Blog

Translated by koreandogs.org and volunteers. Please share!

Venerable Beopjeong Buddhist Priest’s Argument Against Dog Meat Consumption
(Beopjeong Sunim: 1932 – 2010)

Korea co-hosted the 2002 FIFA World Cup with Japan. This significant event coincided with criticism from international animal welfare organizations regarding Korean dog meat consumption. For Koreans who remembered facing similar scrutiny during the 1988 Seoul Olympics, this renewed criticism felt like a perplexing and insulting accusation.

Around the same time, it was revealed that Koreans in Southeast Asia were indiscriminately slaughtering bears to extract their bile, which became a global issue. This is indeed a grave matter, and it is something we feel ashamed of. However, despite this, there is little progress in stopping the illegal slaughter of dogs and bears, as the majority of Koreans still support dog meat consumption, and the belief in traditional Oriental medicine that bear bile (from the gallbladder) is an essential medicinal ingredient for treating diseases is widespread in Korean society.

In discussing the dog meat issue, the weekly magazine Hankyoreh21 (7/19/1996) fiercely defended Korean dog meat consumption. Reflecting the opinions and requests of many dog meat traders and consumers, it was clear that the editorial favored pro-dog meat views. However, their stance took a bizarre turn, filled with absurd and unreasonable claims.

Hence, I would like to offer advice on these misguided attitudes and sentiments and advocate for the fundamental Buddhist ideology of “Humanity towards animals” to contribute to the purification of Korean society. With support from folklorist Ju Kang-Hyun, Hankyoreh21 argued that Korean dog meat consumption should be understood and accepted as part of our traditional food culture. The magazine also contended that because this practice is also found in China, it is deeply rooted in the historical traditions of the East and based on the cultural pluralism of food. Furthermore, Hankyoreh21 argued that the East should not be influenced by the Western ideology of “Humanity towards animals.”

In the article, three arguments are problematic: the claim that dog meat consumption is our tradition, the assertion that it is a matter of cultural pluralism, and the idea that “Humanity towards animals” is a Western ideology.

First, the argument that dog meat consumption is our traditional eating habit was the opinion of the general public up until now. However, what is the definition of our tradition? Can a past history be defined as a tradition? Describing something as a tradition is challenging in an environment where traditions from Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, various folk traditions, and others are all intertwined. However, because the Buddhist cultural tradition is still influential in Korea, and dog meat consumption directly violates the Buddhist ideology of “Humanity Towards Animals,” dog eating can never be a cultural tradition and is only a habit of some people. Dog meat consumption has become conspicuous nowadays, but in the past, dog meat was a taboo food for women and regarded as a distasteful food that was shunned by society. Even if it was an eating habit of the past, just because it was done in the past does not mean we have to continue doing it today. To say we do is a false -argument. Culture must evolve with the passage of time.

Politics, the judicial system, and human rights have gradually advanced with social progress. So has culture. For example, traditional Korean dress from the Joseon Dynasty, the Hanbok, is bound to become progressively simplified to facilitate daily life, even if we don’t necessarily convert to Western-style clothing. The same goes for the dietary lifestyle.

If you were to insist solely on the past and tradition, it would be akin to arguing that monarchy and its hereditary succession system, as part of our long tradition, should be restored while abolishing current democracy. It is an argument that, at its core, cannot be taken seriously.

While dog meat consumption may have been accepted in the past, when food was scarce, and physical labor was grueling, consuming animals that are now regarded as companions is considered barbaric in today’s world. In an era where a variety of other meats are plentiful, machines have replaced most forms of hard labor, and where human dignity is valued, such practices no longer have a place. Humans began raising dogs to guard homes, as bodyguards, and bred horses to protect their masters in battle—these animals have coexisted with humans in close, meaningful relationships. Therefore, slaughtering them and consuming their meat is a betrayal of the trust they placed in humans. Regardless of any justifications, we cannot escape the guilt of such actions.

Despite what I’ve said, if you insist on tradition, I would like to ask the following question. One of the origins important to Eastern cultures is Chinese culture; among Chinese food cultures, there was consumption of human flesh. It began when people died of starvation due to poor harvests and were eaten, and later on, people would commit murder to satisfy their appetite, such as aristocrats who would rush to take away and eat the corpses of death-row convicts. Cannibalism became endemic in Chinese food culture. A cookbook for human flesh called “Cheol-Gyeong-Lok” was published during the late Song dynasty (Reference: Gyo-Mun-Sa Publication China’s Culture of Cannibalism). Moreover, the so-called great saint Confucius also enjoyed eating human flesh until his beloved disciple Jaro was murdered and served to him as a dish called ‘Hae’. So indeed, cannibalism is a distinct Chinese tradition. But if the Chinese insisted that cannibalism must be preserved today as a part of their tradition and cultural pluralism, how would this be received?

The term pluralism is used in many fields, but this term can have a dark side of evil. There are many claims to truth in this world, but the greatest truth will ultimately be chosen by the people.

Although pluralism might be necessary to prevent excessive warlike conflicts among different parties, inferior and wrong claims will eventually disappear, and only one truth will remain. If pluralism is misinterpreted, it can become a shield that conceals fraud, incompetence, and negligence. For instance, to justify his prolonged hold on power, former president Park Chung-Hee once advocated for a so-called “Korean-style democracy” tailored to Korea’s circumstances. However, it is well-known that he intended to maintain power indefinitely by introducing a presidential system similar to Taiwan’s.

Third, what about the argument made by the weekly magazine Hankyoreh21 that the East should not be judged by the West’s ideology of “Humanity towards animals”? This is, in fact, a highly ignorant argument that speaks for itself and clearly illustrates that the media is falling short of standards. Buddhism teaches that we should not kill conscious beings. In the Dangun tale, which recounts the birth of our nation, a bear and a tiger are given the chance to become human. However, only the bear succeeds in the challenge, transforming into a woman. She marries Hwan-Woong, the son of Hwan-In (meaning God), and gives birth to Dangun, the progenitor of humanity.

In addition, in a sacred scripture of Dan-Guk-Gyeong-Jeon called “Sam-Il-Sin-Go,” it is stated that both humans and objects embody three truths. (Humans and objects are one in love and share these three truths.) In popular literature, such as the story of Heung-Boo-Jeon, Heung-Boo treats a swallow’s broken leg and is rewarded greatly by the heavens. This illustrates that in our traditional ideology, animals and nature are seen as having a harmonious relationship with humans, a view that is further emphasized in Buddhism. Buddhism’s ideology of “compassion towards animals” is directly expressed in the ceremony of releasing captive animals to spare their lives.

While Korea’s traditional ideology emphasizes humaneness toward animals, Western ideology, rooted in Christianity, asserts that God created all things in the universe for humans. This perspective permits the destruction of environments and the killing of animals for consumption. Buddhists, for instance, have likely faced criticism from Christians at least once due to their differing beliefs. However, in the ongoing dog meat debate, the claim that the ideology of animal welfare is a Western concept is being openly promoted. How misguided is this logic, as it ultimately leads to the counterproductive effect of idolizing Western ideology?

The weekly magazine HanKyoreh21 should remember that the Western ideology of “humanity towards animals” originated in the East. Through this dog meat debate, HanKyoreh21 has stubbornly asserted that the ideology of animal discrimination is an Eastern concept. We must examine a few key points from this debate.

Our first observation is that Korean society is still immature, characterized by widespread popular propaganda that appeals to self-interest rather than reason. This is a sentiment shared by many in the political and social spheres.

Second, if any media outlet were to fail in fulfilling its role and simply cater to the demands of dog meat traders, it would cease to be an informed debate and instead become little more than advertising (an infomercial). Ultimately, the media would mislead public opinion by failing to recognize its own dogmatism. If the media continues to overlook its mistakes and maintains an attitude focused solely on criticizing military dictatorships as in the past, it could lead to a more dangerous form of journalistic dictatorship.

Third, unscientific practices in Korean traditional medicine are encouraging the indiscriminate use of animals. Using substances collected from nature as medicine was a method from earlier times when the properties of medicinal ingredients were not well understood. However, today, once the active ingredients that trigger the medicinal effects are scientifically identified, they can be synthetically produced and used. Despite this, Korean traditional medicine continues to rely on outdated methods, indiscriminately slaughtering animals to be used as medicinal materials. If such practices were extended to using human organs, it would be no different from barbarism.

Bon-Cho-Gang-Mok (a medical book written by Lee Si-Jin of the Ming Dynasty in the 16th century) is a textbook for Korean traditional medicine consisting of 52 chapters. One of its chapters discusses human anatomy, stating that all human organs can be processed and used to treat illnesses.

Now is the time for Korean traditional medicine to awaken, stop encouraging animal slaughter as it did in the past, and take a step forward toward progress. It must transform into a medical science that aligns with the ideology of “humanity towards animals.”

Fourth, even though Buddhists make up a significant portion of our population, Buddhism has not taken a leadership role in our society. It remains out of sync with the core of society and is often neglected as a “back-alley” religion. While Buddhists are passionate about their struggle for religious rights, their influence on important social issues is limited. They remain passive when the argument that today’s ideology of “humanity towards animals” originated in the West gains traction. We must move beyond this marginalized form of Buddhism and work toward a genuine transformation.

Fifth, the justification for dog meat consumption often stems from the belief that a dog’s mating time is much longer—over an hour, several times longer than that of cows or horses. Some even argue that snakes, which have even longer mating times than dogs, are consumed in Korea for similar reasons, as they are thought to enhance sexual vitality. This excessive obsession with virility in Korean culture may be linked to the fact that Korea ranks third in the world for sexually violent crimes. Additionally, this fixation on sexuality could be analyzed as a potential factor behind the frequent export of orphans and reckless abortions in our society. If we are absorbed in Korean-style conflicts, such as wars, during the day and indulge solely in sexuality at night, it would become a distinctive “low-class culture” unique to Korea.

When we observe people indiscriminately hunting frogs hibernating in the crevices of the creek during winter, it reflects certain vulgar tendencies within Korean society. This is because they even search for frogs, believing that consuming them will enhance virility.

As we have examined so far, dog meat consumption is an evil practice that has no place in modern society. It is also a harmful vice that negatively impacts the mental health of our citizens.

In my opinion, the fact that our society has been wasting national resources on deeply divisive internal conflicts across various sectors—such as politics, economics, and religion—since ancient times is a natural result of the harmful practice of betrayal and the loss of trust in humanity. This erosion of trust stems from the slaughtering and consumption of dogs, a practice that, both consciously and unconsciously, extends into human interactions.

Additionally, the slaughter of dogs leads to severe pollution. In the mass breeding of dogs, significant noise pollution occurs, causing serious adverse effects on the public. To address this, dog farmers resort to the cruelty of forcibly bursting dogs’ eardrums to reduce the barking noise. There is no limit to the lengths they will go to to continue the practice of eating dog meat.

Moreover, to enhance the flavor, some dogs are cruelly killed. They are often hung by the neck and then savagely beaten with a club, causing internal injuries and a slow, agonizing death. This barbaric practice is utterly reprehensible. Even after death, the dogs are often subjected to blowtorching to remove their fur, resulting in noxious odors that permeate the surrounding neighborhoods. The dog meat trade thrives on cruelty, exploiting animals for profit while desensitizing individuals to violence. It pollutes our society and wastes valuable resources. This practice is a profound moral failing and an affront to human decency.

If someone were to ask me why I oppose only dog meat consumption instead of preaching vegetarianism, since both dogs and cows are animals, it is because I take a Buddhist’s moderate standpoint. We can never equate dogs and humans, but by treating dogs, who are closest to our lives, differently, we can lay the foundation for a shift in our consciousness towards a greater love for animals. To advocate for a complete ban on meat consumption could be seen as imposing a religious belief and is, moreover, an impractical proposal.

When we prevent the slaughter of dogs, we will implicitly cultivate a deep affection for other animals as well. Some may view the love for animals as hypocrisy, thinking it replaces love for fellow humans. However, this notion doesn’t require further debate, because someone who loves animals will undoubtedly also love fellow humans. Love for animals can serve as a foundation for developing unconditional love for fellow humans.

From the viewpoint of Buddhism, because dogs are so close to our lives, they are often believed to be reincarnated as humans in the infinite cycle of life, death, and rebirth. In the Mook-Ryun-Gyeong (a Buddhist scripture, or Sutra), it is written that the mother of Mook-Ryun, a disciple of the Buddha, sinned during her life, endured the suffering of hell, and was reborn as a dog.

Although this is a mythical tale that may be hard to believe, there is a famous story in Buddhism from the Japanese colonial period about a man who was abusive towards his puppy. He began having dreams in which his deceased mother repeatedly appeared, harshly scolding him, saying, “How could you continue to abuse me so?” Eventually, he came to believe that his dog was the reincarnation of his mother and thereafter treated the puppy with kindness.

To preserve the integrity of human life and to foster emotional purity for peace in our society, dog slaughter, and dog meat consumption must be eradicated. The government must take a strong stance against the ruthless killing of dogs and the noise pollution caused by dog farms, actively intervening in this issue and strictly enforcing existing laws that prohibit these practices.

From the viewpoint of animal rights activists, Spain’s bullfighting is also a serious issue. Bullfighting is a cruel spectacle in which spectators derive enjoyment from the torment and eventual killing of a bull, often with a single stroke of a sword. This practice must be abolished through international condemnation and pressure.

Boxing is also a brutal sport that involves striking the head, the most vital part of the human body, often leading to knockouts and, at times, resulting in the death of fighters. Some doctors have argued that boxing should be banned by law. Furthermore, guns, knives, and other weapons are commonly found among children’s toys, and promoting such toys to children contributes to the encouragement of a cruel, violent, and combative society.

If this dog meat debate leads to controlling the violent barbarism in every corner of our society, then the countless dogs already lost will not have died in vain. Instead, they will have contributed to laying the important foundation for a more peaceful society.

September 1996 issue of “Jeongbeop Segye”

👉 Click HERE for the Korean-English Translation.

👉 Sign the petitions!