against flesh eating, shows how deeply disturbed the elder bhikkus who wrote the Sanskrit version of Buddha’s teachings were. The Encyclopaedia of Buddhism points out that in China and Japan, flesh eating was looked upon as an evil and was ostracized and any kind of meat was not used in temples and monasteries. Meat eating was taboo in Japan until the middle of the 19th century. People avoided giving alms to flesh eating bhikkus. Dr. Kosheliya Wali in her book, "Conception of Ahimsa In Indian Thought" says, "meat can never be obtained without injuring creatures and injury to sentient beings and is detrimental to heavenly bliss and therefore one should shun meat eating". "One should consider the disgusting origin of flesh and the cruelty of slaughtering sentient beings and entirely abstain from flesh eating". "He who permits the slaughter of animals, he who cuts up, kills, buys, sells, serves it up and eats, every one is a slayer of animals". "He who seeks to increase his own flesh with the flesh of others and worshipping the gods is the greatest of all sinners". "Meat cannot be obtained from straw or stone. It can be obtained only by slaughtering creatures. Hence meat is not to be taken". A Chinese monk once said "You form a company with whatever type of meat you eat. You form a corporation with whatever type of animals you eat. For example if you eat a lot of pork you will become tied up into a company of pigs, same applies to cows, chicken, sheep fish and so forth". A British vegetarian named Dr. Watch once said "To prevent human, bloodshed one must start at the dinner table". If a person wants to take joy in Buddhism and enter into mercy and knowledge of the Buddha he must begin at the dinner table. In Sri Lanka, a wedding party takes hundreds if not thousands of animal lives. A birthday party or a wedding anniversary takes hundreds of animal lives. Before the death, living creatures experience, not joy, but anger and hatred and resentment. It is just by not killing with body that you observe the first precept. If in your thinking you allow the killing to go or, you also break the first precept. We must be determined not to condone killing even in our minds. According to Buddhism mind is the base of all actions. Did Buddha Die From Eating Meat? Buddhist monks who eat meat under certain circumstances, justify their flesh eating, saying that, Buddha himself ate a piece, of pork at one of his follower’s houses rather than hurt the feelings of his "dayakaya". Some monks who eat flesh, say that, they eat whatever put before them without any aversion. But most of the Buddhist scholars contend that it was not a piece of meat that caused the Buddha’s death and all Mahayana scriptures unequivocally condone meat eating as mentioned earlier. According to Mrs. Rhys David what Chunda offered to the Buddha is some mushrooms. Rhys David says that the term "sukara maddara" has at least 4 meanings. (a) Food eaten by pigs. (b) "Pigs delight?’ (c) Soft parts of the pig and (d) Food trampled by the pigs. Chunda being a follower of the Buddha, surely, would not have offered a piece of pork, well knowing that flesh was not a part of the Buddha’s diet. Very likely Chunda did not eat meat himself as many Indians did not eat meat during the Buddha’s time. Why then would he have offered meat to the "World Honoured one", a person so sensitive to suffering of all living beings, that he would not drink milk from a cow during the first 10 days after its calf is born. Any monk who has been offered meals at the home of a Buddhist knows that, the "dayakaya" usually asks the monk or his attendant or other "dayakayas" known to the monk, what kind of food, the monk normally eats, so that the "dayakaya" can avoid serving food that does not agree with him physically or spiritually. During the Buddha’s days the would be donors of meals to the Buddha often consulted yen. Ananda, the Buddha’s attendant. Buddhist monks who do not like any item of diet offered to them have a pleasant way of rejecting such food, without uttering a single word. As far as I know the majority of Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka eat meat and meat products. Some monks sometimes mention to the dayakaya, items of diet such as chicken which they eat when the dayakaya meets them to book a date for "dana". Quite a number of Buddhist monks especially those living in temples such as "Sasuna" and hermitages do not consume any form of meat, fish or eggs, because that kind of food rouses passion and is not conducive to their spiritual upliftment. It is note-worthy that more and more dayakayas give vegetarian diet for almsgivings and the number of vegetarian monks has been increasing during the past few years. Buddhist monks can play a great role in reducing the slaughter of animals and the terror and suffering associated with slaughter by requesting their followers not to serve flesh when they meet the monks to invite them for an almsgiving as there are lots of Buddhists who follow the good examples set by Buddhist monks. The majority of Buddhists have a higher respect for vegetarian monks than for monks who eat flesh. Buddhist monks who preach "Dhamma" can in no way accept flesh for food without getting into a conflict with "Ahimsa". Buddhism is a religion to be practised. If the body of Buddhist monks makes a proper drive for vegetarianism it would save a lot of animals from slaughter and cruelty and terror that accompanies slaughter. The body of Buddhist monks should lead the way and lay Buddhists, at least a good proportion of them would follow. With acknowledgements to (1 ) "A Buddhist case for Vegetarianism" by Roshi Philip Kapleau. (2) Dharma Bhandagaraya by Ven. Weragoda Sarada. Courtesy https://archives.dailynews.lk/2007/01/10/fea10.asp |
Irrationality of imposing vegetarianism on monks
The article entitled "A Case for Vegetarianism," by D. P. Atukorale, which calls for Buddhist monks to become vegetarian, raises an important topic.
Clearly the intention is a compassionate wish to help the many animals that are treated cruelly and slaughtered to serve human greed. Unfortunately, the proposal for monks to become vegetarian shows a lack of understanding, and the article significantly misrepresents the teaching of the Buddha as recorded in the Pali scriptures. Its main points are discussed, below.
According to the article,
* "Buddhist monks who preach Dhamma can in no way accept flesh for food without going into a stage of mental conflict with Ahimsa, (harmlessness)."
The Buddha told his monks to avoid eating meat of any animals killed for monks. He allowed monks to accept and eat meat if they have no reason (by seeing, hearing or otherwise suspecting) to believe that the animal was killed for them. That is the standard of harmlessness that he required regarding meat. (Mv. VI. 31) Whenever the topic of vegetarianism for monks arose, the Buddha expressed his opinion quite clearly:
When the good doctor Jivaka confronted the Buddha with a rumour that he ate meat prepared from animals slaughtered for him, the Buddha denied it. He explained that monks may eat meat if not killed for them, and that someone who kills to provide meat to monks earns demerit.
He pointed out the harmlessness of any monk who radiates loving-kindness (or other beautiful mental states) and eats without attachment whatever food he receives. Jivaka was convinced and declared, "The monks sustain themselves with blameless food." (MN 55)
The Buddha allowed monks to eat seafood and almost all types of animals except for a list of ten species to avoid. He disallowed some animals due to peoples, respect for the species (such as elephants), and disallowed a few others due to peoples, disgust (such as dogs).
Some others he disallowed due to potential danger from animals of the same species smelling the eaten flesh and attacking the monk (as, for example, lions were known to do). (Mv. VI. 23) He generally did not allow meat (or blood) served raw. (Mv. VI. 10).
The depraved monk Devadatta requested the Buddha to require vegetarianism and some other ascetic practices, knowing well that the Buddha would not bend on these issues.
Regarding the other ascetic practices, the Buddha answered that monks have the option to do them or not. Regarding meat-eating, however, the Buddha replied, "Fish and flesh are pure in respect of three points: if they are not seen, heard or suspected (to have been killed for him (a monk). He did not suggest that monks have the option to be vegetarian.
Devadatta then created a schism and lured some of the Buddha's monks to himself by boasting of his group's superior ascetic practices, including vegetarianism. (Cv. VII and Mv Sanghadisesa X) Living on alms is difficult. Monks give up ordinary eating habits and live on only whatever food they receive before noon each day. Occasionally they get unhealthy food, or little or no food at all.
Monks also have given up most daily sources of outward pleasure, control, and security for the rest of their lives. Living on alms eaten before noon is barely sufficient for some monks to stay healthy, and many become skinny; sometimes offerings of meat help a monk stay strong enough to carry on.
If monks must give up offerings of meat, too, for the rest of their lives, some monks would not be able to endure the holy life (and some lay people would be afraid to ordain). Since the Buddha himself did not blame monks for eating meat, who, other than Devadatta, would dare do so?
Furthermore, there is evidence that the Buddha also ate meat, for examples:
The account of events leading up to a Vinaya rule states that one time a hunter gave an arhant female monk a quantity of meat, which she wrapped in her outer robe as a gift for the Buddha.
When she gave the bundle to the Buddha's attendant, that monk demanded the female arhant's other robe as a gift to himself, which left her wearing only one robe. (Hence the Buddha ruled that monks cannot take a robe from a female monk without giving a robe in return). (Nis. Pac 5)
When an important lay disciple of the Jain ascetics, General Siha, had converted to Buddhism, he offered a meal with meat to the Buddha and his monks.
A large number of Jains reacted with an outraged public, going throughout the town moaning and waving their arms, and crying out that the Buddha caused General Siha to kill a large beast for his meal. General Siha was not distressed by their foolishness and neither was the Buddha. (Mv. VI. 31)
On one occasion a chief minister offered 1,250 bowls of meat to the Buddha and a large company of monks, but the monks ate very little, due to having eaten breakfast elsewhere. This upset the donor, and the Buddha rebuked the monks. (Mv. VI. 25)
* "He who permits the slaughter of animals, he who cuts up, kills, buys, sells, serves it up and eat(s), everyone of these is a slayer of animals". It requires a misunderstanding of kamma to think that through eating already-dead meat, a person becomes responsible for the killing of the beast.
Such an unclear association of cause and effect could also hold a person responsible for, say, an accidental killing. The Buddha named five factors necessary for a monk to blamably "kill" an animal. There must be: (1) the object: a living animal; (2) Perception: he knows it to be an animal; (3) Intention: he specifically wishes that animal to die; (4) Effort: he does something to kill it; (5) Result: the animal dies due to the effort made. All five factors must be present, to "kill". (Pac. 61)
Both an accidental killing and meat-eating lack some of the five factors of a blamable killing. For example, let's say that a man sits on a pillow that hides a sleeping kitten and it dies. Although he has two factors of killing, the living object (a kitten) and the Resulting death, he lacks the other three: Perception of a living being, Intention to kill, and Effort to kill.
Someone eating meat lacks the Object of a living animal (it already died), lacks Perception of a living animal, lacks Intention to kill it, makes no Effort to kill it, and in the act of chewing and swallowing meat causes no Resulting death.
An accidental death, which is clearly not blamable, has two or more factors of killing, whereas eating dead meat has none!
Only the killer kills. One who traffics in buying and selling animals engages in a wrong livelihood, but does not kill, nor does someone who merely chops meat, sells it, or buys the meat. Unless a person actually takes life, or instructs another to do so, he does not kill.
It is not uncommon for people to think they know better than the Buddha, but they should not misrepresent the Dhamma by mixing it up with non-Buddhist ideas. The Buddha warned of serious kammic consequences from misrepresenting his teachings.
* "(T)he "dayaka" (supporter) will offer food that the monk would like to eat.... I know instances where monks.... indirectly request the dayakayas to serve meat."
The article's author seems to scorn "these flesh eating monks" (as he or she calls them). The Buddha told all disciples never to disparage or look down upon others who have less pure morality. This applies even to the essential five precepts. How much more foolish it would be to look down on a behavior that the Buddha called harmless, particularly when done by someone who generally leads a much more restrained and moral life than oneself.
The author seems to specially scorn monks who make special requests for meat. Such requests are blamable in some cases, but not in others. The Buddha made a rule against monks asking for sumptuous foods, listing nine "fine foods" not to request, including such items as milk, honey and meat. Yet he made significant exceptions to that rule.
He allowed monks to request meat or other "fine foods" that will help them, if ill. (Think of chicken soup for a cold, for example; or dark meat for someone who is anemic; meat broth to help recover from digestive trouble; or meat to gain strength when malnourished).
Being "ill" is broadly defined as being unable to find comfort without the requested item. Monks can rightly request "fine foods" in some other circumstances, too, such as when asking relatives, or when donors have invited them to ask. (Pac 39 and Bhi. Patid).
Hence it is quite wrong for lay people to criticize a monk who directly asks let alone merely hints for meat to overcome a physical problem. It is wrong to criticize, too, if he was invited to ask, or if other exceptions apply. However, if no exceptions apply, then by hinting for any "fine food the monk engages in wrong livelihood; by making a direct request, he commits a confessable offense. This is kammically unfortunate for the monk due to his greed, not due to killing.
* "(Eating) flesh ... rouses (monks) passions and (is) not conducive to spiritual uplift.
Aside from the ill effects of excessive, greedy and unmindful eating habits, the scriptures do not quote the Buddha as blaming items in monks, diets for causing passions. Rather, he blamed unwise behavior, such as mentally focusing upon the kinds of objects that trigger or increase lust or ill will.
To overcome the passions, the Buddha did not say to stop eating meat or other types of food. Rather, he named antidotes such as loving-friendliness to overcome ill will; wise focus upon bodily foulness to overcome passion; and "a pacified mind to overcome restlessness and worry. (AN Once ii)
As we know from the sixth step of the Buddha's Eightfold path, Right Effort, The body of Buddhist monks should show the (vegetarian) way and the Buddhist laymen (,) at least a good proportion of them (,) would follow the good example set up by the monks.
For the past 2,500 years the monks have set many good examples, including celibacy and finishing all eating before noon, but have a good proportion % of Buddhist laymen followed all these good examples as of yet? It not, then who can predict with certainty that laymen will stop eating meat simply because the monks do so? It is mere speculation.
It is not always skilful for monks to "show the way and set a good example by rejecting donated meat. The best attitude towards food is detachment, as the Buddha pointed out repeatedly. To reject food donations based on one's personal opinions is not good for the mind of a monk who is not yet perfected, as this kind of behaviour tends to inflame aversion, pride, and other unwholesome qualities.
Holding and acting upon one's opinions, preferences and pickiness towards food is a normal part of lay life that monks need to let go to make progress.
The Buddha said,
"People give as they have faith,
as they are bright with joyfulness.
Who's troubled over gifts received,
The food and drink that others get,
Neither in daytime not by night
Will come to a collected mind. (Dh 249)
The monk's food rejection also may cause agitation and other negative mental state in the donor. People give with faith in Sangha, truly with faces bright. Although sometimes a monk can, as the author said, turn down unwanted food" 'in a pleasant manner', there are also many occasions in which the refusal to receive a gift of food comes as a sharp blow to the lay supporter.
Often times when vegetarian monks reject lovingly well-prepared offerings that include meat, donors, bright faces fall and take a look of shame. Sometimes the lay people must scramble to find sufficient alternatives to feed a scrupulous vegetarian monk. Sometimes they anxiously try to talk the vegetarian into eating dishes that contain "just a little bit" of the offending ingredient.
Vegetarian monks and novices have been seen aversively picking over the almsfood, inquiring of every dish whether there may be a tiny bit of meat or gravy that would taint the donated food, unaware of how their behaviour taints what began as joyful, faith-filled giving.
Contentment with almsfood is such an essential yet rare quality, very difficult to attain, that it should be cultivated above other concerns.
The Buddha said that a monk who is not contented with his almsfood cannot enjoy meditation; this must be doubly true after a discussion with a dismayed layperson over whether his or her gifts of meat-tainted food are acceptable.
Some monks have allergies and other medical problems that cause them to limit the kinds of food that they can accept. (Think of the plight of a diabetic monk facing a lovingly-prepared offering of white rice, potatoes, refined pasta, and sweets.) Even such unavoidable physical limitations can bring painful embarrassment to everyone. Hence it seems callous, ungrateful and burdensome to complicate the almsgiving by rejecting food for any unnecessary reason.
Meat-eating is not the only issue on which monks may want to express an opinion:
Perhaps monks should refuse any donated items manufactured by various companies that engage in bad business practices. Perhaps monks also should turn away offerings of flowers that are non-native species, since their cultivation harms the local environment. The list could be endless.
Would the Buddha approve of such strategies? He instructed monks to turn down almsfood under certain circumstances, but never for a purpose such as manipulating social change. According to the Buddha, the continuation of the Dhamma depends upon monks living the holy life.
Since the holy life requires an on-going supportive relationship between lay supporters and monks, it would be wise for monks not to abuse the laity's generosity by critical attitudes towards donations. It seems better to graciously accept whatever the lay people choose to give.
#######################
Buddhist monks and meat eating
Reply to Bhikkhuni Sudhamma (USA)
Dr. D. P. Atukorale, M. D. (Ceylon), F. R. C. P. (Lond.), F. R. C. P. (Edin.), F. R. C. P. (Glasgow), F. A. C. C., F. C. C. P.
I refer to the article with above heading by Bhikkuni Sudhamma (B.S.) appearing in several newspapers (Daily News and Island) B. S.'s article is full of untruths, and misconceptions (a) about vegetarianism and (b) about Buddhism.
Bhikkuni Sudhamma's (BS'c) misconceptions and untruths about vegetarianism B. S. Who is said to be living in U. S. A., I am sure, may be aware, that there are millions of vegetarians in USA at present.
Vegetarian diet is the diet of the future and flesh food is the diet of the past. B. S. appears to be grossly ignorant of the fact that vegetarian diet is far superior to meat diet in all respects.
According to the W.H.O., consumption of vegetarian diet reduces the incidence of diseases such as cancer, coronary heart diseases, obesity and hypertension.
B.S., I suppose is aware of the Christian sect called "Seventh Day Adventists" many of the followers of which sect live in the USA; all such followers are vegetarians. There is a large volume of scientific evidence to show that among such people there is less hypertension, less coronary heart disease, less obesity, less diabetes and less cancer than among meat eaters in the USA.
B.S. tries to give the impression to the readers that vegetarians suffer from anaemia and that people who do not consume meat are (a) weak and (b) have more digestive disorders than meat - eaters.
As there are millions of vegetarians in the USA, I would appreciate if B. S. will quote any reference to any reputed scientific international journal such as the American journal of Clinical Nutrition or J.A.M.A. for the benefit of Sri Lankan vegetarians to support her theory.
In Sri Lanka, unlike in the USA as alleged by B.S., lay people are "not afraid to ordain" as monks in temples where all the monks are vegetarians, and lay people are not afraid to be ordained as monks in hermitages (where they always consume vegetarian diet).
It is noteworthy that to date there has been no epidemic of anaemia (including B12 deficiency anaemia) malnutrition, gastro-intestinal disorders or protein deficiency diseases due to vegetarianism in our country which has over one million vegetarians.
Has any such epidemics been reported in medical journals in the USA where BS is living.
As far as I am aware, the Buddha never advised monks to ask for meat from lay dhayakayas" (donors of dana).
BS who appears to be ignorant of the nutritional aspects of vegetarian diet says that (a) "chicken soup is good for a cold"; (b) "meat broth helps the monks to recover from digestive troubles; (c) "it is quite wrong for lay people to criticize a monk who directly asks for meat to overcome a physical problem".
Can BS with her vast experience and knowledge about meat diet enlighten the vegetarians and other lay public as to what these physical problems resulting from not consuming meat are. Sri Lankan scientific community will be very keen to know from BS as to from what scientific journal she obtained the above information or is it from her own personal experience?
(B) Bhikkuni Sudhamma's Misconceptions About Buddhism
Vegetarianism is a statement against violence and cruelty to animals. Animals are feeling creatures (sentient creatures) with complex behaviour and affinity to their offsprings.
As Bhikkuni Sudhamma (B.S.) may be aware, in Sri Lankan animals such as cows and goats are transported in appalling conditions over long distances often without giving them water and food to slaughter houses. The process of slaughter is inhuman and very very cruel.
It is the flesh of these animals who have been deliberately killed that non-vegetarians eat. When you meditate and wish "May all beings be well and happy", what you do is to eat the flesh of animals whose happiness you have prayed for. Can a monk or Bhikku or Bhikkuni or any Buddhist layman practise "Maithri Bhavana" (Loving Kindness) with a belly of flesh of animals killed for flesh.
B.S. speaks of flesh of animals who die accidentally or following natural death or following diseases.
As far as I am aware the flesh of animals sold in the meat in our markets is not that of animals who die naturally or following accidents and I wonder whether such flesh is sold for meat markets in USA.
I fully agree with B.S., that if the person is sure, that there is nothing wrong in eating such flesh of dead animals. In this part of the world, people don't like to eat flesh of dead animals and this type of flesh is generally not sold in Sri Lankan meat markets.
First Precept
As far as I am aware, majority of Buddhists in Sri Lanka observe the five precepts or "Pan Sil" daily. When we observe the first precept "Paanaathi Paatha Weramani Sikkhapadam Samadhiyami", we promise not to take life or not to harm any living beings.
You know, you cannot eat flesh without someone killing the animal (e.g. cow, goat, pig or hen) for us. If we won't consume flesh, there won't be killing of animals. The first precept is an injunction against destroying life or hurting others.
"The matrix of all phenomenon from which arises our sense of compassion and moral goodness arises from the first precept. In other words this precept is based on the principle of mutual attraction and righteousness common to all nature."
"Other way to defile the first precept is to cause another to kill, torture or harm any living creature. Therefore to put flesh of an animal into ones belly makes one an accessory altar".
"If fowls, pigs, cows and fish are not eaten, they would not be killed. Therefore majority of meat - eaters are responsible for the violence and destruction of animals."
"The first precept has another religious aspect. Buddhism teaches us that there is not a single being in this world that has not been our father, our mother, husband, wife, sister, brother, son and daughter in the descent of the ladder of cause and effect, through countless rebirths.
In other words, the creature that is the cow today may in the past rebirth may have been our mother. The roasted chicken you are going to eat for lunch today might have been the flesh of your brother or sister during the last birth."
Did the Buddha sanction meat eating?
Bhikkhus, bhikkhunis and Buddhist laymen who are "addicted" to flesh often quote the Jeewaka sutra in which Buddha is said to have been addressed by one Jeewaka and Buddha is quoted as saying.
"I forbid the eating of meat in 3 cases (a) if there is evidence either of your eyes or of your ears or if there are grounds of suspicion".
"In 3 cases I allow it if there is no evidence of your eyes or of your ears and if there is no grounds of suspicion". "How plausible is that the Buddha sanctioned the eating of animal flesh in all circumstances except when they had reason to suspect that, the animal has been killed specifically for them."
"Aren't domestic animals like cattle, goats and fowls slaughtered for whoever eats their flesh? If no one eats their flesh, obviously they would not be killed."
"Who else but meat-eaters are responsible for the perpetuation of the blood trades of butchering, hunting and fishing? After all the slaughterers and meat packing houses that sustain them are only responding to the demands of the flesh eaters."
"Every person who eats flesh whether the animal is expressly killed for him or not is supporting the trade of slaughtering and contributing to the violent deaths of harmless dumb animals."
"Was Buddha so obtuse that he failed to understand this - he who has been described as the "Perfect One" in whom all mental spiritual and psychic faculties have come to perfection and whose consciousness encompasses the infinity of the universe. Was he so unperceptive that only by abstaining from flesh products can one effectively end both killing of dumb animals and infliction of suffering upon them?"
" The Buddha, we are told, forbade his monks to eat flesh as those of elephants, dogs and lions. Why should the Buddha sanction the eating of one kind of flesh food and condemn another? Does a pig or a cow whose meat is supposed to be approved for eating suffer any less pain when it is slaughtered than a dog or bear?"
"All of you who are familiar with the numerous accounts of the Buddha's extraordinary compassion and reverence for living beings, for example, Buddhas insistence that, his monks carry filters to strain the water they drink, lest death of micro-organisms in the water, could occur, never believe, that he would be indifferent to suffering and death of domestic animals, caused by their slaughter for food."
Mahayana version
Let us consider the Mahayana version (Sanskrit version) as regards meat eating. I am quoting from Lankavatara sutra which devotes one entire chapter on the evils of meat eating.
"For the sake of love, of purity, the Bodhisatva should refrain from eating flesh, which is born of semen, blood etc, for the fear of causing terror of living beings, let the Bodhisatva who is disciplining himself to attain compassion refrain from eating flesh."
"It is not true that meat is proper food and permissible when the animal was not killed by himself, when he did not order the others to kill - and when it is not especially meant for him." "Again there may be people in the future, who being under the influence of the taste for meat, will string together in various ways, sophistic arguments to defend meat eating."
"But meat eating in any form, in any manner and in any place is unconditionally and once and for all prohibited. I will not permit".
According to Surangama sutra "the reason for practising dyana and seeking to attain Samadhi is to escape from suffering of life, but in seeking to escape from suffering ourselves, why should we inflict it on others.
Unless you can so control your minds you will never be able to escape from suffering ourselves, why should we inflict it on others. Unless you can so control your minds you will never be able to escape from bondage of worldly life.
After my "Parinirvana" in the last kalpa, different kinds of ghosts will be encountered everywhere, deceiving people and teaching that they can eat meat and still attain enlightenment. How can a Bhikkhu, who hopes to become a deliverer of others, himself be living on the flesh of others sentient beings?"
The Mahaparinirvana sutra (Mahayana version) states" The eating of meat extinguishes the seed of compassion." If the elder monks of Mahayana were satisfied with Theravada version of flesh eating they would have remained silent. The fact that they spoke so vehemently against flesh eating shows how deeply disturbed the elder Bhikkus who wrote the Sanskrit version of the Buddha's teaching.
The Encyclopedia of Buddhism points out, that, in China and Japan meat was looked upon as an evil and was ostracized and any kind of meat was not used in temples and monasteries. Meat eating was taboo in Japan until the middle of the 19th century. People avoided giving alms to bhikkus who eat fish and meat.
Dr. Koshalya Walli in her book "Conception of Ahimsa in Indian Thought" says "Meat can never be obtained without injuring creatures and injuring sentient beings, meat eating is detrimental to heavenly bliss and therefore one should shun meat eating."
"One should consider the disgusting origins of flesh and cruelty of slaying sentient beings and entirely abstain from flesh eating."
"He who permits the slaughter of animals, he who cuts up, kills, buys, sells, serves it up and eat, everyone is a slayer of animals."
"He who seeks to increase his own flesh with the flesh of others is the greatest sinner of all sinners. Meat cannot be obtained from straw or stone. It can be obtained only by slaughtering a creature, hence is not to be eaten".
May all beings be well and happy!
References:-
1. The Dhammapada by Ven. Weragoda Sarada
2. To Cherish All Life - A Buddhist view of Animal Slaughter and Meat Eating By Roshi Philip Kapleau.
3. Guide To Vegetarian Living by Peter Cox.
The debate is concluded
--------------------
ATUKORALE, D P (Senior Cardiologist, Sri Lanka) (1996)
Truth about coconut oil. In Facts about coconut oil
Jakarta; APCC. 52-54.(8149) A.
There are misconceptions and conflicting regarding coconut and heart disease as a result of a large number of publications on the above subject in the medical literature. Majority of these come to one conclusion that coconut causes a high level of serum cholesterol. This paper tries to explain such misconceptions and provide a clearer picture of the real scenario.
ATUKORALE, D P (1997)
/ Coconut oil and heart disease. Proceedings ul the Symposium on Nutrition ana Health aspects of coconut oil. 9-12.
ATUKORALE, D P (09 Feb. 2001)
Coconut, coconut oil and heart disease. The Island.newspaper 8,9.(8202)
ATUKORALE, D P (01 February 2001)
Populations of coconut consuming countries show low level of heart incidence. Silumina.newspaper (8214) A.
ATUKORALE, D P (13 March 2001)
Goodness of coconut oil.
The Island. Newspaper 11.
https://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2024/08/24/coconut-oil-study-in-sri-lanka/ – Coconut Oil Study in Sri Lanka.
Lankaweb Health
This short video clip highlights the utmost importance of preserving the consumption of Coconut oil use in Sri Lanka as opposed to Palm oil, etc. https://youtu.be/zGKADY5IITU?si=5ReXxAyS3vqevRfX
The sad part is there ARE unscrupulous producers, traders, marketers, etc, who ADULTERATE Virgin Coconut Oil with Palm oil, and hence the people at large are deprived of the great benefits of Coconut oil.
The new President of Sri Lanka and his/her group MUST ensure these crooks are caught and given the most severe punishment just as what happened to crooked previous Health Minister
-------------------
We are ATTACKED!
![[henry Jayasena column]](https://archives.dailynews.lk/2007/08/29/artscope-HenryJ.jpg)
THEATRE: Things were running smoothly for us but not for long. Our fate at Rupavahini was not unsimilar to the fate of the country in general. There were momentous ups and downs. Amidst all that we carried on courageously - if I may say so.
We were witnessing ‘structural’ changes too at Rupavahini. I forgot to mention that I fell ill in August 1983 - barely six months after I joined the institution. It was very much like a heart attack. Up to this day I don’t know what it exactly was. Whether it was a real heart attack or a very nasty case of gastritis.
I say that because the ECGs did not show any vital changes. One morning I felt a constriction like pain starting from the abdomen and going right up to my back. There were several heart attack ‘specialists’ in the Corporation in the sense there were several who had undergone heart attacks earlier - including the Chairman himself.
When I complained to A.M. Ubeydullah - our Director of Administration [who himself had had a heart attack some time back] he immediately put me in a vehicle and was going to take me to the Cardiology Unit of the General Hospital.
But I insisted that I see my physician Dr. B.P.N. Jayasekera first, to get his opinion. So I was taken to his clinic at Dickmans Road first. The time was around 12.30 in the afternoon. He asked me a few questions. Mind you he too was a heart attack ‘specialist’ having had more than one heart attack! He said it might be the ‘strain’ of my new job.
I made a strange request from him - he was my friend. “Doctor, give me a drop of brandy if you have some at home.” I told him. He looked at me, raised his eyebrows and simply said “Not a bad idea.”
And fetched a thimbleful of brandy for me. “It will do him good for the moment.” Dr Jayasekera told my friend Ubeydullah, who was watching the proceedings open mouthed! “Anyway you had better go to the cardiology unit and get yourself checked,” Dr. Jayasekera told me.
And so I was taken to the Cardiology Unit. I believe Ubeydullah had called them by phone earlier. A trolley was ready as we took the vehicle under the porch and I was promptly wheeled away. It was a relief to find that one of my actor friends from my “Janelaya” days in 1959 - Dr. Upul Wijewardena - was in charge.
Upul played the part of the young dreamer - ‘Comasaris’ - in my very first production of the play with medical students, way back in 1959. The other Doctor in charge was Dr. D.P. Atukorala - the very famous healer.
By some error I was taken to Dr. Atukorale’s ward and Upul was furious about it. Finally the issue was settled and I was put in Dr. Upul Wijewardena’s ward. I thought that was a bad beginning where two doctors were ‘fighting’ for the ownership of a patient!
Stress test
Anyway the result of it was that I spent nearly three weeks at the Cardiology Unit and after the usual stress test etc. [if it is now, I would fall flat on my face!] was sent home eighteen pounds thinner! There is a side story to this episode which is not very pleasant but worth recording.
Just the night before I was to be released from hospital some chap with a demented sense of humour had phoned Rupavahini and informed them that I had passed away - he had pretended to be calling from the hospital.
The News Room was preparing a news item when M.J. Perera had called them and asked them to verify from the Cardiology Unit itself. The Cardiology Unit had informed them that I was very much alive and was in fact, ready to be discharged the next day! Thanks to Perera’s foresight a very embarrassing situation was avoided for Rupavahini.
Much later, Richard de Zoysa, who was on duty that night told me that his hands shook as he was typing out the news item! So, as I said we had our ups and downs.
When I came back to Rupavahini after about another week, the Duty Room office on the ground floor had been prepared for me so that I would be saved the risk of climbing up and down the stairs. I took it for about one week and got back to my office upstairs.
By the time I came back several changes had taken place at Rupavahini. M.J. Perera had broadened the duties of the Educational Programmes division under Mrs. Indrani Guneratne and had transferred some of the Units of the General Programs Division - such as the Documentary Unit and the Research Unit to the new Division.
“You have too much work. So I tried to give you some relief,:Perera told me. I did not mind. I still had enough on my hands.
About this time, Perera also had decided to bring in a Director General for the Corporation. He wanted to be relieved of the duties of the D.G. and concentrate on Policy Matters as Chairman.
The present new wing of the Corporation was also coming up including accommodation facilities for the drivers of the Corporation who were often required for very early morning duty.
New DG
So Anura Gunasekera, who was a Director of the Information Dept. was brought in as our new Director General. M.J. Perera moved into the new wing - to the furthest room in the building. We carried on. I was unhappy that I lost my beloved boss and guru. Perera and I had got along very well having known each other for a number of years.
Gunasekera was a young S.L.A.S. man who had just returned from the United States with a Doctorate in Communication. M.J. Perera had thought he was the right man for the job. How right he was I do not wish to discuss especially as Anura Gunasekera is no longer with us.
We got along quite well except for minor differences of opinion such as whether there should be ‘special’ privileges for the artists.
I will not discuss them in detail. About this time, I think early in 1986 - I cannot record the exact date because I have lost my diaries - our transmitting station at Pidurutalagala was attacked by the terrorists.
The attack had been repulsed by the military presence there but the enemy had caused considerable damage to some of our transmitting equipment etc.
Somebody from the Head Office had to go there and bring an assessment of the damage. It was the D.G. who had to select the team that would visit Pidurutalagala for that assessment.
Gunasekera called me to his office that morning and told me that I should head the team with an Engineer and a Technician, to accompany. “A senior person should go there and I think you are the ideal person.” I made no protest.
I was 55 years old at that time and according to medical men I had undergone a heart attack two years before. I took it as a challenge. My companions were an Engineer by the name of Heartley Fernando and a technician by the name of Gunadasa - both rather stocky men.
Climbing Pidurutalagala nowadays is no big deal because there is a tarred road that could take you right up to the top. But those days there was no road. One had to climb in the beaten track amidst tea bushes etc.
I remember breaking journey in Kandy - staying in one of our circuit bungalows - and setting out early next morning. A technician from the Pidurutalagala sub station had come down to show us the way. His name was Santin Gunawardhana [not my actor].
Uphill climb
I think it is an uphill climb of about seven miles and very tough at certain points. On the way we were shown a stone pillar put up there in memory of Buell - one of the pioneers who climbed Pidurutalagala to put up that station - even before Rupavahini came into being. Buell had climbed the hill together with Thevis Guruge and a few others and fallen and died at that spot. That was inspiration indeed.
We climbed and climbed and reached our spot on top of Pidurutalagala around 10 or 11 a.m. It was windy, misty and cold. We were shown the damage caused by the attackers. Some control panels and equipment were damaged. But the Army boys who guarded the station had done a good job.
They had retaliated and repulsed the attackers. Some or at least one or two of attackers had been wounded. They showed us blood stains in the nearby ‘mana’ bushes. We found a few spent bullets and other pieces of shrapnel inside the transmitting room. I collected some of them as souvenirs to be brought back to Colombo.
Engineer Hartley Fernanado and Senior Technician Gunadasa had discussions about repairs to the damaged equipment. I concentrated on immediate contingency plans. Anyway no major damage had been caused to the station and the staff had managed to continue transmissions. We brought back a report which was submitted to the Chairman and the Director General.
Altogether it was a daunting experience. I was rather pleased with myself that I could climb up and down Pidurutalagala at that age. I don’t know what happened to the report. The Engineering Section would have seen to it that things were put right and the Security Division would have seen about tighter security.
I believe all three of us had to re-relate our ‘Pidurutalagala’ experience to office mates and friends, several times over. For a day or two we had become ‘heroes’ within the Corporation!
I showed my souvenirs of pieces of spent bullets and other stuff to M.J. Perera. He simply said: “I was worried when I heard you were sent up that steep climb. Anyway that should give you some self-confidence too. Keep the pieces of bullets etc as a souvenir. You could hand them over to Rupavahini when it decides to have a museum of its own!”
Thought of the week
The rate of crime is increasing at an alarming rate in the country. Take any newspaper, listen to the radio or watch news over TV, it is crime, crime and crime everywhere.
The slightest motive seems to be good enough for a stabbing, shooting or even an abduction. Recently a little boy was abducted for ransom and found killed. Where is this country heading to?
I don’t think there is a single country which has so many Bana Preachings, so much Bodhi Pooja, so much God Worship, so many sermons etc. anywhere else in the world. But crime is increasing in spite of all that.
There must be something rotten at the very core of things. And that I think is the greed for money - money that should be got by any means. That is one of the evils of a free economy where everything is calculated in terms of money and nothing else. After all the ‘morals’ of the citizenry are dictated by those who lead and govern them.
No amount of preachings, sermons and poojas will do any good as long as we plant ‘greed’ in the minds of men.
.jpeg)
Comments
Post a Comment