Garlic and Cow Dung

 Garlic as an edible substance was forbidden during the early sangha. It seems that at the time many people found it to be an utterly offensive substance and this was not limited to Buddhists. In the Vedic traditions as well we see a strong disdain for garlic as well as onions. For example, in the Manusmṛti (Laws of Manu), which admittedly dates a few centuries after the Buddha's lifetime, we see the following proscriptions:

5. Garlic, leeks and onions, mushrooms and (all plants), springing from impure (substances), are unfit to be eaten by twice-born men.

...

19. A twice-born man who knowingly eats mushrooms, a village-pig, garlic, a village-cock, onions, or leeks, will become an outcast.

The Buddhist Vinaya literature also prescribes strict rules against eating garlic, stating that it is only to be consumed medicinally and even then there are protocols in place to prevent the garlic eater from offending his fellow monastics with his odor by becoming something of a temporary outcast. Here I would like to look at some of the rules and regulations concerning garlic as it is found in the Indian Vinaya literature as translated and preserved in Chinese (much Indian Buddhist literature only survives in Classical Chinese I should note). At the same time I would like to point out how while garlic was considered disagreeable, the substance of cow dung was not. This kind of sensibility was largely held in common with Vedic traditions. This is also an interesting cultural difference to consider given that in modern times in the west and of course elsewhere it is the complete opposite.

To begin with, the Four Part Vinaya of the Dharmagupta school forbids the consumption of garlic, though the severity of the offense differs according to the gender.

《四分律》卷25：「若比丘尼噉生蒜熟蒜若雜蒜者咽咽波逸提。比丘突吉羅。式叉摩那沙彌沙彌尼突吉羅。是謂為犯。不犯者。或有如是病。以餅裹蒜食。若餘藥所不治。唯須服蒜差聽服。若塗瘡不犯。」(CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 737, b10-14)

“If a bhikṣuṇī (nun) eats raw garlic, old garlic or mixed garlic, it is a pāyattika offense when swallowed. For a bhikṣu (monk) it is a duṣkṛta (misdemeanor) offense. For a śikṣamāṇā, śrāmaṇera (male novice) or śrāmaṇerī (female novice) it is a duṣkṛta offense. This is considered a violation. A non-violation would be if someone had an illness as such and the garlic was eaten in a biscuit. If one cannot be cured with other medicines and only with treatment with garlic will one recover, then the treatment is permitted. If smeared on a skin sore there is no violation.”

The Sarvāstivādavinaya Saṃgraha offers the following protocol for a monastic taking garlic medicinally.

《根本薩婆多部律攝》卷8：「若服蒜為藥者。僧伽臥具大小便處。咸不應受用。不入眾中不禮尊像。不繞制底。有俗人來不為說法。設有請喚亦不應往。應住邊房服藥既了。更停七日待臭氣銷散。浴洗身衣並令清潔。其所居處牛糞淨塗。」(CBETA, T24, no. 1458, p. 571, a10-15)

“If treating [an illness] with garlic, neither the sangha bedding nor lavatory should be used. One does not enter in among the sangha. One does not prostrate to the Buddha or circumambulate caityas. If a laymember comes, one does not teach the Dharma. Even if requested one should not go. One should reside in a room on the periphery [of the monastery]. When the treatment of medicine is completed, one remains settled for a further seven days to wait for the odor to disperse. Washing the body and clothes making them pure, the place one stayed in is to be purified by smearing it with cow dung.”

Curiously the last eight characters as quoted in a Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) vinaya commentary have one slight modification where the “cow dung” is replaced with “sweeping”.

《四分戒本如釋》卷5：「其所居處。掃灑淨塗。」(CBETA, X40, no. 717, p. 237, b8-9 // Z 1:63, p. 60, d4-5 // R63, p. 120, b4-5)

“The place one stayed in is to be swept and purified by smearing.”

The Chinese here becomes ambiguous because what substance one is to smear the room with becomes unclear. The reader is left to use their imagination, which in Ming Dynasty China would probably have meant incense or some other agreeable substance and not cow dung as was the case in the original text. This modification in the text is quite significant because it speaks of vast cultural differences. In ancient India cow dung was considered a pure substance and even used medicinally, which the Buddha approved of according to the record.

The idea of “cleansing” a space with smeared cow dung is found in ancient Indic literature in general. For example, in the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam we see the following:

“First one should sweep and dust thoroughly, and then one should further cleanse with water and cow dung. Having dried the temple, one should sprinkle scented water and decorate the temple with mandalas.”

There is an account of the Buddha prescribing a form of panchgavya (otherwise called cowpathy in English) in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Nidāna Mātṛka as follows:

《根本說一切有部尼陀那目得迦》卷3：「佛言。有無齒牛食噉糠麥。後時便出其粒仍全。用此為麨非時應服。」(CBETA, T24, no. 1452, p. 427, b18-20)

The Buddha said, “Have a toothless cow eat husked wheat. Later it will then eject the grain still whole. Use this for roasted flour and take it when it is untimely.”

Untimely here refers to the time between midday and dawn when a Buddhist monk or nun is not to normally eat anything. Here the roasted flour is probably something akin to Tibetan tsampa, which is roasted barley flour that is made into something like porridge with butter tea and still consumed by Himalayan people today.

It might seem odd to most modern people that garlic could be considered so offensive, yet cow dung was seen as pure. Again, this is a large cultural difference and demonstrates how subjective the “purity” of substances can be across the cultural spectrum of humanity. We might think garlic as generally agreeable (at least in cuisine) while thinking cow manure rather repulsive. In the Buddha's time it seems to have been the complete opposite. Cow dung is one of the “five pure products” (pañca-gavya) of a cow which include urine, dung, milk, cream and butter.

Incidentally, in present day India you can still see plenty of people in the countryside making discs of dried cow dung with which they heat their homes and cook their food (as seen here on the banks of the Ganges River in Varanasi in a photo I took). As I was informed when I visited the ruins, even the kitchens of the great Nālandā University in ancient times were fired with dried cow dung. It is quite a versatile substance, though I hear burning it is bad for the eyes and causes vision disorders after extended periods of time.

To dispel any doubts that this rule against garlic was limited to just one sect, we should note that the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya prescribes a nearly identical protocol for one taking garlic medicinally. This text is thought by some scholars to be the most ancient vinaya rendition available to us, which at the very least in this context would suggest that there truly was a garlic prohibition in the early sangha and that this was not a later development.

《摩訶僧祇律》卷31：「服已應七日行隨順法。在一邊小房中。不得臥僧床褥。不得上僧大小便處行。不得在僧洗脚處洗脚。不得入溫室講堂食屋。不得受僧次差會。不得入僧中食及禪坊。不得入說法布薩僧中。若比丘集處一切不得往。不應遶塔。若塔在露地者。得下風遙禮。七日行隨順法已。至八日。澡浴浣衣熏已得入僧中。」(CBETA, T22, no. 1425, p. 483, b29-c7)

“When the treatment is completed, for seven days one will abide by [the following] rule. Be in a small periphery room [of the monastery]. One must not lay on the sangha mattress. One must not use the sangha lavatory. One must not wash one's feet in the sangha feet washing area. One must not enter the bathroom, lecture hall and dining hall. One must not [attend] offering gatherings based on seniority. One must not enter in among the sangha when eating and the meditation hall. One must not enter in among the monks when the Dharma is being taught or precepts are being recited. If the bhikṣus assemble together in one place together, one must not go. One should not circumambulate stūpas. If a stūpa is on open ground, one must do prostrations downwind far from it. Having followed the rule for seven days on the eighth day one bathes, washes one's clothes and scents them before being allowed to enter in among the sangha.”

Note here there is no mention of smearing cow dung in the living space to purify it. Clearly the smell of garlic was considered so offensive that such measures were deemed necessary. It begs the question if the Buddha actually prescribed such protocols. While it does seem that the Buddha laid down a rule against eating garlic, the additional material as quoted above found in the vinaya literature is perhaps from a later period given the mention of stūpas and caityas. In any case, this led to the ongoing prohibition on garlic consumption in later times in realms outside India where sensitivities were different.

In the west I suspect a lot of Buddhists are apathetic when it comes to dietary restrictions beyond vegetarianism, which is seen favorably but is by no means universal. Not many people are aware that garlic was strictly forbidden in the early sangha, let alone onions, leeks, shallots, and even brewer's yeast and lees (the leftover grain after brewing alcohol). The latter two are described as capable of intoxicating people, thus they were forbidden. However, these dietary restrictions apply to formally ordained renunciates as per the vinaya (monks and nuns), so it is not really relevant given that in the western world there are so few bhikṣuṇīs and bhikṣus, though this could change in time. One issue I see though is that dietary considerations and formal protocols as outlined above are generally seen as secondary, even unimportant, in spiritual practice, hence why it is unlikely to be given any consideration.

Then again we can't expect someone to go into solitary retreat for a week because they ate some garlic and then cleanse their room with smeared cow dung. The Buddha actually provided a caveat in this respect as recorded in the vinaya of the Mahīśāsaka school:

《彌沙塞部和醯五分律》卷22：「雖是我所制。而於餘方不以為清淨者。皆不應用。雖非我所制。而於餘方必應行者。皆不得不行。」(CBETA, T22, no. 1421, p. 153, a14-17)

“Even if it be something I have prohibited, if it is not considered pure [conduct] in other lands, then it all should not be adopted. Even if it is not something I have prohibited, if something must be carried out in other lands, then it all must be carried out.”

Why did the Buddha prohibit alcohol?

I have often found that although most Buddhists are aware that the Buddha laid down a rule against alcohol consumption, they are often unaware of precisely why. There are plenty of treatises and writings that describe the benefits of abstaining from alcohol consumption while informing the reader about the faults of the substance. These resources generally inform Buddhists about the ethical issues surrounding alcohol consumption. However, the original reason for the Buddha prohibiting his disciples from consuming alcohol was much more practical. It should be firstly noted that prior to the prohibition the disciples were free to receive offerings of alcohol and consume them. There was no prohibition from the start against drinking alcohol. The individual rules in the Vinaya were originally formulated according to circumstances as they arose. When situations arose that required regulations to be implemented the Buddha would lay down a rule suitable to the circumstances. At the beginning, however, there were no rules at all. The disciplinary code only came to exist due to dangerous activities of certain disciples.

One other thing to note is that the original Vinaya regulations were neither precepts nor vows, but rules. They might be considered kind of house rules specifically aimed at a male community younger in age.

With these facts in mind we can then examine the original reason for the alcohol prohibition. For this purpose we can examine the various Vinaya texts that exist in translation in the Chinese canon. These were all translated in the 5^th century. Preference in this context might be given to the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya as it is probably the earliest and most reliable version. Incidentally, the issue of expanding the Vinaya was an issue that contributed to the first schism in the early sangha. See the following.

“The Mahāsāṃghikas were involved in the first division of the Buddhist community in the second century after the demise of the Buddha, that is, the schism between the Mahāsāṃghikas and the Sthaviravādins. This schism was most likely invoked by the expansion of the root Vinaya text by the future Sthaviravādins, an expansion that was not accepted by the later Mahāsāṃghikas.”¹

We can thus assume that the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya 摩訶僧祇律 is the earlier version and likely better reflects the original narrative concerning the incident which led to the Buddha prohibiting alcohol consumption. We might consider the Mahāsāṃghika account in its entirety as follows.

《摩訶僧祇律》卷20：「佛住拘睒彌國。廣說如上。爾時拘睒彌界有惡龍。名菴婆羅。能使亢旱不雨苗稼不收。人民飢饉。如是種種災患。時尊者善來比丘往降惡龍。如善來比丘經中廣說降伏惡龍已。乃至國土豐樂人民感德。知恩報恩。有五百大家為善來故。各立常施幢幡施設床座。請僧供養。別請善來比丘。其所造家。則設種種美食。時有一家施食之後。因渴施酒色味似水得而飲之。還向精舍。爾時世尊大會說法。酒勢發盛。昏悶躃地。當世尊前舒脚而臥。佛知而故言。是何比丘在如來前舒脚而臥。比丘答言。善來比丘飲酒過多是故醉臥。佛問諸比丘。此善來比丘先曾晝寢不。不也世尊。復問比丘善來。未醉之時頗曾佛前舒脚臥不。不也世尊。復問比丘多飲酒已。欲使不醉可得爾不。不也世尊。復問諸比丘。設使善來比丘不飲酒時聞說微妙不死之法。當欲失是善利。不聽受不。不也世尊。佛語諸比丘。是善來比丘本能降伏惡龍。今者能降蝦蟆不。答言。不能。佛言。設使菴婆羅龍聞者生其不樂。從今日後不聽飲酒。」(CBETA, T22, no. 1425, p. 386, c13-p. 387, a4)

The Buddha was residing in the country of Kauśāmbī teaching as was mentioned above. At that time in the realm of Kauśāmbī there was an evil nāga named Āmra who had caused a drought where the rain did not fall and the crops were not harvested. The people were starving and there were various calamities like this. It was then that the bhikṣu Venerable Svāgata went to placate the evil nāga. As it is explained in the *Svāgata Bhikṣu Sūtra, after placating the evil nāga the country celebrated and the people felt gratitude, aware of the kindness bestowed upon them and wanting to repay it. It was on Svāgata's behalf that five hundred great families each offered up hanging banners and setup seats, inviting the monks for offerings. They made a special invitation to Bhikṣu Svāgata. The households which made [the offerings] provided various kinds of delicious foods. It was then that after one household had offered food that due to his thirst they offered alcohol which appeared as water whereupon he drank it. He returned to the monastery where the World Honored One [the Buddha] was teaching the Dharma in a great assembly at the time. The influence of the alcohol was all too much as he became unwell and fell onto the ground. It was in front of the World Honored One that he stretched out his legs and passed out.

The Buddha was aware of this and thus said, “Which bhikṣu is it here that has stretched out his legs and passed out in front of the Tathāgata?”

The bhikṣus replied, “Bhikṣu Svāgata drank much alcohol and thus has become inebriated and passed out.”

The Buddha asked the bhikṣus, “Has Bhikṣu Svāgata here ever slept during the day?”

“No, World Honored One.”

He again asked, “Has Bhikṣu Svāgata prior to being inebriated ever stretched out his legs and passed out in front of the Buddha before?”

“No, World Honored One.”

He again asked, “The bhikṣu having drank too much alcohol, if he wanted to make himself un-inebriated, would it be possible to do this?”

“No, World Honored One.”

He again asked the bhikṣus, “Suppose Bhikṣu Svāgata at a time when he had not drank alcohol heard an exposition on the excellent and immortal Dharma – would he want to lose this benefit and not listen to it?”

“No, World Honored One.”

The Buddha said to the bhikṣus, “This Bhikṣu Svāgata was originally able to placate an evil nāga. Now, could he placate a toad?”

They replied, “He could not.”

The Buddha said, “Suppose Āmra the nāga heard this – it would provoke his displeasure. From today onward it is not permitted to drink alcohol.”

Curiously, the accounts of this incident in other Vinaya texts differ in the details of what transpired.

The Dharmagupta Vinaya 四分律 is a much longer account of the event and the substance consumed is a “black liquor” which the monks were aware was alcohol. It also states Svāgata not only fell over at the road side, but vomited which caused the birds to be disturbed. The Buddha then tells Ānanda the ten faults of consuming alcohol.

The Mahīśāsaka Vinaya 五分律 reports the nāga was causing torrential rains and hail which destroyed the fields, in contrast to the account in the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya which states it was a drought. Svāgata is also seen in a non-violent battle of magical powers with the nāga where the latter loses and is scooped up into the former's bowl and taken to the Buddha who gives him permission to release it. The grateful laity come to the assembly of monks and ask Svāgata if he needs anything. He replies that when he was layperson he enjoyed meat and alcohol. The laity then provided him with both meat and alcohol which resulted in him becoming drunk, vomiting all over robe and bowl, and passing out. The Buddha saw this with his clairvoyant eye from afar and went with Ānanda to tend to Svāgata and clean him up with water from the well. They placed him on a rope-bed and in a drunken haze Svāgata kicked the Buddha. It was then that the Buddha summoned the assembly of monks and spoke to them of the faults of alcohol. He then prohibited the consumption of it.

In consideration of all these differing details of the incident we can understand two things.

Firstly, all the accounts agree that Svāgata became intoxicated due to having consumed too much alcohol following festivities celebrating his placation of an evil nāga that was terrorizing the people of Kauśāmbī, which we can assume more or less reflects the actual event that took place, or at least the general hearsay concerning it, albeit with differing accounts of the details.

Secondly, the differences we find in the various Vinaya collections tell us that when it comes to knowing precisely what was said and done when the Buddha lived we are actually at a loss to safely conclude anything as matter of fact. There is a general tendency in modern Buddhist scholarship to chiefly favor the Theravāda Pāli canon as representing what the “historical Buddha” actually taught and the events of his life. However, this is problematic for the simple fact that the canons from other early Buddhist schools such as that of the Mahāsāṃghikas, who incidentally are noted as having disagreed to the expansion of the Vinaya unlike the Sthaviravāda (Theravāda) school, have differing accounts of the Buddha's teachings and the events which occurred in the early community. As noted above, in the case of the alcohol prohibition there is indeed agreement on the general outline of the incident, but the details differ. This is likewise to be expected when it comes to teachings as recorded in the various differing editions of sūtras that we have, many of which are preserved in Classical Chinese which exasperates the problem.

What this means is that essentially we only have the general outline of the Buddha's teachings and the events of his life available to us, thus we must accept this limitation rather than believing any particular scriptural record to be a verbatim record. This is important in the process of exegesis where we must not place too much faith on the fine points of scriptures which record the Buddha's words as said records are in reality quite limited as records and we have really only to rely on their general meanings. In other words, we need to rely on the spirit and general outline of many teachings rather than the letter of how it is recorded as having been presented.

Returning to the issue of alcohol prohibition, it goes without saying that Buddhism developed in most cultures to generally see alcohol in a negative light, although we need to remind ourselves that in the early sangha alcohol was not prohibited and Buddhists could and evidently did consume it. There are also a lot of secondary literature such as treatises which discuss the issue in an ethical context as well as in a practical context of how it might affect one's cultivation of mindfulness. It was thus absolutely forbidden. This prohibition also came to be included among the five lay precepts, which is a characteristic set of vows that Buddhist laypeople are generally expected to undertake.

Many Mahāyāna thinkers reacted against rigid interpretations of rules and precepts arguing that if motivated by compassion or other benevolent purposes, then committing acts that would otherwise be outright violations of one's precepts would actually be meritorious. This perhaps lead to a relaxed attitude towards alcohol consumption both in China and Japan, and elsewhere. There is an expression still favored in Japanese Buddhism to this day to refer to liquor as “prajñā soup” 般若湯, which actually originates in Song Dynasty (960–1279) China. The reasoning seems to have been that by calling it something else then, in good humor, it was not alcohol and thus did not violate any precepts.

In summary, we have reviewed the original reason for the Buddha prohibiting alcohol and we can indeed see it was not due to the beverage being inherently unwholesome and evil, but the regulation was actually a practical rule established with the disciples in mind and likely with a wish that no repeat of the incident would occur. In that sense, there is nothing holy or sacred about such a rule. This is also an important thing to note: the Vinaya regulations were rules in the beginning rather than vows. The earliest disciples were also free to consume alcohol and they did. The differing accounts of these regulations also leads us to the perhaps unfavorable conclusion that we really cannot faithfully rely on any single account for the fine details of what the Buddha said and the circumstances in which he taught things due to the various records we have differing to the extent that they do. In other words, we have the general outline of his wording and the events which prompted his declarations and statements, but no verbatim text from which fine exegesis based on the letter of the teaching might be executed.

1See Bart Dessein in "The First Turning of the Wheel of the Doctrine: Sar and Maha Controversy" in Handbook of Oriental Studies The Spread of Buddhism, edited by Ann Heirman and Stephan Peter Bumbacher (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 15.