Vegetarianism and Buddhism

[ChiangMaiFun]

The question remains unanswered - how can we eat meat without killing? (animals ok not bugs and vegetables). The answer is we cannot.

Your questions have been answered several times by several people, judging by your response to my last post you didn't even read it.

There is no point in starting a discussion if you aren't interested in different points of view, I see no point wasting more time on this.

Up to you... I have read all the posts and none have answered the question - I do not accept that it is legitimate to kill animals as you feel it is impossible not to kill pests - pests are pests, animals are animals - all you have done is seek to justify your killing.

[sabaijai]

Where in the Theravada or Mahayana canons do you find a distinction drawn between 'pests' and 'animals'?

Animals in Buddhism

The first of the five precepts bans the taking of life. As most narrowly interpreted, it applies primarily to the killing of human beings; however, the broader interpretation is that it applies to all sentient beings, which includes those in the animal realm in its broadest sense, i.e., not just mammals, but all animal taxa including insects, and invertebrates.

source

Brucekhamen's earlier responses made the obvious point that you must distinguish between eating and killing, to begin with. They are not the same, whether looking at from the point of view of completed action or (more importantly, within the context of the laws of karma) as intention.

Intention, rather than action, defines karma. Kusala citta motivates kusala kamma. Where there is kusala citta, there is no lobha/dosa/moha and where there is no lobha/dosa/moha there is no akusala kamma (unwholesome karma).

Where intention is wholesome, eating meat does not violate the first precept. Likewise when eating vegetables

[ChiangMaiFun]

Where in the Theravada or Mahayana canons do you find a distinction drawn between 'pests' and 'animals'?

Animals in Buddhism

The first of the five precepts bans the taking of life. As most narrowly interpreted, it applies primarily to the killing of human beings; however, the broader interpretation is that it applies to all sentient beings, which includes those in the animal realm in its broadest sense, i.e., not just mammals, but all animal taxa including insects, and invertebrates.

source

Brucekhamen's earlier responses made the obvious point that you must distinguish between eating and killing, to begin with. They are not the same, whether looking at from the point of view of completed action or (more importantly, within the context of the laws of karma) as intention.

Intention, rather than action, defines karma. Kusala citta motivates kusala kamma. Where there is kusala citta, there is no lobha/dosa/moha and where there is no lobha/dosa/moha there is no akusala kamma (unwholesome karma).

Where intention is wholesome, eating meat does not violate the first precept. Likewise when eating vegetables

Whilst I respect your views I come from a Theospohical/Buddhist perspective - you cannot distinguish between killing and eating - both are reliant upon the other - Karmically if you eat the meat that has been killed you are partly responsible. The intention is to eat - are you suggesting that in eating meat there is no harm as the intention is just gluttony and no compassion? it is highly convenient to seperate the two... an arguement used frequently in war crime trials - but I didn't pull the trigger...

[rockyysdt]

Is it possible to tackle this debate in small steps?

I would like to ask the question:

Does working as a slaughterman in an abattoir, killing animals on a daily basis, constitute breaking the first precept?

I'll include the state of of the slaughtermans mind in case intent affects the answer: The slaughterman has been doing this for a long period and proceeds in a neutral detached manner as his work has become automatic and second nature to him (desensitized).

[Brucenkhamen]

Does working as a slaughterman in an abattoir, killing animals on a daily basis, constitute breaking the first precept?

Yes it does.

It also comes under the heading of wrong livelihood.

[phetaroi]

The question remains unanswered - how can we eat meat without killing? (animals ok not bugs and vegetables). The answer is we cannot.

Your questions have been answered several times by several people, judging by your response to my last post you didn't even read it.

There is no point in starting a discussion if you aren't interested in different points of view, I see no point wasting more time on this.

Bruce, you are correct.

CMF wants to insist everyone believes what he believes. I understand his point of view completely. It is his right to live it. It is his right to suggest it. However, everyone else also has the right of free thought and action (in this regard). He sees those of us with incisor teeth as being very wrong in eating meat and he says we will pay the karmic price. Many of us accept that. I believe that his attempts at bullying us to accept his views is also very un-Buddhist, and he will pay a karmic price for that.

[phetaroi]

I come from a Theospohical/Buddhist perspective...

You have told us this many, many times.

Since you do, I know you believe that, "There is no religion higher than truth." The truth is that opinions on this vary. The truth is you are not going to bully us into agreeing with you.

[ChiangMaiFun]

I come from a Theospohical/Buddhist perspective...

You have told us this many, many times.

Since you do, I know you believe that, "There is no religion higher than truth." The truth is that opinions on this vary. The truth is you are not going to bully us into agreeing with you.

Using the word 'bullying' is highly inappropriate and way out of line... because I do not agree with you - you (cleverly) try to insinuate I am bullying - and of course if I agree with you I would be a 'Brother' - I do not use words such as this and it is more a reflection of you than me. It is not true - I simply debate and put the point of view that you maybe wrong - if I get insulted because I stand up for animal rights then so be it...

[ChiangMaiFun]

I come from a Theospohical/Buddhist perspective...

You have told us this many, many times.

Since you do, I know you believe that, "There is no religion higher than truth." The truth is that opinions on this vary. The truth is you are not going to bully us into agreeing with you.

Opinions cannot vary on the truth... there maybe different pathways - but truth is truth

[ChiangMaiFun]

Is it possible to tackle this debate in small steps?

I would like to ask the question:

Does working as a slaughterman in an abattoir, killing animals on a daily basis, constitute breaking the first precept?

I'll include the state of of the slaughtermans mind in case intent affects the answer: The slaughterman has been doing this for a long period and proceeds in a neutral detached manner as his work has become automatic and second nature to him (desensitized).

No question... it does - breaking 2 percepts - not to kill and right livelihood

You cannot seperate the killing from the eating - we cannot divorce ourselves from the chain of responsibility - otherwise why try and save the environment? re-cycle rubbish? help anyone? it would be like the drug pusher saying 'but I didn't manufacture the drugs man' or the Nazi saying 'but I didn't kill them myself the others did'

[Xangsamhua]

I come from a Theospohical/Buddhist perspective...

You have told us this many, many times.

Since you do, I know you believe that, "There is no religion higher than truth." The truth is that opinions on this vary. The truth is you are not going to bully us into agreeing with you.

Using the word 'bullying' is highly inappropriate and way out of line... because I do not agree with you - you (cleverly) try to insinuate I am bullying - and of course if I agree with you I would be a 'Brother' - I do not use words such as this and it is more a reflection of you than me. It is not true - I simply debate and put the point of view that you maybe wrong - if I get insulted because I stand up for animal rights then so be it...

Let's not be too tough on CMF. He's put his POV vigorously and, IMO quite persuasively (though a little ad hominem did creep in). I didn't feel I was being bullied, and I'm not going to become a pure vegetarian in the near future. I think CMF has some valuable and, perhaps, provocative views and should feel comfortable about contributing to the forum. Having said that, I believe the eating vis-a- killing discussion has run its course (but that's up to the mods to decide).

[ChiangMaiFun]

I come from a Theospohical/Buddhist perspective...

You have told us this many, many times.

Since you do, I know you believe that, "There is no religion higher than truth." The truth is that opinions on this vary. The truth is you are not going to bully us into agreeing with you.

Using the word 'bullying' is highly inappropriate and way out of line... because I do not agree with you - you (cleverly) try to insinuate I am bullying - and of course if I agree with you I would be a 'Brother' - I do not use words such as this and it is more a reflection of you than me. It is not true - I simply debate and put the point of view that you maybe wrong - if I get insulted because I stand up for animal rights then so be it...

Let's not be too tough on CMF. He's put his POV vigorously and, IMO quite persuasively (though a little ad hominem did creep in). I didn't feel I was being bullied, and I'm not going to become a pure vegetarian in the near future. I think CMF has some valuable and, perhaps, provocative views and should feel comfortable about contributing to the forum. Having said that, I believe the eating vis-a- killing discussion has run its course (but that's up to the mods to decide).

ad hominem? say it ain't so... mea culpa if true... (which it is of course)

...and thanks... and I really have/had offered in the spirit of lively debate... we all struggle up the mountain and we will find more to unite us than divide us - pity there's not a place in CM we could all meet, meditate, and debate all the issues (not just the division of responsibility one we discussed here - for that's what it was). Peace and Blessings to all...

[Xangsamhua]

Is it possible to tackle this debate in small steps?

I would like to ask the question:

Does working as a slaughterman in an abattoir, killing animals on a daily basis, constitute breaking the first precept?

I'll include the state of of the slaughtermans mind in case intent affects the answer: The slaughterman has been doing this for a long period and proceeds in a neutral detached manner as his work has become automatic and second nature to him (desensitized).

No question... it does - breaking 2 percepts - not to kill and right livelihood

You cannot seperate the killing from the eating - we cannot divorce ourselves from the chain of responsibility - otherwise why try and save the environment? re-cycle rubbish? help anyone? it would be like the drug pusher saying 'but I didn't manufacture the drugs man' or the Nazi saying 'but I didn't kill them myself the others did'

Some people may have little choice but to engage in "wrong livelihood".

A person with limited education (hence, limited mobility) living in a forestry area, for example, may be restricted to finding work in felling, sawing, milling, etc, which is bound to result in the killing of millions of small creatures and, perhaps, the destruction of habitats and consequent starvation.

Or someone like a relative of mine, who went to Australia as a refugee from Laos, and had to take whatever work was available to a non-English speaker with no portable qualifications: he ended up, together with a number of other Laotian men, working in the nearby abattoirs. He did not want to do this work and found it distasteful (though his work was in processing after the animals had been slaughtered), but he had no other apparent options at the time and a wife and three children to provide for.

There are many different possible forms of "wrong livelihood". For example, a civilian working in the Department of Defence? Is that wrong? A supplier to the military (of items other than armaments)?? At the Nuremberg Trials, people directly involved in the killing of Jews, Gypsies, disabled people and others in the gas chambers were sentenced to death or lengthy imprisonment, but the manufacturers of the gas chambers and incinerators, and the chemists and other scientists who played a role were not punished. Where does the accountability stop in regard to violation of the precepts?

[ChiangMaiFun]

Is it possible to tackle this debate in small steps?

I would like to ask the question:

Does working as a slaughterman in an abattoir, killing animals on a daily basis, constitute breaking the first precept?

I'll include the state of of the slaughtermans mind in case intent affects the answer: The slaughterman has been doing this for a long period and proceeds in a neutral detached manner as his work has become automatic and second nature to him (desensitized).

No question... it does - breaking 2 percepts - not to kill and right livelihood

You cannot seperate the killing from the eating - we cannot divorce ourselves from the chain of responsibility - otherwise why try and save the environment? re-cycle rubbish? help anyone? it would be like the drug pusher saying 'but I didn't manufacture the drugs man' or the Nazi saying 'but I didn't kill them myself the others did'

Some people may have little choice but to engage in "wrong livelihood".

A person with limited education (hence, limited mobility) living in a forestry area, for example, may be restricted to finding work in felling, sawing, milling, etc, which is bound to result in the killing of millions of small creatures and, perhaps, the destruction of habitats and consequent starvation.

Or someone like a relative of mine, who went to Australia as a refugee from Laos, and had to take whatever work was available to a non-English speaker with no portable qualifications: he ended up, together with a number of other Laotian men, working in the nearby abattoirs. He did not want to do this work and found it distasteful (though his work was in processing after the animals had been slaughtered), but he had no other apparent options at the time and a wife and three children to provide for.

There are many different possible forms of "wrong livelihood". For example, a civilian working in the Department of Defence? Is that wrong? A supplier to the military (of items other than armaments)?? At the Nuremberg Trials, people directly involved in the killing of Jews, Gypsies, disabled people and others in the gas chambers were sentenced to death or lengthy imprisonment, but the manufacturers of the gas chambers and incinerators, and the chemists and other scientists who played a role were not punished. Where does the accountability stop in regard to violation of the precepts?

But you've just supported my point... if they have 'no choice' - I have never argued that all should refrain... if I were in a boat with a sheep (no jokes please) and I had to eat I would have to kill it - I have never argued differently... it's about necessity - intention - I don't want to eat the sheep but I have to - we do not have to when we are relatively wealthy and have good choices of diet and are informed (as we all are on this thread) - I choose the more compassionate way (IMO)

Yes - people who work in those industries in ignorance may escape most of the karma - my point is that when we 'know more' the choice is clear - in other words when we climb up the evolutionary ladder we have more to decide (a pain I know) - more choices - informed choices.

Karma is dynamic, changing, flowing, ebbing - we make it as we go - hence choice - free-will. I have often pondered the thought 'what if I inherited a meat producing factory' the answer (for me) is clear...

To answer the last point... most of what we do is not for 'human' correction or 'balance' but left to Karmic forces to work their inevitable way - avoiding the 'debt' is like holding back the sea... so they have not really 'escaped justice' at all - my view is we all will reap the harvest of our sowing - I do not accept that we differientiate responsibility - it's like a magnet... 'ignorance is bliss' but were are not ignorant (most of the time) right?

[camerata]

You cannot seperate the killing from the eating - we cannot divorce ourselves from the chain of responsibility

This is where you have been confusing two issues to support your views - intent and causality.

1. Intent

Intent comes before an action and is what directly causes that action. So, karmically, eating is not killing. Eating is the intent to eat, killing is the intent to kill. When I eat a chicken nugget it is impossible for me to have the intent to kill the chicken I'm eating because it is already dead and I didn't kill it. Thus the 1st precept is not broken.

Theravadins generally accept what the commentarian Buddhagosa said about the five factors necessary for breaking the 1st precept. First, there is a living being. Second, there is the perception that the being is a living being. Third, there is the volition thought of killing. Fourth, the killing is carried out. Fifth, the being dies. Ergo, eating what we buy in shops is not killing. It is also not "proxy killing." Proxy killing also involves intent. If I say to someone, "go and kill me a chicken," it's proxy killing. If I sign the order to gas a thousand Jews, it's proxy killing.

2. Causality

I'm pretty sure all of us would agree that there is an indirect causality between eating meat now and the killing of animals by someone in the future. What you have failed to demonstrate is that this is any different from the causality between eating veggies or cereals now and the killing of millions of insects by someone in the future, the loss of habitat for small animals by land cultivation and even the extinction of species. You say it's different because we don't actually eat those insects or extinct animals, but it's still a chain of causality started by our eating.

So, we can't avoid being a distant cause of death, whatever we eat. That's why IMO, out of compassion, we should eat only as much as we need to stay healthy. Personally, I only eat meat when eating out with other people and I never eat the meat of baby animals (veal, lamb, suckling pig). At home I am totally vegetarian. This is the solution that works for me.

The objective of a Theravadin (arahantship) is not the same as a Mahayanist (Bodhisattvahood/Buddhahood) so we don't have a problem with this. The Buddha ate meat before and after becoming an arahant and becoming the Buddha, so it didn't have any dire consequences for him.

[ChiangMaiFun]

You cannot seperate the killing from the eating - we cannot divorce ourselves from the chain of responsibility

This is where you have been confusing two issues to support your views - intent and causality.

1. Intent

Intent comes before an action and is what directly causes that action. So, karmically, eating is not killing. Eating is the intent to eat, killing is the intent to kill. When I eat a chicken nugget it is impossible for me to have the intent to kill the chicken I'm eating because it is already dead and I didn't kill it. Thus the 1st precept is not broken.

Theravadins generally accept what the commentarian Buddhagosa said about the five factors necessary for breaking the 1st precept. First, there is a living being. Second, there is the perception that the being is a living being. Third, there is the volition thought of killing. Fourth, the killing is carried out. Fifth, the being dies. Ergo, eating what we buy in shops is not killing. It is also not "proxy killing." Proxy killing also involves intent. If I say to someone, "go and kill me a chicken," it's proxy killing. If I sign the order to gas a thousand Jews, it's proxy killing.

2. Causality

I'm pretty sure all of us would agree that there is an indirect causality between eating meat now and the killing of animals by someone in the future. What you have failed to demonstrate is that this is any different from the causality between eating veggies or cereals now and the killing of millions of insects by someone in the future, the loss of habitat for small animals by land cultivation and even the extinction of species. You say it's different because we don't actually eat those insects or extinct animals, but it's still a chain of causality started by our eating.

So, we can't avoid being a distant cause of death, whatever we eat. That's why IMO, out of compassion, we should eat only as much as we need to stay healthy. Personally, I only eat meat when eating out with other people and I never eat the meat of baby animals (veal, lamb, suckling pig). At home I am totally vegetarian. This is the solution that works for me.

The objective of a Theravadin (arahantship) is not the same as a Mahayanist (Bodhisattvahood/Buddhahood) so we don't have a problem with this. The Buddha ate meat before and after becoming an arahant and becoming the Buddha, so it didn't have any dire consequences for him.

Hi - we may not be able to stop death of everything (pests/microbes etc.) but we can stop death in sentient beings such as animals - we agree that the animals would not die if we did not provide a market for them right?

Anyway... my understanding is that the Buddha stated that meat can only be consumed under the following circumstances by monks.

1/ not see

2/ not hear of

3/ or doubt the animal having been purposely killed for him to eat

4/ but is certain it died naturally and

5/ its flesh had been abandoned by birds of prey

I cannot distinguish between intent - I did not intend for the teenager to die when I sold him drugs - and karmic responsibility for every action. Therefore we are all responsible for propagating killing of animals if we knowingly eat them - of course we did not kill them personally - but that's academic and besides the point - if we do not eat - they will not die...

[rockyysdt]

The objective of a Theravadin (arahantship) is not the same as a Mahayanist (Bodhisattvahood/Buddhahood) so we don't have a problem with this. The Buddha ate meat before and after becoming an arahant and becoming the Buddha, so it didn't have any dire consequences for him.

The Buddhas behavior (eating meat) can be explained.

Wasn't it already agreed that those ordained cannot refuse food (pick & choose) that has been offered during alms rounds?

I'm pretty sure all of us would agree that there is an indirect causality between eating meat now and the killing of animals by someone in the future. What you have failed to demonstrate is that this is any different from the causality between eating veggies or cereals now and the killing of millions of insects by someone in the future, the loss of habitat for small animals by land cultivation and even the extinction of species. You say it's different because we don't actually eat those insects or extinct animals, but it's still a chain of causality started by our eating. So, we can't avoid being a distant cause of death, whatever we eat.

Perhaps we'll only ever know once we achieve enlightenment & then it won't matter but isn't life low in the order (bacteria, insects etc) very low on the scale when it comes to negative khamma accumulation?

The beasts slaughtered for our consumption are not only much higher in terms of sentience & intelligence but for the majority their consumption is optional.

Bruce earlier confirmed that working as a slaughterman not only breaks the first precept but is also not right livelihood.

We meditate & practice mindfulness to become more aware, not only of ourselves but our impact on others.

To me the repercussion of our actions appears obvious.

The receipt we receive when buying meat from a retailer will often include a total figure & the portion which is collected for value added tax.

Example:

1 kilogram Rump Steak:

120 baht

12 baht VAT

Total + 132 baht.

This receipt could just as easily be itemised to include its detailed break up.

Example:

1 kilogram Rump Steak:

Farmers fee: 20 baht

Wholesale transport: 5 baht

Slaughtermans fee: 5 baht

Meat processing & storage: 20 baht

Retail mark up: 70 baht

VAT: 12 baht

Total: 132 baht.

It is very clear to me that part of the money collected from our purchase goes directly to the slaughterman.

Also if everyone refrained from eating meat ther slaughtermans job would not exist.

There are layers between the purchase & the act of killing, but this only sanitizes what is actually happening.

If you exclude those ordained who cannot refuse meat if they are offered it during alms rounds & there is no medical imperative to consume meat, then l'm not sure if any arguments remain to support this position.

If it's OK then why do some limit its consumption?

I've read every post with interest but I'm not totally convinced.

Edited December 7, 2009 by rockyysdt

[Brucenkhamen]

1/ not see

2/ not hear of

3/ or doubt the animal having been purposely killed for him to eat

This is correct. Though it's only one rule, a complete explanation can be found here http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors...guide.html#meat

4/ but is certain it died naturally and

5/ its flesh had been abandoned by birds of prey

I've never heard of such rules, I doubt they are in the Vinaya, and if it were I'd expect that disease and decomposing would present a problem. If you have a reference please share it, the above link would be a good place to start.

[rockyysdt]

Some people may have little choice but to engage in "wrong livelihood".

A person with limited education (hence, limited mobility) living in a forestry area, for example, may be restricted to finding work in felling, sawing, milling, etc, which is bound to result in the killing of millions of small creatures and, perhaps, the destruction of habitats and consequent starvation.

Or someone like a relative of mine, who went to Australia as a refugee from Laos, and had to take whatever work was available to a non-English speaker with no portable qualifications: he ended up, together with a number of other Laotian men, working in the nearby abattoirs. He did not want to do this work and found it distasteful (though his work was in processing after the animals had been slaughtered), but he had no other apparent options at the time and a wife and three children to provide for.

There are many different possible forms of "wrong livelihood". For example, a civilian working in the Department of Defence? Is that wrong? A supplier to the military (of items other than armaments)?? At the Nuremberg Trials, people directly involved in the killing of Jews, Gypsies, disabled people and others in the gas chambers were sentenced to death or lengthy imprisonment, but the manufacturers of the gas chambers and incinerators, and the chemists and other scientists who played a role were not punished. Where does the accountability stop in regard to violation of the precepts?

Could this be attributed to ones previous khamma?

Can the harvest of performing such work lead to suffering, either now or in the future, to even the ledger?

Edited December 7, 2009 by rockyysdt

[phetaroi]

Using the word 'bullying' is highly inappropriate and way out of line... because I do not agree with you - you (cleverly) try to insinuate I am bullying - and of course if I agree with you I would be a 'Brother' - I do not use words such as this and it is more a reflection of you than me. It is not true - I simply debate and put the point of view that you maybe wrong - if I get insulted because I stand up for animal rights then so be it...

"YOU cannot EAT meat without KILLING and any clever arguements to justify that behaviour but AVOID the issue that YOU KILL (even by proxy) is an INVALID and ILLOGICAL one - and UN-BUDDHIST. The point is you like to eat meat... say that and be honest with yourself and those you kill (by proxy)."

To me that is a little strong for just "I simply debate and put the point of view that you may be wrong".

But, thank you for admitting that I'm clever.

[phetaroi]

Opinions cannot vary on the truth... there maybe different pathways - but truth is truth

So you are saying that opinions cannot vary?

[camerata]

Hi - we may not be able to stop death of everything (pests/microbes etc.) but we can stop death in sentient beings such as animals - we agree that the animals would not die if we did not provide a market for them right?

Insects and beetles - what you keep calling "pests" - are also sentient beings and have a right to live. Microbes (i.e. bacteria) are not. Less sentient beings would die if we ate less or no food. Eating meat, more large, intelligent beings will die. Eating vegetarian, many more small sentient beings will die. It's human nature to feel sorry for fellow mammals, be pretty indifferent to fish, and not care at all about insects. But in the end it's a personal decision what you eat and how you think it will affect you karmically.

I cannot distinguish between intent - I did not intend for the teenager to die when I sold him drugs -

This is another question I raised a few months ago: What's the karmic consequence of risky or irresponsible actions when there is no bad intent? Unfortunately, we don't know. And there is really no indication in the Pali Canon that there will be negative consequences from eating meat we didn't kill or order to be killed.

[camerata]

Wasn't it already agreed that those ordained cannot refuse food (pick & choose) that has been offered during alms rounds?

The point is the Buddha ate meat and yet he was able to become the Buddha. No wonder he didn't insist on vegetarianism. He made the monastic rule because he didn't want monks to have preferences. Ajahn Sumedho (when he figured this out) called it "The Practice of No Preferences." As a monk, you don't have to decide what clothes to wear, how to comb your hair, what to eat, etc. The Vinaya was designed that way. Preferences are kilesas that hold you back from nibbana. Ultimately, you can't have any.

With modern science, we now know that it's possible for most people to be healthy by not eating meat, but only if they know how to replace the lost minerals, vitamins and protein and only if the alternatives are available. If the Buddha had decreed that the laity shouldn't eat meat - and they'd followed that - millions would have died an early death over the past 2,500 years, and forest monks like Ajahn Man would have died in the mountains before attaining nibbana.

Perhaps we'll only ever know once we achieve enlightenment & then it won't matter but isn't life low in the order (bacteria, insects etc) very low on the scale when it comes to negative khamma accumulation?

Who knows? How many grasshoppers are worth one pig? The Pali Canon doesn't say.

It is very clear to me that part of the money collected from our purchase goes directly to the slaughterman.

Also if everyone refrained from eating meat ther slaughtermans job would not exist.

There are layers between the purchase & the act of killing, but this only sanitizes what is actually happening.

Well, now you're just going down the same road as CMF, maintaining that it's hypocritical to let someone else kill your food. This is a secular argument, not a Buddhist one. As a Buddhist, you don't kill animals. If someone else is willing to take on all the bad karma of slaughtering in order to make money, that's his problem. And historically (India, Japan) those people became the "untouchables" of society. In Thailand, until recent decades, only immigrant Chinese worked in slaughterhouses. If others stop providing meat, we Buddhists should stop eating it rather than start killing animals. It's simple if you think about it.

[sabaijai]

Whilst I respect your views I come from a Theospohical/Buddhist perspective - you cannot distinguish between killing and eating - both are reliant upon the other - Karmically if you eat the meat that has been killed you are partly responsible. The intention is to eat - are you suggesting that in eating meat there is no harm as the intention is just gluttony and no compassion? it is highly convenient to seperate the two... an arguement used frequently in war crime trials - but I didn't pull the trigger...

It would be helpful if you could cite the scriptures, whether Mahayana or Theravada, that say "you cannot distinguish between killing and eating."

Theosophy Is Not Buddhism

[rockyysdt]

With modern science, we now know that it's possible for most people to be healthy by not eating meat, but only if they know how to replace the lost minerals, vitamins and protein and only if the alternatives are available. If the Buddha had decreed that the laity shouldn't eat meat - and they'd followed that - millions would have died an early death over the past 2,500 years, and forest monks like Ajahn Man would have died in the mountains before attaining nibbana.

Doesn't this tell us that 2,500 years ago there was no alternative & although enlightenment was possible there was possibly also khamma to pay.

Doesn't modern science remove our excuse?

[camerata]

Doesn't this tell us that 2,500 years ago there was no alternative & although enlightenment was possible there was possibly also khamma to pay.

Doesn't modern science remove our excuse?

But do you really want to choose science over what the Buddha said? Are you sure the science is correct? Safer just to follow what the Buddha said, and not second-guess him about what he didn't say.

[rockyysdt]

It would be helpful if you could cite the scriptures, whether Mahayana or Theravada, that say "you cannot distinguish between killing and eating."

Hi SJ.

Just to further the discussion, can l ask?

Are there examples of other scenarios, not specifically cited in scripture which we interpret from other matter in scripture (that is extrapolate)?

[sabaijai]

With modern science, we now know that it's possible for most people to be healthy by not eating meat, but only if they know how to replace the lost minerals, vitamins and protein and only if the alternatives are available. If the Buddha had decreed that the laity shouldn't eat meat - and they'd followed that - millions would have died an early death over the past 2,500 years, and forest monks like Ajahn Man would have died in the mountains before attaining nibbana.

Doesn't this tell us that 2,500 years ago there was no alternative & although enlightenment was possible there was possibly also khamma to pay.

Doesn't modern science remove our excuse?

No because you're still left with the problem of animal death no matter what you eat.

Recently I was planting in my garden and as I dug the trowel into the earth, I killed a worm. I didn't intend to kill the worm, but I certainly know that every time I stick a trowel into the ground there's a chance I'll kill something.

I'd say that with the knowledge provided by modern science we're actually aware of taking a lot more lives - invertebrates not normally visible to the human eye, such as the Rotifer for example - than ever before.

The fact is there are several different ways to interpret the precept to refrain from killing, including the view that it's applicable only to human life. But as far as I know there is only way to interpret the outcome of kamma, and that is kusala citta begets kusala kamma. Therefore it is what is in your mind at the moment of action that's the necessary and sufficient cause for kamma.

Just to further the discussion, can l ask?

Are there examples of other scenarios, not specifically cited in scripture which we interpret from other matter in scripture (that is extrapolate)?

I'm sure there are many, and most Buddhists are extrapolating constantly

It appears to me that excessive focus on the issue of vegetarian vs omnivorous diets loses sight of the goal. As camerata noted, the Buddha has demonstrated that it's possible to achieve nibbana while eating meat. Existence in the animal state - humans being animals as well - entails death, suffering, killing and so on. The goal of Buddhism is nibbana, beyond which there will be no rebirth left in which to harm animals.

[rockyysdt]

But do you really want to choose science over what the Buddha said? Are you sure the science is correct? Safer just to follow what the Buddha said, and not second-guess him about what he didn't say.

Only the science of diet as you described.

[phetaroi]

But do you really want to choose science over what the Buddha said? Are you sure the science is correct? Safer just to follow what the Buddha said, and not second-guess him about what he didn't say.

On the other hand we only know what Buddha said by word of mouth.