How a Japanese literary work connects Buddhism, Indian philosophy, compassion for animals, and the debate over vegetarianism
When we think about vegetarianism, India is often one of the first countries that comes to mind. But did you know that a Japanese writer who lived nearly a century ago explored vegetarianism through the lens of Buddhism, science, and compassion for living beings?
The writer was Miyazawa Kenji (1896–1933), a Japanese poet and author whose work The Great Vegetarian Festival examines why people choose vegetarian or non-vegetarian diets. Although the story is Japanese, it contains ideas that closely connect with Indian philosophical and religious traditions.
A paper by P. A. George, titled Glimpses of Indian Culture in Japanese Literature: “Great Vegetarian Festival” by Miyazawa Kenji, explores these connections and explains why Kenji’s work is worth reading from an Indian cultural perspective.
Who Was Miyazawa Kenji?
Miyazawa Kenji was more than a poet or storyteller. He was also trained in agricultural science, studied geology, observed the natural world closely, and worked to improve the lives of farmers in his hometown of Hanamaki, Japan.
Kenji was deeply interested in nature, religion, and the welfare of ordinary people. His writings reflect the belief that human happiness cannot be separated from the well-being of other living beings.
He was particularly influenced by Buddhism. According to George’s paper, Kenji became a strong follower of the Nichiren school after reading the Lotus Sutra at the age of eighteen.
His worldview can be understood through one important principle: the world cannot truly be happy if its living beings are made to suffer.
This idea forms an important background to his writing on vegetarianism.
Why Did a Japanese Writer Become Interested in Indian Ideas?
India has a long and diverse history of philosophical discussions about food, non-violence, and the treatment of animals. Ideas such as ahimsa (non-violence), karma, and reincarnation have influenced several Indian religious and philosophical traditions.
Kenji’s Buddhist beliefs also encouraged him to consider the relationship between human beings and other living creatures.
The concept of reincarnation, for example, suggests that life continues through different forms of existence. In Kenji’s understanding, living beings may be connected across lifetimes. This encourages a sense of kinship with animals rather than treating them merely as resources for human consumption.
George’s paper highlights the similarities between these ideas and themes found in Indian traditions. It does not mean that Japanese and Indian beliefs are identical. Rather, it shows how ideas about compassion and the value of life can resonate across cultures.
What Is The Great Vegetarian Festival About?
Kenji’s story takes the form of an international debate in the village of Hilty in Newfoundland, Canada.
Representatives from different countries participate in a discussion about vegetarianism and meat-eating. The characters present different arguments, drawing on religion, science, human anatomy, economics, and the needs of society.
Those who defend meat-eating argue that humans are naturally omnivorous and that meat may be necessary to feed a growing population. They also raise questions about the availability of agricultural land and the ability of plant-based diets to meet human needs.
The opposing side argues for vegetarianism through compassion for animals, religious principles, and the possibility of a more peaceful relationship between humans and nature.
The story is interesting because Kenji does not limit the discussion to religious beliefs. He also explores practical questions about food, agriculture, and the cost of feeding people.
As George explains, the work reflects two sides of Kenji’s personality: the Buddhist who values compassion and the scientifically minded observer who examines food and society critically.
Why Is India Mentioned in the Story?
Although the story does not include an Indian representative in its international debate, India is mentioned in several passages.
The references concern practices attributed to Indian sages, including avoiding unnecessary harm to grass and flowers and drinking filtered water. The story also compares modern vegetarian practices with the food-related teachings of ancient Indian sages.
These references suggest that Indian ideas were relevant to Kenji’s discussion of vegetarianism. However, the absence of an Indian participant is also notable: India’s cultural ideas appear in the debate even though the country is not represented by a character.
Two Reasons for Vegetarianism: Compassion and Self-Protection
One of the most interesting ideas discussed in George’s paper is Kenji’s classification of vegetarians into two broad groups.
1. The compassionate group
These people avoid meat because they believe animals have a right to live. They consider it wrong to kill living beings unnecessarily and see vegetarianism as an expression of sympathy and compassion.
This approach is closely associated in Kenji’s work with Buddhist ideas about the value of life.
2. The preventive group
These people avoid meat primarily because they believe doing so may protect their health or help prevent disease.
Their motivation is different. They may not be vegetarian because of religious beliefs or concern for animals; instead, they choose their diet for personal well-being.
This distinction remains useful when thinking about why people adopt vegetarian diets. Two people may eat the same food but have entirely different reasons for doing so.
Importantly, these are categories used in Kenji’s literary work, not a complete scientific classification of every vegetarian.
Kenji’s Three Approaches to Vegetarian Food
Kenji also divides vegetarian practices according to the kinds of food people are willing to eat.
The absolute approach: Avoiding all animal products.
The eclectic approach: Allowing certain products, such as milk, butter, cheese, or eggs, on the reasoning that obtaining them does not necessarily require killing an animal.
The Mahayana approach: Allowing the possibility of consuming animal flesh in an extreme situation where sacrificing one life might save many others from starvation.
These categories show that vegetarianism is not always a single, uniform practice. People differ in their ethical principles and in how they apply those principles when choosing food.
The paper uses this framework to compare Kenji’s ideas with the diversity of vegetarian practices in India.
How Does Indian Vegetarianism Compare?
George’s paper describes three broad motivations for vegetarianism in India.
Religious or lifestyle vegetarianism: Some people follow vegetarian diets because of religious teachings, family traditions, or lifelong personal commitments. Ideas about karma, reincarnation, and non-violence may influence these choices.
Compassion-based vegetarianism: Others avoid animal products because they oppose the unnecessary killing or suffering of animals. This motivation can occur among people from different religious backgrounds, including those who do not follow a religion.
Health-oriented vegetarianism: Some people choose vegetarian food because they believe it supports their health or fits their dietary needs.
The paper also points out that Indian diets vary considerably. Some people consume milk and dairy products but avoid meat, fish, and eggs. Others include eggs or follow different dietary practices while describing themselves as vegetarian.
India therefore cannot be understood through a single definition of vegetarianism. Regional traditions, religion, family customs, personal ethics, and individual food choices all influence what people eat.
The categories in the paper are a framework for discussion rather than a definitive description of every Indian vegetarian.
The Connection with the Indian Text Thirukkural
George also compares Kenji’s ideas with teachings found in the Tamil classic Thirukkural, traditionally attributed to Thiruvalluvar.
The paper highlights verses that question how someone can show compassion while consuming the flesh of another living being.
One cited verse asks:
“How can he who eats the flesh of another to fatten his own body show pity on others?”
The central idea is that compassion should extend beyond human beings. If a person claims to care about the suffering of others, the treatment of animals becomes part of that ethical question.
The comparison is significant because it demonstrates how similar moral questions can appear in literary and philosophical traditions separated by geography and language.
This does not establish that Kenji directly borrowed these ideas from the Thirukkural. Rather, George uses the comparison to illuminate the shared themes of compassion and non-violence.
Was Kenji a Vegetarian from Birth?
According to George’s account, Kenji was not born a vegetarian. He adopted vegetarianism after reading the Lotus Sutra at around eighteen years of age.
His decision was connected to his religious development and his understanding of the relationship between living beings.
The paper identifies several influences on his thinking:
Buddhist ideas about reincarnation and compassion.
Respect for the lives of animals.
Concern for the welfare of poor people.
The belief that plant-based food could be more affordable in certain circumstances.
An interest in how food choices might influence human behaviour and social life.
Some of these points represent Kenji’s own beliefs or arguments made within the story. They should not be treated as modern scientific proof that vegetarianism automatically makes people more peaceful or that meat consumption necessarily causes violence.
The important point is that Kenji approached food as more than a matter of taste. For him, it raised questions about ethics, society, religion, and humanity’s relationship with nature.
What Does Strong in the Rain Tell Us About Kenji?
Another important work discussed in George’s paper is Kenji’s poem Amenimo Makezu, commonly translated as Strong in the Rain.
The poem portrays a person who lives simply, remains calm in difficult circumstances, and helps people in need without expecting praise or reward.
The person described in the poem goes to care for a sick child, assists an exhausted mother, comforts someone near death, and tries to resolve disputes.
The poem reflects Kenji’s admiration for humility, service, and selflessness. Its description of a simple diet of rice, miso, and vegetables also connects with his ideas about food and a modest lifestyle.
For Kenji, compassion was not merely a philosophical concept. It was something to be practised through everyday actions and concern for others.
What Makes This Japanese Story Relevant to India Today?
The significance of The Great Vegetarian Festival lies in its exploration of questions that remain relevant across cultures.
Why do people choose vegetarianism? Is it primarily a religious commitment, an ethical position, a health decision, or a combination of these motivations?
How should humans balance their own needs with the lives of other creatures? Can discussions about food help us understand different cultures and their philosophical traditions?
Kenji’s story does not provide a scientific answer to every question about nutrition or animal welfare. Instead, it uses a literary debate to explore the moral and social dimensions of eating.
For Indian readers, the work offers an opportunity to look at familiar themes—compassion, non-violence, karma, and respect for life—from the perspective of a Japanese writer.
It also reminds us that ideas about how humans should treat other living beings are not confined to one country or religious tradition.
About the Research Paper
This article is based on the paper:
George, P. A. (2024). Glimpses of Indian Culture in Japanese Literature: “Great Vegetarian Festival” by Miyazawa Kenji. Kizuna India Japan Study Forum, Occasional Paper 5.
The paper examines Miyazawa Kenji’s life, religious and scientific outlook, literary treatment of vegetarianism, and the connections the author identifies between Kenji’s ideas and Indian cultural traditions.
The interpretations and historical claims discussed above are attributed to George’s paper. They are presented as a guide to understanding the literary work, rather than as a claim that Japanese and Indian traditions are identical.
